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.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. 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
Council evictions begin
Comments
-
quite right; it illustrates my point exactly that crimes must be seen in the context of the situation and not in some theoretical context
so
if drugs have low impact then low sentences would be appropriate
but if drugs had high impact then high sentenece would be appropriate
(although it fact I believe we ought to decriminalise drugs and regulate them instead but that's another story)
But that is the point I am making, drug dealers are not dealt with harshly because there are too many of them and too few places in the slammer.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
What I don't understand is how they know the pair of shorts were plunder? You better watch out on Ebay:eek:
She pleaded guilty - so she accepted she did know....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 -
What you're failing to recognise is that a lot of people out there are not well-adjusted competent self-controlled individuals capable of making choices in their own best interests and maintaining consistent self-discipline.Loughton_Monkey wrote: »If that isn't "doing" enough, I don't know what is! In other words, every single person in this country has the absolute opportunity to feed and clothe themselves (however basic).
Self-harm and self-destructiveness come in many different forms. You probably find anorexia impossible to understand, and therefore dismiss it as something that shouldn't exist. Just let them starve, it's 100% self-inflicted. But even some of the top people have been bulimic.
Any probation officer will tell you of people who appear to take up the chance of rehabilitation, but suddenly after a while they think sod it, and throw it all away. Alcoholics go on the wagon, and then fall off the wagon. People quit smoking and go on diets for the good of their health, for a while, then relapse to the fags and cream cakes. People overspend when they know they're heading for trouble. It's all the same thing. People have aspects of their lives where they can cope and be in control, and other aspects where they can't. The human condition is not as we'd like it to be.
And some people can't hold down a proper job. You'd let them starve. Trouble is, they might go rioting and looting when they get hungry, so nothing solved really."It will take, five, 10, 15 years to get back to where we need to be. But it's no longer the individual banks that are in the wrong, it's the banking industry as a whole." - Steven Cooper, head of personal and business banking at Barclays, talking to Martin Lewis0 -
neverdespairgirl wrote: »She pleaded guilty - so she accepted she did know.
NDG we know she pleaded guilty, the question is was she so 'innocent' that she immediatley owned up?, did it have a tag on it? did her mate grass her up? We don't really know the facts (we don't even know if it was a first offence, although I am assuming it was). In your experience (I know it is not your game) but from the little we do know do you think that is a fair punishment?'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Is it the same for Ed Milliband? just like to hear you defend him
Red Ed like Cameron is a career politician.
Even though he went to a comprehensive school, a Labour ex-MP is reported as saying he never mixed properly with other students. (Luckily she is in the House of Lords so can get away with saying this.)
This is one of the major issues at the moment as regardless of where they were educated they have not lived or worked with "normal" people. Even the hated by lots Thatcher didn't didn't have this handicap.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
Red Ed like Cameron is a career politician.
Even though he went to a comprehensive school, a Labour ex-MP is reported as saying he never mixed properly with other students. (Luckily she is in the House of Lords so can get away with saying this.)
This is one of the major issues at the moment as regardless of where they were educated they have not lived or worked with "normal" people. Even the hated by lots Thatcher didn't didn't have this handicap.
What a totally pointless post, I am waiting for that other Blimp to extend the same courtesy to Milliband that he does to his revered leader.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
I think the people who are pleading guilty with the their legal council having minimum time to advise them and being put before 'hang them and flog them' magistrates (in the middle of the night) are probably the unfortunates in all this
I should imagine the bad boys will be pleading not guilty and hoping for a referral to a crown court judge, in fact I guess that there will soon be blanket not guilty submissions due to the sentences being handed out.
It doesn't quite work like that.
Magistrates' maximum powers are a bit less than hanging - 6 months' max per offence, and 12 months max in total (in most cases). Anything more than that, they have to send it to the Crown Court for sentencing.
Defendants on a first appearance following arrest and being produced by the police in court never get much more than that. I speak as someone who did my fair share of first appearances, Saturday, bank holiday and night courts as a baby barrister.
You normally get given the name of the Defendant, the name of the solicitor's firm, and the place. That's about it. Once in a while (perhaps in 20% of such cases) you get told the main offence involved.
The standard is to get a phone call from your clerk at 8am on a Saturday. "Miss Smith? Got two firsts at Uxbridge Mags for you today. One is called John Brown, second is David Jones. Solicitors are Dodgy High Street Firm & Co for both. OK?"
So you make tracks sharpish to Uxbridge Magistrates' Court. You grab a couple of Legal Aid forms, fill in the bits you know, ask the prosecutor for "Advance Disclosure" which usually amounts to the arresting officer's statement, the list of charges, and the Police National Computer Print Out. (Previous convictions, cautions, aliases, address, DOB).
You check you know the finer points of the offences with which they are charged - most of them are standard, say, theft, burglary, possession of drugs with intent to supply, driving while disqualified, assault occasioning actual bodily harm - and look up the finer points of the rarer offences - attempting to obtain leave to enter the UK by deception, for example.
Usually Mags' courts don't have conference rooms for Defendants in custody. So you go down to the cells, giving in your bags and mobile phone, etc, and have a shouted conference through the hatch on the cell doors with each of your clients.
You don't "hope" for a referral to a Crown Court judge. Offences fall into three catagories - summary only, which means they can only be tried in the Mags, indictable-only, which can only be tried in the Crown Court, and either-way offences, which can be tried in either.
Drink-driving, and common assault, are examples of summary-only offences. Rape, robbery and murder are indictable-only offences. Theft, or criminal damage over a certain amount, are either-way offences.
A Defendant has a right to opt to go to the Crown Court. The Magistrates can decline jurisdiction. Only if both Defendant and Maigstrates agree that the matter is suitable for trial in the Mags does it stay down. If either wants it to go up, it goes up.
With a summary-only offence or offences, the Defendant will be asked if he wants to plead. If he pleads guilty, he will either be sentenced, or the matter adjourned for sentencing or other necessary reports.
If it's an either-way offence, the Defendant is asked to give his "plea before venue". If he pleads guilty, the Magistrates will sentence or adjourn as above, unless they consider it's too serious for them to deal with it. If he pleads NG, he will be asked whether or not he elects to go to the Crown Court. If he opts to stay down, the prosecution gives its view as to whether it needs to go to the Crown Court or not.
With indictable-only offences, there is no plea, it's a briefer hearing. Only bail is considered, and the matter is then sent to the Crown Court for a preliminary hearing, usually a week later....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 -
NDG we know she pleaded guilty, the question is was she so 'innocent' that she immediatley owned up?, did it have a tag on it? did her mate grass her up? We don't really know the facts (we don't even know if it was a first offence, although I am assuming it was). In your experience (I know it is not your game) but from the little we do know do you think that is a fair punishment?
Actually, from the sentence, I'm assuming it definitely wasn't a first offence. But I don't know....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 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Dunno about Milliband, but Cameron was director of a media company for 7 years.
Maybe I could do that job, OK maybe marketing?
Street, could be anywhere, Boodle and Dunthorpe - Sale signs in tne window - Lacoste - sale signs in the window - JJB Sports p sale signs in the window ++++++ JD Sports - smashed in windows, shop completely empty - Sign unevenly hanging frm the front - It is not always as cool as you think to be the best sports shop in the world OK a bit of a Carslberg rip off
The ones I really feel sory for are the small independents.When rioters went on the rampage over the past week, the chain that suffered some of the worst damage was JD Sports.
Peter Cowgill, chairman of the successful clothing retailer, said as many as 30 of its stores were targeted and the clean-up and replacing lost stock will cost in excess of £10m. He said he was "depressed" by how quickly things had spiralled out of control. "Ultimately you have to have faith in the law and this resolving itself," he told Retail Week.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
They do have a right to house the son if it has been his home for the past 12 months and the fact that he is 18 entitles him to a tenancy in his own right.
If it were to actually happen they would be entitled to a 2 bed for mum an daughter and a bedsit or 1 bed or the son.
They have a "right" to house anyone. But not a duty.
If someone is intentionally homeless, they might be owed an interim duty in housing, but not a final one....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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards