Friday, 27 January 2012

And Oh, How I Wish I Could Believe They Won’t Fall For It Again…

A burglar who was freed from prison because he had five children to look after is facing another jail term for assault.
Who’s shocked? Not me…
Jobless Bishop, who admitted he had ‘never thought’ the judges would free him, claimed at the time that he was ‘going straight’ for the sake of his children.

But just four weeks later he attacked a man in broad daylight after chasing him into a Spar supermarket.

A court heard yesterday how horrified shoppers looked on as Bishop repeatedly punched his victim in the head while his brother held him in a headlock.
Not that they needed to rely on eyewitnesses, since….yup, you guessed it:
Bishop, and his brother, unemployed bouncer Robert Wheelhouse, denied the assault at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court yesterday.

But they were found guilty after a judge saw CCTV of the incident and dismissed their account of events as ‘implausible and untrue’.
Still, at least he can’t try…

Oh. Oh, of course he can:
… last night his lawyer said Bishop planned to try to use his children to avoid jail once more.

Solicitor Timothy Holder said: ‘Wayne is still responsible for all his five children. We will be asking the court to take into account his responsibilities towards his childcare duties.’
Well, why not? It’ll probably work…

7 comments:

Macheath said...

Despite the lawyers' gloss on the situation, buried deep in the article is the statement that
'Their mother, his ex partner Tracey York, 30, could only have the children at weekends because she worked shifts'.

There's more to this story than is being reported, I think, or it would surely never have been considered in the best interests of the children for their primary carer to have
'previous convictions for shoplifting, driving without a licence or insurance, three convictions for driving while disqualified, and two convictions for threatening behaviour'.

As an aside, in yet another example of underclass arithmetic, their first child must have been conceived when the mother was barely out of school uniform (if that).

Tattyfalarr said...

Macheath"their first child must have been conceived when the mother was barely out of school uniform"

Indeed. Those proper school ties were a bugger to get off quickly. She probably didn't bother to unbutton her shirt properly either.

Him not serving a sentence has nothing to do with Human Rights ...although it's a tick in the box and a pat on the back for the Righteous....and everything to do with balancing the cost to SS and HMP in housing, feeding and clothing them all.

It's cheaper all round to let him go.

If only Community Sentencing meant The Community were allowed to deal with him as they see fit.

Woman on a Raft said...

Talk about timing.

I've contrasted Bould's case yesterday with Bishop's. I honestly hadn't seen this post before I pressed the button.

Woman on a Raft said...

Bishop, and his brother, unemployed bouncer Robert Wheelhouse

How come they haven't got the same surnames either?

Tattyfalarr said...

WOAR: "How come they haven't got the same surnames either?

D'ya think maybe the brother was a thoroughly modern man who...being a champion of Equality & Diversity...married and chose to take his wife's name ?

No, me neither ;)

It's a bit like on QI where the most obvious answer...but not necessarily the correct one... will set off the klaxxon.

JuliaM said...

"There's more to this story than is being reported, I think, or it would surely never have been considered in the best interests of the children.."

SS can be surprisingly flexible in their definition of 'best interests of the children'...

"Indeed. Those proper school ties were a bugger to get off quickly."

SNORK!

"It's cheaper all round to let him go."

If you look at things from a purely monetary viewpoint, I'm sure you're right.

But can you put a value on the ability of normal, decent people not to be troubled by underclass scum?

Because, until you can...

"I've contrasted Bould's case yesterday with Bishop's. I honestly hadn't seen this post before I pressed the button."

I saw! Great minds... ;)

Anonymous said...

If the govt is serious about giving money away to tackle problem families, then the money would be well spent on keeping him in prison.

The 5 children will probably be better off for it. Without his guiding hands, they may just make it to adulthood without a criminal record.

It could be seen as an investment in the long run so the 5 don't go onto become like him and cost us a fortune in the future.