From: JNugent73@mail.com 
  
 On 21/08/2025 08:52 AM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 > On 21/08/2025 00:47, JNugent wrote: 
 >> On 20/08/2025 04:16 PM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >>> On 20/08/2025 14:57, JNugent wrote: 
 >>>> On 20/08/2025 08:54 AM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >>>>> On 20/08/2025 01:10, JNugent wrote: 
 >>>>>> On 19/08/2025 02:40 PM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 > 
 >>>>>>>  She was given 31 months, of which 
 >>>>>>> she would only have to serve 40%, or 12.4 months, in prison.  Which 
 >>>>>>> would mean, if she hasn't been freed already, she is due for release 
 >>>>>>> just about now. 
 >>>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> Is that so draconian? 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> Do you get 12 months for a first offence of burglary, TWOCing or 
 >>>>>> social security fraud, all of which have real, identifiable victims? 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> She had made several similar comments before, as is clear from the CoA 
 >>>>> judgement.  It was like asking for those to be taken into account just 
 >>>>> like a few previous burglaries etc.  It wasn't really therefore a 
 >>>>> first 
 >>>>> offence. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> It was the first time she had been charged with any such thing. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Do you have evidence of antecedence? 
 >>> 
 >>> Earlier posts she made are in the CoA judgement.  It wasn't the first 
 >>> time. 
 >> 
 >> Had she been prosecuted before for posting things which les biens 
 >> pensants cannot agree? 
 > 
 > No, there's always a first time being prosecuted.  But you said 'first 
 > offence' above, not 'first conviction'. 
  
 Those two phrases are synonymous. 
  
 No-one seriosly believes a 25-yr-old shoplifter (first time offender) 
 never stole an apple from the greengrocer's display at 7 years old. 
  
 >>>> But step back a second, you are answering a completely different 
 >>>> question again. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Do you get 12 months for a first offence of burglary, TWOCing or 
 >>>> social security fraud, all of which have real, identifiable victims? 
 >>> 
 >>> You get what the Sentencing Council's guidelines prescribe.  And they 
 >>> reflect what our representatives in Parliament regard as the seriousness 
 >>> of the offence. 
 >> 
 >> That takes us back around to the question of justice and democracy. 
 > 
 > No, it actually answers it definitively. 
 > 
 > 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)