I wonder what that means?
Mr Cranmer-Brown told the court that Smith's offences came to light after she and her husband – who is an active member of the travelling community – made a joint application to buy their council house.
Is there any evidence of his 'activity'?
Chris Dickins, mitigating, said Smith, of Fairfield Drive, Barton, was the sole carer for her 15-year-old daughter and that her husband, who neither worked nor claimed benefits, was "often absent from the family home for considerable periods of time" leaving her to manage the finances alone.
Hmmm....
Mr Dickins said: "She has shown genuine remorse and, since last autumn, she has been paying back both the local authority and DWP at a rate of £56 per week, out of her modest income as a part-time cleaner and family tax credits.
She's paying us back with our own money?!?
5 comments:
"often absent from the family home for considerable periods of time"
At Her Majesty's Pleasure?
Is there any evidence of his 'activity'?
Not usually - their "activities" are normally carried out far from home
She's paying us back with our own money?!?
Why yes! I mean, what other form of recourse do they have without incurring the do-gooders outrage?
Think of the hardship wring wring ...
Thin of the children :0/
Once again, remind me why a "traveller" should want to live in a permanent dwelling?
"At Her Majesty's Pleasure?"
:D
"Once again, remind me why a "traveller" should want to live in a permanent dwelling?"
We really have to think of something else to dub them...
Why did the CPS reduce the number of charges from 11 to 6? The CPS is under pressure to reduce costs yet increase the number of successful prosecutions. What usually happens is that the defence lawyer (usually being paid through legal aid)says that his/her client will deny all the charges, meaning a Crown Court trial (in excess of £35,000) but the client will plead guilty to a lesser number of offences which can be dealt with summarily. CPS agrees thus ticking the boxes for successful prosecutions and remaining within budget. Thus, CPS is happy, the defence brief is happy because they received a shed-load of taxpayers money for not a lot of work (comparatively), the judiciary are happy because justice was served on the facts put before them, the offenders are happy because they carried out a major crime, evaded custodial sentences and are ordered to pay back (which they won't) only half the money they stole. The only people who are not happy are the victims (the taxpayers) because, yet again, they have been shafted by what stands in place of real justice in this country. Victims, however, don't count. They never do!
Plodnomore
Post a Comment