Word to the wise

this would be the same person fond of namecalling various members in the group I look forward to his first post shortly followed by a govt crackdown and re-arrest Derek

Thanks for the heads up.

I wonder ,when it comes back online, what name it will use!

Would this be a certain "Mr Duckbill" or similar? If so one of the websites about him says he was sentenced to 2 years on 5th April

2006. Not sure how accurate that is.

Sounds accurate enough to me - sentenced to 2 years, serves 3 months.

Matt

The substantial amount of time spent on remand counts toward the final term.

Unfortunately! :)

What did he do?

Matthew Maddock wrote:

If it's the same chap I'm thinking of;

Mother"

Ever seen the film "Hard Candy"?

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:32:14 +0100, Mother scribbled the following nonsense:

Oh dear..... Surely he will soon be in dire need of another holiday though???

Unconfirmed reports that he was re-arrested at the gates. Awaiting more information (have to be sure of anything that is made public, for obvious reasons). Other reports that he has not been re-arrested, and has been 'active', including 'here'. All sources of information are kept confidential, even I don't know who /I/ am...

On or around Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:55:51 +0100, "Nick" enlightened us thusly:

On or around Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:21:27 +0200, Matthew Maddock enlightened us thusly:

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?

If you're guilty, you're guilty, and the sentence should be the same irrespective of plea.

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.

as to whether the sentence is valid for the crime, that's a totally different question.

On or around Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:32:14 +0100, Mother enlightened us thusly:

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

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

Cornwall?

ISTR the idea is that you then save the victims and a shitload 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.

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.