Still a Major Fraud???
Yess, of course. Letting victims of crime set the appropriate punishment - that would be a sensible course of action, wouldn't it? Great for justice.
Why bother with courts at all, when you could just let the Police arrest known troublemakers (any Gypo, the unemployed, anyone whose skin is a different colour, anyone with a body piercing, journos, striking firemen - you know - scum) and hand them over to anyone who has been burgled. Especially if they have a record of gun crime themselves, and so much the better if they are known to be unstable and verging on the psychotic, with a penchant for lurid talk about revenge and vigilantee action. And so much the better if the victim also has links with the National Front or British movement.
Why bother with courts at all, when you could just let the Police arrest known troublemakers (any Gypo, the unemployed, anyone whose skin is a different colour, anyone with a body piercing, journos, striking firemen - you know - scum) and hand them over to anyone who has been burgled. Especially if they have a record of gun crime themselves, and so much the better if they are known to be unstable and verging on the psychotic, with a penchant for lurid talk about revenge and vigilantee action. And so much the better if the victim also has links with the National Front or British movement.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Still on the beach (but this one's cold).
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I can see the only error Martin made in this case was not being a better shot, would have been much simpler if he'd got good hits on all of the sneaky low life robbing bastiges. Home contents and family protection policy with Smith and Wesson gets my vote. Beags, for once I agree with you. Jacko, you are an arse, sir.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training Risky
I am not sure that anyone has in fact said that. (I certainly have not.) The right to defend oneself, even by use of deadly force is part of the law - in most countries. Defending one's VCR by killing the thief is an overreaction which is frowned upon in most civilised societies.
Their was a story in one of our papers recently (included as a light-hearted piece) about a 34 year old bloke who, after a night on the town, returned home to the house he knew and loved - having grown up in it with his parents. He staggered to 'his' room and promptly fell asleep. What he had forgotten in his stupor was the fact that he and his family had in fact moved out 7 years previously. The 18 year old who discovered him called his dad, who woke sleeping beauty and told him off - resisting the apparently justifiable urge to blast holes in him with whatever firearms might have been handy.
It's simple: defend your life (or your family's lives) against a real threat at any cost. In all other cases, exercise restraint and proportionality.
I admit to knowing nothing about the Martin case except what I have read here. Judging only by what has been said, it seems that the jury decided that there was no real threat to Martin and thatb his his actions did not amnount to self-defence, but were motivation by other factors. Motives such as anger, revenge or retribution are not defences against a charge of murder.
I imagine all of the posters here who trash the idea of defending themselves at home, have not had the trauma of crime coming to their homes.
Their was a story in one of our papers recently (included as a light-hearted piece) about a 34 year old bloke who, after a night on the town, returned home to the house he knew and loved - having grown up in it with his parents. He staggered to 'his' room and promptly fell asleep. What he had forgotten in his stupor was the fact that he and his family had in fact moved out 7 years previously. The 18 year old who discovered him called his dad, who woke sleeping beauty and told him off - resisting the apparently justifiable urge to blast holes in him with whatever firearms might have been handy.
It's simple: defend your life (or your family's lives) against a real threat at any cost. In all other cases, exercise restraint and proportionality.
I admit to knowing nothing about the Martin case except what I have read here. Judging only by what has been said, it seems that the jury decided that there was no real threat to Martin and thatb his his actions did not amnount to self-defence, but were motivation by other factors. Motives such as anger, revenge or retribution are not defences against a charge of murder.
It's precisely the attitude of "It's not worth defending your VCR by killing the thief" which encourages the thieving ba$tards to break in and start stealing in thr first place. Because they know that there's bug ger all chance of Plod catching them as he's too busy filling out meaningless huggy-fluffy paperwork (instead of assisting Chummy down the steps to the jail) and even if he did, some weak willed magistrate would probably only give them a few minutes of yoof-custody or 'shirk in the community'.
But if they thought "Stick my head through that window and I might get to meet Mr Smith and Mr Wesson on rather a personal (and terminal) level", then perhaps they'd think twice?
But if they thought "Stick my head through that window and I might get to meet Mr Smith and Mr Wesson on rather a personal (and terminal) level", then perhaps they'd think twice?
Free Man, Not a Number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Well here of course.
Age: 58
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a strange thread to find in Military Aircrew. I ignored it because the cheating Major scam is pretty boring news - he should have got to keep the money for finding a loophole.
I've had my house broken into and it's not nice. I made the choice there and then - if you break in and I catch you I will prosecute to the best of my ability. I want you rendered unconscious and ready for collection by the Police. I don't have a gun but I have a number of swords (and I know how to use them), and I'm big enough and daft enough to knock most people down. I've a wife and small children at home, believe me you don't want to break in.
As for the car parking issue - funnily enough I had my drive blocked by a car recently, once I'd opened my gate and sounded my horn a couple of times. I guess which house he was visiting and knocked on the door - they were having dinner and he would move it later (!) I waited a further five minutes and then went bumper to bumper and pushed his car back. He came running out of a house a bit peeved... and Flying Lawyer - - private (unadopted) road so he had no come back, and I'm still pals with my neighbours.
Fully support the views of BEagle here - not that he needs them.
I've had my house broken into and it's not nice. I made the choice there and then - if you break in and I catch you I will prosecute to the best of my ability. I want you rendered unconscious and ready for collection by the Police. I don't have a gun but I have a number of swords (and I know how to use them), and I'm big enough and daft enough to knock most people down. I've a wife and small children at home, believe me you don't want to break in.
As for the car parking issue - funnily enough I had my drive blocked by a car recently, once I'd opened my gate and sounded my horn a couple of times. I guess which house he was visiting and knocked on the door - they were having dinner and he would move it later (!) I waited a further five minutes and then went bumper to bumper and pushed his car back. He came running out of a house a bit peeved... and Flying Lawyer - - private (unadopted) road so he had no come back, and I'm still pals with my neighbours.
Fully support the views of BEagle here - not that he needs them.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags
Following your retirement from the Service, why not apply to become a JP?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/law/becom...gistrate.shtml
Following your retirement from the Service, why not apply to become a JP?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/law/becom...gistrate.shtml
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...understand that the working title for the film about the Ingrams is 'Great Expectorations'
The so-called 'unedited' version of WWTBAM was anything but. Apparently Maj I was taking up to 1/2 an hour to decide on some of his answers in real time - all of the shows are, in fact, distilled from the very long time taken to film an episode.
Legal question (seriously) - if Maj I is found guilty in his forthcoming case for insurance fraud, will he also have to serve the suspended sentence from the coughing case? Or will the legal position be that the 'alleged' insurance offence took place before he received the suspended sentence?
On the Tony Martin case; I suppose he would indeed have been hailed as a hero in the USA for defending his property. But then, we are talking about a country where the loser gets in to the White House, the family behind the Presidency has links with the Bin Laden family - oh yes, and at least one state has a legal defence for murder in that the victim 'Needed killing'. So that's all right then.
The so-called 'unedited' version of WWTBAM was anything but. Apparently Maj I was taking up to 1/2 an hour to decide on some of his answers in real time - all of the shows are, in fact, distilled from the very long time taken to film an episode.
Legal question (seriously) - if Maj I is found guilty in his forthcoming case for insurance fraud, will he also have to serve the suspended sentence from the coughing case? Or will the legal position be that the 'alleged' insurance offence took place before he received the suspended sentence?
On the Tony Martin case; I suppose he would indeed have been hailed as a hero in the USA for defending his property. But then, we are talking about a country where the loser gets in to the White House, the family behind the Presidency has links with the Bin Laden family - oh yes, and at least one state has a legal defence for murder in that the victim 'Needed killing'. So that's all right then.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aytoo
It depends on what conditions the judge imposed, on suspending Ingram's prison sentence. Normally, the judge will inform the defendant that if he commits and is convicted for an imprisonable offence during the period of the suspended sentence, he will be imprisoned.
Therefore, if Ingram committed the alleged insurance fraud, before he was sentenced in the 'Millionaire' case (and is found guilty), this will not affect his suspended sentence.
This does not, however, mean he will be out of the woods. In sentencing, the court may take account of any previous conviction and impose a more severe punishment, in the light of this. So, he could still end up in the clink.
Incidentally, Ingram may well plead 'not guilty' and argue that the publicity surrounding the previous case is likely to prejudice the outcome of his trial. In this event, the judge will probably warn the jury to disregard any knowledge they have of the previous case, to try the case on the facts and the trial will proceed as normal.
It depends on what conditions the judge imposed, on suspending Ingram's prison sentence. Normally, the judge will inform the defendant that if he commits and is convicted for an imprisonable offence during the period of the suspended sentence, he will be imprisoned.
Therefore, if Ingram committed the alleged insurance fraud, before he was sentenced in the 'Millionaire' case (and is found guilty), this will not affect his suspended sentence.
This does not, however, mean he will be out of the woods. In sentencing, the court may take account of any previous conviction and impose a more severe punishment, in the light of this. So, he could still end up in the clink.
Incidentally, Ingram may well plead 'not guilty' and argue that the publicity surrounding the previous case is likely to prejudice the outcome of his trial. In this event, the judge will probably warn the jury to disregard any knowledge they have of the previous case, to try the case on the facts and the trial will proceed as normal.
Last edited by Scud-U-Like; 3rd May 2003 at 02:15.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aytoo
Your legal question - if Maj I is found guilty in his forthcoming case for insurance fraud, will he also have to serve the suspended sentence from the coughing case?
No, he won't.
Scud
No. It doesn't "depend on what conditions the judge imposed."
The only condition attached to a suspended sentence is not to commit an imprisonable offence during the period of the suspension.
Your legal question - if Maj I is found guilty in his forthcoming case for insurance fraud, will he also have to serve the suspended sentence from the coughing case?
No, he won't.
Scud
No. It doesn't "depend on what conditions the judge imposed."
The only condition attached to a suspended sentence is not to commit an imprisonable offence during the period of the suspension.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Engerlund
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read yesterday the fool is 400 grand in debt, over his shennanigans.. do I care? No. Should you care? No
The dummy is just a common thief, and not a very good one at that, more importantly a complete disgrace to the Services.
As we used to say.. a complete waste of a service number.
The dummy is just a common thief, and not a very good one at that, more importantly a complete disgrace to the Services.
As we used to say.. a complete waste of a service number.
