Word to the wise

On 2006-07-13, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't have so much problem with that as with a 1/3 remission of sentence
> for pleading guilty. WTF is that all about?

ISTR the idea is that you then save the victims and a ****load of
other people a lot of work, or even failing to make a conviction, if
you just 'fess up, so the reduction is to encourage people to do so.
IIRC it was introduced by the same bunch of politicians that then
blasted a judge who abided by the rule that they forced on him...

There is some debate about whether the sentence reduction should be
given if the defendant is caught red-handed, as there's not much work
saved or other benefit gained if he/she/it is caught bang to rights.

> but if you're locked up on remand (i.e no bail) for 2 years before they
> bring you to trial and then get sentenced to 6 months, (to invent an extreme
> example) then you've actually been "inside" for 4 times as long as the
> sentence handed down and it's only right and proper that you get out
> immediately.

This remand thing really bugs me. People locked up for ages without
trial, normally those who can't afford bail.

The three bankers being shipped to the states for administrative
convenience are in a pickle, the US automatically assumes that anyone
extradited will do a bunk so always refuses bail. Our great leader
Tony says he'll ensure they'll get conditional bail, but it seems the
conditions will be that they turn over all their assets, leaving them
with nothing to buy food, pay lawyers or rent homes, so they'll spend
2 years in the knick before the yanks have even figured out if they've
committed a crime.

For the crimes they've been accused of, sentences are over 20 years
without parole, for swindling sommat in the region of 3 million quid
from a bank. Funny how knicking relatively small amounts of loot from
banks and the taxman gets you worse sentences than rape or murder eh.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:40:16 +0100, "William Tasso"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's a stick to beat those that can't afford quality representation.

You've no idea how true that actually is.

Thanks for the heads up on this, I will keep an eye out in the autistic
world, as I do not trust this individual to keep within the terms of any
order one iota.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes

"Mother" <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A previous 'regular' hereabouts, who is legally banned for life from
> owning a computer or camera, has just finished their latest 'holiday'
> at the expense of taxpayers.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:05:11 +0100, Ian Rawlings <[email protected]>
wrote:

> ...
> Funny how knicking relatively small amounts of loot from
> banks and the taxman gets you worse sentences than rape or murder eh.

yeah - well 'funny' in a way that causes no laughter here or anyplace else
I know.

--
William Tasso

Land Rover - 110 V8
Discovery - V8

On or around Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:40:53 +0100, "William Tasso"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:30:53 +0100, Austin Shackles
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> ...
>> I gather that this time it wasn't our taxes but those of the
>> inhabitants of a country slightly west of here.
>
>Cornwall?

teehee. actually, it involves a sea passage.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On or around Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:27:52 +0100, "Larry" <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Thanks for the heads up on this, I will keep an eye out in the autistic
>world, as I do not trust this individual to keep within the terms of any
>order one iota.

seems not. Mind, I reckon (having had some contact with him face-to-face,
that he's not evil but mentally deranged, and as such would be better served
in a suitable institution rather than just being in jail.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:27:52 +0100, "Larry" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Thanks for the heads up on this, I will keep an eye out in the autistic
>world,

I sent an email to Mike a couple of days ago - may be worth checking
he got it.

>as I do not trust this individual to keep within the terms of any
>order one iota.

Indeed.


--
!!UNOFFICIAL!! http://www.ulrc.net !!UNOFFICIAL!!
!!UNOFFICIAL!! Now in beta !!UNOFFICIAL!!
!!UNOFFICIAL!! !!UNOFFICIAL!!
!!UNOFFICIAL!! Join Online Free! !!UNOFFICIAL!!

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:54:24 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>seems not. Mind, I reckon (having had some contact with him face-to-face,
>that he's not evil but mentally deranged, and as such would be better served
>in a suitable institution rather than just being in jail.

Although you may very well be correct in this assessment, there are no
such services for such folk, and given the impossible job being given
to the Probation Service, re-offending is more likely.

Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> mind I gather that this time it wasn't our taxes but those of the
> inhabitants of a country slightly west of here.

Ah well then, my family would be amongst those taxpayers; that
particular contribution to the Revenue Commissioners would be money
well spent. Apart, that is, from the funds they wasted feeding the
creep.

As far as I understand, the remission for pleading guilty is not so
much to save work, but to spare the victim the ordeal of giving
evidence (and worse, being cross examined by defence counsel) in open
court.... a process which I have seen described as being abused all
over again. But the idea of the perpetrator being 'rewarded' for this
sits uncomfortably with me, although I can see where they're coming
from.

I do forsee a bit of a problem here though - none of us newbies are
going to know who this guy is, if he resurfaces here; however 'old
timers' on the board might think they recognise his posting style, if
indeed he does post. And of course it's an unmoderated group so there's
no control over who posts, anyway. But you're going to have to be
pretty certain that you've identified him before you post a 'heads-up'
on here, or there's a grave risk that some innocent poster is going to
be fingered by accident. So excercise caution; McCarthy-ism is dead,
let's keep it that way.

I had to google to find out what we're talking about and judging by
what I've read, I would think that the chances of him re-offending and
being locked up again are pretty high. The problem is, unless the
Guards/Police are really on the ball, there's going to be another
victim before that happens.

On 14 Jul 2006 01:34:50 -0700, "Peter A" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I do forsee a bit of a problem here though - none of us newbies are
>going to know who this guy is, if he resurfaces here; however 'old
>timers' on the board might think they recognise his posting style, if
>indeed he does post. And of course it's an unmoderated group so there's
>no control over who posts, anyway. But you're going to have to be
>pretty certain that you've identified him before you post a 'heads-up'
>on here, or there's a grave risk that some innocent poster is going to
>be fingered by accident. So excercise caution; McCarthy-ism is dead,
>let's keep it that way.

He was never very clever - it took a couple of posts by each of his
aliases previously before someone worked it out IIRC.

In theory we've only got to catch him at it once this time i presume
before it becomes a legal matter?.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:27:26 +0100, Tom Woods
<[email protected]> wrote:

>He was never very clever - it took a couple of posts by each of his
>aliases previously before someone worked it out IIRC.

Generally, yes, however there were a few that he managed to get get
away with for quite some time - and now he's had expert tuition, may
have more developed skills.

>In theory we've only got to catch him at it once this time i presume
>before it becomes a legal matter?.

Depends. He was banned for life - in the UK - from owning a computer
or camera. His past prolific postings made from a certain cybercafe
in Dublin would not, if repeated, be any offence at all.

>He was never very clever - it took a couple of posts by each of his
>aliases previously before someone worked it out IIRC.

That was me that was ;-) Still remember almost spraying the screen with beer
when I clocked his faux pas!

--
Neil

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:40:53 +0100, "William Tasso"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:30:53 +0100, Austin Shackles
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> ...
>>> I gather that this time it wasn't our taxes but those of the
>>> inhabitants of a country slightly west of here.
>>
>> Cornwall?
>
> teehee. actually, it involves a sea passage.

Silly Isles?

--
"He who says it cannot be done would be well advised not to interrupt
her doing it."

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:02:58 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:27:26 +0100, Tom Woods
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>He was never very clever - it took a couple of posts by each of his
>>aliases previously before someone worked it out IIRC.
>
>Generally, yes, however there were a few that he managed to get get
>away with for quite some time - and now he's had expert tuition, may
>have more developed skills.

I shall view any people posting about disco's with suspicion unless i
recognise the names then! (it was disco's that were his thing was it
not?)

>>In theory we've only got to catch him at it once this time i presume
>>before it becomes a legal matter?.
>
>Depends. He was banned for life - in the UK - from owning a computer
>or camera. His past prolific postings made from a certain cybercafe
>in Dublin would not, if repeated, be any offence at all.

so hes banned from owning one but can legally use someone else's? That
seems a bit pointless.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:38:42 +0100, Tom Woods
<[email protected]> wrote:

>so hes banned from owning one but can legally use someone else's? That
>seems a bit pointless.

This was pointed out at the time, however the Judge (correctly in
terms of scope of the law) acknowledged that he may need to use a
computer in the future as a part of his employment, and therefore
could not (questionably under English law anyway) ban him from the
'use' of. If that makes snese?


--
!!UNOFFICIAL!! http://www.ulrc.net !!UNOFFICIAL!!
!!UNOFFICIAL!! Now in beta !!UNOFFICIAL!!
!!UNOFFICIAL!! !!UNOFFICIAL!!
!!UNOFFICIAL!! Join Online Free! !!UNOFFICIAL!!

William Tasso wrote:

|| On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:05:11 +0100, Ian Rawlings
|| <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| ...
||| Funny how knicking relatively small amounts of loot from
||| banks and the taxman gets you worse sentences than rape or murder
||| eh.
||
|| yeah - well 'funny' in a way that causes no laughter here or
|| anyplace else I know.

Can't find the source, but there was a case this week of a taxi driver who
killed a pedestrian in a hit and run. Five (that's FIVE) months in prison.

Craig Sweeney, who abducted and sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl in
Cardiff (there's a lot more to this, but keep it simple) - eligible for
parole after five years, by the time they had done all the necessary
calculations*.

Twenty years for stealing someone's money.

We are living in a mad house.

* Given "Life". Judge decides life means 18 years. One-third deduction for
a guilty plea (even though caught in the act) gives 12 years. Half the
sentence before eligible for parole, 6 years. Time spent on remand leaves
just over five years. The last one I can understand and seems fair. The
rest - can anyone explain those with a straight face? Serious question.

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

On 2006-07-14, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:

> * Given "Life". Judge decides life means 18 years. One-third deduction for
> a guilty plea (even though caught in the act) gives 12 years. Half the
> sentence before eligible for parole, 6 years. Time spent on remand leaves
> just over five years. The last one I can understand and seems fair. The
> rest - can anyone explain those with a straight face? Serious question.

Those appear to be the rules, and it would seem that the judge doesn't
have a whole lot to do with it, given that they have to follow rules
laid down by various agencies patching the law here and there for
administrative convenience mostly from the look of it.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian Rawlings wrote:

> Those appear to be the rules, and it would seem that the judge doesn't
> have a whole lot to do with it, given that they have to follow rules
> laid down by various agencies patching the law here and there for
> administrative convenience mostly from the look of it.

Go on, don't shirk the issue - put the blame squarely where it lies.
It's Bliar and his cronies - again.

Ian Rawlings wrote:

|| On 2006-07-14, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| * Given "Life". Judge decides life means 18 years. One-third
||| deduction for a guilty plea (even though caught in the act) gives
||| 12 years. Half the sentence before eligible for parole, 6 years.
||| Time spent on remand leaves just over five years. The last one I
||| can understand and seems fair. The rest - can anyone explain those
||| with a straight face? Serious question.
||
|| Those appear to be the rules, and it would seem that the judge
|| doesn't have a whole lot to do with it, given that they have to
|| follow rules laid down by various agencies patching the law here and
|| there for administrative convenience mostly from the look of it.
||
|| --
|| Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

So why those rules? Who (with a straight face) said, in the dim and distant
past, "A truly serious crime like child rape or murder deserves a life
sentence, so let's make that - whaddya say - around the fifteen year mark,
give or take?" Why call it "life" in the first place if it isn't?

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

On 2006-07-14, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

> Go on, don't shirk the issue - put the blame squarely where it lies.
> It's Bliar and his cronies - again.

I don't think it is entirely, as British law is patched here and there
by just about every government that's ever existed in this country,
there's no apparent focus, and changes seem to be made to reduce
workload and cost rather than injustice.

The problem of course is that if you try to introduce protection to
keep innocent people out of prison, you have to risk letting the
guilty go free from time to time. Personally I think it's better to
avoid imprisoning the innocent at the risk of letting the guilty go
free, but Blair has recently said that he thinks that the emphasis
should be placed on imprisoning the guilty, even if it means locking
up the innocent by mistake. They're locking up so many innocent
people by mistake these days that they've even decided to save costs
by capping the compensation payments that you can get if you are
thrown in the slammer by mistake, the compensation payments were
costing them too much. Rather than try to stop locking up innocent
people, instead they just limit the compensation payments paid to
those who lose their careers, houses, families etc.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!