MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12127327
Former Labour MP David Chaytor is back in court for sentencing over £20,000 in fraudulent expenses claims.
He faces a maximum seven years in jail but is likely to receive a more lenient sentence because of his guilty plea.
I reckon two years, suspended for two years.
Hmmm.
2 years. 18 months suspended with 6 months to serve.
Scot free...
3rd at the 2 o'clock at Doncaster.
Yeah a suspended sentence of the same duration as the actual sentence.
Justice for all!
120 hours community service, but he'll be allowed to claim back expenses
I suspect he will do short jail time. 12 weeks?
Shower block B, 3rd nozzle without a struggle.
cup of tea, golden handshake, pat on the head from dave
Since he is unlikely to recommit the crime, and likewise, others are also unlikely to commit the crime in the future, then a deterrent sentence is completely pointless.
Therefore I hope he does not receive a custodial sentence which will achieve absolutely nothing and is likely to cost the taxpayer considerably more than the £20k he stole.
Those who call for a prison sentence are imo primarily motivated by purely vindictive considerations. An attitude which has no place in a modern, fair, and effective, judicial system.
I wonder what a fraudulent benefit claimant would get for stealing £20k?
[edit]
op - two years, suspended for two years is my guess?
I hope he gets a kick in the cock
No need to look up a benefit cheat, here's a parliamentary fees office thief already prepared:
A HOUSE of Commons official was jailed for nine months today for siphoning off nearly £6,000 in fake MPs' expenses claims.
Andrew Gibson, 49, a budget officer in the Parliamentary Fees Office, came up with a "planned and carefully executed fraud" to pay off gambling debts, Southwark Crown Court in central London heard.
http://news.scotsman.com/breaking-edinburgh-news/Commons-official-jailed-for-taking.6558430.jp
No need to look up a benefit cheat, here's a parliamentary fees office thief already prepared
Agreed. And it should come as no surprise to anyone that a £6,000 fraud gets you 9 months. After all Britain imprisons more of its population than any other Western European country.
I'm not sure what that means, maybe we have more criminals than other comparable countries ?
Although presumably it should mean that we have [i]less[/i] criminals ........if prison "works" of course.
What does your political hero Kenneth Clark have to say on the subject Stoner ?
btw, does it cost more than £6,000 to keep someone in prison for 9 months ?
kenny wants them all let out. It's the bean counter in him.
others are also unlikely to commit the crime in the future
Really? No more fraud in future? whoopee !!
No more fraud in future? whoopee !!
You think there might be more fraudulent expenses claims by MPs in the future if he doesn't receive a custodial sentence ?
Or are you just [i]pretending[/i] that you don't understand my point ? .....you big tease you.
You have a point?
No use imprisoning Joanne Yeates's killer - she won't be killed again.
IIRC its around £30 000 pa to keep someone in jail
Stoner is the nearest
You have a point?
Well you responded to my post, so I guess maybe you thought that I had made one ?
Of course now you are suggesting that my point was that there should be no prisons, despite the fact that I was simply suggesting that 9 months for £6k fraud was not imo an appropriate sentence.
And btw, 9 months and 6 months were the sentences given yesterday to the couple responsible for the Jersey children's home, were horrific physical and sexual abuse against children took place. Explain to me the logic behind £6k fraud = 9 months, and physical and sexual abuse against children = 9 months.
wow. I thought theyd suspend the sentance.
18 months is a biggy.
Not sure that a "point" was involved, but I was suggesting that when you wrote ...
Since he is unlikely to recommit the crime, and likewise, others are also unlikely to commit the crime in the future, then a deterrent sentence is completely pointless.
you meant that there was no point in a deterrent sentence since others would not be likely to commit the crime in future.
To which my response, [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i], was that few specific crimes are committed twice, but that does not mean that the concept of deterrence is inapplicable.
But maybe you meant something else ...
