Named and shamed - Neil Munkley, Poppy Collection thief

Crime and punishment......

  • Appropriate sentence

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Shoot him........no, you berk....the JUDGE!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • My sentence? specify

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pointless criminalisation of a sick man

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • well.....realistically...what else ?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#2
The thief is a despicable waster who should be used as a Fig 11.

This is another example of the judicial system being more concerned about understanding the criminal and not condemning him and his actions.
 
#9
He is ordered to attend a drug rehabilitation clinic, which he will no doubt do 2 sessions the b*gger off.
Why is he not jailed "At her Majesty's pleasure" until he is proven to be off the drugs. At least that way, there is a chance that some of the sentence will be carried out. If the Police cannot keep an eye on people who break parole conditions etc, are they really going to bother with this scrote.
Gadge
 
#10
The newspaper article states that the money in the box should have gone to soldiers and their families. Did I miss out when I was in, cos they never gave me anything?
 
#12
doofy said:
No mention of paying back the £800


judge was as big an ars*hole as the thief
That's the thing.

I am not surprised that the cnut isn't sent down but in all honesty cnuts like this don't get it. They are just swimming in a cesspit of their own making.

Shoot the fcuker and do every one (including the gene pool) a favour.
 
#13
FFS typical, spend a fortune catching criminals,illegal imigrants, Pirates, ect and then let them go free, the lunacy just goes on and on, the chimps realy are running this zoo
 
#14
No point naming and shaming people who don't understand shame!

It is almost as if courts now regard people who choose to take drugs as not responsible for their actions!

Approximate guess at costs: £800 to the RBL, £800 to legal aid, £500 to his few attendances at drug referral, £500 police time, at a guess £2600 spent on a scumbag who will probably be back in court next week and the week after!

Makes 12 rounds £5 look a bargain!
 
#15
There shouldn't be any leniancy because the criminal scum has had a sh1t life.

It should be straight forward... you stole eight poppy tins (or whatever).

You'll be taken out to the high street tommorrow and birched 50 times, you WILL pay back th e£800 to the RBL and for the costs of this trial and any food and accomodation you have thus far received.

What's that Mr Defence Lawyer, you think that he should have his drug addiction taken in to account? Fair one, you can have 10 of his lashes.
 
#16
chocolate_frog said:
There shouldn't be any leniancy because the criminal scum has had a sh1t life.

It should be straight forward... you stole eight poppy tins (or whatever).

You'll be taken out to the high street tommorrow and birched 50 times, you WILL pay back th e£800 to the RBL and for the costs of this trial and any food and accomodation you have thus far received.

What's that Mr Defence Lawyer, you think that he should have his drug addiction taken in to account? Fair one, you can have 10 of his lashes.
Exactly

Imagine going to court for speeding and pleading that there were mitigating circumstances - well I was drunk at the time!!!!
 
#17
tropper66 said:
FFS typical, spend a fortune catching criminals,illegal imigrants, Pirates, ect and then let them go free, the lunacy just goes on and on, the chimps realy are running this zoo
Agreed - and with many of the other comments.

Would appear that the magistrate / sentencing powers indicate that there is absolutely no deterrent to others whatsoever.

Can't tell from the online version, as there is no mention of previous convictions. If there was a string of previous, it really does make one wonder what you have to do before the punishment really does fit the crime?

For example, what punishment would be handed out, if someone with no previous were to slot the Home Secretary I wonder?
 
#18
The 12 month community order hasn't been mentioned - are they really that insignificant?

He should be made to pay back the £800, and as possession of class A drugs is an offence, I hope he gets done for that too.
 
#19
vampangua said:
...........He should be made to pay back the £800, and as possession of class A drugs is an offence, I hope he gets done for that too.
Good idea, pay the money back. Problem is, this scrote is probably (almost certainly) unemployed and on benefits. Ergo, we give him the money to pay back.
I like the idea of a "Majesty's pleasure" style sentence with release, on licence, when clear of drugs.
 
#20
vampangua said:
The 12 month community order hasn't been mentioned - are they really that insignificant?

He should be made to pay back the £800, and as possession of class A drugs is an offence, I hope he gets done for that too.
Of course he won't. :roll:
 

Latest Threads

New Posts