From: JNugent73@mail.com 
  
 On 21/08/2025 12:30 PM, Jethro_uk wrote: 
 > On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:47:52 +0100, JNugent wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 20/08/2025 04:20 PM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >>> 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). 
 >> 
 >> As you are well aware, that is not the only sort of issue upon which 
 >> parties (and their candidates) stand. 
 > 
 > Well you pays your money and you takes your choice. 
 > 
 > I'm a little weary of the whine "there's no one to vote for". Either 
 > stand yourself to ensure there is someone who you agree with 100% or 
 > learn to live in the land of compromise. Or take the middle way of 
 > joining a political party (so not Reform) and engaging in their policy 
 > making process. 
  
 Some would say that Reform would be the only party likely to address 
 public concerns about the operation of the justice system. 
  
 I wish one could credibly say the same of the Conservatives or Labour. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)