An “absolute menace” with 178 previous offences to his name stole an Oxford City footballer’s car – and drove it at up to 100mph around the city.Sorry. What?
… with 178 previous offences to his name…Damn, thought I misheard…
The 38-year-old, who has a 20-page criminal record containing 43 convictions for 178 offences, was arrested in Harefields, in Cutteslowe, after crashing into a tree.I just can’t wait for the inevitable excuses…
He was jailed for 32 months at Oxford Crown Court on Friday after admitting burglary, aggravated vehicle-taking, dangerous driving and driving without insurance and while disqualified.
Lucy Tapper, defending, said her client had “suffered an awful lot of sadness in his life”.‘Suffered it..?’ Sounds to me as though he mostly dished it out.
But carry on with the sob story, by all means:
She said his partner of 10 years died two years ago and their son had previously died of cot death.And that led him off the rails? Really? He had a great life up until then?
She said Nutt, who has epilepsy, hepatitis C and cannot work, was previously a drug addict.Errr, yeah. If you say so, love. Did it also make him commit the burglary too?
“It was probably his epilepsy medication that caused him to drive in such a manner,” she added.
Judge Mary Jane Mowat said: “Despite your personal difficulties, the court’s primary concern is the safety of the public. You clearly are an absolute menace on the roads.”
Nutt was banned from driving for 10 years.Given he’d only just got out of prison a few days before stealing again, I’m sure he’ll heed that, Judge….
14 comments:
"178 previous offences to his name"
and you thought people on Benefits were lazy?
Sounds remarkable industrious and motivated to me.
Maybe the answer is to send him down for one year for each offence - to be served consecutively!
Now there's something I don't understand at all: concurrent sentences. Why, in all honesty, bother to use them? Surely the point of sentencing is that all time a crim is sentenced to gets stuck on the one sentence, to be served until let out on parole.
"Maybe the answer is to send him down for one year for each offence - to be served consecutively"!
I have a better idea .. surgically remove the arsehole's hands & feet, then he can neither steal nor drive again ..
Why bother win a ban? It won't stop him driving and the courts won't give a fuck if he's caught driving anyway. Would it be cynical to suggest that it is a meaningless gesture to con the proles?
"Banned from driving" must be the most ineffective deterrent ever. Most scrotes who never had a driving licence in the first place are pretty much unlikely to ever worry about a ban like that. It's not like they will rush out and actually take a driving test.
And those scrotes who once had a driving licence will, once they have been "banned" simply carry on as before.
So, why not ban them for 100 years? It sounds good even if it makes not one iota of difference.
Captain Haddock said...
"I have a better idea .. surgically remove the arsehole's hands & feet, then he can neither steal nor drive again .."
Sorry Captain, that won't work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nyzS4nC1Wc
It's a shame that these two different people share the same ancestry...
If we excuse the stupidity of youth, and say his criminal career started at 18, then he has since that time, on average, committed an offense once every 6 weeks, for the last 20 years.
Why is he not doing life by now? He is obviously an inveterate recidivist.
What do you have to do to get a custodial sentence in the UK these days?
Ranter said ...
"What do you have to do to get a custodial sentence in the UK these days" ?
Put the wrong sort of rubbish in the wrong coloured bin ? ...
Have a carbon footprint ? ..
Thanks for posting that link MD ..
What a bloke .. total respect & I feel completely humbled ..
Really, I ought to have known better that to attempt to show any mercy where scrotes & shitbags are concerned ..
Belay my last .. just slot the bugger and have done with it ..
No probs, CH. I know what you meant. It just made me wonder why we fawn around scumbags like Jayson Nutt (can't even spell it rite...), when real heroes like Ray Edwards have to share the planet with a waste of DNA like him.
microdave said ...
"No probs, CH. I know what you meant. It just made me wonder why we fawn around scumbags like Jayson Nutt (can't even spell it rite...), when real heroes like Ray Edwards have to share the planet with a waste of DNA like him" ...
Because, sadly .. more jobs (and non-jobs) revolve around the likes of Nutt than do around people of strength, character & integrity, like Mr Edwards ..
"and you thought people on Benefits were lazy?
Sounds remarkable industrious and motivated to me."
Heh!
"Now there's something I don't understand at all: concurrent sentences. "
Me neither! Rob is right, it's another cynical paper exercise.
""Banned from driving" must be the most ineffective deterrent ever."
And it's a pretty strong field...
"It's a shame that these two different people share the same ancestry..."
Never a truer word!
Post a Comment