RobJenks

Check out the facts of this case in Manchester .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-000-home.html

The Dogs B******s

The judge was scared of him, he's got Ninja's in his family

RA Dunk

Another case of soft touch Britain...

lordharding

iTrader: (1)

Just crazy this

wrx300scooby

Spineless!!!!

scunnered

iTrader: (1)

So why couldn't the judge order his other two properties to be forfeited?

I can't understand why four life sentences means just nine years before parole. That's just 2¼ years for each life sentence.

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

He got FOUR LIFE SENTENCES and he has to serve 9yrs before parole, is it me or does the maths not add up.

As for the family, yeah they obviously had no part what so ever in his wrong doings.

British justice is ridiculous, the police spend 90% of their time chasing motorists, petty criminals and drug users, in the name of "social impact" make a bomb blow up innocent people, go to Afganistan shoot at soldiers or encourage others to do so and it's all good, you get to keep your houses and live the life of riley.

Carnut

Surely if their was three generations of his family living in the house then a few if not all would have known about the goings on in the house.

tony de wonderful

He's a landlord - say no more.

LSherratt

iTrader: (1)

His family are wearing strange costumes....

Felix.

I thought it would be blamed on the police at some point. Wasn't the prosecution brought by the police in the first place!!!!

If you think i spend 90% of my time on motorists, then you don't know how the police work at all

Mouser

Not in Manchester they aren't!

Carnut

Well assuming that your a copper I think in this day and age you need all the support you can get.

It is my understanding that the highways are considered as rat runs for criminals so its a very effective way to catch criminals.

The problem with the system is that the police are best suited to catch people in the system and as soon as you step out of said system then their is little they can do. Even if they are able to convict a drug dealer for example they can't really punish them. If they give them a big fine then send them to prison all that happens is 8 months later their back at home living the same life with the only difference being that the public now have to pay their fine at a rate of £10 a week.

If Joe public get caught for being I little bit naughty, say going a bit to fast on a empty road in a car that can more than handle the speeds their doing then they can end up losing their licence. This could result in them losing their job and costing them thousands in fines and hyped insurance. In a extreme case they could even lose their house and life style, maybe even their family. All because they drove down a motorway in a car that is far more advanced than the cars that were about at the time the limit was introduced on a empty motorway.

Sorry going of subject abit here and in this case the man was in the system . I should also say sorry to the copper that I tried to help but let's face it the system is mad . But thanks for your protection none the less.

neil-h

Try and rationalise it however you want but speeding is an easy crime to police and it's an easy one to avoid.

Turbohot

I can't quite understand that if judge says............>

......then why can't this man still be ordered to sell this family house to pay the trial cost, but before he does that, he can sell his rented out 'unsuitable for family" properties, and with the money he gets for his flats can buy another house for the family. This way, everyone is happy.

Ok, selling sh4t may take some time, but at least he will end up paying for what he should, really. Otherwise, how will he? By going on Direct Debit and paying all his income via rented flats? May be that's what he will do.

Carnut

Yes your right but what I am saying is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime in some cases. There are other crimes that are easy to prove but to much red tape so the career criminal can get away with it.

A quick example is that me and my family were forced to abandon our home because the drug dealer next door was smashing our windows and my car to bits. This was all because a hard working family (me) was helping the local council and police to catch them. I should also mention that my son who was about 6 months at the time was nearly killed by a brick that came through the window along with some glass. All was caught on camera and in the end I lost thousands and had to up root my family and the criminal got a bigger house after they had spent thousands on doing the house next to mine up, all free of charge I would like to add. Well not free but paid for by YOU.

tony de wonderful

So in other words the family are 'economically inactive' and do bugger all then? Being a landlord is not a 'livelihood'.

Turbohot

Sorry, I missed that.

So, they could be hoping that he does pay back via his financial gains from renting out his properties? Even on DD with 50 quid a month or so? One way or the other, they perhaps have a plan to get the trial cost back off him.

tony de wonderful

Maybe, because the idea that a family are facing ruin because some of them might have to get jobs is absurd right?

Criminals have more rights that welfare claimants it seems?

Turbohot

Or, family will claim state benefits if his rented flats are sold for paying off the trial cost?

Perhaps the judge thought that instead of creating the opportunity for more foreigners to claim benefits, it's better if they continue to earn their own money via incoming rents, and pay off the trial cost on a tap?

tony de wonderful

Rent isn't earned money. It's substantively exactly the same as claiming welfare. Either way you are a drain on society.

Turbohot

OK, but at least the judge let them not to go up another controversial drain i.e. state benefits. That could have been his point? May be he was just scared of the culprit's beard.

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

Of course it's earned money, some mug who can't afford to buy rents a house off a capitalist pig who then earns loads a money.

A touch of the green eyed monster.

tony de wonderful

Earned by doing what?

How can money for doing nothing be earned?

Are welfare handouts 'earned'?

Turbohot

Right, I know a person who spent a lot on his qualifications and got a well-paid job with crucial responsibilities. His good wage allowed him to save up and buy another house to rent. He invested his hard earned savings over the years in that house to rent. Now, he still needs to maintain it by occasionally spending on it while the rent keeps coming in on monthly basis to him, so I would call that rent an earning.


Am I wrong?


I am sure you explained this before, but I've forgotten. Can you please explain again, TDW?

Turbohot

Also, are hire companies also a drain to society who keep hiring their equipment by just investing once, and then all they have to do is maintain the equipment for hire?


What about taxi companies, airliners and alike who invest once and then reap the benefits all their life just by maintaining their rentable goods to public?

What about unmanned Thomas the Tank and Postman Pat toy things in which you have to put .50p a go to stick your child on? They are also just there to please the kids for money, but there's no one working as lifting their legs and arms to continue to operate them? What about arcades full of games? What about ten-pin bowling places?

I have to say I never won any teddy with that hook thing in any arcade, ever! Total waste of money.

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

As above one works to buy property then gets an income from said property out of which the owner has to pay for general maintenance etc, it's a recognised business hence banks providing loans, as in buy to let.

Yes, welfare handouts are earned through paying into the system, well for some of us at least, the vast majority do **** all for them unfortunately.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

tony de wonderful

Rent is always money for not doing something. In this case not exercising a right to kick someone out of the house you own.

That the right costs money to purchase (unless you inherit it) is purely contingent. When you live off the labour of your tenants the substantive relationship (which is masked by the cash relationship) is completely exploitative, safe for minor costs of maintenance and so on and so forth which is just a small part of the rent.

By your logic if I had to pay you rent to breath air in Manchester then you would be 'earning' that money and running a 'business'. But what wealth is created?

tony de wonderful

Land isn't capital like a plane or a taxi. It was created by nature.

You need to separate the house (bricks and mortar) from the land conceptually.

Land was originally seized and called private property. It is no more just than slavery.

Turbohot

The land was originally seized, but that seized land was further turned into a commodity, I get that. As a result, the land continues to be bought and sold, so is the bricks and mortar house on top of it. This is what happens in this century. Land is a commodity. It's not free, it's bound by the limitations as countries, states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, colonies and private land pieces with or without the houses on them.

So in today's times, one has to buy the land with their hard-earned money in order to make a BTL house. Land doesn't come free anymore. So I can't see how it is slavery?