We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Landlady ordered to pay damages to serial rapist for clearing his flat after arrest
Comments
-
bitsnbytes wrote: »You maybe correct, however why is it that the rapist got a defence (possibly the top lawyers) paid for by the tax payers money and the landlady did not? If both broke the law, both should be treated as criminals and both should be entitled to the same level of legal aid.
Legal Aid is means tested....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
bitsnbytes wrote: »His sentences don't even add up, 4 years in 1976 and yet he was charged again in 1979?
Another shocking thing is that he was initially given only 4 years for a rape? :rolleyes:
He might have served time on remand before the conviction. I don't know about the 1970s, but now you are released after half a custodial sentence under 4 years.
The starting point for a rape sentence with no previous convictions is 7 years....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
neverdespairgirl wrote: »Legal Aid is means tested.
I get what you're saying, however from the looks of it, it seems like the rapist was rewarded. He has most probably been living on the tax payers contribution all his life, destroyed lives of few people and can sue people still using the money from the tax payers kitty. No problem for him, obviously he has no regrets or remorse for what he has done.Two reasons:
1. You must be financially eligible for legal aid
2. Legal aid is not generally available for matters arising out of running a business
I understand what you're saying from a legal standpoint, from a moral perspective it seems it is absolutely flawed. Considering the rationale for suing the landlady
I completely agree with previous posters that a slap on the wrist would have been sufficient.'It has caused problems between me and my wife,'
Again I understand, however for most people there is a breaking point where common sense fails to prevail and instinct takes over. For example, if you caught this jerk attacking your daughter or wife would your common sense prevail then? I'm sure for most men it would be instinct to seriously damage this chap. And what if in the bargain you broke his eye? As it stands he could sue you for it (with the tax payers money, since he is financially eligible for it) and you have to pay your own lawyers with your money.No - the LL had a *choice* - it was her own actions that landed her in court , not those of her tenant which were a separate matter.
You've posted elsewhere that you are thinking of letting property out yourself-maybe you need to sit down and have a serious think about that?
You have to be able to deal with tenants from all walks of life and cover your own back whilst doing so.Common sense, let alone business sense, surely?
From a moral standpoint, this entire story has left me with a very sick feeling.0 -
Doesn't that seem a little wrong to you? Released after half the sentence? He has destroyed the life of a woman. Perhaps I'm different in my thinking, however I strongly feel it has to be life for the first conviction. There is no reason for rape IMO.neverdespairgirl wrote: »He might have served time on remand before the conviction. I don't know about the 1970s, but now you are released after half a custodial sentence under 4 years.
The starting point for a rape sentence with no previous convictions is 7 years.
I'm confused, your id suggests you're a girl, would you be ok with this guy getting 4 years or maybe even 10 if he did this to you? God forbid it does, I hope it happens to no one0 -
bitsnbytes wrote: »Doesn't that seem a little wrong to you? Released after half the sentence? He has destroyed the life of a woman. Perhaps I'm different in my thinking, however I strongly feel it has to be life for the first conviction. There is no reason for rape IMO.
I'm confused, your id suggests you're a girl, would you be ok with this guy getting 4 years or maybe even 10 if he did this to you? God forbid it does, I hope it happens to no one
What kind of post is that? Total nonsense.
The issue isn't HIS crime but hers. The bottom line is that the landlord let herself into the property, check the tenants mail then removed his property. Of course there was going to be repercussions.The only thing worse than smug married couple; lots of smug married couples.0 -
Understand the post first, I was talking about the rapist and the fact that he got only 4 years and he has served lesser than that. This post had nothing to do with the landlady.BridgetJones wrote: »What kind of post is that? Total nonsense.
The issue isn't HIS crime but hers. The bottom line is that the landlord let herself into the property, check the tenants mail then removed his property. Of course there was going to be repercussions.
Perhaps you should apply a bit of "common-sense" tbs was talking about before calling other peoples post nonsense0 -
Putting aside who she removed the property of, which is what the judge would have had to do, only considering relevant evidence, the LL was in the wrong, end of. The court would have been told to ignore the fact the guy was imprisoned etc in the case because it's irrelevant. What they thought of this scum bag and what he deserves (removing what he uses to commit his crimes springs to mind) would have had to be ignored.One day I might be more organised...........
GC: £200
Slinkies target 2018 - another 70lb off (half way to what the NHS says) so far 25lb0 -
Fully understand that, if we completely ignore the fact that the tenant was a rapist and not in jail I'd completely understand that the LL was in the wrong. However in that case mostly both would be paying for their own lawyers. The problem I have here is that the rapist (most probably) never having done a decent days work in his life and living off tax payers hard earned money has the audacity to claim legal aid to sue someone else. The landlady on the other hand had to pay for the lawyers from her own pocket because she is not living on benefits. It's more the rapist is being rewarded, and the landlady penalised.Putting aside who she removed the property of, which is what the judge would have had to do, only considering relevant evidence, the LL was in the wrong, end of. The court would have been told to ignore the fact the guy was imprisoned etc in the case because it's irrelevant. What they thought of this scum bag and what he deserves (removing what he uses to commit his crimes springs to mind) would have had to be ignored.
The point is why entertain his requests for legal aid and to sue the landlord? Anyone can see his reason was a joke? I'm sure he must be surprised as well on receiving the aid. He has contributed nothing, taken away so much from society and stills wants to do further damage.
Perhaps I'm on a rant, however it just doesn't seem right to me. I understand the legal side of things, but it just doesn't seem right that he has won the case.0 -
bitsnbytes wrote: »......I understand what you're saying from a legal standpoint, from a moral perspective it seems it is absolutely flawed. Considering the rationale for suing the landlady I completely agree with previous posters that a slap on the wrist would have been sufficient..........
You're muddling your perspectives.
There is absolutely nothing moral in what you seem to be arguing for, which is in effect a two-tier legal system - one for "good" people, and one for "bad" people.
The LL unlawfully evicted a tenant, contrary to the law. It really is that simple.0 -
I think the landlady should do jail time
LOL0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards