Thief released after only 9 weeks - wonder why he gets preferential treatment?

I love his grounds for appeal "It was ok to fiddle expenses 'cos everyone else was was at it too". Shame it didn't succeed so the rioters could have claimed the precedent. The Mong should have got an extra 6 months for impersonating someone intelligent enough to sit in Parliament.

I do think a custodial sentence was inappropriate though, it would have been better to take back a very large chunk of the money he's had out of the system.
Just stop paying MPs at all, the way it used to be. That'll weed out those who are only in it for the money. Or go the whole hog and introduce martial law.
Lord Taylor, another one of the crooks has also been released, after serving less than 4 months of his 12 month sentence.

And we see Italian politics as being corrupt????
For all the problems with the PRC's legal system, at least they get to shoot these cnuts.
The day that the BBC ask a politician for the source of his wealth will be the day I start buying a Licence fee.
How can such no hopers make so much money shortly after leaving Parliament?
He shouldn't hav ebeen in nick anyway... hardly a danger to society.

Digging out canals and scrubbing spit off pavements 2 hours a day, 8 on weekends and bank holidays for a good 5 years yes, prison no.


And make sure that only the rich get to run the country.
The rich do run the country,and Parliamentary, so called" Democracy" is the piece of theatre that they hide behind whilst pulling the strings. Once you grasp this fact and drop the fantasy about your vote actually meaning something , you will be a proper grown up miserable cynic.


Book Reviewer
Hanningfield of all of them should have been kept in jail the longest because he denied his crime, and kept on denying it despite conviction and appeal. He maintains his innocence. This means that he has not understood or accepted that he is a thieving bastard. If he were not a "Lord" this would be seen as a resistance to rehabilitation. For his non-acceptance of the guilty verdict he gets the lightest actual time served behind bars. He also keeps his red leather seat in the Lords. Justice isnt being done, and is certainly not seen to be done.
Not wishing to take the outrage bus off the road (or to appear to be in support of early release schemes and the like), but...

Haningfield was sentenced to a total of 9 months in prison. All prisoners - Lord, knight of the realm or straightforward 'Mr' - can be released under Home Detention Curfew after they've served a quarter of their sentence. Haningfield was sentenced to 36 weeks and has been released on Home Detention Curfew (the reference to the tags in the BBC story linked in the original post). Last time I looked, 9 was a quarter of 36, so...

Taylor was jailed for a year right at the end of May (so let's say it was June) and has therefore been inside for three months - again a quarter of his sentence.

So it's not as though they've been treated in some priviliged fashion - they've been treated in just the same way as any prisoner a quarter of the way through a sentence of between 3 months and 4 years would be (assuming that the prisoner doesn't pose a risk, etc). The question which will be overlooked here is whether we should be letting anyone sent down for 4 years to get out of jail after 12 months - not least since the maximum time for which they can be on this Home Detention Curfew is 4 and a half months - so someone given four years for pushing granny over to nick her pension money and injuring her in the process could, in theory, in fact get a sentence of 16 and a half months, of which the last 4 and a half are served at home.

It's not politics being corrupt and 'helping out the chaps', but the various release schemes. Are Taylor and Haningfield a risk to the public (other than to their tax)? No? So keeping them in because they're Lords would probably leave them in a position to challenge the decision not to let them out, and get compensation for the imposition of further incarceration because of who they are, not the level of risk they pose... Chocolate Frog's right - it'd have been far better to stick the pair of them inside for a short period coupled with several months picking litter, scrubbing graffiti off walls, etc, etc, since doubtless some nasty little scrote who's done far worse has managed to evade prison because of a liberal-minded judge using the fact that the jails are full, etc, etc tagging him (for the scrote to remove said tag and attach it to his Mum's cat, which goes no further than the end of the garden these days)

Anyway, if someone could point me to the queue for tickets for the 'wider early release scheme abuses' outrage coach, I'd be grateful..

Edit - the fact that the pair of them remain Lords is rather rubbish as well - we should be talking about Mr Taylor, Mr Haningfield and Mr Archer (amongst others). They're not hereditaries and there should be automatic disqualification from the honour of a Life Peerage after conviction for this sort of offence. If Lester Pigott was stripped of his OBE, then the least these two clowns and Archer should be looking at post-jail is a reversion to their former, less elevated title.
Don't worry too much about the length of pokie, what will hurt the little bastards more is the fact that their political careers are over, and that their conviction of being a "criminal" will be branded on to their CV's for the rest of their greedy little life's.

Similar threads