Man lets girl 3 smoke
15 October 2009, 03:12 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man lets girl 3 smoke
15 October 2009, 03:31 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like WTF!!! 18 months of tax payer's cash wasted on a chap just for doing this???
They should have worked out if he was fit to be a father, and proceeded with the case from that direction. This way all that happens is we get to fit a large bill, and his daughter loses him as a father until he is out. What is the point?
Surely its more important to jail people who perpetrate violent offences rather than stick someone like that behind bars? A fine, or take the child into care, something like that must be more appropriate.
They should have worked out if he was fit to be a father, and proceeded with the case from that direction. This way all that happens is we get to fit a large bill, and his daughter loses him as a father until he is out. What is the point?
Surely its more important to jail people who perpetrate violent offences rather than stick someone like that behind bars? A fine, or take the child into care, something like that must be more appropriate.
15 October 2009, 03:31 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 16,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18 months? That's crazy! People get that for killing somebody in a car.
what about these people who let kids take a drink of their beer? 6 months inside for that?
I think the bloke is totally wrong but the sentence doesn't fit the crime at all. cigarettes are legal for adults to smoke after all.
what about these people who let kids take a drink of their beer? 6 months inside for that?
I think the bloke is totally wrong but the sentence doesn't fit the crime at all. cigarettes are legal for adults to smoke after all.
15 October 2009, 03:40 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: England
Posts: 2,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off subject, but isn't it legal for a minor to drink in there own home if the parents allow it? At least that's what my old man used to tell me.....
15 October 2009, 03:49 PM
#6
I'm glad this tw@t is locked up. Its about time we had some harsh sentancing for a change. That's whats all too wrong with this country people break the law and are let off too lightly. If people who kill someone in a car are only getting 18 months perhaps their sentances should be more severe too.
If only there were more judges like this, perhaps then Britain wouldn't as full to the brim with ars*holes as it is today.
If only there were more judges like this, perhaps then Britain wouldn't as full to the brim with ars*holes as it is today.
15 October 2009, 04:21 PM
#7
Lighten up people - get it?
A kiddy smoking a cigarette is a bloody laugh isn't it?
It's political correctness gone mad.
He said the kiddy had smoked cannabis - but it hadn't - he was just havin' a gee up!
Any body got any photos of their pets smoking or wearing clothes - that's bloody funny as well!
A kiddy smoking a cigarette is a bloody laugh isn't it?
It's political correctness gone mad.
He said the kiddy had smoked cannabis - but it hadn't - he was just havin' a gee up!
Any body got any photos of their pets smoking or wearing clothes - that's bloody funny as well!
Last edited by cster; 15 October 2009 at 04:22 PM.
Trending Topics
15 October 2009, 04:42 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad this tw@t is locked up. Its about time we had some harsh sentancing for a change. That's whats all too wrong with this country people break the law and are let off too lightly. If people who kill someone in a car are only getting 18 months perhaps their sentances should be more severe too.
If only there were more judges like this, perhaps then Britain wouldn't as full to the brim with ars*holes as it is today.
If only there were more judges like this, perhaps then Britain wouldn't as full to the brim with ars*holes as it is today.
If they are pushing the terminology that far to be used for a cigarette, then what happens if a parent feeds a toddler a turkey twisler to two. Is one OK, but two gets you six months?
How about some sweets? 2 OK, but 5 is wrong, and heaven forbid they get hold of the bag and have 10, cos that is time inside
15 October 2009, 05:37 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad this tw@t is locked up. Its about time we had some harsh sentancing for a change.
Allow me to explain.
IMHO locking someone up for what this guy did (assuming it's a first offence) is rediculous in the extreme. Firstly it'll serve as little deterrent and it likely to cause him to be resentful of the 'system' and society. I can't imagine why Community Service based disposal wasn't used or, better yet, a Probation Order requiring this individual to complete classes designed to teach social responsibility (i.e. to educate this cretin that such activities and similar activities are wrong).
The only way I feel a sentence of 18 months can be justified for this sort of crime is if you are getting 100 years+ for murder or rape and 5-10 years for setting about someone in the street unprovoked. It sickens me when I read about gangs of neds battering and stabbing innocent people and getting off with light sentences. The whole system needs way more balance IMHO and this case - on the face of it - serves to prove it somewhat. There is simply no way this is jail worthy IMHO.
All that said, I suspect there is more to the story - as always. I'm fairly sure that for a first offence the courts are legally bound to utilise non-custodial sentencing where viable alternatives exist. I don't see how the nature of this crime is, in it's own right, so series that Probation or a Community Service Order wouldn't suffice. In short, I suspect he's got a history of trouble and this was something of a 'final straw' that saw him packed off to the clink.
15 October 2009, 05:57 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
15 October 2009, 10:05 PM
#16
If you were to kill smeone whilst driving your car the maximum sentance is 6 months, yet he got 18months! It sort of makes a mockery of the british justice syste as I can gurantee there will be a story soon about some car thief involved in a chase and killing someone and not getting any jail term!
I read a few years ago about someone who knocked down and killed a young child on a zbra crossing and got a £180 fine and a 6 month ban, there was a bit of a memorial at the side of the road where the accident happened and some junkie took a teddy bear that was there and got 6 months!! How can killing someone get nothing but the taking of a memorial get that???
I read a few years ago about someone who knocked down and killed a young child on a zbra crossing and got a £180 fine and a 6 month ban, there was a bit of a memorial at the side of the road where the accident happened and some junkie took a teddy bear that was there and got 6 months!! How can killing someone get nothing but the taking of a memorial get that???
15 October 2009, 10:10 PM
#17
I agree with your second sentence but not the first...unless, the second sentence was to prove true.
Allow me to explain.
IMHO locking someone up for what this guy did (assuming it's a first offence) is rediculous in the extreme. Firstly it'll serve as little deterrent and it likely to cause him to be resentful of the 'system' and society. I can't imagine why Community Service based disposal wasn't used or, better yet, a Probation Order requiring this individual to complete classes designed to teach social responsibility (i.e. to educate this cretin that such activities and similar activities are wrong).
The only way I feel a sentence of 18 months can be justified for this sort of crime is if you are getting 100 years+ for murder or rape and 5-10 years for setting about someone in the street unprovoked. It sickens me when I read about gangs of neds battering and stabbing innocent people and getting off with light sentences. The whole system needs way more balance IMHO and this case - on the face of it - serves to prove it somewhat. There is simply no way this is jail worthy IMHO.
All that said, I suspect there is more to the story - as always. I'm fairly sure that for a first offence the courts are legally bound to utilise non-custodial sentencing where viable alternatives exist. I don't see how the nature of this crime is, in it's own right, so series that Probation or a Community Service Order wouldn't suffice. In short, I suspect he's got a history of trouble and this was something of a 'final straw' that saw him packed off to the clink.
Allow me to explain.
IMHO locking someone up for what this guy did (assuming it's a first offence) is rediculous in the extreme. Firstly it'll serve as little deterrent and it likely to cause him to be resentful of the 'system' and society. I can't imagine why Community Service based disposal wasn't used or, better yet, a Probation Order requiring this individual to complete classes designed to teach social responsibility (i.e. to educate this cretin that such activities and similar activities are wrong).
The only way I feel a sentence of 18 months can be justified for this sort of crime is if you are getting 100 years+ for murder or rape and 5-10 years for setting about someone in the street unprovoked. It sickens me when I read about gangs of neds battering and stabbing innocent people and getting off with light sentences. The whole system needs way more balance IMHO and this case - on the face of it - serves to prove it somewhat. There is simply no way this is jail worthy IMHO.
All that said, I suspect there is more to the story - as always. I'm fairly sure that for a first offence the courts are legally bound to utilise non-custodial sentencing where viable alternatives exist. I don't see how the nature of this crime is, in it's own right, so series that Probation or a Community Service Order wouldn't suffice. In short, I suspect he's got a history of trouble and this was something of a 'final straw' that saw him packed off to the clink.
It's clear cut for me. This tail encouraged a 3 year old, not a 13 year old, a THREE year old to smoke for a laugh and then bragged she'd smoked a few before. How can this not be anything other than jail term? She was three years old for god sake!!!
That's why this country's in the sh*t it is because we're too bloody tolerant. It's about time a hard line was drawn. I cant beleive most of you think that encouraging a 3 year old to smoke is deemed ok or deserves a slapped wrist and some community service. I'm bloody appauled by it and I'm glad that for once a judge has had the ***** to step up to the plate and set an example the rest of them should follow.
Perhaps then old dears can pop to the shops for a pint of milk without having to worry about gangs of youths terrorising her. "Wronguns" are getting away with way too much these days. Tougher sentancing will make britain a great place to live once more because at the moment it sucks because people have no respect nd think they can do whatever the hell they want. Tougher sentancing FTW!!!
15 October 2009, 11:00 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's clear cut for me. This tail encouraged a 3 year old, not a 13 year old, a THREE year old to smoke for a laugh and then bragged she'd smoked a few before. How can this not be anything other than jail term? She was three years old for god sake!!!
That's why this country's in the sh*t it is because we're too bloody tolerant. It's about time a hard line was drawn. I cant beleive most of you think that encouraging a 3 year old to smoke is deemed ok or deserves a slapped wrist and some community service. I'm bloody appauled by it and I'm glad that for once a judge has had the ***** to step up to the plate and set an example the rest of them should follow.
Perhaps then old dears can pop to the shops for a pint of milk without having to worry about gangs of youths terrorising her. "Wronguns" are getting away with way too much these days. Tougher sentancing will make britain a great place to live once more because at the moment it sucks because people have no respect nd think they can do whatever the hell they want. Tougher sentancing FTW!!!
That's why this country's in the sh*t it is because we're too bloody tolerant. It's about time a hard line was drawn. I cant beleive most of you think that encouraging a 3 year old to smoke is deemed ok or deserves a slapped wrist and some community service. I'm bloody appauled by it and I'm glad that for once a judge has had the ***** to step up to the plate and set an example the rest of them should follow.
Perhaps then old dears can pop to the shops for a pint of milk without having to worry about gangs of youths terrorising her. "Wronguns" are getting away with way too much these days. Tougher sentancing will make britain a great place to live once more because at the moment it sucks because people have no respect nd think they can do whatever the hell they want. Tougher sentancing FTW!!!
Now I agree 100% with what you are saying that this guy's crime was bad. However, if I had to choose between someone making my toddler smoke a few **** for a laugh or bite his/her ear off when she's in his/her 20's then I'd choose the former. Like I said, if this smoking thing is worth 18 months then, IMHO, biting someone's ear off is worth 5 years+. Until their is balance, I view 18 months as excessive and ridiculous.
I'm all for getting tough, but I believe we need to get tough in the right places. People that peddle dangerous and addictive drugs, that rape or molest people, or cause them physical harm or intentional/negligent death, need to be dealt with harshly. Similarly people that go looking to cause trouble or clearly carry a knife or weapon with the intention of using it, need to be dealt with harshly. People making stupid choices or showing a lapse in character or otherwise good behaviour should not, IMHO. Note, given the sentence I doubt this was a lapse in 'good character' on this occasion. There's more to this story than is reported I believe. Thus, this is not a first offence
Last edited by LG John; 15 October 2009 at 11:02 PM.
15 October 2009, 11:09 PM
#19
BANNED
It's clear cut for me. This tail encouraged a 3 year old, not a 13 year old, a THREE year old to smoke for a laugh and then bragged she'd smoked a few before. How can this not be anything other than jail term? She was three years old for god sake!!!
That's why this country's in the sh*t it is because we're too bloody tolerant. It's about time a hard line was drawn. I cant beleive most of you think that encouraging a 3 year old to smoke is deemed ok or deserves a slapped wrist and some community service. I'm bloody appauled by it and I'm glad that for once a judge has had the ***** to step up to the plate and set an example the rest of them should follow.
Perhaps then old dears can pop to the shops for a pint of milk without having to worry about gangs of youths terrorising her. "Wronguns" are getting away with way too much these days. Tougher sentancing will make britain a great place to live once more because at the moment it sucks because people have no respect nd think they can do whatever the hell they want. Tougher sentancing FTW!!!
That's why this country's in the sh*t it is because we're too bloody tolerant. It's about time a hard line was drawn. I cant beleive most of you think that encouraging a 3 year old to smoke is deemed ok or deserves a slapped wrist and some community service. I'm bloody appauled by it and I'm glad that for once a judge has had the ***** to step up to the plate and set an example the rest of them should follow.
Perhaps then old dears can pop to the shops for a pint of milk without having to worry about gangs of youths terrorising her. "Wronguns" are getting away with way too much these days. Tougher sentancing will make britain a great place to live once more because at the moment it sucks because people have no respect nd think they can do whatever the hell they want. Tougher sentancing FTW!!!
15 October 2009, 11:11 PM
#20
It's clear cut for me. This tail encouraged a 3 year old, not a 13 year old, a THREE year old to smoke for a laugh and then bragged she'd smoked a few before. How can this not be anything other than jail term? She was three years old for god sake!!!
That's why this country's in the sh*t it is because we're too bloody tolerant. It's about time a hard line was drawn. I cant beleive most of you think that encouraging a 3 year old to smoke is deemed ok or deserves a slapped wrist and some community service. I'm bloody appauled by it and I'm glad that for once a judge has had the ***** to step up to the plate and set an example the rest of them should follow.
Perhaps then old dears can pop to the shops for a pint of milk without having to worry about gangs of youths terrorising her. "Wronguns" are getting away with way too much these days. Tougher sentancing will make britain a great place to live once more because at the moment it sucks because people have no respect nd think they can do whatever the hell they want. Tougher sentancing FTW!!!
That's why this country's in the sh*t it is because we're too bloody tolerant. It's about time a hard line was drawn. I cant beleive most of you think that encouraging a 3 year old to smoke is deemed ok or deserves a slapped wrist and some community service. I'm bloody appauled by it and I'm glad that for once a judge has had the ***** to step up to the plate and set an example the rest of them should follow.
Perhaps then old dears can pop to the shops for a pint of milk without having to worry about gangs of youths terrorising her. "Wronguns" are getting away with way too much these days. Tougher sentancing will make britain a great place to live once more because at the moment it sucks because people have no respect nd think they can do whatever the hell they want. Tougher sentancing FTW!!!
To be fair to Daz here, he's not just saying good to how this has been handled (and yes there could have been other ways of dealing with it), as it could be construed as being harsh compared to how other crimes are dealt with. I think the point is, pretty much most crime isn't treated harshly enough, more serious crime has to carry stiffer penalties, but equally we need to take a stand on more unsocial behaviour.
Maybe if we took certain 'minor' issues more seriously, we wouldn't have as many social problems as we have now. Respect and decent behaviour is going out of the window, and something needs to be done. While the punishment here seems excessive, that's maybe only because other punishments are so light, and that imo needs to change.
Last edited by Lisawrx; 15 October 2009 at 11:14 PM.
15 October 2009, 11:32 PM
#21
BANNED
Maybe if we took certain 'minor' issues more seriously, we wouldn't have as many social problems as we have now. Respect and decent behaviour is going out of the window, and something needs to be done. While the punishment here seems excessive, that's maybe only because other punishments are so light, and that imo needs to change.
15 October 2009, 11:35 PM
#22
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 increased the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from 10 to 14 years
'Death by dangerous driving' guidelines
16 October 2009, 09:15 AM
#23
Saxo Boy,
Totally agree. This sentance only seems harsh because the other sentancing hasnt been nearly harsh enough. Biting the blokes ear off for no apparent reason would be worthy of a custodial sentance in excess of 18 months. You toughen up sentancing properly and the 18 month sentance being discussed here would be deemed fair by most.
Totally agree. This sentance only seems harsh because the other sentancing hasnt been nearly harsh enough. Biting the blokes ear off for no apparent reason would be worthy of a custodial sentance in excess of 18 months. You toughen up sentancing properly and the 18 month sentance being discussed here would be deemed fair by most.
16 October 2009, 09:16 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
You've got it the wrong way round.
16 October 2009, 01:21 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By allowing anyone to smoke, the government is "causing unnecessary suffering or injury to health."
My bold:
My bold:
Originally Posted by BBC
Sentencing the Government, Judge David Wood said: "This sort of conduct could be very damaging to a person's health and could have all sorts of effects upon their future health. You have completely disregarded their safety and endangered them."
16 October 2009, 01:32 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Dazdavies. The plonker deserves a heavy sentence for such shameful behaviour, he was effectively placing that child in a situation which as the judge said would be likely to seriously affect her future health.
Someone like that should not be left anywhere near a child and he deserves to be heavily reminded of his real responsibilities. In any case he is not going to actually serve that full sentence of course.
I also can't believe someone thinking that a child or a pet smoking a cigarette as related above is a funny sight!
Les
Someone like that should not be left anywhere near a child and he deserves to be heavily reminded of his real responsibilities. In any case he is not going to actually serve that full sentence of course.
I also can't believe someone thinking that a child or a pet smoking a cigarette as related above is a funny sight!
Les
16 October 2009, 02:15 PM
#28
The longer that poor girl is away from her father the better imo, he can teach his 3 year old to smoke but I doubt he has bothered teaching her to read or potty trained her. It's no wonder there are so many kids starting school who cannot even string a coherent sentence together
Fukking **** er should be enrolled into military boot camp and have some common sense and decency drilled into him. At least then his daughter may have a chance in life rather than crack ***** mother of 3 at 16 future that awaits her now.
(rant over)
Fukking **** er should be enrolled into military boot camp and have some common sense and decency drilled into him. At least then his daughter may have a chance in life rather than crack ***** mother of 3 at 16 future that awaits her now.
(rant over)
16 October 2009, 02:27 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 October 2009, 02:45 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Dazdavies. The plonker deserves a heavy sentence for such shameful behaviour, he was effectively placing that child in a situation which as the judge said would be likely to seriously affect her future health.
Someone like that should not be left anywhere near a child and he deserves to be heavily reminded of his real responsibilities. In any case he is not going to actually serve that full sentence of course.
I also can't believe someone thinking that a child or a pet smoking a cigarette as related above is a funny sight!
Les
Someone like that should not be left anywhere near a child and he deserves to be heavily reminded of his real responsibilities. In any case he is not going to actually serve that full sentence of course.
I also can't believe someone thinking that a child or a pet smoking a cigarette as related above is a funny sight!
Les
There you go Les I knew we'd agree on something sooner or later
Last edited by Martin2005; 16 October 2009 at 02:46 PM.