24 Hours In Police Custody

They should have done the time, while he should have got the suspended sentence. THAT'S in the public interest. He had to be charged, but the judge should on the side of the PUBLIC.
 
Marklr said:
They should have done the time, while he should have got the suspended sentence. THAT'S in the public interest. He had to be charged, but the judge should on the side of the PUBLIC.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong here, but didn’t the judge give him the lowest tariff he could for the offence he was convicted of?
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I’m not sure it works that way, but GDM will describe it better than I could.
Click to expand...
Yeah...it's easy for us to give our opinions but when it comes to the actual law, it gets complicated.
We KNOW the two criminals were proper scum because we watched the programme...but the guy doing the chasing (or somebody in that situation in the future) could have been mistaken and end up killing two silly kids that were just messing about. That's why we can't take the law into our own hands, i suppose.
 
Bluesince1979 said:
These sorts of threads can go round in circles and ive put all my 2p’s in but ill leave it with this..

About a year ago my pal was woken in the night to find 3 plebs in balaclavas on his landing.
He chased them off out the house and rang the filth.
Anyway, police advised him to have a little something bedside , maybe a big torch , a big heavy metal, foot long torch … everyone has a torch … dont they?
Click to expand...
@idahoblues has a flashlight next to his bed.
So he can see which gun to get out of his bedside cabinet
 
I's still do the time, though. Weigh up whether it's worth it. How long would he have got if he'd have killed them? He'd have saved many innocent people from much misery if he had.
 
Marklr said:
I's still do the time, though. Weigh up whether it's worth it. How long would he have got if he'd have killed them? He'd have saved many innocent people from much misery if he had.
Click to expand...

minority-report.jpg
 
Phil1 said:
Unfortunately the law says it’s wrong and when you’re up in front of a judge and jury that is what will most likely count. As this case involved a high speed car chase which could have endangered others and the damage caused to the scrotes was considerable the punishment he received was correct.
That’s not me agreeing btw, just the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...
This is where I think judges should be given freedom to give a different sentence depending on circumstance.

A suspended sentence would have worked here. He was obviously upset with what had happened and I believe he has learnt from his mistake. Job done.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
We both deal with all kinds in society though, mate. Yours in you watering holes and ours via churches and our front door.

I don’t get involved in the religious side of things, but I often take people to their local pay point to put money on their gas and electric whilst using my aging knowledge of the benefit system to work out what they can apply for whilst their UC has been suspended, which it can be for minute reasons these days. There aren’t “targets” for DWP staff to achieve, but they are rewarded if they suspend a certain number per week.

There are less “scrotes” where we are now, but having lived in Gorton for 4 years, we got to know quite a few and they ranged from utter dicks who didn’t give a shit about anybody or anything to those that turned to crime to exist. We don’t have a magic wand, so all we can do is chat and listen to them and try to direct them to a more lawful existence. Our success rate will be nowhere near 100%, but every one we change helps, right?

A lot don’t seem to have a sense of purpose. If we could give them that, with a way to earn their way through life, feeling valued, we’d have a lot less crime.

How we do that, I don’t know, but there are examples where someone respected in the community steps up and becomes the role model for these people.
Click to expand...
This issue for many starts in the education system. I’m a strong advocate of allowing less academic kids to learn vocational qualifications at an early age. Beyond simple arithmetic and the ability to communicate, there is little more that you need for many careers, although most employers would have you believe otherwise.

There is far too much focus on driving everyone down the A levels, University route and the GCSEs are set up accordingly. Having an earlier entry into skilled paid work might just deter some kids getting involved in crime and give them a career which pays a decent wage.
 
Kompany Car said:
This issue for many starts in the education system. I’m a strong advocate of allowing less academic kids to learn vocational qualifications at an early age. Beyond simple arithmetic and the ability to communicate, there is little more that you need for many careers, although most employers would have you believe otherwise.

There is far too much focus on driving everyone down the A levels, University route and the GCSEs are set up accordingly. Having an earlier entry into skilled paid work might just deter some kids getting involved in crime and give them a career which pays a decent wage.
Click to expand...
I’d go slightly further and teach everyone to cook cheaply and budget too. Life skills rather than the stuff you say. That’s extra and unnecessary for most.
 
Eds said:
Go fund me up to £137k
Click to expand...
Interesting. Not sure what the protocol is there. The purpose of that fund was (iirc) to cover his legal fees. They were £50k. Can he do as he wishes with the surplus? Can’t be the first time this has happened.

£50k seems a bit steep. Wasn’t a complicated case or lengthy trial, I’ll expect. Don’t think he’ll have had a silk, otherwise it would have been referenced. Think he’s overpaid there.

Think he’s (on the face of it) had shit representation too. If he’d pleaded guilty there’s no way he’d have gone to prison. Meant he could have controlled the narrative of the offending a little. That trial should definitely have cracked. That’s the problem with paying privately. Trials are very lucrative. Naughty, if true. Or maybe he wasn’t for cracking tbf.

Either way, he’s gambled and lost spectacularly.
 
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Interesting. Not sure what the protocol is there. The purpose of that fund was (iirc) to cover his legal fees. They were £50k. Can he do as he wishes with the surplus? Can’t be the first time this has happened.

£50k seems a bit steep. Wasn’t a complicated case or lengthy trial, I’ll expect. Don’t think he’ll have had a silk, otherwise it would have been referenced. Think he’s overpaid there.

Think he’s (on the face of it) had shit representation too. If he’d pleaded guilty there’s no way he’d have gone to prison. Meant he could have controlled the narrative of the offending a little. That trial should definitely have cracked. Thats the problem with paying privately. Trials are very lucrative. Naughty, if true.
Click to expand...

He’s being sued now, a personal injury claim? Originally it was against his car insurers which sounded unlikely, but now he’s got money I’m sure they’ll go after him directly.

Anyway that upcoming legal fight was what the money was supposedly for, but there’s no regulation, you’re just donating it to him and assuming he’ll use it on legal fees.
 
Judge could have invited him to request a Goodyear indication, which we wouldn’t know about. That could have been used to indicate a suspended sentence if he pleaded guilty. If he declined that invitation, or rejected what was indicated, the Judge was entitled to send him to prison.

Indication Of Sentence | Goodyear Indication

John Veale of Kangs Solicitors explains the nature of this procedure.
www.kangssolicitors.co.uk www.kangssolicitors.co.uk

There’s too much we don’t know, to understand and be sure this sentence was correct.
 
domalino said:
He’s being sued now, a personal injury claim? Originally it was against his car insurers which sounded unlikely, but now he’s got money I’m sure they’ll go after him directly.

Anyway that upcoming legal fight was what the money was supposedly for, but there’s no regulation, you’re just donating it to him and assuming he’ll use it on legal fees.
Click to expand...
Good point about the personal injury claim. A criminal conviction is an irributtable fact in civil proceedings. Like I said the other day, if the judge can find volenti on the facts, then he or she will. Not good for public confidence in the justice system if these two win a big payout.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Good point about the personal injury claim. A criminal conviction is an irributtable fact in civil proceedings. Like I said the other day, if the judge can find volenti on the facts, then he or she will. Not good for public confidence in the justice system if these two win a big payout.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest the victims of their previous crimes take out a counter claim against any monies they receive to compensate them for losses occurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top