• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Oh dear: ........ or yet another WTF !"

Collapse

  • The Lone Gunman
    replied
    The thing that realy annoys me is that they do have some good and very good ideas. They they implement some half arsed ill considered solution and then point blank refuse to accept that they got it worng.

    Leave a comment:


  • bogeyman
    replied
    Originally posted by The Lone Gunman
    Once again. Blairs tinkering. He and his administration are obsessed with change. They have to tinker with everything.
    Absolutely TLG.

    The Blair administration equates change with progress.

    As long as you keep changing things, nobody will notice that things are going from bad to worse. It's like the old shell game. Keep switching and hope nobody can keep an eye on the pea.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoredBloke
    replied
    The reduced sentance should be a discretionary thing. If the person is 100% bang to rights then give him/her no reduction, or a minimal one to reduce the court times. If there is a strong element of doubt then the 'offer' could be changed. To simply half everything is stupid and simply gives feckers like this a shorter time in jail.

    As LG stated, you can see Blairs grubby paws all over this one. I'm only suprised he didn't have some quirk written in so that his stumper of a wife could exploit it for her (their) financial gain.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pondlife
    replied
    Originally posted by The Lone Gunman
    Once again. Blairs tinkering. He and his administration are obsessed with change. They have to tinker with everything.

    We then end up suffering due to the unintended consequences of ill considered legislation.
    Offering shorter terms to those who plead guilty was meant to reduce court time and costs. Because they made it compulsory we see offenders who were bang to rights anyway getting off with pityfully short terms.
    These incentives should be discretionary (though I suspect some judges would give them anyway) and dependant on when the offender started co-operating and the level of remorse shown.

    I agree 100%. Short sighted legislation with no option for discretion.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Lone Gunman
    replied
    Once again. Blairs tinkering. He and his administration are obsessed with change. They have to tinker with everything.

    We then end up suffering due to the unintended consequences of ill considered legislation.
    Offering shorter terms to those who plead guilty was meant to reduce court time and costs. Because they made it compulsory we see offenders who were bang to rights anyway getting off with pityfully short terms.
    These incentives should be discretionary (though I suspect some judges would give them anyway) and dependant on when the offender started co-operating and the level of remorse shown.

    Leave a comment:


  • Angela_D
    replied
    Fair enough stackpole. You're right.


    How 18 years for attempted murder and another very serious assault can become < 6 years.




    Anger over stab racist's jail time

    A RACIST thug jailed for life for stabbing a man in the head with a screwdriver could be freed in less than six years.

    Lee Platt, 25, carried out the horrific attack while on bail for another vicious assault and both his victims were left disabled.

    But a judge told him that under controversial sentencing guidelines, he will be entitled to apply for parole in just five years and 233 days.

    His latest victim condemned the guidelines as "a load of rubbish" and said he had not had justice - Platt had ruined his life and had even left him unable to smile.

    Guilty plea

    Judge David Maddison, the Recorder of Manchester, said that under the Criminal Justice Act of 2003, he was required by law to reduce Platt's 18-year "tariff" by a third because he entered an early guilty plea - cutting it to 12 years.

    And a tariff of 12 years or under has to be automatically halved, making six years minus the 132 days Platt had already served on remand.

    ........... then it goes on further .......

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Just a guess

    I think it was the jail sentence of 233 days for performing an impromptu lobotomy with a screwdriver on some poor sod. Admittedly he had done it before otherwise he would probably have got a caution or 'strong words of advice'

    Leave a comment:


  • stackpole
    replied
    Angela dear, it is good etiquette to give us a clue about the point of your post other than just a link.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoredBloke
    replied
    Tough on crime etc..............

    Leave a comment:


  • bangface
    replied
    Does he work for Partway IT?

    Leave a comment:


  • Angela_D
    started a topic Oh dear: ........ or yet another WTF !

    Oh dear: ........ or yet another WTF !

    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....jail_time.html

Working...
X