Shrenchel Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Looks like they've sacked it off because of the comments on here anyway. Suprised that shrunk their bollocks, dunno what other reaction they thought they'd get on here.
Daggers Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Looks like they've sacked it off because of the comments on here anyway. Suprised that shrunk their bollocks, dunno what other reaction they thought they'd get on here. Shit - the shortest protest in the history of protests. Dear Shane Antonio Stanger, seeing as you read this thread - please explain why anyone should give a toss? I appreciate that he is your brother and that he held a season ticket...but? Why? Oh, and almost zero posters in this thread sit or stand in L or K block. Go for your protest, this thread should not prevent you - this is simply a collection of people either abusing substances, themselves or retired folk in the park.
iancognito Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Like the daft bastard who moaned to the Mercury about getting a fine for parking in a no parking space at Tesco Hamilton because he'd parked there before and got away with it and Tesco didn't announce that they would be enforcing the no parking areas from that week onwards. It's not that unjust anyway. If there were harsher sentences that were stuck to without parole, the decent people in society might feel a bit safer from the property-smashing mogodons out there.
Thracian Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 The day people listen to someone who openly drink drives is the day this country has really gone to pot. This is a ridiculous idea of a protest. There are courses of action to take if you don't like a parking ticket etc etc - not to get angry and smash something up. No place at a football match and there will be no publicity of it whatsoever at the match, I am sure. Well you do sound the paragon. In 43 years as a driver, I've safely covered 15,000 miles a year in every vehicle from a motor coach to a mini including snow chain driving in the Alps, regular rally car driving/navigating plus weekly sessions test-driving new vehicles. So I sure don't need some self-satisfied reactionary like you judging my fitness to drive. And having taxied enough people on this forum at one time or another, I've not heard any of them complain in any way. You, on the other hand, wouldn't know the first thing about how I drive.
Finnegan Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Well you do sound the paragon. In 43 years as a driver, I've safely covered 15,000 miles a year in every vehicle from a motor coach to a mini including snow chain driving in the Alps, regular rally car driving/navigating plus weekly sessions test-driving new vehicles. So I sure don't need some self-satisfied reactionary like you judging my fitness to drive. And having taxied enough people on this forum at one time or another, I've not heard any of them complain in any way. You, on the other hand, wouldn't know the first thing about how I drive. Pretty irrelevant, really. I don't know whether you actually do condone drink driving or whether you do it regularly but it's a pretty stupid idea regardless. Nobody thinks they're going to get into an accident, most people consider themselves good drivers until they do. But it only takes one fuck up to hit someone and end their life. Why up the odds of it happening if it can be avoided? I think there are laws all round the world that are somewhat unnecessary or the result of an over-protective state. I don't think drink driving laws are amongst them, however, it's just common sense.
Finnegan Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Next stop: Sheehan Central and O'Grady Plaza BREAKING NEWS: YAHOO REPORTS NEW LABOUR BEHIND LOUIS DODDS' LEICESTER CITY EXIT!
Thracian Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Pretty irrelevant, really. I don't know whether you actually do condone drink driving or whether you do it regularly but it's a pretty stupid idea regardless. Nobody thinks they're going to get into an accident, most people consider themselves good drivers until they do.But it only takes one fuck up to hit someone and end their life. Why up the odds of it happening if it can be avoided? I think there are laws all round the world that are somewhat unnecessary or the result of an over-protective state. I don't think drink driving laws are amongst them, however, it's just common sense. Why up the odds of existing residents not getting a job by bringing in more competition? It's exactly the same argument. The subject has been debated in great depth countless times. Every day I see what I presume are perfectly sober people who clearly have no idea how to drive. PS: You are dead right about over-protective government though. And I should think ours leads the way.
ozleicester Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Like the daft bastard who moaned to the Mercury about getting a fine for parking in a no parking space at Tesco Hamilton because he'd parked there before and got away with it and Tesco didn't announce that they would be enforcing the no parking areas from that week onwards.It's not that unjust anyway. If there were harsher sentences that were stuck to without parole, the decent people in society might feel a bit safer from the property-smashing mogodons out there. Since clicking on this sig....I have no idea (nor care) about what was said. what a smile...
LoughboroughFox Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 I got a ticket for pissing in Loughborough the other day, fancy a whip round so i can pay it off?
Bluefoxtim Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 And the moral of the story: Just don't break the law. Rules are in place, if we don't follow them then it's our problem and we get what's coming to us.
Spencer Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Like the daft bastard who moaned to the Mercury about getting a fine for parking in a no parking space at Tesco Hamilton because he'd parked there before and got away with it and Tesco didn't announce that they would be enforcing the no parking areas from that week onwards.It's not that unjust anyway. If there were harsher sentences that were stuck to without parole, the decent people in society might feel a bit safer from the property-smashing mogodons out there. Worst thing about that, was that if he'd kept his mouth shut and ignored the PPC company, they couldn't have done anything about it anyway. The 'fines' these companies hand out are nothing but unenforceable invoices. I got a 'fine' from a similar company 12 months ago, ignored any further correspondence and they gave up. Have a look HERE for more info, I'm glad I found it to be honest, I bet that guy wishes he had too! As far as this protest goes, I have to echo what just about everyone else has said, the guy shouldn't have smashed it up in the first place.
Guest Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Dear oh dear. Just to clarify, bloke was convicted for robbery. It carries a maximum life sentence. I saw in the Mockery that the family don't understand how this can be robbery when it wasn't done for personal gain. That doesn't matter. I don't know how seriously the offence was graded, but unless there is exceptional mitigating factors sentence is usually custodial. The interesting thing for me though, the clincher if you like, is a comment from his brother in the facebook group. I paraphrase, but it's along the lines of "the judge said he would have got three years if he'd pleaded 'not guilty'". So he admitted the offence. He must have known that he was facing a custodial sentence, it's what he would have been told by his legal representatives! Plus, he got the maximum third reduction as credit for a guilty plea. He must have been told about this, it's a duty!
Guest Bilo Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Any chance of an anti DMU protest? I wanted a First for my last essay and only got a 2:1. I stand in L1, it must be worth a go.
Bellend Sebastian Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news...il/article.html The comments are worth a read, well, they are if you enjoy people getting excited about stuff they don't really understand, which I do
Shrenchel Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 To be fair, readng that, I don't really understand the sentence. Thought he must have given him a good beating as well but doesn't look like he did. The geezer must have had brutally shit representation. Yeah it's a crime against the 'establishment' but I know a lad that just got a slap on the wrist for nicking a copper's hat and drop kicking it into Bristol docks.
Guest Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 To be fair, readng that, I don't really understand the sentence. Thought he must have given him a good beating as well but doesn't look like he did. The geezer must have had brutally shit representation. Yeah it's a crime against the 'establishment' but I know a lad that just got a slap on the wrist for nicking a copper's hat and drop kicking it into Bristol docks. Robbery is, I believe, on the hit list as far as offences go which is why harsher sentences are given out. To be honest, I don't know why he hasn't been charged with criminal damage and given a CSO or whatever. However he's been charged with robbery. He pleaded guilty to robbery. There must be enough evidence against him otherwise he would have pleaded 'not guilty'. The Mockery report doesn't give all of the details of what happened, and there's none of the judge's reasoning in the sentencing, so there could be more to it. If the sentence really was that harsh, then lodge an appeal. And if an appeal hasn't been lodged, why not?
Bellend Sebastian Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/do...-guidelines.pdf This is actually vaguely interesting, particularly the bit about mitigating circumstances. I'm not sure what constitutes a 'public order offence', as referred to by Daggers, but if he's previously been convicted of one perhaps this played a part. I'm not pretending to have read it all, but it makes it pretty clear that a custodial sentence should be expected. I agree with Daggers in that I don't think the penalty is particularly harsh, it's more a case of the penalties in other cases seeming to be overly lenient, which I'm 100% confident is the point that everyone going on about other cases is trying to make
Guest Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/do...-guidelines.pdfThis is actually vaguely interesting, particularly the bit about mitigating circumstances. I'm not sure what constitutes a 'public order offence', as referred to by Daggers, but if he's previously been convicted of one perhaps this played a part. I'm not pretending to have read it all, but it makes it pretty clear that a custodial sentence should be expected. I agree with Daggers in that I don't think the penalty is particularly harsh, it's more a case of the penalties in other cases seeming to be overly lenient, which I'm 100% confident is the point that everyone going on about other cases is trying to make Anyone who has a gripe over sentencing, or is just interested in general, should take the time to sit in the public gallery at the Crown Court. Judges don't just pick sentences out of thin air. There are factors that are taken into consideration, some mitigating and others aggravating. Listening to defence counsels' arguments, then balancing it with the evidence and the judge's reasoning is the only way you can start to understand why certain sentences are handed down. No case is ever the same; there may be similarities, but you can't expect to be treated the same as someone else.
Daggers Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Our car is costing £345 to pass its MOT...that's daylight bloody robbery. I want a protest that everyone at the garage isn't being sent down. I bet they fiddle their taxes and one looks like a kiddie-diddler.
Ultra Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 Anyone who has a gripe over sentencing, or is just interested in general, should take the time to sit in the public gallery at the Crown Court. Judges don't just pick sentences out of thin air. There are factors that are taken into consideration, some mitigating and others aggravating. Listening to defence counsels' arguments, then balancing it with the evidence and the judge's reasoning is the only way you can start to understand why certain sentences are handed down. No case is ever the same; there may be similarities, but you can't expect to be treated the same as someone else. This. Too many tabloids think they know more about justice than judgies or juries. This case looks like another example.
Guest Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 This.Too many tabloids think they know more about justice than judgies or juries. This case looks like another example. Congratulations on your new post, BTW.
lou Posted 29 January 2010 Posted 29 January 2010 I was once sold a dodgy egg sandwich. Can I have a protest, please? Ive just eaten half a sandwich my Husband made me this morning and discovered green mould on the bread! So one for me too please! Facebook campaign coming up.But wait? Did you trash something of the person who sold you the sandwich? If not then you've got no chance. I will be trashing something of his as soon as he gets home! Fully agree - i've had tickets before but that's because i'm an idiot, not them Yep, I got one last week, genuine mistake but my fault and no one elses - should have checked more carefully. As an aside... Anyone who drinks and drives is a complete moron and deserves anything that comes to them as a result.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.