Quote ="DoubleAone"Cas sack a young player for a conviction of assault. msnsport.skysports.com/story/0,1 ... 96,00.html Leeds stood by Bailey and Walker Who is right ?????'" Leeds decided the prison sentence handed down was enough punishment whereas cas obviously feel different in terms of the punishment to their player. Plus i agree with DPT.

Quote ="DoubleAone"Cas sack a young player for a conviction of assault. msnsport.skysports.com/story/0,1 ... 96,00.html Leeds stood by Bailey and Walker Who is right ?????'" Leeds decided the prison sentence handed down was enough punishment whereas cas obviously feel different in terms of the punishment to their player. Plus i agree with DPT.

Enough said.

I remain of the opinion that Bailey and Walker were high profile Leeds sportsman, in court far too soon after the Woodgate and Bowyer trial.

I believe that because of that proximity, their punishment was much harsher.

Quote ="DoubleAone"Cas sack a young player for a conviction of assault. msnsport.skysports.com/story/0,1 ... 96,00.html Leeds stood by Bailey and Walker Who is right ?????'" Don't know the full facts so hard to say, but from a point of principle, I reckon letting a kid keep his job playing rugby is going to be better than putting him on the street without a job. More likely not to get in trouble again if a rugby career depends on it, arguably more likely to get in trouble again if career prospects ruined. Re the Cockayne case - people need to stop saying sentences are too soft e.t.c. just from looking at some facts of a case. Unless you're in court to see and hear everything that is taken into account, commenting on an individual decision on the facts is not likely to amount to accurate criticism. Criticising the guidelines posted above is the only way to genuinely debate the issue IMO.

Quote ="DoubleAone"Cas sack a young player for a conviction of assault. msnsport.skysports.com/story/0,1 ... 96,00.html Leeds stood by Bailey and Walker Who is right ?????'" Don't know the full facts so hard to say, but from a point of principle, I reckon letting a kid keep his job playing rugby is going to be better than putting him on the street without a job. More likely not to get in trouble again if a rugby career depends on it, arguably more likely to get in trouble again if career prospects ruined. Re the Cockayne case - people need to stop saying sentences are too soft e.t.c. just from looking at some facts of a case. Unless you're in court to see and hear everything that is taken into account, commenting on an individual decision on the facts is not likely to amount to accurate criticism. Criticising the guidelines posted above is the only way to genuinely debate the issue IMO.

The problem is where is the consistency - surely if kicking some in the head for a first offence on camera is worth two years surely logically the same offence should get a similar tarif - the fact that one court can give a different sentence for the same offence is morally wrong

Difficult to cause trouble if you are in prison - also perhaps some amongst inmates might address some issues that Cockayne appears to have quicker than being free?

Sorry - I meant that in relation to the question of whether it was better to sack a player convicted or not, regardless of whether they go to prison or not.

For you to expect such consistency, you would be making the huge assumption that sentencing guidelines were the only factor in consideration.

I would suggest that the political system can be a more important wild card when it plays.

Well said.

What do people want a prison sentence for?

A deterrent? Studies show it doesn;t work.

Rehabilitation? I think the sentence given has more chance of that than a stretch inside and loss of career.

Punishment? That's one I find hard to argue against.

You see, I believe that the latter should be the primary objective of sentencing but that ideal requires financing and whilst I'd happily see my tax money spent I expect the ranters who pontificate on threads such as these wouldn't.

It used to be the case that kicking a prone victim in the head was a no no. Seems to have relaxed on that score.

However, like the bandit said, nobody on here knows the full facts and the judge did.

Oh, and bats, I don't do criminal work. Hourly rates are too low and the clients are scum bags who need locking up.

He never mentioned criminal work, and I know it would be too close to the bone for you, they might find out your a criminally lazy solicitor.

Edited for accuracy

Loss of freedom is surely the greatest punishment any of us is ever likely to incur - being told what to do when must surely be a greater punishment than having to do a few hours of community work?

There may well have been some circumstances but that should be explained in the judgement IMO let's face it 2 years for Walker is a hell of a lot more than a suspended sentence for what on the face of it were very similar offences

Prison doesn't work for habitual criminals who do not know another way of life - I would imagine if you talk to Chev his time in prison will had a profound effect on his life and I would imagine it would not be something he would wish to repeat. On the other hand another high profile sportsman was given a suspended sentence and has admitted doing something very similar at a later date.

I always smile when I read about the Legal profession extolling the need for prisoner rehabilitation, as opposed to the general publics desire for punishment to be the main reason for incarceration.

Prisoner rehabilitation has been a part of the British legal system since the late 1770's. and has been an abysmal failure ever since. Current re-offending costs us [url=http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/default.asp?pageRef=306£12 billion[/url

The wheels of justice may grind slowly, but after two centuries of failure, it is time for our Legal Eagle's to come up with a system a tad more effective.

Off course, that would mean less potential clients, but surely a price worth paying for a better society?

I would consrtuct a comprehensive, well constructed rebuttal but who will pay the £185 per hour?

How do you know it isn't? Have you read the judgment?

Is that all - that's what the big four accountants charge for a unqualified student - if you wanted a partner's view x 4 - I thought you legal eagles were the top dogs?

Is the judgement available as yet?

Accountants are rip off merchants who also break down their hourly rates into 4 15 min units.

Accountants always charge significantly higher than lawyers. Always have done.

I'll take that as a "no" then.

So why were you critizing the judge for not explaining something in his judgment when you've no idea what his judgment actually said?

......or did you just fancy a rant?

Not sure whether i missed this on the board but just seen it n Cas board see link below, cant believe how he got off with this and why he still has a job !! www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... ticle.html

Not sure whether i missed this on the board but just seen it n Cas board see link below, cant believe how he got off with this and why he still has a job !! www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... ticle.html

Jebus.

Talk about not knowing when a bloke has had enough.

Appalling. Truly appalling. He's lucky to have avoided a custodial sentence and if I were his employer he'd be receiving a P45 first thing in the morning.

The first punch/kick is more than enough !

Sickening...