Break The Silence Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 I wonder if Dave Penney has an alibi Still wouldn't mind seeing him publicly flogged for the hell he put me through last season... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forte_Baby Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Another factor is if they are kids there will be lots of pressure from the club and supporters to see the 2 suspects charged and alot more interest than your normal arson case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Under your Ken Clarke tap-on-the-wrist-and-call-it-evens, cut-price justice system, they're unlikely even to get a stern talking to. They'll probably be granted new identities - a fresh life to screw up. I suggest that the Labour supporting anti-Tory fool looks up who was in power when 3 of the 4 people (to my knowledge) to be given new identities were released. I've heard some stuff about the case (since one of the people investigating it goes down my Dad's local) I doubt they will get off with a slap on the wrist but I think a good lawyer could do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Not necessarily, it's an either way offence which means it can be heard in the Mags or Crown, depends on the individual circumstances of the case as to whether the magistrates feel their sentencing powers would be sufficient in the event of a conviction. Arson is 'criminal damage by fire' so it shouldn't be charged as anything else, if charged at all. This Linky suggests arson has to go to Crown Court (page 4). Not done any deeper reseach though as the boss is in work and I thought I should actually pretend to be doing what I'm paid for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgoo_84 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 This Linky suggests arson has to go to Crown Court (page 4). Not done any deeper reseach though as the boss is in work and I thought I should actually pretend to be doing what I'm paid for. I don't know who the author of the article is or what she does for a living but it's pretty vague. Most of the time arson will end up in the Crown Court but technically it is an offence that can be heard from start to finish in the Magistrates Court. When charged the Magistrates will take a number of factors into account when deciding whether they feel they can deal with it, they will take an early view of the evidence and decide whether they feel their sentencing powers (max 6 months) are sufficient should the defendant be convicted. Even if the Magistrates accept jurisdiction the defendant can elect for the matter to be heard in the Crown Court (which is normally the route taken) as there is statistically more chance of an acquittal in the Crown Court and even if convicted (by jury or on a guilty plea) while Crown Court judges have much stronger sentencing powers it would be likely that they wouldn't be as harsh as the Magistrates would if given a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsgrandad Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 I don't know who the author of the article is or what she does for a living but it's pretty vague. Most of the time arson will end up in the Crown Court but technically it is an offence that can be heard from start to finish in the Magistrates Court. When charged the Magistrates will take a number of factors into account when deciding whether they feel they can deal with it, they will take an early view of the evidence and decide whether they feel their sentencing powers (max 6 months) are sufficient should the defendant be convicted. Even if the Magistrates accept jurisdiction the defendant can elect for the matter to be heard in the Crown Court (which is normally the route taken) as there is statistically more chance of an acquittal in the Crown Court and even if convicted (by jury or on a guilty plea) while Crown Court judges have much stronger sentencing powers it would be likely that they wouldn't be as harsh as the Magistrates would if given a chance. I'd like to issue a complaint about the way this thread has progressed. It started life as an amusing collection of ideas for suitable retribution to be shown by these two (alleged) reprobates but has since degenerated into a meaningless debate about the (assumed) process of English law. Come on lads, grow up and return to what you do best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowl Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 I don't know who the author of the article is or what she does for a living but it's pretty vague. Most of the time arson will end up in the Crown Court but technically it is an offence that can be heard from start to finish in the Magistrates Court. When charged the Magistrates will take a number of factors into account when deciding whether they feel they can deal with it, they will take an early view of the evidence and decide whether they feel their sentencing powers (max 6 months) are sufficient should the defendant be convicted. Even if the Magistrates accept jurisdiction the defendant can elect for the matter to be heard in the Crown Court (which is normally the route taken) as there is statistically more chance of an acquittal in the Crown Court and even if convicted (by jury or on a guilty plea) while Crown Court judges have much stronger sentencing powers it would be likely that they wouldn't be as harsh as the Magistrates would if given a chance. give it a rest mcgoo, you're just a brew boy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgoo_84 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 give it a rest mcgoo, you're just a brew boy. Damn, I've been busted!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boboafc Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 (edited) I don't know who the author of the article is or what she does for a living but it's pretty vague. Most of the time arson will end up in the Crown Court but technically it is an offence that can be heard from start to finish in the Magistrates Court. When charged the Magistrates will take a number of factors into account when deciding whether they feel they can deal with it, they will take an early view of the evidence and decide whether they feel their sentencing powers (max 6 months) are sufficient should the defendant be convicted. Even if the Magistrates accept jurisdiction the defendant can elect for the matter to be heard in the Crown Court (which is normally the route taken) as there is statistically more chance of an acquittal in the Crown Court and even if convicted (by jury or on a guilty plea) while Crown Court judges have much stronger sentencing powers it would be likely that they wouldn't be as harsh as the Magistrates would if given a chance. If those found guilty are children how can they pay costs (now estimated at £100,000 I understand) ? Edited September 30, 2010 by BP1960 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underdog Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 If those found guilty are children how can they pay costs (now estimated at £100,000 I understand) ? By selling all the new toys that youngster get these days and expensive designer clothes to boot. However if they are manure/city fans, a public flogging is best at this age Or brand them with OAFC somewhere where all can see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 If those found guilty are children how can they pay costs (now estimated at £100,000 I understand) ? Even if they can't pay it all I think every little helps. Vietnamese sweatshops show the way. If it's a straightforward crime and punishment route, one of the positives I will take from the UAE is that there is simply no culture of theft or crime, even if a golden chance comes your way. I have heard numerous tales of people leaving wallets full of cash, cards etc and the taxi driver/bar staff or whoever going so far out of their way to get it back to the owner. It helps that most people here are honest anyway, but it also helps that a brush with the law can result in incarceration in a boling hellhole where your release date may as well be decided on a Dungeons and Dragons die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticMark Posted September 30, 2010 Share Posted September 30, 2010 I'd like to issue a complaint about the way this thread has progressed. It started life as an amusing collection of ideas for suitable retribution to be shown by these two (alleged) reprobates but has since degenerated into a meaningless debate about the (assumed) process of English law. Come on lads, grow up and return to what you do best. We didn't burn them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgoo_84 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 If those found guilty are children how can they pay costs (now estimated at £100,000 I understand) ? Simple answer - they can't! And therefore won't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayItLivo Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Simple answer - they can't! And therefore won't! Make the parents re-mortgage their houses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macca Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 It would be good if they were involved in rebuilding the boxes in some way. Repairing what they damaged in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Make the parents re-mortgage their houses. Much preferred the other gif!!! Who was it by the way, for, er, research purposes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 (edited) Make the parents re-mortgage their houses. Whilst I don't want to stereotype. Can you remortage a rented house whilst claiming housing and council tax benefit, smoking roll-ups, drinking cheap lager and shagging all day in an attempt to push another one out to claim yet more benefits? Edited October 1, 2010 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Whilst I don't want to stereotype. Can you remortage a rented house whilst claiming council tax benefit, smoking roll-ups, drinking cheap lager and shagging all day in an attempt to push another one out to claim yet more benefits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattsgrandad Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Whilst I don't want to stereotype. Can you remortage a rented house whilst claiming council tax benefit, smoking roll-ups, drinking cheap lager and shagging all day in an attempt to push another one out to claim yet more benefits? See what I mean lads - that's more like it - can always rely on the wit & humour of the Latics fans to brighten up a miserable grey day in Oldham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 I suggest that the Labour supporting anti-Tory fool looks up who was in power when 3 of the 4 people (to my knowledge) to be given new identities were released. I've heard some stuff about the case (since one of the people investigating it goes down my Dad's local) I doubt they will get off with a slap on the wrist but I think a good lawyer could do so. How's about the jumped-up wannabe quack goes easy on the personal insults? Alls I was saying is that given how the Tories are into their cut-price justice, the arsonists are likely to get off fairly lightly. Crime disproportionately affects the poor, about whom the Tories and Liberals do not give a toss. Okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 How's about the jumped-up wannabe quack goes easy on the personal insults? Alls I was saying is that given how the Tories are into their cut-price justice, the arsonists are likely to get off fairly lightly. Crime disproportionately affects the poor, about whom no polititian gives a toss. Okay? Fixed it for you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 2, 2010 Share Posted October 2, 2010 How's about the jumped-up wannabe quack goes easy on the personal insults? Alls I was saying is that given how the Tories are into their cut-price justice, the arsonists are likely to get off fairly lightly. Crime disproportionately affects the poor, about whom the Tories and Liberals do not give a toss. Okay? See there you go again, you didn't have to use this thread to spout your pro-Labour, faux-socialist, political points but you did. Only when someone who has actually looked up who got new identities (not for this thread I hasten to ask) points out the facts do you change your tune. If you want to argue about how much Labour cared about the poor we can (I'll conveniently forget about the 2 wars they started, so you will win) but let's do it somewhere else Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.