News2 mins ago
burglar-walks-free--given-new-home
http://www.dailymail....--given-new-home.html
I must need a career change, working 50 hours a week to pay the mortgage and keep my head above water obviously stands for nothing. No wonder the UK is an atractive country to live in...
I must need a career change, working 50 hours a week to pay the mortgage and keep my head above water obviously stands for nothing. No wonder the UK is an atractive country to live in...
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chas2008. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
He hasn't walked free or been given a new home. He has to do 150 hours community service, adhere to a night time curfew, be visited by police twice a week.
He is being lent the deposit and first month's rent, which he will have to pay back.
How is this any different to any other criminal living in social housing and given a community service order?
He is being lent the deposit and first month's rent, which he will have to pay back.
How is this any different to any other criminal living in social housing and given a community service order?
It claims that his new home is rent free in that news article hc, are you reading from another sourse that says he's only getting the first month paid for?
If the article is true, i too would put up with a curfew, community service and visits by the local plod twice a week to live in a ouse rent free. Infact i'd do it quite happily!
If the article is true, i too would put up with a curfew, community service and visits by the local plod twice a week to live in a ouse rent free. Infact i'd do it quite happily!
This is a typical Daily Mail "style"
They put all the cornflake spitting stuff in the headline and the first few paragraphs and the explanatory detail at the end.
I suspect they work on the principle that their readers are too angry or lazy to read to the end or if they do they've given up any pretence at objectivity.
You'll also notice that they've not bothered to give you any of the details that have caused to judge to come to the conclusion that he's "begining to grow up and seem determined to stop offending" if they did there's a chance you might not see the case in the way that they want you to.
This is not subtle stuff
I suggest that if you want to get angry you switch to the Telegraph, their reactionary manipulation of their readership is much more subtle
They put all the cornflake spitting stuff in the headline and the first few paragraphs and the explanatory detail at the end.
I suspect they work on the principle that their readers are too angry or lazy to read to the end or if they do they've given up any pretence at objectivity.
You'll also notice that they've not bothered to give you any of the details that have caused to judge to come to the conclusion that he's "begining to grow up and seem determined to stop offending" if they did there's a chance you might not see the case in the way that they want you to.
This is not subtle stuff
I suggest that if you want to get angry you switch to the Telegraph, their reactionary manipulation of their readership is much more subtle
A friend of the convicted youth is quoted as saying, 'He's cock-a-hoop about this.'
It that a phrase that trips readily from the mouths of teenage thieves or was it invented by a Mail hack?
The judge has given this youngster a chance to escape from the surroundings where he was a criminal. He might make a new, crime free, life for himself.
It that a phrase that trips readily from the mouths of teenage thieves or was it invented by a Mail hack?
The judge has given this youngster a chance to escape from the surroundings where he was a criminal. He might make a new, crime free, life for himself.
-- answer removed --
It is always difficult to understand the reasoning behind a sentencing decision when given the bare facts over your Corn Flakes. Judge Ball had the benefit of comprehensive reports into the defendant’s circumstances and the circumstances surrounding the offences. Having said that (and I’ve finished my Bite-Sized Shredded Wheat) the sentence does seem unduly lenient.
Burglary can be dealt with either at the Crown Court (as in this case) or at the Magistrates’ Court. Magistrates obviously decided to commit Mr Wernham to the Crown Court, probably because of the number of offences to which he had admitted and the value of the goods taken. This would normally (though not necessarily) mean that they envisage an appropriate sentence greater than their powers allow (which in this case this would be twelve month’s custody, as they would be sentencing two or more “either way” offences).
The sentence seems even more strange when examining judges’ sentencing guidelines. These state that even if the burglaries are “standard” (that is with no aggravating features such as violence) then for a defendant with two or more previous convictions the starting point should be three year’s custody.
These may well have been Mr Wernham’s first convictions for burglary. Nonetheless Judge Ball has certainly departed considerably from that guidance, which goes into more detail on how to deal with prolific offenders and those committing multiple offences.
My own view is that he has placed undue weight on the rehabilitation element of the sentence and not given sufficient consideration to the “punishment” and “protection of the public” elements. But that’s only my view and I do not have the benefit of Judge Ball’s experience, or of the reports that had been prepared.
Burglary can be dealt with either at the Crown Court (as in this case) or at the Magistrates’ Court. Magistrates obviously decided to commit Mr Wernham to the Crown Court, probably because of the number of offences to which he had admitted and the value of the goods taken. This would normally (though not necessarily) mean that they envisage an appropriate sentence greater than their powers allow (which in this case this would be twelve month’s custody, as they would be sentencing two or more “either way” offences).
The sentence seems even more strange when examining judges’ sentencing guidelines. These state that even if the burglaries are “standard” (that is with no aggravating features such as violence) then for a defendant with two or more previous convictions the starting point should be three year’s custody.
These may well have been Mr Wernham’s first convictions for burglary. Nonetheless Judge Ball has certainly departed considerably from that guidance, which goes into more detail on how to deal with prolific offenders and those committing multiple offences.
My own view is that he has placed undue weight on the rehabilitation element of the sentence and not given sufficient consideration to the “punishment” and “protection of the public” elements. But that’s only my view and I do not have the benefit of Judge Ball’s experience, or of the reports that had been prepared.
-- answer removed --
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
ChatterBank10 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Insurance17 mins ago
ChatterBank30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.