Have a look at this.

  • Thread starter Thread starter DM
  • Start date Start date
3 Months hahahaha, I hope he sleeps safely knowing that about 200 other inmates want to be special friends.
 
He's gonna have fun in jail :D.


I don't really get the "In-Charge" law. So what if you're in a car asleep, not intending to drive, but have over 80mg of Alcohol in your blood? And what exactly is the difference between that and being asleep in your car, still not intending to drive, but with only 79mg of Alcohol? I guess that at 79mg you should wake up and drive as with that one less milligram you're blatantly still the Stig and A-OK to drive!

Also how on earth can you prove that you didn't intend to drive the vehicle in your current state? Just because you have the means doesn't mean you've got the motive! And what ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?


Disclaimer: I'm all for the police removing dangerous drivers from the roads. Whether they're dangerous through excessive alcohol consumption, drugs, or just a really **** driver.
 
Last edited:
6 months.

He will do 3 weeks max in a mainstream jail as it is very likely he will qualify for Cat D status, ie is not an escape risk or a threat to the public.

He will then move to a Cat D and will serve half and be out after 3 months with a tag.
 
Shocking that he got such a small sentence. Also he should be serving 6 months in a normal prison so he gets to see the justice he USED to serve.

Pathetic excuse for a police officer. And in some of the articles it clearly states he had run ins before about his behaviour.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
6 months.

He will do 3 weeks max in a mainstream jail as it is very likely he will qualify for Cat D status, ie is not an escape risk or a threat to the public.

He will then move to a Cat D and will serve half and be out after 3 months with a tag.
Click to expand...

exactly

he will be in an open prison before you can say Cell Block H
 
Because he should be given a tougher sentence because he broke the law he was meant to be an example of. Taxpayers money shouldn't come into it when sentencing.
 
DAvE18 said:
Because he should be given a tougher sentence because he broke the law he was meant to be an example of. Taxpayers money shouldn't come into it when sentencing.
Click to expand...

He's had a much tougher sentence than the vast majority of people who get charged with ABH.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
At Dave, why should someone who is not an escape risk be kept in a more secure prison at a much greater cost to the taxpayer ?

Punishment on top of punishment ?
Click to expand...

Much as i dislike this bloke, you are right, his punishment is loss of liberty, he aint there to be punished further.

I just hope he gets a few digs while he is in there.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
He's had a much tougher sentence than the vast majority of people who get charged with ABH.
Click to expand...

Thats the second time you have said that, of course he is going to get more, hes a copper.

Tell the truth do you in some way feel sorry for this bloke, just curious.

And thinking about it i dont think he did get any more than an average 37 year old ex army bloke would get for bashing a woman of pension age.
 
Last edited:
DAvE18 said:
Because he should be given a tougher sentence because he broke the law he was meant to be an example of. Taxpayers money shouldn't come into it when sentencing.
Click to expand...

Can you be more specific when you say a tougher sentence ?

Does that mean he should get countless beatings, slashed with a double razor or maybe jugged with boiling water and sugar ? I ask because that is exactly what lifers with nothing to lose may do if he is not kept from the population and kept in a higher security prison that houses them.

That punishment does not fit his crime depite my utter disdain for his actions.
 
DiamondMark said:
Thats the second time you have said that, of course he is going to get more, hes a copper.

Tell the truth do you in some way feel sorry for this bloke, just curious.
Click to expand...

I feel that he should be treated fairly. With lots of people here saying that he should be in jail for a lot longer I just want people to realise that he has been treated harshly for what he did. Most people who do what he did and aren't a police officer don't get a custodial sentence at all. I think a custodial sentence was necessary and not far off from what I would have preferred.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I feel that he should be treated fairly. With lots of people here saying that he should be in jail for a lot longer I just want people to realise that he has been treated harshly for what he did. Most people who do what he did and aren't a police officer don't get a custodial sentence at all. I think a custodial sentence was necessary and not far off from what I would have preferred.
Click to expand...

Well he is going to get treated in there with more fairness than he showed that woman, because he will be given the opportunity to put himself on rule 43 and out of harms way.

Anyway Burnsy im going to retire from this now, because i think you are a decent bloke and this is the one topic that really seems to have boiled my blood.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Rule 43 does not mean he is guaranteed safe from attack.

I'm sure it's changed now. Rule 45 maybe ?
Click to expand...

Whatever its called now it means he will be in with a selection of sex offenders grasses and other low lifes, none of who are likely to bash him, because A even though i think the man is a ****er bully, im sure he could hold his hands up against the average nonse.

And B the other rule whatever its called now inmates dont want to be put back in the general population which is what happens if they bash him.
 
It isn't unknown for someone in the main population to fake being threatened etc to get themselves on the rule to get at someone in there.

Vulnerable prisoner units are not exclusive to sex offenders and could the ex sgt hold his hands up to a group of half a dozen who want a go at him ?

Someone on the VU and who is a target for the main population wouldn't be put there as punishment. They might be placed in segregation or shipped out to another HMP.

I'm not defending him DM but then again I don't want to see him get seven shades beaten or carved out of him either.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
It isn't unknown for someone in the main population to fake being threatened etc to get themselves on the rule to get at someone in there.

Vulnerable prisoner units are not exclusive to sex offenders and could the ex sgt hold his hands up to a group of half a dozen who want a go at him ?

Someone on the VU and who is a target for the main population wouldn't be put there as punishment. They might be placed in segregation or shipped out to another HMP.

I'm not defending him DM but then again I don't want to see him get seven shades beaten or carved out of him either.
Click to expand...


Im not saying what you are saying is impossible, but for the length of time he will spend in a dispersal i think it unlikely.

I would bet you a tenner the worst he is going to get is a slap on the way back from a visit or somewhere, ie a coincidental spur of the moment dig, not a planned proper bashing.

Also to be pedantic, you will sustain less damage from 6 idiots than 2 people who know what they are doing because they get in each others way :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom