Cancer patient jailed for stealing - HAHAHA!

petersmart

petersmart

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,000
Edit My Images
Yes
She is a thief, who used her cancer to try and get a a lenient sentence.

Really annoys me when people use there illness to excuse there illegal actions. There are so many of us who are living with cancer who just live or lives as best we can.
 
munch said:
She is a thief, who used her cancer to try and get a a lenient sentence.

Really annoys me when people use there illness to excuse there illegal actions. There are so many of us who are living with cancer who just live or lives as best we can.
Click to expand...

Absolutely....and other diseases too.
 
ST4 said:
Smoking bans though in public places, fire risks, she might not get to smoke in jail. Big deal, £400k theft FFS, its a light sentence.
Click to expand...

She's "free" to smoke in her cell.
 
You can smoke in Jail, you can also smoke on the ward and in all public spaces at the Mental Health unit my wife works at which is based in a "NON Smoking" general hospital
 
daugirdas said:
I'd send her over to Ebola areas for forced unpaid labour as a nurse.
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights (the one we already have, not the one the Americans made as a copy of ours, or the one David Cameron wants to introduce) prevents cruel and unusual punishments. Other legislation and international treaty obligations prevent slavery, and I'd imagine the nursing and midwifery council would be pretty unhappy about random lags with no medical training working as nurses.

Other than that, I can't see any flaws in your plan at all!
 
She should have watched Breaking Bad and learned from it.
 
onomatopoeia said:
The Bill of Rights (the one we already have, not the one the Americans made as a copy of ours, or the one David Cameron wants to introduce) prevents cruel and unusual punishments. Other legislation and international treaty obligations prevent slavery, and I'd imagine the nursing and midwifery council would be pretty unhappy about random lags with no medical training working as nurses.

Other than that, I can't see any flaws in your plan at all!
Click to expand...

Let's vote torries. Maybe they'll bring back good old lynch mob rule. Who needs those stupid human rights :) :P
 
Gary Coyle said:
You can smoke in Jail, you can also smoke on the ward and in all public spaces at the Mental Health unit my wife works at which is based in a "NON Smoking" general hospital
Click to expand...

They were explicitly exempted from the 2006 Health Act on the grounds that they were domestic premises for the purpose of the Act.

N.B. Not on grounds of "human rights".

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/28/section/3

s3 said:
Descriptions of premises which may be specified under subsection (1) include, in particular, any premises where a person has his home, or is living whether permanently or temporarily (including hotels, care homes, and prisons and other places where a person may be detained).
Click to expand...

Upshot: Institutions are not required to ban smoking by law, but they may make their own rules about whether smoking is permitted or not.

However, in September 2013, The Ministry of Justice announced plans to introduce a smoking ban in all prisons by 2015.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10322215/Smoking-to-be-banned-in-prisons.html

Oh, and in 2009 the Court of Appeal ruled that a smoking ban in mental health units does not breach Article 8 of the ECHR.

http://www.weightmans.com/library/n...l-health-september-2009/rampton-smoking-case/

It is also worth noting that thanks to the Human Rights Act, a UK court is able to rule on this question without it having to be referred to Strasbourg.
 
Last edited:
Scum. The end!!
 
Gary Coyle said:
And pity the poor sod who has to tell a pyschotic murder he cant smoke
Click to expand...

Easy. Tell him through a sturdy locked door and then keep him in there for the rest of his natural. Simples. :LOL:
 
daugirdas said:
Let's vote torries. Maybe they'll bring back good old lynch mob rule. Who needs those stupid human rights :) :P
Click to expand...

The entymology of Tory is an old Irish Gaelic word for ....Thieves and Vagabonds...

Adopted by the group who formed the Tory party a long time ago.

As for Human Rights... we have had them a long time and they protect all of us. Worth lolking at the start point of Magna Carta 1215 which was to protect the Barons from the King's nefarious intentions.

I think I will support Human Rights thank you very much. Long fought for and whilst the Daily Mail paints a dark picture of what less than desirables get, we would all ne worse off wihout them.
 
Hugh Jarse said:
I think I will support Human Rights thank you very much. Long fought for and whilst the Daily Mail paints a dark picture of what less than desirables get, we would all ne worse off wihout them.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I often wonder if the Daily Mail reading types screaming "scrap the human rights bill" would really be happy to have no rights.

The "less than desirables" get these rights because, quite rightly, they apply to everyone equally.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
What about the human rights of those she stole from?
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the purpose of Human Rights legislation (something you have in common with most of the population of the UK, it seems). It is there to protect individuals from abuse of their rights by the state or its agencies. The criminal law is already there to protect individuals and society from criminal acts by other individuals.

The Theft Act is there to protect people against being stolen from by other people.

Although if you want to bring HR into it, article 5 of the ECHR provides a right to liberty and security, which places a positive duty on governments to uphold those things.
 
onomatopoeia said:
You misunderstand the purpose of Human Rights legislation (something you have in common with most of the population of the UK, it seems). It is there to protect individuals from abuse of their rights by the state or its agencies. The criminal law is already there to protect individuals and society from criminal acts by other individuals.

The Theft Act is there to protect people against being stolen from by other people.

Although if you want to bring HR into it, article 5 of the ECHR provides a right to liberty and security, which places a positive duty on governments to uphold those things.
Click to expand...

Human rights act protects those who do not deserve protecting.
 
ST4 said:
Human rights act protects those who do not deserve protecting.
Click to expand...

Have you read the Human Rights Act? Do you know what its purpose was and what its provisions actually are?

Here it is

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

I'm curious which specific rights or protections you think it established, that were not already available to British citizens under the European Convention on Human Rights between 1950 and 1998.

Please tell me which of them you disagree with.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Human rights act protects those who do not deserve protecting.
Click to expand...

That's a bit cockwomble-ish even for you Steve :-)
 
Musicman said:
Have you read the Human Rights Act? Do you know what its purpose was and what its provisions actually are?

Here it is

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

I'm curious which specific rights or protections you think it established, that were not already available to British citizens under the European Convention on Human Rights between 1950 and 1998.

Please tell me which of them you disagree with.
Click to expand...

Means we cannot even keep prisoners in for life, or is that the european one, we cannot have labour camps for our prisoners. Its pants
 
ST4 said:
Means we cannot even keep prisoners in for life, or is that the european one, we cannot have labour camps for our prisoners. Its pants
Click to expand...

Hmmm

Try reading the full range of the various acts and provisions and not what you might think it should or should not cover.

Takes a little bit of reading. It, in itself, does NOT state you cannot keep prisoners "in for life" - there are certainly "whole life tariffs" available. You mention "labour camps" if these, under your way of thinking, means "forced labour" with privations like bread and water, no medical facilities, no wet weather or warm clothes in winter, ritual humiliations, fight clubs etc etc then you have a point...... terrible that we need to have laws to stop that sort of cruel and unusual punishment. Of course prison is not about punishment per se, it's about rehabilitatoon. Some here may want your kind of punishments for such anti-social behaviour as reckless speeding. Labour camps followed with permament driving bans and "hobbling" perhap?

Yeah it's all pants.

Dear god what a world we live in when people do not learn from histpry.
 
Last edited:
Hugh Jarse said:
Hmmm

Try reading the full range of the various acts and provisions and not what you might think it should or should not cover.

Takes a little bit of reading. It, in itself, does NOT state you cannot keep prisoners "in for life" - there are certainly "whole life tariffs" available. You mention "labour camps" if these, under your way of thinking, means "forced labour" with privations like bread and water, no medical facilities, no wet weather or warm clothes in winter, ritual humiliations, fight clubs etc etc then you have a point...... terrible that we need to have laws to stop that sort of cruel and unusual punishment. Of course prison is not about punishment per se, it's about rehabilitatoon. Some here may want your kind of punishments for such anti-social behaviour as reckless speeding. Labour camps followed with permament driving bans and "hobbling" perhap?

Yeah it's all pants.

Dear god what a world we live in when people do not learn from histpry.
Click to expand...

Very true. The courts aren't shy of using whole life sentences when they think it's warranted.
I personally would like to see it used a little more often, but this of course is just personal opinion, and in very specific circumstances.
 
If the punishment for driving 68mph above the speed limit was removal of the right foot, I wouldn't have done it, and as we all know the roads are soo dangerous when people do that yet completely safe 68mph below the speed limit that clearly right foot removal is the only sensible option.
 
ST4 said:
If the punishment for driving 68mph above the speed limit was removal of the right foot, I wouldn't have done it, and as we all know the roads are soo dangerous when people do that yet completely safe 68mph below the speed limit that clearly right foot removal is the only sensible option.
Click to expand...


If you say so.

I had the opportunity to enjoy a 168mph drive in a Lotus Carlton which was further modded. Hard drive and not flat out. Handled nicely in the curve. Went past a few much slower vehicles whose drivers just got out of the way.... No police around. I was really buzzing when I had to pull off to refuel. Car just drank the fuel.

Mind you that was on the bowl at Millbrook......

Back on topic

So the left hand should be removed from thieves.... Very historic and much in use in the middle ages apparently. Teach em the hard way? The courts would not even need to be told if there "was any previous". You get to twist the knife as tje "perp" would have to eat and wipe his a*se with the same hand......

Justice we demand justice...... spelt as VENGEANCE

Onwards to my late supper.

Steve
 
ST4 said:
Sharia law has much to recommend about it IMHO.
Click to expand...

Run that by your wife/partner/girlfriend or boyfriend.....

Better still come and have a pint with me.... oh hang on... I am having a Gammon steak.

Each to their own but cherry picking the best or worse of any culture, race or faith is a messy way of arguing a point.
 
ST4 said:
I don't drink alcohol. I like pork but for a completely law abiding society I'd give that one up.
Click to expand...

You sound perfect

We must have a lemonade together one day and put tge world to right

Steve
 
Hugh Jarse said:
The entymology of Tory is an old Irish Gaelic word for ....Thieves and Vagabonds...

Adopted by the group who formed the Tory party a long time ago.
Click to expand...

....Goodee! I've always been on the side of the baddies.

Hugh Jarse said:
As for Human Rights... we have had them a long time and they protect all of us. Worth lolking at the start point of Magna Carta 1215 which was to protect the Barons from the King's nefarious intentions.

I think I will support Human Rights thank you very much. Long fought for and whilst the Daily Mail paints a dark picture of what less than desirables get, we would all ne worse off wihout them.
Click to expand...

....The basic principles of Human Rights are obviously good but nowadays such laws are too many and are over exploited. Far too much 'polical correctness' as well.
 
RedRobin said:
....Goodee! I've always been on the side of the baddies.



....The basic principles of Human Rights are obviously good but nowadays such laws are too many and are over exploited. Far too much 'polical correctness' as well.
Click to expand...

Always happens with rules that challenge the norm and upset "The Owners"

For example - some people think that Corporate Homicide is to do with H&S - it's not. As with all laws with a "criminal" element, the only way to test it's fitness and to set tariffs and sentencung guideline is through case law which tests the efficacy of the "new" law. It can tame a long time for it to settle.

The Equality Act 2010 was a bundling of many other laws (eg DDD 1995 was strengthened and is now inside the Equality Act 2010).

So whilst many rulex and regulation can be over 100 years old (many of the Railways Acts from the early days lf steam are still extant today - they are still either still fit for purpose or left "on the books" but fundamentally redundant). The trespass on the railways land are strinvent as is the rules on having tickets.

So IF people feel laws and regulations are overbearing or not fit for purpose then just moaning about them achieves little. Public acclaim might start a bit of a fire to force change but our MPs are there to both introduce new legislation and to amend or drop current legislation. This role is not necessarily led on party lines and much new legislation starts with a Private Members Bill.

Sadly it can be a long drawn out process but where a law is found to need emergency amendment then cross party uniso makes things happen.

So individuals can make things happen. And have.

In the case of Human Rights legislation, it fundamentally protects all of us but yes it does also protect a tiny minority who can access barristers to test boundaries. In public outrage at some of the cases does come retesting processes and eligibilty of the rules. Such outrage and outcry can start iterative reviews.

IMHO ovrall we all gain from "Human Rights".

When was "Ear Lopping" stopped?

Sorry for the long post but I love law and love it or hate it, we will all live with it and its effects.

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top