[Closed] How the hell is this justice????

making way for more uppity proles

The question is, what useful purpose was there to keeping him inside for longer? I doubt the length of his sentence makes any difference to the deterrent effect, nor to the probability of him re-offending!

OP I hate to disappoint, but there just [i]may[/i] be more than that story has revealed.

aracer - I don't think that washes.

There may well be more to it, but the bloke still says he hasn't done anything wrong and only in for 9 weeks hardly seems like just punishment.

I could see him being released on health grounds, but I'd still want to see that his debt is paid back to the community. All he seemed to be worried about was his dog!

I don't think that washes

c'mon Al, you big tease - what's the inside line then ?

is ernest saunders his legal consultant ?

They realised that letting him carry on fiddling his expenses cost less than keeping him in prison.

On a related note, surely this is the best sory to come out of the whole expenses scandal

[url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2011/08/08/expenses-cheat-elliot-morley-s-3-000-rolex-goes-missing-in-prison-attack-115875-23327901/ ]What a muppet!!!![/url]

Some people say our elected representatives are slightly out of touch. Not a bit of it

It said he was suffering from clinical depression - I wonder how many people in jail might be suffering clinical depression, I'd wager there's quite a lot. But most of them aren't members of the establishment just plebs so obviously they should be left to rot.

we need to free up space so we can incarcerate plebs for 18 months for stealing some water worth £3.50.
aracer why did we not just sack MPS then they could never fiddle expenses againmst and we would have no need to punish them - win -win

Part of the sentence is recompense for the offence committed. Ie if i beat someone senselss and then say sorry i wont do that again presumably i would still need punishing?

piedi di formaggio - Member
There may well be more to it, but the bloke still says he hasn't done anything wrong and only in for 9 weeks hardly seems like just punishment.

I could see him being released on health grounds

Health grounds? So if I murder someone and then get ill I should be let out?

aracer - Member

So what is the purpose of prison other than as a deterrent and to try and prevent re-offending?

That's not my point - arguably the majority of crims aren't deterred or rehabilitated - on your argument, if there's no point in them going to prison, why bother?

Hmm... a Troy peer suffering from clinical depression? How apt.

As for Elliot Morley's Rolex... it's proof of how utterly out of touch our political classes have been.

Cynic I don't agree with the health grounds thing, just suspect that they will say this is why. Doesn't make it right in my book

and only in for 9 weeks hardly seems like just punishment.

+1 for giving him a mop and asking him to clean a seedy strip club's gents lavs.

PJM1974 - Member

+1 for giving him a mop and asking him to clean a seedy strip club's gents lavs.

hes a tory peer for gawds sake, thats what he pays his domminatrix to do to him on the 3rd tuesday of every month!

It is'nt , its a gesture to make us plebs think something has been done.Watch the small rint in newspaper and I bet that half of the people locked for rioting will be quietly appealled and let out once the intitial fuss has died down

Health grounds? So if I murder someone and then get ill I should be let out?

[img] [/img]

Clearly much better to keep them in the nick and take ongoing responsibility for their treatment eh?

So what is the purpose of prison other than as a deterrent and to try and prevent re-offending?

4 years that lad from northwich got for going on facebook to try & start a riot (lol riot in northwich, your havin a laugh) that never happened. there is no justice. but just call me dave (no i will call you a toff prick) has to make it look like he is doing something unless its his own lot. then he wonders why people kick off

4 years that lad from northwich got for going on facebook to try & start a riot (lol riot in northwich, your havin a laugh) that never happened

i would say 4 years compared to alot of horrible nasty other crimes that get alot less no it wouldn't be ok. i remember a riot arrangement at a football match by a bolton hooligan. he got 1 year & it did happen. the point is you are sentenced for crimes you commit he didnt commit a violent act of rioting he just stupidly attempted to as he's a moron. give him a toothbrush & make him sweep up all the chewing gum up on community service. i watched a programme about a guy that swindled millions of money from peoples pensions & savings so he could live the high life. he ruined lots of lives & the people were that embarrassed they wouldnt show there face on camera. he got 9 months. thats not justice. what about ian tomlinson pushed to the ground & beat by mr pc plod. has he been sent down yet erm no.
so what im trying to say is toff nose **** cameron jumps on a band wagon to make it look like he is pushing forward with crime when infact its like a PR stunt for him. what about crime in general. mixed messages

So you don't think that the threat to society as a whole from the widespread riots merits harsher sentences than might be given for a similar offence in different circumstances?

i think the people that actually rioted & caused the damages should get sentences (not to sure about harsher) but for the likes of buying stolen goods or stealing a bottle of water from a lidl store erm no. i think each case should have been dealt with properly not just ambushed by cameron

OK, so we come back to what the difference is between attempting to incite a riot and succeeding, and attempting to incite a riot and failing?

i havent bought any stolen goods by the way lol

just call me dave (no i will call you a toff prick) has to make it look like he is doing something

On one hand, all of the sentences handed out so far around the riots have been passed by sitting judges under existing laws, and they're independent of the government, so whether or not Dave has to look like he's doing something is irrelevant.

On the other hand, some of the sentences handed out seem remarkably heavy, at least in comparison to non-riot related sentences in the normal course of things.

This might be a good research project for anyone doing a Master's or PhD...(not me)

9 months for £14000 seemed unreasonable to me tbh. Any prison sentence at all is a massive deal for anyone but a hardened criminal, which he definately isn't. I don't think we can moan "Oh he's only got out because he's part of the establishement"- because if he wasn't, I don't think he'd have got that sentence in the first place. (a minority of fraud cases get a custodial sentence of any length, if he was a company director defrauding this amount it's not likely he'd have been jailed) And he still leaves as a convicted criminal with all that entails.

aracer - Member

OK, so we come back to what the difference is between attempting to incite a riot and succeeding, and attempting to incite a riot and failing?

No, I don't think we do- we come down to the fact that posting on facebook isn't at all [i]likely[/i] to incite a riot.

They need to free up some space for

[img] [/img]

OK, so we come back to what the difference is between attempting to incite a riot and succeeding, and attempting to incite a riot and failing?

I'd say quite a lot. Trying to do something, and succeeding at it are two different things. That's why there's two different charges for attempted murder and murder.

Err - yeah, but you can still get a life sentence for attempted murder. You don't get a lot of credit for being crap at what you're trying to do.

9 months for £14000 seemed unreasonable to me tbh. Any prison sentence at all is a massive deal for anyone but a hardened criminal, which he definately isn't.

I'm not a mindless imprison-them-all-let-god-sort-them-out type but it was a sustained and serious fraud over a long period of time. The person was in a position of considerable responsibility. Corruption and dishonest behaviour among MPs has much greater potential for widespread negative outcomes than it does for some chump fiddling his works van mileage in Chester.

9 months is not totally unreasonable. The massive reduction in the practical sentence - while allowing for the fact that this is "normal" and no favours were done for him - is, I think, unreasonable.

i just dont believe sticking some uneducated fool in prison for 4 years for trying to incite a riot & failing (proves this) is a good solution. it could possibly make him worse when he gets out. i believed that it was just call me dave(no i will call you a prick) pushed on the courts not letting them being the judges of the crime committed. maybe i am wrong & i am the first to hold my hands up if i am. If it is the same guy i am thinking of he had a big bnp flag hanging on the side of his house which kind of proves the intelligence of the guy

i guess the main thing that upsets me & the point im trying to get out is that you cant have 1 rule for 1 & another rule for others as then it upsets the general public as it is conflicting. conflicting information & people in power being allowed or getting hardly anything for crimes committed leads to upset & anger. just my opinion guys 😉

The Rolex is probably an insurance job.

He'll have it insured for £6k.......

maybe i am wrong & i am the first to hold my hands up if i am.

lol cheers konabunny

lynchmob - Member

i guess the main thing that upsets me & the point im trying to get out is that you cant have 1 rule for 1 & another rule for others as then it upsets the general public as it is conflicting. conflicting information & people in power being allowed or getting hardly anything for crimes committed leads to upset & anger.

Like I say- he got a [i]more [/i]severe sentence than typical specifically because of who he was and the fact that he was in power. If he'd been a company director defrauding a company, it's very unlikely he'd have served any time at all for such a low-value fraud.

Now whether or not that's justified is open to debate (I don't like to see people being "made an example of" personally) but that's a little beside the point- you can't say he's getting favourable treatment due to being part of the establishment, for being let out early from a sentence he only received because he's part of the establishment!

I'm a community nurse and I expect that I would get a longer sentence than that if I defrauded the tax payer out of £14k on my expenses.

And I've supported people with diagnosed learning disabilities who have recieved longer sentences for relatively minor crimes.

I doubt he got out directly because he is part of the establishment.

However his establishment links would have given him access to legal advice, lawyers and having the means to pay for them, that allowed his argument for release to be pushed through.

Its not the same as one law for one and another law for everyone else, but in practice it amounts to the same thing. Wealth and contacts gets you a much better application of the law than is available to the majority.

dangerousbeans - Member

I'm a community nurse and I expect that I would get a longer sentence than that if I defrauded the tax payer out of £14k on my expenses.

The stats say otherwise. Less than 1/4 of convicted fraudsters serve any jail time at all, and that 1/4 is mostly for higher values or otherwise more serious cases (ie, where the fraud has caused considerable harm to the victim). In the minority of cases where a custodial sentence is given, the average is around 9 months. Abuse of a position of trust is an aggravating factor

There's also the legitimate quesiton of intent and gain- his defence (that he was still left out of pocket on expenses, and that the fraudulent claims were intended to offset that rather than to profit) was thrown out on principle so his claims were never tested, but it's certainly plausible that he made no gain. (and this should have been taken into account in the sentencing, but the suggestion is that it wasn't)

Did he appeal the sentence?