..but then jails a couple of fraudsters for six years who did not physically hurt anyone, nor break into someone else's their property where anything could have happened.
The tabloids, and particularly the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper", were so very misleading about this, that it must be deliberate. The only time custody is not the starting point for sentencing for burglary is a first time burglar, unforced entry, and low value stolen. That would be walking through a door left open, and picking up something worth only a few pounds. Anything more than that merits custody.
Originally posted by Babar: The tabloids, and particularly the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper", were so very misleading about this, that it must be deliberate. The only time custody is not the starting point for sentencing for burglary is a first time burglar, unforced entry, and low value stolen. That would be walking through a door left open, and picking up something worth only a few pounds. Anything more than that merits custody.
So you think that entering someone else's property without permission and stealing is less serious than the fraud these two committed? Well I'm sorry I don't agree.
Originally posted by Babar: The tabloids, and particularly the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper", were so very misleading about this, that it must be deliberate. The only time custody is not the starting point for sentencing for burglary is a first time burglar, unforced entry, and low value stolen. That would be walking through a door left open, and picking up something worth only a few pounds. Anything more than that merits custody.
So you think that entering someone else's property without permission and stealing is less serious than the fraud these two committed? Well I'm sorry I don't agree.
And how exactly is defrauding an insurance company different from nicking something?
Originally posted by Babar: The tabloids, and particularly the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper", were so very misleading about this, that it must be deliberate. The only time custody is not the starting point for sentencing for burglary is a first time burglar, unforced entry, and low value stolen. That would be walking through a door left open, and picking up something worth only a few pounds. Anything more than that merits custody.
So you think that entering someone else's property without permission and stealing is less serious than the fraud these two committed? Well I'm sorry I don't agree.
It depends on the burglary, it depends on the fraud. How long would you lock someone up for leaning in through an open window and stealing a bottle of milk? How long would you lock up a Robert Maxwell for stealing the pension funds of thousands of his workers?
The point I was making was that the courts have NOT been told not to jail burglers, except for those cases right at the lower end of the scale.
The Darwin's sentences do seem severe, I agree with you there, I should think they might well appeal.
Originally posted by Babar: The tabloids, and particularly the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper", were so very misleading about this, that it must be deliberate. The only time custody is not the starting point for sentencing for burglary is a first time burglar, unforced entry, and low value stolen. That would be walking through a door left open, and picking up something worth only a few pounds. Anything more than that merits custody.
So you think that entering someone else's property without permission and stealing is less serious than the fraud these two committed? Well I'm sorry I don't agree.
And how exactly is defrauding an insurance company different from nicking something?
But it's not about the 'nicking' is it? The point is to burgal someone you must illegally enter their homes and who knows what could escalate from there. A point I made clearly enough if you'd have bothered to read my post properly.
Originally posted by Babar: The tabloids, and particularly the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper", were so very misleading about this, that it must be deliberate. The only time custody is not the starting point for sentencing for burglary is a first time burglar, unforced entry, and low value stolen.
Originally posted by Babar: The tabloids, and particularly the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper", were so very misleading about this, that it must be deliberate. The only time custody is not the starting point for sentencing for burglary is a first time burglar, unforced entry, and low value stolen. That would be walking through a door left open, and picking up something worth only a few pounds. Anything more than that merits custody.
So you think that entering someone else's property without permission and stealing is less serious than the fraud these two committed? Well I'm sorry I don't agree.
And how exactly is defrauding an insurance company different from nicking something?
But it's not about the 'nicking' is it? The point is to burgal someone you must illegally enter their homes and who knows what could escalate from there. A point I made clearly enough if you'd have bothered to read my post properly.
So what - fraud can escalate to murder in some cases.
You still haven't made any distinction between the crimes.
You still haven't made any distinction between the crimes.
Don't worry, it's a typical thread from this poster. jumps in, both feet first, without knowing the facts, and without formulating their argument first.
Yawn. Same old attack the person rather than the message. Do you realise how pathetic that is?
Originally posted by Babar: The tabloids, and particularly the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper", were so very misleading about this, that it must be deliberate. The only time custody is not the starting point for sentencing for burglary is a first time burglar, unforced entry, and low value stolen.
Originally posted by Babar: The tabloids, and particularly the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper", were so very misleading about this, that it must be deliberate. The only time custody is not the starting point for sentencing for burglary is a first time burglar, unforced entry, and low value stolen.
Thanks. I do hate to read terms like 'should be' in details such as these. They inject ambiguity, but also recognise they are the reason that judges are necessary.
Originally posted by Babar: The tabloids, and particularly the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper", were so very misleading about this, that it must be deliberate. The only time custody is not the starting point for sentencing for burglary is a first time burglar, unforced entry, and low value stolen. That would be walking through a door left open, and picking up something worth only a few pounds. Anything more than that merits custody.
Really?
"A BURGLAR with 31 previous convictions became one of the first criminals to escape jail under new sentencing guidelines for judges yesterday after he told the court he wanted to be a professional poet."
Originally posted by Babar: The tabloids, and particularly the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper", were so very misleading about this, that it must be deliberate. The only time custody is not the starting point for sentencing for burglary is a first time burglar, unforced entry, and low value stolen. That would be walking through a door left open, and picking up something worth only a few pounds. Anything more than that merits custody.
Really?
"A BURGLAR with 31 previous convictions became one of the first criminals to escape jail under new sentencing guidelines for judges yesterday after he told the court he wanted to be a professional poet."
Your link is to this thread! I have given a link to the guidelines above, judges are not compelled to follow them, but have to explain why they have not. Newspapers do not have to report the explanation, of course, and what it can be in a case like that I can't think.
Originally posted by Babar: The tabloids, and particularly the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper", were so very misleading about this, that it must be deliberate. The only time custody is not the starting point for sentencing for burglary is a first time burglar, unforced entry, and low value stolen. That would be walking through a door left open, and picking up something worth only a few pounds. Anything more than that merits custody.
Really?
"A BURGLAR with 31 previous convictions became one of the first criminals to escape jail under new sentencing guidelines for judges yesterday after he told the court he wanted to be a professional poet."
Your link is to this thread! I have given a link to the guidelines above, judges are not compelled to follow them, but have to explain why they have not. Newspapers do not have to report the explanation, of course, and what it can be in a case like that I can't think.
"A BURGLAR with 31 previous convictions became one of the first criminals to escape jail under new sentencing guidelines for judges yesterday after he told the court he wanted to be a professional poet."
"A BURGLAR with 31 previous convictions became one of the first criminals to escape jail under new sentencing guidelines for judges yesterday after he told the court he wanted to be a professional poet."
Originally posted by miss_allin: I was burgled about two years ago - I admit they got very little - but because they found my watch case they trashed the place looking it!!
Four of our neighbours were robbed - none of us warrented a police visit - just got a crime number for insurance.
Yep that happened to us 15 years ago. We got a note through the door with a crime number on it and a form to telling us we could have a visit form a victim of crime counsellor if we wanted one.
Originally posted by Deus ex machina: ..but then jails a couple of fraudsters for six years who did not physically hurt anyone, nor break into someone else's their property where anything could have happened.
More back to front BS in the 'fairer' UK.
"What kind of a country tells judges not to jail burglars."
A society that is intelligent and looks beyond the obvious. ie NOT the UK
Originally posted by Babar: The tabloids, and particularly the self-styled "World's Greatest Newspaper", were so very misleading about this, that it must be deliberate. The only time custody is not the starting point for sentencing for burglary is a first time burglar, unforced entry, and low value stolen. That would be walking through a door left open, and picking up something worth only a few pounds. Anything more than that merits custody.
Really?
"A BURGLAR with 31 previous convictions became one of the first criminals to escape jail under new sentencing guidelines for judges yesterday after he told the court he wanted to be a professional poet."
Your link is to this thread! I have given a link to the guidelines above, judges are not compelled to follow them, but have to explain why they have not. Newspapers do not have to report the explanation, of course, and what it can be in a case like that I can't think.
So what's the point of guidelines? I was willing to give you credit for supplying the guidelines which opposed my points, but it's a little disingenuous to simply dismiss the example pointed out when you had made the basis of your argument that non-custodials were for first time offenders.
