It was a 6 month term, suspended for 18 months

Ah, someone's in bother then!

The other case is for a different crime and the two are not connected in anyway.
He has not been held on remand and I still reckon he has struck a deal with the CPS and will cop a bender. The other way would have dragged on for months if ........ the CPS had the funds to proceed. Pleading guilty gets rid of all this and the CPS will have saved oodles of dosh and get a result and at the end of the day that is the way this all works.

The prisons are full of people at the moment as well and I do mean full, would a prison sentence serve the public any good. I doubt that I really do a bloke who was fiddling his ebay account with dodgy bids to boost prices will get a £30K fine soon. I see this as no different its hardy the crime of the century, in fact its a bit petty and none too bright.

I would sooner courts stuck to putting people inside prison who need to be there, the law is there to correct, protect and punish offenders we do not live in the dark ages anymore.

in July 2008


Its spent now

Ah...he will walk then

The fact his two crimes are none related means nothing - they are 2 crimes. And I doubt CPS are that bothered about cutting a deal for financial purposes as the court will probably award costs in their favour.

Wasnt spent when he got charged

For all the debate this matter will provoke it's something that is hard to determine. The only consistent thing sorrounding sentancing is the inconsistancy.

but not at the time of the offence, which is how the magistrate should view it.

Of course he will they could have dealt with a guilty plea last year, but they left it until now so its nice and tidy to deal with.


This case is still sub judice by the way

Nope its when you are in court

and besides its not relevant as the two crimes are not connected

Charged is not guilty is it

English law:::::::::::

he has to be found guilty and then the presiding magistrate/judge will ask for anything known

[urlhttp://www.justice.gov.uk/criminal/procrules_fin/contents/rules/part_47.htm[/url The rules have also just changed on the 5th April 2010

we'll see, but I think you are wrong.

You've lost me on this point.

If i received a 6 month term for drink driving which was suspended for 12 months, and then robbed a TV from Tesco's 4 months later the Courts would have no option but to envoke the suspended and add on any sanction for the latest offence. The fact they are not related is irrelevant.

That would suggest it's ok to be a criminal providing you show a little inconsistancy in your offences.

Thankfully not our problem anymore.

The assault conviction in itself should've been enough for Hull to terminate his contract rather than waiting until the back end of last year.

Hear hear.

Raynor is not our player anymore but there are reasons to keep this going as it happened whilst he was a Hull player.

aint it about time he fecked off the banner!!!!

I fully agree.

Well said

Fair enough Ian, but £36k swindled out of people isn't small beer. And the courts don't (and shouldn't) make custody decisions on whether there's room. Is the prison ship still operating???

just off st andrews quay

I think his point was more that the prisons are full partly because of unnecessary imprisonments, like this would be if it happened, massively wasting resources.

What unneccessary about this racist crook going to jail?

And how much money would he have had to have defrauded the public of before you saw fit for him to go to jail? He would still be running his crooked business now if he hadn't got caught.