I want my family back but they hate me

Scuffer

paulineb wrote: »

The OP asked for advice on how to reconcile with his family

If he doesn't come back to the thread, I really wouldn't be surprised, at all.

There is only 2 people making up their own version of events because after all it was them who went to prison and not me. I'm not going to turn my back, most people here have been great. Its like everywhere you go in life you will cross a few bad apples. I learned how to deal with people like this so it just goes over my head.

ampersand

Well-answered, Scuffer - and that little 'love' is bound to have 'patronising' added to your sins:-)
Enjoy the match demain; I know what it means for your team.
George North has just scored a fabulous try for Wales, in which I take pleasure as fellow kiwi Gat is me in my rugby persona.
That's as relevant as much else you're seeing here.

ampersand

Scuffer wrote: »

There is only 2 people making up their own version of events because after all it was them who went to prison and not me. I'm not going to turn my back, most people here have been great. Its like everywhere you go in life you will cross a few bad apples. I learned how to deal with people like this so it just goes over my head.

#
- and again. Well done!

whodathunkit

Scuffer wrote: »

There is only 2 people making up their own version of events because after all it was them who went to prison and not me. I'm not going to turn my back, most people here have been great. Its like everywhere you go in life you will cross a few bad apples. I learned how to deal with people like this so it just goes over my head.

I've been thinking troll for some time - the possibility just seems to have increased.

Nicki

Scuffer wrote: »

I always said it was a significant amount which meant a significant role. You can look back through previous posts before you even brought it up to see i've said this. The amount was significant meaning a significant role, there was no evidence linking me to the drugs trade which i have also stated. They searched my house and analyzed my phone, finding no link to the drugs trade. I was sentenced because the amount was significant. I know more than you on this because it was me stood in the dock, not you

Funnily enough sweet pea (see I can do endearments too) the QUANTITY of drugs go to the category of the offence. It was the quantity which put you in category 4. The nature of your role isn't dependent on the quantity of the drug and is considered separately. To get to the sentence, the court cross refers category against role and gets a range, then decides where in the range to sentence based on factors such as the guilty plea, previous offences, evidence of good conduct, etc.

You are right. I haven't ever stood in the dock for drugs or any other charges. I've been in criminal courts lots of time however as a fully qualified solicitor, so although criminal law isn't what I now specialise in I do understand the sentencing process.

My initial assumption on what kind of drugs you had on you was based on the role you said you played. If you HAD played a lesser role, then your sentence would have made sense if the drugs had been in a higher category. As you have now specified what the category was, then to get that sentence, the role must have been greater. That's the sentencing trade off.

However you spin it, the sentencing guidelines are there for a reason. The judge can't just go off piste and hand out a much greater sentence off the top of his head, and if he or she tries to then the sentence is appealable.

As for your other threads, important as you are, believe it or not I haven't stalked you online to find out what other versions of this you have been posting. I commented on this thread based on what you posted on this thread, which started off being a story about being sentenced after you were duped into carrying a large bag of dope into a gig when you thought you were carrying a small bag for personal use in. Which you have now admitted isn't even close to being the full story.

And my reason for posting was in defence of your parents who are being roundly traduced by a large number of posters. Given that someone earlier in the thread knows your identity based on the details you have given, it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that your parents or their friends are reading this thread, knowing that it refers to them as parents and are reading pages and pages of spite and condemnation based on a one sided and not completely frank version of events. Is that fair on them?

Scuffer

ampersand wrote: »

Well-answered, Scuffer - and that little 'love' is bound to have 'patronising' added to your sins:-)
Enjoy the match demain; I know what it means for your team.
George North has just scored a fabulous try for Wales, in which I take pleasure as fellow kiwi Gat is me in my rugby persona.
That's as relevant as much else you're seeing here.

I think i'll pull the plug if it gets further out of control. I'm sensible enough now to not let things get out of control, the intention of this thread was to help me find a way of getting my family to talk to me, not to try prove me wrong or to say i'm minimising my role. 22 months sat in a cell gives you plenty of time to think and in my thinking time i accepted what i did. It would be an insult to myself if i was still trying to minimize what happened over 2 years ago. I'm trying to forget my past now, by assuming i am creating this whole minimal role after the amount of time behind me would be like me going backwards and not forwards. My direction in life now is forward, i've been dragged back as far as possible. I set myself goal, to get back on terms with my family, find a job and get back to finishing my degree. These are my ambitions and the only objectives i am looking at. I came here to find advice about employment and found a forum regarding families, i need advice on getting my family back as well and chanced my luck on someone reading this who has been in a similar position. Some people wish to drag me through the hedge backwards but i'm too strong now! I've been dragged backwards to the point my strengths are now only moving forward and if they wish to argue or try bring me down, then let it be because this is life and some people like to kick a dog when its already down

ampersand

He who has made no mistakes has made nothing, as you - Nicki, solicitor[fully-qualified, fancy that!well done to you, too]should know, for yourself and your profession.
Now Ignore button company for tw.
##########
10 hits on the Thanks button, par contre, for your post 127, Scuffer.
Yes, I think you need to be Wales, not Scotland atm: 37-3 and playing beautifully.
Pull the plug on this one any time.
We support you wherever.

Scuffer

Nicki wrote: »

Funnily enough sweet pea (see I can do endearments too) the QUANTITY of drugs go to the category of the offence. It was the quantity which put you in category 4. The nature of your role isn't dependent on the quantity of the drug and is considered separately.

You are right. I haven't ever stood in the dock for drugs or any other charges. I've been in criminal courts lots of time however as a fully qualified solicitor, so although criminal law isn't what I now specialise in I do understand the sentencing process.

My initial assumption on what kind of drugs you had on you was based on the role you said you played. If you HAD played a lesser role, then your sentence would have made sense if the drugs had been in a higher category. As you have now specified what the category was, then to get that sentence, the role must have been greater. That's the sentencing trade off.

However you spin it, the sentencing guidelines are there for a reason. The judge can't just go off piste and hand out a much greater sentence off the top of his head, and if he or she tries to then the sentence is appealable.

As for your other threads, important as you are, believe it or not I haven't stalked you online to find out what other versions of this you have been posted. I commented on this thread based on what you posted on this thread, which started off being a story about being sentenced after you were duped into carrying a large bag of dope into a gig when you thought you were carrying a small bag for personal use in. Which you have now admitted isn't even close to being the full story.

Well to once again contradict you it is written in this thread and you haven't read it. You know the law better than the judge who sentenced me. If someone is found with a significant amount of drugs, a judge would only see it as a minimal role and sentence on that basis. Of course that makes sense... I mean wow you are really this stupid? Significant amount = minimal role = minimum sentence. That defies logic. If being this dumb was a criminal offense, you my love would be going down for life. Unfortunately on this occasion you are wrong, very wrong and so proved.

Tiddlywinks

No one is trying to bring you down.

From my perspective I have said that you need to appreciate the angst, disappointment, embarrassment etc that you've caused your family.

Once you understand and appreciate that then you can try to demonstrate your understanding and remorse to them.

I have given an honest observation that you do make 'excuses' for the offence - your parents don't need excuses, they need apologies - ask them what you can do to make it better.

Even your last response here is full of 'I've had it hard and it's made me stronger' etc etc... rather than, 'gosh I now see how difficult this must have been for my parents... I am so sorry for them, how can I make it better for them'.

I hope you can see the difference - you are currently focusing on how your estrangement is hurting you NOT how what has happened is hurting your family.

That is my interpretation.

ampersand

Scuffer, you're feeding them and getting provoked by same.
Edit your last para and pull plug. OK?
###
'It rains tries at the Millennium Stadium' 44-3, conversion missed.