From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 20/08/2025 15:00, JNugent wrote: 
 > On 20/08/2025 09:07 AM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >> On 20/08/2025 01:24, JNugent wrote: 
 >>> On 19/08/2025 07:03 PM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >>>> On 19/08/2025 17:11, JNugent wrote: 
 >>>>> On 19/08/2025 09:00 AM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >>>>>> On 18/08/2025 20:34, JNugent wrote: 
 >>>>>>> On 18/08/2025 05:37 PM, GB wrote: 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>> You might want to read this: 
 >>>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>> https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/96076/pdf 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> Thank you for that. 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> QUOTE: 
 >>>>>>> 3.2 The guideline states €€€for offenders on the cusp of custody, 
 >>>>>>> imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on 
 >>>>>>> dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to 
 >>>>>>> achieving the aims of sentencing.€€€ 
 >>>>>>> ENDQUOTE 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> With a 12 yr old dependant and a "sick husband", one wonders why 
 >>>>>>> that 
 >>>>>>> guideline didn't have a bit more effect. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Probably because such pleas in mitigation are widely recognised as 
 >>>>>> the 
 >>>>>> huge exaggerations they generally are.€€ They're a wholly one-sided 
 >>>>>> attempt of course to get the person out of anything they won't like. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> That is what "mitigation" means. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> It shouldn't (and probably wouldn't) work for murder, DCBDD or drug- 
 >>>>> dealing. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> How about "inciting racial hatred contrary to section 19(1) of the 
 >>>> Public Order Act 1986" which was her admitted offence?€€ Should it work 
 >>>> for that? 
 >>> 
 >>> I wonder how many of the population at large think it should? 
 >>> 
 >>> I'm a democrat (not a Democrat) at heart. 
 >> 
 >> Then you really have to accept what our democratically elected 
 >> representatives in Parliament decided.€€ And they decided it shouldn't. 
 > 
 > Democracy is "what the people want", especially so in the matter of 
 > criminal justice. 
 > 
 > It would be a brave sould who stated that our system is in tune with the 
 > wishes of the people. 
  
 It would require proof that it isn't.  MPs stand for election every few 
 years.  If the people don't agree with what they've enacted, they can 
 get rid of them, so it pays them to be in tune with the people, and it 
 behoves us to accept what they decide (not that we have much choice). 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)