Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Is having children a good enough reason to escape a prison sentence?
36 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/436mqru
This case has attracted much criticism from the public, both on TV and the radio, and yet on numerous occasions a similar ruling as been made on behalf of Mothers and hardly anyone has lifted an eyebrow.
Personally I cannot see why the mother (who apparently only cares for them at the weekends), cannot have the children while he serves out his sentence.
This case has attracted much criticism from the public, both on TV and the radio, and yet on numerous occasions a similar ruling as been made on behalf of Mothers and hardly anyone has lifted an eyebrow.
Personally I cannot see why the mother (who apparently only cares for them at the weekends), cannot have the children while he serves out his sentence.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
/// But appeal judge Mr Justice Maddison warned: "It is important that criminals should not think that children can provide some sort of licence to commit criminal offences with impunity." ///
One should laugh at this if it wasn't so serious.
Here is a judge who lets off a criminal because he has children, and then says " criminals should not think that children can provide some sort of licence to commit criminal offences with impunity"
Surely this will now be a 'test case' which will set a precedent for any appeals lawyer in the future.
One should laugh at this if it wasn't so serious.
Here is a judge who lets off a criminal because he has children, and then says " criminals should not think that children can provide some sort of licence to commit criminal offences with impunity"
Surely this will now be a 'test case' which will set a precedent for any appeals lawyer in the future.
jno
Don't you dare tell me to pay attention, I know exactly what the Judge said, you in fact are only repeating what I have already posted.
And as I have already said no matter what that particular judge has said, this criminal has been released from a jail sentence purely on the grounds that he has kids and no one to look after them.
Therefore if any future similar case comes before the courts a precedent has been set, and nothing can alter that fact.
Don't you dare tell me to pay attention, I know exactly what the Judge said, you in fact are only repeating what I have already posted.
And as I have already said no matter what that particular judge has said, this criminal has been released from a jail sentence purely on the grounds that he has kids and no one to look after them.
Therefore if any future similar case comes before the courts a precedent has been set, and nothing can alter that fact.
Yes, it would cost a lot more to keep the children in care, boxtops. And they could stay there permanently so giving them a better chance in life than living with a recidivist.
This case, once again, demonstrates the folly of the UK’s Human Rights Act and the way the European Convention on Human Rights (on which our own act is based) has been distorted to alarming lengths from the initial idea its architects had after WW2.
Despite your protestations, jno, and the judge’s remarks, AOG is spot-on. This case will set a precedent, and it will be cited by sharp barristers out to keep their clients out of the chokey. The HRA is deliberately vague and requires wide interpretation by judges. In making their judgements they rely heavily on their colleagues’ earlier judgements so as to demonstrate that they all sing from the same hymn sheet.
The HRA is becoming outrageously biased against victims and law abiding citizens. It has always been a charter for criminals, foreigners and those wishing to circumvent the law to which everybody else is subject. Events over the last few weeks involving “super-injunctions” and now this case show that it is becoming even more so and it is in urgent need of reform.
This case, once again, demonstrates the folly of the UK’s Human Rights Act and the way the European Convention on Human Rights (on which our own act is based) has been distorted to alarming lengths from the initial idea its architects had after WW2.
Despite your protestations, jno, and the judge’s remarks, AOG is spot-on. This case will set a precedent, and it will be cited by sharp barristers out to keep their clients out of the chokey. The HRA is deliberately vague and requires wide interpretation by judges. In making their judgements they rely heavily on their colleagues’ earlier judgements so as to demonstrate that they all sing from the same hymn sheet.
The HRA is becoming outrageously biased against victims and law abiding citizens. It has always been a charter for criminals, foreigners and those wishing to circumvent the law to which everybody else is subject. Events over the last few weeks involving “super-injunctions” and now this case show that it is becoming even more so and it is in urgent need of reform.
// The HRA has always been a charter for foreigners. //
Now you're making things up.
The Conservatives have pledged to cut the number of people sent to prison. And here is that pledge being put into action. Sentences will be shortwper or non existant as in this case.
It will save a bit of money closing prisons and sacking warders, so it must be right.
Now you're making things up.
The Conservatives have pledged to cut the number of people sent to prison. And here is that pledge being put into action. Sentences will be shortwper or non existant as in this case.
It will save a bit of money closing prisons and sacking warders, so it must be right.
No, I’m not making anything up, Gromit.
By far and away the principle beneficiaries of the ECHR and the HRA in recent years have been foreigners (usually trying to remain in the UK as their Human Rights would be infringed if they were sent back to their country of origin), criminals (claiming, for example, that their HR would be invaded if they were not allowed access to pornography) and “travellers” (using HR legislation to bypass the planning regulations with which the rest of the population must comply). This was not what the architects of the Convention had in mind.
You never hear of UK citizens being granted their rights to lead a private life having been knifed by foreign thugs who are subsequently allowed to remain here; you don’t often hear of householders’ rights to a secure property being upheld when burglars such as the one in AOG’s article are released to burgle again; you do not hear of members of the “settled” community having their rights enforced when dozens of travellers illegally set up camp at the bottom of their garden.
Yes it seems the Coalition, to many people’s dismay, are not being tough on crime, but the number of people diverted from prison because of it are miniscule.But this latest manifestation of its idiocy demonstrates quite clearly that the perpetuation of the ridiculous Human Rights Act and our allegiance to the European Convention on Human Rights does nothing to help. As I said earlier, it needs urgent reform otherwise what little faith many people have left in the Criminal Justice System will be eroded and the country will become an even greater laughing stock.
By far and away the principle beneficiaries of the ECHR and the HRA in recent years have been foreigners (usually trying to remain in the UK as their Human Rights would be infringed if they were sent back to their country of origin), criminals (claiming, for example, that their HR would be invaded if they were not allowed access to pornography) and “travellers” (using HR legislation to bypass the planning regulations with which the rest of the population must comply). This was not what the architects of the Convention had in mind.
You never hear of UK citizens being granted their rights to lead a private life having been knifed by foreign thugs who are subsequently allowed to remain here; you don’t often hear of householders’ rights to a secure property being upheld when burglars such as the one in AOG’s article are released to burgle again; you do not hear of members of the “settled” community having their rights enforced when dozens of travellers illegally set up camp at the bottom of their garden.
Yes it seems the Coalition, to many people’s dismay, are not being tough on crime, but the number of people diverted from prison because of it are miniscule.But this latest manifestation of its idiocy demonstrates quite clearly that the perpetuation of the ridiculous Human Rights Act and our allegiance to the European Convention on Human Rights does nothing to help. As I said earlier, it needs urgent reform otherwise what little faith many people have left in the Criminal Justice System will be eroded and the country will become an even greater laughing stock.
It is a terrible situation when children are taken into care. Surely the operative word is CARE. The father obviously does not care whether or not the children are taken away from him. The mother seemingly does not care.
Foster families do brilliant work. Care homes less.
Dad avoids prison because he has children. What message does that give to them?
Role model?
Foster families do brilliant work. Care homes less.
Dad avoids prison because he has children. What message does that give to them?
Role model?
Latest Posts
News10 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Should Children Under 16 Be Barred From...
News39 mins ago
Shopping & Style42 mins ago
Could All Help With Signing My Petition
Seasonal50 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.