In the news.
quote
The mother of PC Andrew Harper said her family are rCLbitterly disappointedrCY that her sonrCOs killers remain eligible for early release after the government revised plans to tackle the overcrowding crisis in prisons.
Following pressure from victims, MPs and frontline prison officers,
rapists, child sexual abusers and groomers will be excluded from the
scheme for England and Wales, the government said on Monday.
But domestic abusers and killers will still be eligible for early
release, including two men jailed for their role in the death of PC
Harper, who sustained fatal injuries while responding to a quad bike
theft in Sulhamstead, Berkshire, in August 2019.
rCLQuite frankly, we shouldnrCOt be in this position,rCY Debbie Adlam, PC HarperrCOs mother, told BBC Breakfast.
unquote
As I understand it, the police officer was dragged along the ground by a
car and sustained fatal injuries. The driver of the car is not eligible
for early release but his friends, the passengers, are now likely to be released early.
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed
to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded? Or should there be
special rules for those who kill police officers? Maybe those who kill
all and any emergency services personnel. Including killers of NHS workers?
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
In the news.
quote
The mother of PC Andrew Harper said her family are rCLbitterly disappointedrCY that her sonrCOs killers remain eligible for early release after the government revised plans to tackle the overcrowding crisis in prisons.
Following pressure from victims, MPs and frontline prison officers,
rapists, child sexual abusers and groomers will be excluded from the
scheme for England and Wales, the government said on Monday.
But domestic abusers and killers will still be eligible for early
release, including two men jailed for their role in the death of PC
Harper, who sustained fatal injuries while responding to a quad bike
theft in Sulhamstead, Berkshire, in August 2019.
rCLQuite frankly, we shouldnrCOt be in this position,rCY Debbie Adlam, PC HarperrCOs mother, told BBC Breakfast.
unquote
As I understand it, the police officer was dragged along the ground by a
car and sustained fatal injuries. The driver of the car is not eligible
for early release but his friends, the passengers, are now likely to be released early.
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed
to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded?
In the news.
quote
The mother of PC Andrew Harper said her family are rCLbitterly disappointedrCY that her sonrCOs killers remain eligible for early release after the government revised plans to tackle the overcrowding crisis in prisons.
Following pressure from victims, MPs and frontline prison officers,
rapists, child sexual abusers and groomers will be excluded from the
scheme for England and Wales, the government said on Monday.
But domestic abusers and killers will still be eligible for early
release, including two men jailed for their role in the death of PC
Harper, who sustained fatal injuries while responding to a quad bike
theft in Sulhamstead, Berkshire, in August 2019.
rCLQuite frankly, we shouldnrCOt be in this position,rCY Debbie Adlam, PC HarperrCOs mother, told BBC Breakfast.
unquote
As I understand it, the police officer was dragged along the ground by a
car and sustained fatal injuries. The driver of the car is not eligible
for early release but his friends, the passengers, are now likely to be released early.
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed
to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded?-a Or should there be special rules for those who kill police officers? Maybe those who kill
all and any emergency services personnel. Including killers of NHS workers?
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
In the news.
quote
The mother of PC Andrew Harper said her family are rCLbitterly disappointedrCY that her sonrCOs killers remain eligible for early release after the government revised plans to tackle the overcrowding crisis in prisons.
Following pressure from victims, MPs and frontline prison officers,
rapists, child sexual abusers and groomers will be excluded from the
scheme for England and Wales, the government said on Monday.
But domestic abusers and killers will still be eligible for early
release, including two men jailed for their role in the death of PC
Harper, who sustained fatal injuries while responding to a quad bike
theft in Sulhamstead, Berkshire, in August 2019.
rCLQuite frankly, we shouldnrCOt be in this position,rCY Debbie Adlam, PC HarperrCOs mother, told BBC Breakfast.
unquote
As I understand it, the police officer was dragged along the ground by a
car and sustained fatal injuries. The driver of the car is not eligible
for early release but his friends, the passengers, are now likely to be released early.
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed
to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded?-a Or should there be special rules for those who kill police officers? Maybe those who kill
all and any emergency services personnel. Including killers of NHS workers?
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
In the news.
quote
The mother of PC Andrew Harper said her family are rCLbitterly disappointedrCY that her sonrCOs killers remain eligible for early release after the government revised plans to tackle the overcrowding crisis in prisons.
Following pressure from victims, MPs and frontline prison officers,
rapists, child sexual abusers and groomers will be excluded from the
scheme for England and Wales, the government said on Monday.
But domestic abusers and killers will still be eligible for early
release, including two men jailed for their role in the death of PC
Harper, who sustained fatal injuries while responding to a quad bike
theft in Sulhamstead, Berkshire, in August 2019.
rCLQuite frankly, we shouldnrCOt be in this position,rCY Debbie Adlam, PC HarperrCOs mother, told BBC Breakfast.
unquote
As I understand it, the police officer was dragged along the ground by a
car and sustained fatal injuries. The driver of the car is not eligible
for early release but his friends, the passengers, are now likely to be released early.
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed
to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded? Or should there be
special rules for those who kill police officers? Maybe those who kill
all and any emergency services personnel. Including killers of NHS workers?
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
On 04/08/2026 10:55, The Todal wrote:
In the news.
quote
The mother of PC Andrew Harper said her family are rCLbitterly
disappointedrCY that her sonrCOs killers remain eligible for early release >> after the government revised plans to tackle the overcrowding crisis
in prisons.
Following pressure from victims, MPs and frontline prison officers,
rapists, child sexual abusers and groomers will be excluded from the
scheme for England and Wales, the government said on Monday.
But domestic abusers and killers will still be eligible for early
release, including two men jailed for their role in the death of PC
Harper, who sustained fatal injuries while responding to a quad bike
theft in Sulhamstead, Berkshire, in August 2019.
rCLQuite frankly, we shouldnrCOt be in this position,rCY Debbie Adlam, PC
HarperrCOs mother, told BBC Breakfast.
unquote
As I understand it, the police officer was dragged along the ground by
a car and sustained fatal injuries. The driver of the car is not
eligible for early release but his friends, the passengers, are now
likely to be released early.
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are
deemed to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely
you release hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded? Or
should there be special rules for those who kill police officers?
Maybe those who kill all and any emergency services personnel.
Including killers of NHS workers?
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
Victims of crime shouldn't have so much influence on the way justice
works. We'll be getting back to vendettas and blood money. Justice is
the business of the State. And victim impact statements should be
banned: it's just grandstanding. And victim surcharges. What if there
isn't an identifiable victim? It's just bunce.
On 2026-08-04, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
In the news.
quote
The mother of PC Andrew Harper said her family are rCLbitterly
disappointedrCY that her sonrCOs killers remain eligible for early release >> after the government revised plans to tackle the overcrowding crisis in
prisons.
Following pressure from victims, MPs and frontline prison officers,
rapists, child sexual abusers and groomers will be excluded from the
scheme for England and Wales, the government said on Monday.
But domestic abusers and killers will still be eligible for early
release, including two men jailed for their role in the death of PC
Harper, who sustained fatal injuries while responding to a quad bike
theft in Sulhamstead, Berkshire, in August 2019.
rCLQuite frankly, we shouldnrCOt be in this position,rCY Debbie Adlam, PC
HarperrCOs mother, told BBC Breakfast.
unquote
As I understand it, the police officer was dragged along the ground by a
car and sustained fatal injuries. The driver of the car is not eligible
for early release but his friends, the passengers, are now likely to be
released early.
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed
to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release
hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded?
Why "surely"? "Surely" only a tiny majority of the prison population
are incarcerated for killing someone, whether directly or indirectly. "Surely" saying the early release rules don't apply to any killers
would make no noticeable difference to the prison population.
On 04/08/2026 10:55, The Todal wrote:
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
There's no sentence that could possibly satisfy Debbie Adlam. So,
there's really no point in asking her what she thinks.
Incidentally, if we're trying to reduce the prison population, why was
Robert Bush sentenced to 20 years? (He's the undertaker, who didn't get
round to burying bodies and let them pile up.) I'm sure other
undertakers would get the message that it's important to keep on top of
their work if Bush had been sentenced to 3 or 4 years.
On 04/08/2026 12:20 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-04, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
In the news.
quote
The mother of PC Andrew Harper said her family are rCLbitterly
disappointedrCY that her sonrCOs killers remain eligible for early release >>> after the government revised plans to tackle the overcrowding crisis in
prisons.
Following pressure from victims, MPs and frontline prison officers,
rapists, child sexual abusers and groomers will be excluded from the
scheme for England and Wales, the government said on Monday.
But domestic abusers and killers will still be eligible for early
release, including two men jailed for their role in the death of PC
Harper, who sustained fatal injuries while responding to a quad bike
theft in Sulhamstead, Berkshire, in August 2019.
rCLQuite frankly, we shouldnrCOt be in this position,rCY Debbie Adlam, PC >>> HarperrCOs mother, told BBC Breakfast.
unquote
As I understand it, the police officer was dragged along the ground by a >>> car and sustained fatal injuries. The driver of the car is not eligible
for early release but his friends, the passengers, are now likely to be
released early.
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed >>> to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release >>> hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded?
Why "surely"? "Surely" only a tiny majority of the prison population
are incarcerated for killing someone, whether directly or indirectly.
"Surely" saying the early release rules don't apply to any killers
would make no noticeable difference to the prison population.
Agreed.
On 04/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
In the news.
quote
The mother of PC Andrew Harper said her family are rCLbitterly
disappointedrCY that her sonrCOs killers remain eligible for early release >> after the government revised plans to tackle the overcrowding crisis in
prisons.
Following pressure from victims, MPs and frontline prison officers,
rapists, child sexual abusers and groomers will be excluded from the
scheme for England and Wales, the government said on Monday.
But domestic abusers and killers will still be eligible for early
release, including two men jailed for their role in the death of PC
Harper, who sustained fatal injuries while responding to a quad bike
theft in Sulhamstead, Berkshire, in August 2019.
rCLQuite frankly, we shouldnrCOt be in this position,rCY Debbie Adlam, PC
HarperrCOs mother, told BBC Breakfast.
unquote
As I understand it, the police officer was dragged along the ground by a
car and sustained fatal injuries. The driver of the car is not eligible
for early release but his friends, the passengers, are now likely to be
released early.
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed
to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release
hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded?-a Or should there be
special rules for those who kill police officers? Maybe those who kill
all and any emergency services personnel. Including killers of NHS
workers?
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
Yes. There SHOULD be special rules for those assault or kill emergency
or NHS/lother medical workers (in the course of the victims' duty).
And this business is all the wrong way round. *If* it is necessary to release some prisoners, release first-timers who are in for relatively trivial offences. Low-level fraud, shoplifting. That sort of thing. Most
of them will have learned their lesson and experienced the shock of
being in custody.
ALL of them before a single rapist, grooming-gang member, murderer or attempted murderer is released.
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to individuals such
as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should take precedence over others.
On 04/08/2026 18:23, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
And this business is all the wrong way round. *If* it is necessary to
release some prisoners, release first-timers who are in for relatively
trivial offences. Low-level fraud, shoplifting. That sort of thing.
Most of them will have learned their lesson and experienced the shock
of being in custody.
ALL of them before a single rapist, grooming-gang member, murderer or
attempted murderer is released.
I witnessed a shoplifting incident in Sainsburys yesterday. A man rushed
out of the entry gate clutching some goods, setting off the alarm, and
the security guard understandably decided not to chase after him.
I doubt if prison sentences actually work as a deterrent for such
crimes.
On 05/08/2026 08:51, The Todal wrote:
On 04/08/2026 18:23, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
And this business is all the wrong way round. *If* it is necessary to
release some prisoners, release first-timers who are in for
relatively trivial offences. Low-level fraud, shoplifting. That sort
of thing. Most of them will have learned their lesson and experienced
the shock of being in custody.
ALL of them before a single rapist, grooming-gang member, murderer or
attempted murderer is released.
I witnessed a shoplifting incident in Sainsburys yesterday. A man
rushed out of the entry gate clutching some goods, setting off the
alarm, and the security guard understandably decided not to chase
after him.
I doubt if prison sentences actually work as a deterrent for such crimes.
Here's an idea, which I may have mentioned here before but feel merits further consideration.-a It's judicial tasering for petty criminals.
Instead of sending shoplifters, dangerous drivers or minor druggies for example to jail, sentence them to being tasered not just once but, say, twice in 24 hours by the police in a police cell.-a The first they may brazen out, especially if they haven't experienced it before, but they certainly won't be looking forward to the second.-a And they won't want
to risk going through the same again in future.
It's incredibly cheap, incredibly painful, very quick and leaves no
marks except in the memory to show off.-a It can be done without significantly disrupting family or work life and would very rapidly
reduce prison populations.
What's not to like?
On 05/08/2026 08:43, The Todal wrote:
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to individuals such
as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should take precedence over
others.
You're in favour of press censorship then?
On 05/08/2026 09:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:43, The Todal wrote:
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to individuals
such as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should take precedence
over others.
You're in favour of press censorship then?
Of course. It's actually responsible journalism. I wouldn't want the
Press to keep peddling the opinions of Tommy Robinson (eg that the
Muslims are trying to take over our country and must be stopped by the firmest possible means) and an editor should not give prominence to single-cause activists with a chip on their shoulder.
Especially as Ms
Adlam and the journalists who have taken an interest in her campaign
have not presented the full picture.
Here is at least a fuller picture. Too boring perhaps for the lazy
public to read or the lazy journalists to summarise.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LONG-BOWERS-COLE- AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf
quote
Long [the driver] is 19 years old and was 18 when the offence was
committed and at the date of conviction.
Bowers and Cole are 18 years old at the date of conviction, and were
both 17 years old when the offences were committed. The difference
between them and Long in age is approximately 1 year.
None of them is intelligent. None of them had any real education. Their parents appear to have taken them out of school far too young. Bowers
and Cole suffer from serious learning difficulties, although they have managed to work for their fathers. Long is brighter but chose to be a thieve. Long was in charge that night and was giving the orders.
On 05/08/2026 09:50, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:43, The Todal wrote:
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to individuals
such as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should take precedence
over others.
You're in favour of press censorship then?
Of course. It's actually responsible journalism. I wouldn't want the
Press to keep peddling the opinions of Tommy Robinson (eg that the
Muslims are trying to take over our country and must be stopped by the
firmest possible means) and an editor should not give prominence to
single-cause activists with a chip on their shoulder.
So you, presumably, would be the arbiter of what can and can't be published?-a If not you then who?-a What and whose rules would they have
to follow?
Especially as Ms Adlam and the journalists who have taken an interest
in her campaign have not presented the full picture.
Here is at least a fuller picture. Too boring perhaps for the lazy
public to read or the lazy journalists to summarise.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LONG-BOWERS-COLE-
AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf
quote
Long [the driver] is 19 years old and was 18 when the offence was
committed and at the date of conviction.
Bowers and Cole are 18 years old at the date of conviction, and were
both 17 years old when the offences were committed. The difference
between them and Long in age is approximately 1 year.
None of them is intelligent. None of them had any real education.
Their parents appear to have taken them out of school far too young.
Bowers and Cole suffer from serious learning difficulties, although
they have managed to work for their fathers. Long is brighter but
chose to be a thieve. Long was in charge that night and was giving the
orders.
Oh, the poor dears!-a I don't think it makes their crime any the less.
On 04/08/2026 18:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 12:20 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-04, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed >>>> to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release >>>> hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded?
Why "surely"? "Surely" only a tiny majority of the prison population
are incarcerated for killing someone, whether directly or indirectly.
"Surely" saying the early release rules don't apply to any killers
would make no noticeable difference to the prison population.
Agreed.
Although you may agree, I don't see any statistics quoted. However I
agree that my phrase "hardly anyone" is inaccurate.
I assume "tiny majority" (of killers) should read "tiny proportion" but
most homicides are not calculated murders but gross negligence
manslaughter or the outcome of drunken or drug-fuelled brawls.
The only online statistics I can find show that fraud is by far the most common crime, followed by computer misuse and theft. Domestic violence
is quite high on the list too.
On 05/08/2026 09:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:51, The Todal wrote:
On 04/08/2026 18:23, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
And this business is all the wrong way round. *If* it is necessary
to release some prisoners, release first-timers who are in for
relatively trivial offences. Low-level fraud, shoplifting. That sort
of thing. Most of them will have learned their lesson and
experienced the shock of being in custody.
ALL of them before a single rapist, grooming-gang member, murderer
or attempted murderer is released.
I witnessed a shoplifting incident in Sainsburys yesterday. A man
rushed out of the entry gate clutching some goods, setting off the
alarm, and the security guard understandably decided not to chase
after him.
I doubt if prison sentences actually work as a deterrent for such
crimes.
Here's an idea, which I may have mentioned here before but feel merits
further consideration.-a It's judicial tasering for petty criminals.
Surely flogging would be more of a deterrent? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39991606
Instead of sending shoplifters, dangerous drivers or minor druggies
for example to jail, sentence them to being tasered not just once but,
say, twice in 24 hours by the police in a police cell.-a The first they
may brazen out, especially if they haven't experienced it before, but
they certainly won't be looking forward to the second.-a And they won't
want to risk going through the same again in future.
It's incredibly cheap, incredibly painful, very quick and leaves no
marks except in the memory to show off.-a It can be done without
significantly disrupting family or work life and would very rapidly
reduce prison populations.
What's not to like?
It isn't painful enough. Tasering is not designed to be a punishment but
to incapacitate a violent person.
On 05/08/2026 10:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:50, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:43, The Todal wrote:
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to individuals
such as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should take precedence
over others.
You're in favour of press censorship then?
Of course. It's actually responsible journalism. I wouldn't want the
Press to keep peddling the opinions of Tommy Robinson (eg that the
Muslims are trying to take over our country and must be stopped by
the firmest possible means) and an editor should not give prominence
to single-cause activists with a chip on their shoulder.
So you, presumably, would be the arbiter of what can and can't be
published?-a If not you then who?-a What and whose rules would they have
to follow?
So you, presumably, would allow your newspaper to print anything and everything, regardless of how reliable the source. If not you, then who? What rules would you follow other than "must fill up the space by any
means possible"?
On 05/08/2026 09:53, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:51, The Todal wrote:
On 04/08/2026 18:23, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
And this business is all the wrong way round. *If* it is necessary
to release some prisoners, release first-timers who are in for
relatively trivial offences. Low-level fraud, shoplifting. That
sort of thing. Most of them will have learned their lesson and
experienced the shock of being in custody.
ALL of them before a single rapist, grooming-gang member, murderer
or attempted murderer is released.
I witnessed a shoplifting incident in Sainsburys yesterday. A man
rushed out of the entry gate clutching some goods, setting off the
alarm, and the security guard understandably decided not to chase
after him.
I doubt if prison sentences actually work as a deterrent for such
crimes.
Here's an idea, which I may have mentioned here before but feel
merits further consideration.-a It's judicial tasering for petty
criminals.
Surely flogging would be more of a deterrent?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39991606
I don't know how much of a deterrent flogging is, nor whether it would
be more so than tasering.-a But it certainly leaves trophy scars to show
off to your mates or the media to garner sympathy, which tasering
doesn't.-a It's also a bit of a palaver and far longer-lasting, probably meaning days off work.
Tasering is a lot easier, and doesn't involve any conspicuous blood, so isn't so visibly cruel that wishy-washy liberals could object.
Instead of sending shoplifters, dangerous drivers or minor druggies
for example to jail, sentence them to being tasered not just once
but, say, twice in 24 hours by the police in a police cell.-a The
first they may brazen out, especially if they haven't experienced it
before, but they certainly won't be looking forward to the second.
And they won't want to risk going through the same again in future.
It's incredibly cheap, incredibly painful, very quick and leaves no
marks except in the memory to show off.-a It can be done without
significantly disrupting family or work life and would very rapidly
reduce prison populations.
What's not to like?
It isn't painful enough. Tasering is not designed to be a punishment
but to incapacitate a violent person.
Just from the AI bit of a Google search, which I have no reason to disbelieve:
"Being tasered is intensely painful, often described as excruciating,
but the peak electrical cycle lasts only about 5 seconds. It causes
severe, involuntary muscle contractions, making every muscle in the body lock up and freeze as if experiencing a whole-body cramp or rapid consecutive impacts."
It doesn't matter what it was 'designed' for.-a It's use doesn't have to
be restricted.
I don't always feel the need to provide evidence when the claim I'm disagreeing with also had no evidence (and is dubious on its face).
On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 10:18:57 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't always feel the need to provide evidence when the claim I'm
disagreeing with also had no evidence (and is dubious on its face).
Hitchens' razor.
On 05/08/2026 12:39, Jethro wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 10:18:57 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't always feel the need to provide evidence when the claim I'm
disagreeing with also had no evidence (and is dubious on its face).
Hitchens' razor.
Does he have a razor and is he safe with it?
PETER HITCHENS: I have no time for the Tories, but they were absolutely right about Rwanda scheme
On 05/08/2026 10:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:53, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:51, The Todal wrote:
On 04/08/2026 18:23, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
And this business is all the wrong way round. *If* it is necessary >>>>>> to release some prisoners, release first-timers who are in for
relatively trivial offences. Low-level fraud, shoplifting. That
sort of thing. Most of them will have learned their lesson and
experienced the shock of being in custody.
ALL of them before a single rapist, grooming-gang member, murderer >>>>>> or attempted murderer is released.
I witnessed a shoplifting incident in Sainsburys yesterday. A man
rushed out of the entry gate clutching some goods, setting off the
alarm, and the security guard understandably decided not to chase
after him.
I doubt if prison sentences actually work as a deterrent for such
crimes.
Here's an idea, which I may have mentioned here before but feel
merits further consideration.-a It's judicial tasering for petty
criminals.
Surely flogging would be more of a deterrent?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39991606
I don't know how much of a deterrent flogging is, nor whether it would
be more so than tasering.-a But it certainly leaves trophy scars to
show off to your mates or the media to garner sympathy, which tasering
doesn't.-a It's also a bit of a palaver and far longer-lasting,
probably meaning days off work.
Tasering is a lot easier, and doesn't involve any conspicuous blood,
so isn't so visibly cruel that wishy-washy liberals could object.
Instead of sending shoplifters, dangerous drivers or minor druggies
for example to jail, sentence them to being tasered not just once
but, say, twice in 24 hours by the police in a police cell.-a The
first they may brazen out, especially if they haven't experienced it
before, but they certainly won't be looking forward to the second.
And they won't want to risk going through the same again in future.
It's incredibly cheap, incredibly painful, very quick and leaves no
marks except in the memory to show off.-a It can be done without
significantly disrupting family or work life and would very rapidly
reduce prison populations.
What's not to like?
It isn't painful enough. Tasering is not designed to be a punishment
but to incapacitate a violent person.
Just from the AI bit of a Google search, which I have no reason to
disbelieve:
"Being tasered is intensely painful, often described as excruciating,
but the peak electrical cycle lasts only about 5 seconds. It causes
severe, involuntary muscle contractions, making every muscle in the
body lock up and freeze as if experiencing a whole-body cramp or rapid
consecutive impacts."
It doesn't matter what it was 'designed' for.-a It's use doesn't have
to be restricted.
It's not nearly painful enough for your purposes. But it would have the appearance of a less barbaric, more clinical form of punishment. Rather
like the electric chair as an excecution method in preference to
hanging.-a As they used to say in the adverts: "Electricity, Clean Simplicity".
On 05/08/2026 09:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:51, The Todal wrote:
On 04/08/2026 18:23, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
And this business is all the wrong way round. *If* it is necessary
to release some prisoners, release first-timers who are in for
relatively trivial offences. Low-level fraud, shoplifting. That sort
of thing. Most of them will have learned their lesson and
experienced the shock of being in custody.
ALL of them before a single rapist, grooming-gang member, murderer
or attempted murderer is released.
I witnessed a shoplifting incident in Sainsburys yesterday. A man
rushed out of the entry gate clutching some goods, setting off the
alarm, and the security guard understandably decided not to chase
after him.
I doubt if prison sentences actually work as a deterrent for such
crimes.
Here's an idea, which I may have mentioned here before but feel merits
further consideration.-a It's judicial tasering for petty criminals.
Surely flogging would be more of a deterrent? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39991606
Instead of sending shoplifters, dangerous drivers or minor druggies
for example to jail, sentence them to being tasered not just once but,
say, twice in 24 hours by the police in a police cell.-a The first they
may brazen out, especially if they haven't experienced it before, but
they certainly won't be looking forward to the second.-a And they won't
want to risk going through the same again in future.
It's incredibly cheap, incredibly painful, very quick and leaves no
marks except in the memory to show off.-a It can be done without
significantly disrupting family or work life and would very rapidly
reduce prison populations.
What's not to like?
It isn't painful enough. Tasering is not designed to be a punishment but
to incapacitate a violent person.
On 05/08/2026 09:53, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:21, Norman Wells wrote:
Instead of sending shoplifters, dangerous drivers or minor druggies
for example to jail, sentence them to being tasered not just once
but, say, twice in 24 hours by the police in a police cell.-a The
first they may brazen out, especially if they haven't experienced it
before, but they certainly won't be looking forward to the second.
And they won't want to risk going through the same again in future.
It's incredibly cheap, incredibly painful, very quick and leaves no
marks except in the memory to show off.-a It can be done without
significantly disrupting family or work life and would very rapidly
reduce prison populations.
What's not to like?
It isn't painful enough. Tasering is not designed to be a punishment
but to incapacitate a violent person.
The stocks! The pillory!
On 05/08/2026 10:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:53, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:51, The Todal wrote:
On 04/08/2026 18:23, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
And this business is all the wrong way round. *If* it is necessary >>>>>> to release some prisoners, release first-timers who are in for
relatively trivial offences. Low-level fraud, shoplifting. That
sort of thing. Most of them will have learned their lesson and
experienced the shock of being in custody.
ALL of them before a single rapist, grooming-gang member, murderer >>>>>> or attempted murderer is released.
I witnessed a shoplifting incident in Sainsburys yesterday. A man
rushed out of the entry gate clutching some goods, setting off the
alarm, and the security guard understandably decided not to chase
after him.
I doubt if prison sentences actually work as a deterrent for such
crimes.
Here's an idea, which I may have mentioned here before but feel
merits further consideration.-a It's judicial tasering for petty
criminals.
Surely flogging would be more of a deterrent?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39991606
I don't know how much of a deterrent flogging is, nor whether it would
be more so than tasering.-a But it certainly leaves trophy scars to
show off to your mates or the media to garner sympathy, which tasering
doesn't.-a It's also a bit of a palaver and far longer-lasting,
probably meaning days off work.
Tasering is a lot easier, and doesn't involve any conspicuous blood,
so isn't so visibly cruel that wishy-washy liberals could object.
Instead of sending shoplifters, dangerous drivers or minor druggies
for example to jail, sentence them to being tasered not just once
but, say, twice in 24 hours by the police in a police cell.-a The
first they may brazen out, especially if they haven't experienced it
before, but they certainly won't be looking forward to the second.
And they won't want to risk going through the same again in future.
It's incredibly cheap, incredibly painful, very quick and leaves no
marks except in the memory to show off.-a It can be done without
significantly disrupting family or work life and would very rapidly
reduce prison populations.
What's not to like?
It isn't painful enough. Tasering is not designed to be a punishment
but to incapacitate a violent person.
Just from the AI bit of a Google search, which I have no reason to
disbelieve:
"Being tasered is intensely painful, often described as excruciating,
but the peak electrical cycle lasts only about 5 seconds. It causes
severe, involuntary muscle contractions, making every muscle in the
body lock up and freeze as if experiencing a whole-body cramp or rapid
consecutive impacts."
It doesn't matter what it was 'designed' for.-a Its use doesn't have
to be restricted.
It's not nearly painful enough for your purposes.
But it would have the
appearance of a less barbaric, more clinical form of punishment.
Rather like the electric chair as an excecution method in preference to hanging.-a As they used to say in the adverts: "Electricity, Clean Simplicity".
On 04/08/2026 18:23, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:I witnessed a shoplifting incident in Sainsburys yesterday. A man rushed
In the news.
quote
The mother of PC Andrew Harper said her family are rCLbitterly
disappointedrCY that her sonrCOs killers remain eligible for early release >>> after the government revised plans to tackle the overcrowding crisis in
prisons.
Following pressure from victims, MPs and frontline prison officers,
rapists, child sexual abusers and groomers will be excluded from the
scheme for England and Wales, the government said on Monday.
But domestic abusers and killers will still be eligible for early
release, including two men jailed for their role in the death of PC
Harper, who sustained fatal injuries while responding to a quad bike
theft in Sulhamstead, Berkshire, in August 2019.
rCLQuite frankly, we shouldnrCOt be in this position,rCY Debbie Adlam, PC >>> HarperrCOs mother, told BBC Breakfast.
unquote
As I understand it, the police officer was dragged along the ground by a >>> car and sustained fatal injuries. The driver of the car is not eligible
for early release but his friends, the passengers, are now likely to be
released early.
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are deemed >>> to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you release >>> hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded? Or should there be
special rules for those who kill police officers? Maybe those who kill
all and any emergency services personnel. Including killers of NHS
workers?
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
Yes. There SHOULD be special rules for those assault or kill emergency
or NHS/lother medical workers (in the course of the victims' duty).
And this business is all the wrong way round. *If* it is necessary to
release some prisoners, release first-timers who are in for relatively
trivial offences. Low-level fraud, shoplifting. That sort of thing.
Most of them will have learned their lesson and experienced the shock
of being in custody.
ALL of them before a single rapist, grooming-gang member, murderer or
attempted murderer is released.
out of the entry gate clutching some goods, setting off the alarm, and
the security guard understandably decided not to chase after him.
I doubt if prison sentences actually work as a deterrent for such
crimes. There was a documentary the other day in which we saw gullible European migrants stealing goods to order (filling supermarket trolleys
and brazenly leaving the store) and bringing them back to a gangmaster
who paid them a meagre fee and sold the goods at a profit. And I've been
to car boot sales where there seem to be large quantities of branded
goods for sale, quite possibly stolen goods. All of that needs to be
properly policed but I suppose there aren't the resources. Supermarket
staff shouldn't be expected to risk their lives, and aren't expected to.
I think it would be extremely difficult to shoplift from Costco.
On 05/08/2026 08:43, The Todal wrote:
On 04/08/2026 18:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 12:20 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-04, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
In the news.
quote
The mother of PC Andrew Harper said her family are rCLbitterly
disappointedrCY that her sonrCOs killers remain eligible for early release
after the government revised plans to tackle the overcrowding
crisis in
prisons.
Following pressure from victims, MPs and frontline prison officers,
rapists, child sexual abusers and groomers will be excluded from the >>>>> scheme for England and Wales, the government said on Monday.
But domestic abusers and killers will still be eligible for early
release, including two men jailed for their role in the death of PC
Harper, who sustained fatal injuries while responding to a quad bike >>>>> theft in Sulhamstead, Berkshire, in August 2019.
rCLQuite frankly, we shouldnrCOt be in this position,rCY Debbie Adlam, PC >>>>> HarperrCOs mother, told BBC Breakfast.
unquote
As I understand it, the police officer was dragged along the ground
by a
car and sustained fatal injuries. The driver of the car is not
eligible
for early release but his friends, the passengers, are now likely
to be
released early.
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are
deemed
to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you
release
hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded?
Why "surely"? "Surely" only a tiny majority of the prison population
are incarcerated for killing someone, whether directly or indirectly.
"Surely" saying the early release rules don't apply to any killers
would make no noticeable difference to the prison population.
Agreed.
Although you may agree, I don't see any statistics quoted. However I
agree that my phrase "hardly anyone" is inaccurate.
I assume "tiny majority" (of killers) should read "tiny proportion"
but most homicides are not calculated murders but gross negligence
manslaughter or the outcome of drunken or drug-fuelled brawls.
The only online statistics I can find show that fraud is by far the
most common crime, followed by computer misuse and theft. Domestic
violence is quite high on the list too.
Presumably any prisoner given early release helps to alleviate the
overcrowding problem, but I would regard those who commit domestic
violence as far more deserving of long prison sentences than those who
commit manslaughter. Those who commit domestic violence often offend
again and might kill.
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to individuals such
as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should take precedence over
others.
There are some statistics in The Times today.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/prison-numbers-capacity-who-hthf02gwq
quotes
The first challenge is a large increase in the number of offenders
recalled to prison. Ministry of Justice data shows that there were
48,327 licence recalls last year, a 29 per cent increase on the previous year. Most recalls are due to breaches of licence conditions, such as
failure to contact probation services or live at an approved address.
Only 22 per cent of recalls involved reoffending.
Almost 86,000 people are in jail in England and Wales and the number
could reach 100,000 by 2030, according to government estimates.
Per capita, England and Wales (136 per 100,000 aged 15 and over) and
Scotland (152) have some of the highest incarceration rates in western Europe.
The majority of people in prison are white (71 per cent) and this has
been the case over the last decade. As of June this year, black
prisoners made up 12 per cent of the population and Asians 8 per cent.
More than a third of prisoners are in jail for violence against another person. In cases of homicide, there are 6,236 men in prison for murder
and 337 women. There are 991 men in prison for attempted murder, triple
the number of female murderers.
While judges have become tougher on serious crime, sentences for petty
crimes and theft have fallen. The average sentence for theft is ten
months, down from more than a year.
On 04/08/2026 18:26, JNugent wrote:
On 04/08/2026 12:20 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-04, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
In the news.
quote
The mother of PC Andrew Harper said her family are rCLbitterly
disappointedrCY that her sonrCOs killers remain eligible for early release >>>> after the government revised plans to tackle the overcrowding crisis in >>>> prisons.
Following pressure from victims, MPs and frontline prison officers,
rapists, child sexual abusers and groomers will be excluded from the
scheme for England and Wales, the government said on Monday.
But domestic abusers and killers will still be eligible for early
release, including two men jailed for their role in the death of PC
Harper, who sustained fatal injuries while responding to a quad bike
theft in Sulhamstead, Berkshire, in August 2019.
rCLQuite frankly, we shouldnrCOt be in this position,rCY Debbie Adlam, PC >>>> HarperrCOs mother, told BBC Breakfast.
unquote
As I understand it, the police officer was dragged along the ground
by a
car and sustained fatal injuries. The driver of the car is not eligible >>>> for early release but his friends, the passengers, are now likely to be >>>> released early.
And why not? If you exclude all killers (to include those who are
deemed
to be accomplices or part of a joint enterprise) then surely you
release
hardly anyone and the prisons remain overcrowded?
Why "surely"? "Surely" only a tiny majority of the prison population
are incarcerated for killing someone, whether directly or indirectly.
"Surely" saying the early release rules don't apply to any killers
would make no noticeable difference to the prison population.
Agreed.
Although you may agree, I don't see any statistics quoted. However I
agree that my phrase "hardly anyone" is inaccurate.
I assume "tiny majority" (of killers) should read "tiny proportion" but
most homicides are not calculated murders but gross negligence
manslaughter or the outcome of drunken or drug-fuelled brawls.
The only online statistics I can find show that fraud is by far the most common crime, followed by computer misuse and theft. Domestic violence
is quite high on the list too.
Presumably any prisoner given early release helps to alleviate the overcrowding problem, but I would regard those who commit domestic
violence as far more deserving of long prison sentences than those who
commit manslaughter. Those who commit domestic violence often offend
again and might kill.
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to individuals such
as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should take precedence over others.
On 2026-08-05, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 12:39, Jethro wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 10:18:57 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't always feel the need to provide evidence when the claim I'm
disagreeing with also had no evidence (and is dubious on its face).
Hitchens' razor.
Does he have a razor and is he safe with it?
PETER HITCHENS: I have no time for the Tories, but they were absolutely
right about Rwanda scheme
Wrong Hitchens (in every sense).
On 05/08/2026 13:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-05, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 12:39, Jethro wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 10:18:57 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't always feel the need to provide evidence when the claim I'm
disagreeing with also had no evidence (and is dubious on its face).
Hitchens' razor.
Does he have a razor and is he safe with it?
PETER HITCHENS: I have no time for the Tories, but they were absolutely
right about Rwanda scheme
Wrong Hitchens (in every sense).
I knew that.
The "right" Hitchens is Christopher, who generally applied his
Wilkinson Sword to anyone who spoke up for religion. Without proof
that God exists there is no need to prove that he doesn't exist.
On 2026-08-05, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 13:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-05, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 12:39, Jethro wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 10:18:57 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't always feel the need to provide evidence when the claim I'm >>>>>> disagreeing with also had no evidence (and is dubious on its face). >>>>>Hitchens' razor.
Does he have a razor and is he safe with it?
PETER HITCHENS: I have no time for the Tories, but they were absolutely >>>> right about Rwanda scheme
Wrong Hitchens (in every sense).
I knew that.
I knew you knew that. I just liked saying "Wrong Hitchens" ;-)
The "right" Hitchens is Christopher, who generally applied his
Wilkinson Sword to anyone who spoke up for religion. Without proof
that God exists there is no need to prove that he doesn't exist.
He's right insofar as if religious people were demanding that other
people live their lives according to the dictates of some religion
or other, then the burden of proof is most certainly on them to
prove their religion correct first, rather than on anyone else to
disprove it.
If on the other hand they are just saying that they are going to
live their lives according to the rules in some book or another,
and other people can do what they want, then there is no need for
them to prove anything, and the burden of proof would I suppose
be on others if they want to persuade them not to follow the book.
On 05/08/2026 20:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-05, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 13:11, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-08-05, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 05/08/2026 12:39, Jethro wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug 2026 10:18:57 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't always feel the need to provide evidence when the claim I'm >>>>>>> disagreeing with also had no evidence (and is dubious on its face). >>>>>>Hitchens' razor.
Does he have a razor and is he safe with it?
PETER HITCHENS: I have no time for the Tories, but they were absolutely >>>>> right about Rwanda scheme
Wrong Hitchens (in every sense).
I knew that.
I knew you knew that. I just liked saying "Wrong Hitchens" ;-)
The "right" Hitchens is Christopher, who generally applied his
Wilkinson Sword to anyone who spoke up for religion. Without proof
that God exists there is no need to prove that he doesn't exist.
He's right insofar as if religious people were demanding that other
people live their lives according to the dictates of some religion
or other, then the burden of proof is most certainly on them to
prove their religion correct first, rather than on anyone else to
disprove it.
If on the other hand they are just saying that they are going to
live their lives according to the rules in some book or another,
and other people can do what they want, then there is no need for
them to prove anything, and the burden of proof would I suppose
be on others if they want to persuade them not to follow the book.
In past centuries, the demands that people live their lives according to
the dictates of Catholicism or Protestantism were enforced very strictly
by the government under the King, and by judges who wanted to impress
the monarch. Hence the burnings at the stake. Hence James I obsessing
about witchcraft and causing 2,500 women to be executed as witches. So, proving the existence or non existence of God was irrelevant. As
irrelevant as proving that Donald Trump didn't win the 2020 presidential election. He was corruptly cheated of victory and a lot of his enemies
need to be prosecuted and punished, because he says so and he's the President.
I expect we agree, mostly.
On 05/08/2026 09:38 AM, The Todal wrote:
The majority of people in prison are white (71 per cent) and this has
been the case over the last decade. As of June this year, black
prisoners made up 12 per cent of the population and Asians 8 per cent.
How are the other 9% described?
On 05/08/2026 17:43, JNugent wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:38 AM, The Todal wrote:
The majority of people in prison are white (71 per cent) and this has
been the case over the last decade. As of June this year, black
prisoners made up 12 per cent of the population and Asians 8 per cent.
How are the other 9% described?
"Mixed", "Other".
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
|------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"I thought that five days of evidence of "victim impact" in a case last | |week was rather OTT." | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Being a victim is over the top. Victims have rights to say that they
are victims.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
|------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"I thought that five days of evidence of "victim impact" in a case last | |week was rather OTT." | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Being a victim is over the top. Victims have rights to say that they
are victims.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"The offences weren't even disputed." | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|
A victim impact statement is not a dispute over whether or not
offences happened.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"[. . .] *If* it is necessary to | |release some prisoners, release first-timers who are in for relatively | |trivial offences. Low-level fraud, shoplifting. That sort of thing. Most | |of them will have learned their lesson and experienced the shock of | |being in custody." | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
"Channel-4 News" reported many months ago that shops workers complain
that the same repeatedly convicted repeatedly released shoplifters
repeatedly return to the same shops to shoplift.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
Being a victim is over the top. Victims have rights to say that they|| |
are victims. |
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: |----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"On 07/08/2026 10:33 PM, Nicholas Collin Paul de Glouce++ter wrote: |
|[. . .] |
Being a victim is over the top. Victims have rights to say that they|| |
are victims. |
|At what length?" | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|
Forever.
On 05/08/2026 09:50, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:43, The Todal wrote:
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to individuals
such as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should take precedence
over others.
You're in favour of press censorship then?
Of course. It's actually responsible journalism. I wouldn't want the
Press to keep peddling the opinions of Tommy Robinson (eg that the
Muslims are trying to take over our country and must be stopped by the
firmest possible means) and an editor should not give prominence to
single-cause activists with a chip on their shoulder.
So you, presumably, would be the arbiter of what can and can't be published?-a If not you then who?-a What and whose rules would they have
to follow?
Especially as Ms Adlam and the journalists who have taken an interest
in her campaign have not presented the full picture.
Here is at least a fuller picture. Too boring perhaps for the lazy
public to read or the lazy journalists to summarise.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LONG-BOWERS-COLE-
AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf
quote
Long [the driver] is 19 years old and was 18 when the offence was
committed and at the date of conviction.
Bowers and Cole are 18 years old at the date of conviction, and were
both 17 years old when the offences were committed. The difference
between them and Long in age is approximately 1 year.
None of them is intelligent. None of them had any real education.
Their parents appear to have taken them out of school far too young.
Bowers and Cole suffer from serious learning difficulties, although
they have managed to work for their fathers. Long is brighter but
chose to be a thieve. Long was in charge that night and was giving the
orders.
Oh, the poor dears!-a I don't think it makes their crime any the less.
On 05/08/2026 10:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:50, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:43, The Todal wrote:
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to individuals
such as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should take precedence
over others.
You're in favour of press censorship then?
Of course. It's actually responsible journalism. I wouldn't want the
Press to keep peddling the opinions of Tommy Robinson (eg that the
Muslims are trying to take over our country and must be stopped by the
firmest possible means) and an editor should not give prominence to
single-cause activists with a chip on their shoulder.
So you, presumably, would be the arbiter of what can and can't be
published? If not you then who? What and whose rules would they have
to follow?
Especially as Ms Adlam and the journalists who have taken an interest
in her campaign have not presented the full picture.
Here is at least a fuller picture. Too boring perhaps for the lazy
public to read or the lazy journalists to summarise.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LONG-BOWERS-COLE-
AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf
quote
Long [the driver] is 19 years old and was 18 when the offence was
committed and at the date of conviction.
Bowers and Cole are 18 years old at the date of conviction, and were
both 17 years old when the offences were committed. The difference
between them and Long in age is approximately 1 year.
None of them is intelligent. None of them had any real education.
Their parents appear to have taken them out of school far too young.
Bowers and Cole suffer from serious learning difficulties, although
they have managed to work for their fathers. Long is brighter but
chose to be a thieve. Long was in charge that night and was giving the
orders.
Oh, the poor dears! I don't think it makes their crime any the less.
Latest: after being advised by his officials that there were no valid
grounds for making exceptions for Bowers and Cole and keeping them in
prison, Andy Burnham has ordered his officials to "find a way" in order
to appease the press and Ms Adlam.
Is that really the way we want our country to be run? I think he's
emulating Donald Trump. Ignore the law and the rules, just aim to have
good headlines and approval ratings.
Maybe that's what to expect when the PM is an English graduate rather
than an ex barrister or solicitor.
On 05/08/2026 10:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:50, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:43, The Todal wrote:
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to
individuals such as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should
take precedence over others.
You're in favour of press censorship then?
Of course. It's actually responsible journalism. I wouldn't want
the Press to keep peddling the opinions of Tommy Robinson (eg that
the Muslims are trying to take over our country and must be
stopped by the firmest possible means) and an editor should not
give prominence to single-cause activists with a chip on their
shoulder.
So you, presumably, would be the arbiter of what can and can't be published?-a If not you then who?-a What and whose rules would they
have to follow?
Especially as Ms Adlam and the journalists who have taken an
interest in her campaign have not presented the full picture.
Here is at least a fuller picture. Too boring perhaps for the lazy
public to read or the lazy journalists to summarise.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LONG-BOWERS-COLE-
AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf
quote
Long [the driver] is 19 years old and was 18 when the offence was
committed and at the date of conviction.
Bowers and Cole are 18 years old at the date of conviction, and
were both 17 years old when the offences were committed. The
difference between them and Long in age is approximately 1 year.
None of them is intelligent. None of them had any real education.
Their parents appear to have taken them out of school far too
young. Bowers and Cole suffer from serious learning difficulties,
although they have managed to work for their fathers. Long is
brighter but chose to be a thieve. Long was in charge that night
and was giving the orders.
Oh, the poor dears!-a I don't think it makes their crime any the
less.
Latest: after being advised by his officials that there were no valid grounds for making exceptions for Bowers and Cole and keeping them in prison, Andy Burnham has ordered his officials to "find a way" in
order to appease the press and Ms Adlam.
Is that really the way we want our country to be run? I think he's
emulating Donald Trump. Ignore the law and the rules, just aim to
have good headlines and approval ratings.
On 05/08/2026 10:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:50, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:43, The Todal wrote:
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to individuals
such as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should take precedence
over others.
You're in favour of press censorship then?
Of course. It's actually responsible journalism. I wouldn't want the
Press to keep peddling the opinions of Tommy Robinson (eg that the
Muslims are trying to take over our country and must be stopped by
the firmest possible means) and an editor should not give prominence
to single-cause activists with a chip on their shoulder.
So you, presumably, would be the arbiter of what can and can't be
published?-a If not you then who?-a What and whose rules would they have
to follow?
Especially as Ms Adlam and the journalists who have taken an interest
in her campaign have not presented the full picture.
Here is at least a fuller picture. Too boring perhaps for the lazy
public to read or the lazy journalists to summarise.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LONG-BOWERS-COLE-
AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf
quote
Long [the driver] is 19 years old and was 18 when the offence was
committed and at the date of conviction.
Bowers and Cole are 18 years old at the date of conviction, and were
both 17 years old when the offences were committed. The difference
between them and Long in age is approximately 1 year.
None of them is intelligent. None of them had any real education.
Their parents appear to have taken them out of school far too young.
Bowers and Cole suffer from serious learning difficulties, although
they have managed to work for their fathers. Long is brighter but
chose to be a thieve. Long was in charge that night and was giving
the orders.
Oh, the poor dears!-a I don't think it makes their crime any the less.
Latest: after being advised by his officials that there were no valid grounds for making exceptions for Bowers and Cole and keeping them in prison,
Andy Burnham has ordered his officials to "find a way" in order
to appease the press and Ms Adlam.
Is that really the way we want our country to be run? I think he's
emulating Donald Trump. Ignore the law and the rules, just aim to have
good headlines and approval ratings.
Maybe that's what to expect when the PM is an English graduate rather
than an ex barrister or solicitor.
On 11/08/2026 10:01, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 10:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:50, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:43, The Todal wrote:
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to individuals >>>>>> such as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should take precedence >>>>>> over others.
You're in favour of press censorship then?
Of course. It's actually responsible journalism. I wouldn't want the
Press to keep peddling the opinions of Tommy Robinson (eg that the
Muslims are trying to take over our country and must be stopped by
the firmest possible means) and an editor should not give prominence
to single-cause activists with a chip on their shoulder.
So you, presumably, would be the arbiter of what can and can't be
published?-a If not you then who?-a What and whose rules would they
have to follow?
Especially as Ms Adlam and the journalists who have taken an
interest in her campaign have not presented the full picture.
Here is at least a fuller picture. Too boring perhaps for the lazy
public to read or the lazy journalists to summarise.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LONG-BOWERS-
COLE- AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf
quote
Long [the driver] is 19 years old and was 18 when the offence was
committed and at the date of conviction.
Bowers and Cole are 18 years old at the date of conviction, and were
both 17 years old when the offences were committed. The difference
between them and Long in age is approximately 1 year.
None of them is intelligent. None of them had any real education.
Their parents appear to have taken them out of school far too young.
Bowers and Cole suffer from serious learning difficulties, although
they have managed to work for their fathers. Long is brighter but
chose to be a thieve. Long was in charge that night and was giving
the orders.
Oh, the poor dears!-a I don't think it makes their crime any the less.
Latest: after being advised by his officials that there were no valid
grounds for making exceptions for Bowers and Cole and keeping them in
prison,
Personal exceptions can't legitimately be made, but general exceptions
can be of course.-a The problem with that, though, is firstly defining
what the general exceptions should be, eg all those convicted of manslaughter perhaps, and the fact that many more would be caught by
them, meaning that the prisons will continue to be overcrowded and
likely to exceed capacity.
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under licence
and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their time, which is
in January 2027.-a Those rules can be changed, as they were (reduced) in
the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence.
But we don't have the prison capacity to cope with the status quo let
alone any increase.-a So, something has to give.
Incidentally, had Cole and Bowers been prosecuted and convicted of
murder rather than manslaughter, they would not as I understand it be eligible for release before two-thirds of their sentence had been served.
It's a bit of a mystery to me why they were not prosecuted for murder,
but you'll have to put that question to that nice Mr Starmer who was Director of Public Prosecutions at the time.
Andy Burnham has ordered his officials to "find a way" in order to
appease the press and Ms Adlam.
Is that really the way we want our country to be run? I think he's
emulating Donald Trump. Ignore the law and the rules, just aim to have
good headlines and approval ratings.
Well, that is his job.
He won't ignore the law or the rules, but he might change them, just as Labour's Sentencing Act 2026 did.
However, something clearly has to be done about our prisons and their capacity.
AI says this, and I have no reason not to believe it:
"Britain, specifically England and Wales, is notably out of step with Western Europe. It maintains the highest per capita imprisonment rate in Western Europe, locking up roughly 136 to 146 people per 100,000
residents. This rate is more than double that of nations like Germany or
the Netherlands.-a England, Wales, and Scotland rank well above the
Western European average, which sits closer to 83 prisoners per 100,000 people. British courts hand down longer average custodial sentences for
many crimes than continental peers"
Rather than build more and more prisons, I suggest this is the area that should be looked at as first priority.-a We desperately need to send
fewer criminals to jail in the first place.
I've suggested a way.-a What's yours?
Maybe that's what to expect when the PM is an English graduate rather
than an ex barrister or solicitor.
I would just remind you that Keir Starmer was a barrister-a He was also Director of Public Prosecutions at the time of the PC Harper case.-a He didn't seem a shining beacon when he became PM.
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under licence
and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their time, which is
in January 2027.-a Those rules can be changed, as they were (reduced) in
the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence.
But we don't have the prison capacity to cope with the status quo let
alone any increase.-a So, something has to give.
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under licence
and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their time, which is
in January 2027.-a Those rules can be changed, as they were (reduced) in
the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence.
right about Rwanda scheme
Latest: after being advised by his officials that there were no valid grounds for making exceptions for Bowers and Cole and keeping them in prison, Andy Burnham has ordered his officials to "find a way" in order
to appease the press and Ms Adlam.
Is that really the way we want our country to be run? I think he's
emulating Donald Trump. Ignore the law and the rules, just aim to have
good headlines and approval ratings.
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:01, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 10:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:50, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 08:43, The Todal wrote:
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to individuals >>>>>>> such as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should take
precedence over others.
You're in favour of press censorship then?
Of course. It's actually responsible journalism. I wouldn't want
the Press to keep peddling the opinions of Tommy Robinson (eg that
the Muslims are trying to take over our country and must be stopped >>>>> by the firmest possible means) and an editor should not give
prominence to single-cause activists with a chip on their shoulder.
So you, presumably, would be the arbiter of what can and can't be
published?-a If not you then who?-a What and whose rules would they
have to follow?
Especially as Ms Adlam and the journalists who have taken an
interest in her campaign have not presented the full picture.
Here is at least a fuller picture. Too boring perhaps for the lazy
public to read or the lazy journalists to summarise.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LONG-BOWERS-
COLE- AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf
quote
Long [the driver] is 19 years old and was 18 when the offence was
committed and at the date of conviction.
Bowers and Cole are 18 years old at the date of conviction, and
were both 17 years old when the offences were committed. The
difference between them and Long in age is approximately 1 year.
None of them is intelligent. None of them had any real education.
Their parents appear to have taken them out of school far too
young. Bowers and Cole suffer from serious learning difficulties,
although they have managed to work for their fathers. Long is
brighter but chose to be a thieve. Long was in charge that night
and was giving the orders.
Oh, the poor dears!-a I don't think it makes their crime any the less.
Latest: after being advised by his officials that there were no valid
grounds for making exceptions for Bowers and Cole and keeping them in
prison,
Personal exceptions can't legitimately be made, but general exceptions
can be of course.-a The problem with that, though, is firstly defining
what the general exceptions should be, eg all those convicted of
manslaughter perhaps, and the fact that many more would be caught by
them, meaning that the prisons will continue to be overcrowded and
likely to exceed capacity.
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back
in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027.-a Those rules can be changed, as they
were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be
increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence.
But we don't have the prison capacity to cope with the status quo let
alone any increase.-a So, something has to give.
Incidentally, had Cole and Bowers been prosecuted and convicted of
murder rather than manslaughter, they would not as I understand it be
eligible for release before two-thirds of their sentence had been served.
It's a bit of a mystery to me why they were not prosecuted for murder,
but you'll have to put that question to that nice Mr Starmer who was
Director of Public Prosecutions at the time.
Or, of course, you could read the judge's sentencing remarks which make
it very clear that they were prosecuted for murder
and why it was deemed
by the jury to be manslaughter and that the main blame lies with the
driver of the car not with these feckless passengers who did nothing to
stop him.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LONG-BOWERS-COLE- AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf
quote
The jury were not sure that Henry Long knew that as he was driving from Admoor Lane to Ufton Lane the car he was driving was dragging a human
body. That is what the prosecution had to prove before anyone could be convicted of murder and they did not succeed in doing so.
These young men therefore fall to be sentenced for manslaughter. Cases
of manslaughter range greatly in seriousness. Sometimes death may be
caused by an act of gross carelessness, sometimes a case of manslaughter
may be very close to a case of murder in its seriousness. That is so
here. This is a very serious case of manslaughter.
Andy Burnham has ordered his officials to "find a way" in order to
appease the press and Ms Adlam.
Is that really the way we want our country to be run? I think he's
emulating Donald Trump. Ignore the law and the rules, just aim to
have good headlines and approval ratings.
Well, that is his job.
He won't ignore the law or the rules, but he might change them, just
as Labour's Sentencing Act 2026 did.
However, something clearly has to be done about our prisons and their
capacity.
AI says this, and I have no reason not to believe it:
"Britain, specifically England and Wales, is notably out of step with
Western Europe. It maintains the highest per capita imprisonment rate
in Western Europe, locking up roughly 136 to 146 people per 100,000
residents. This rate is more than double that of nations like Germany
or the Netherlands.-a England, Wales, and Scotland rank well above the
Western European average, which sits closer to 83 prisoners per
100,000 people. British courts hand down longer average custodial
sentences for many crimes than continental peers"
Rather than build more and more prisons, I suggest this is the area
that should be looked at as first priority.-a We desperately need to
send fewer criminals to jail in the first place.
I've suggested a way.-a What's yours?
Flog them all until the blood pours from the wounds, and broadcast it on national TV. It's a pity that you are so compassionate.
On 05/08/2026 13:01, The Todal wrote:
PETER HITCHENS: I have no time for the Tories, but they were absolutely
right about Rwanda scheme
I never understood the Rwanda scheme. At best, it would have resulted in
400 being sent there a year. Hardly the deterrent they hoped it would be.
On 11/08/2026 11:37, The Todal wrote:
Just to be clear, I am not claiming that Cole and Bowers are mischievous scamps, loveable rogues, remorseful and repentant. They are unpleasanthttps://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LONG-BOWERS-COLE-
AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf
quote
The jury were not sure that Henry Long knew that as he was driving
from Admoor Lane to Ufton Lane the car he was driving was dragging a
human body. That is what the prosecution had to prove before anyone
could be convicted of murder and they did not succeed in doing so.
These young men therefore fall to be sentenced for manslaughter. Cases
of manslaughter range greatly in seriousness. Sometimes death may be
caused by an act of gross carelessness, sometimes a case of
manslaughter may be very close to a case of murder in its seriousness.
That is so here. This is a very serious case of manslaughter.
Maybe when you quoted from the sentencing remarks earlier and tried to justify the early release and minimise the behaviour of Cole and Bowers
(in the interests of course of 'a fuller picture. Too boring perhaps for
the lazy public to read') based on their feckless traveller upbringing,
you should also have quoted:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back
in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027.-a Those rules can be changed, as they
were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be
increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence.
Is that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5
years with release half way through, that would be fixed.
being et out
early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners
must serve their full sentence?
Well Blair found a way to keep David Kelly quiet. But at least he had the diplomatic good sense not to admit to it.
On 11/08/2026 12:56, John wrote:
On 05/08/2026 13:01, The Todal wrote:
PETER HITCHENS: I have no time for the Tories, but they were absolutely
right about Rwanda scheme
I never understood the Rwanda scheme. At best, it would have resulted
in 400 being sent there a year. Hardly the deterrent they hoped it
would be.
Boris Johnson is still very proud of the Rwanda scheme but what on earth
was the logic behind it? A refugee escapes from torture and persecution, risks his life on a small boat, comes to Britain and has a very slim
chance of being chosen to go to Rwanda for his asylum application to be processed there. Is that really a deterrent?
Is the implication that if
you are sent to Rwanda you will be butt-raped by prison guards?
Or merely that you will be kept in agreeable accommodation which might be
no worse than the internment camps in Britain?
On 11/08/2026 10:01, The Todal wrote:
Latest: after being advised by his officials that there were no valid
grounds for making exceptions for Bowers and Cole and keeping them in
prison, Andy Burnham has ordered his officials to "find a way" in
order to appease the press and Ms Adlam.
It's not just them, the public also needs to be assured we're not just letting prisoners out willy nilly.-a If rapists shouldn't be freed, why should reckless criminals which resulted in the death of someone
carrying out their public duty?
A simple answer, exclude all cases where it involves the manslaughter of emergency workers.
On 11/08/2026 12:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:37, The Todal wrote:
Just to be clear, I am not claiming that Cole and Bowers are mischievous scamps, loveable rogues, remorseful and repentant. They are unpleasant
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LONG-BOWERS-COLE-
AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf
quote
The jury were not sure that Henry Long knew that as he was driving
from Admoor Lane to Ufton Lane the car he was driving was dragging a
human body. That is what the prosecution had to prove before anyone
could be convicted of murder and they did not succeed in doing so.
These young men therefore fall to be sentenced for manslaughter.
Cases of manslaughter range greatly in seriousness. Sometimes death
may be caused by an act of gross carelessness, sometimes a case of
manslaughter may be very close to a case of murder in its
seriousness. That is so here. This is a very serious case of
manslaughter.
Maybe when you quoted from the sentencing remarks earlier and tried to
justify the early release and minimise the behaviour of Cole and
Bowers (in the interests of course of 'a fuller picture. Too boring
perhaps for the lazy public to read') based on their feckless
traveller upbringing, you should also have quoted:
young men. You mention "traveller upbringing" and I would guess that you
see them as typical gypsies, pikeys, bred into a life of crime. Maybe
there is unfortunately something in that belief.
But the fact remains that they were passengers in the car and the driver
of the car, Henry Long, was the boss and it is perhaps somewhat
unrealistic in the middle of a car chase to expect the passengers to
force the driver to stop, though certainly they should have tried and
should subsequently have shown proper remorse.
And if the only reason to keep them in prison for a few more months is
that the victim happened to be a police officer and the victim's mother deeply resents the fact that the jury rejected a murder verdict, maybe
the government, the justice secretary, the home secretary, should not
bow to the whims of the tabloids and should take a stand on principle.
There are many convicts who are as despicable as Cole and Bowers. Is it
the hope that the press won't discover them and force the government to
make an "exception" of each and every one?
On 11/08/2026 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well Blair found a way to keep David Kelly quiet.-a But at least he had
the
diplomatic good sense not to admit to it.
Are you suggesting that David Kelly was murdered? And Tony Blair ordered
it? And, only a very few people have the keen insight necessary to
discern what happened? You, being one.
On 11/08/2026 13:29, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 12:56, John wrote:
On 05/08/2026 13:01, The Todal wrote:
PETER HITCHENS: I have no time for the Tories, but they were absolutely >>>> right about Rwanda scheme
I never understood the Rwanda scheme. At best, it would have resulted
in 400 being sent there a year. Hardly the deterrent they hoped it
would be.
Boris Johnson is still very proud of the Rwanda scheme but what on
earth was the logic behind it? A refugee escapes from torture and
persecution, risks his life on a small boat, comes to Britain and has
a very slim chance of being chosen to go to Rwanda for his asylum
application to be processed there. Is that really a deterrent?
Well, it wasn't supposed to be just a very slim chance of course; it
just proved a bit too expensive to make it any different.
Is the implication that if you are sent to Rwanda you will be butt-
raped by prison guards?
No, it was that you'd find yourself dumped in a primitive foreign
country further away from the UK than you started having spent all the
cash in your pockets.
Or merely that you will be kept in agreeable accommodation which might
be no worse than the internment camps in Britain?
But not in Britain; that's the point.-a And in no accommodation if/when
your asylum claim fails because your claim of torture and persecution is totally bogus, or can't even begin to be substantiated.-a You're safe
here in Rwanda would be the argument, so off you go into the rain
forest, you're no longer our concern.
On 11/08/2026 12:54, John wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back
in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027. Those rules can be changed, as they
were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be
increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence.
Is that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5
years with release half way through, that would be fixed.
The sentence is for the full term. Early release is subject to whatever rules the government decides but is not mandatory.
being et out
early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
Not if it's within the sentence handed down.
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners
must serve their full sentence?
Nothing at all. It's what we elect governments to do if they see fit.
On 11/08/2026 14:20, GB wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well Blair found a way to keep David Kelly quiet.-a But at least he
had the
diplomatic good sense not to admit to it.
Are you suggesting that David Kelly was murdered? And Tony Blair
ordered it? And, only a very few people have the keen insight
necessary to discern what happened? You, being one.
I think David Kelly was driven to kill himself, because Blair and his side-kick Campbell were obsessed with uncovering the mole (Kelly) and proving to the world that the dossier was not sexed up. Which it was,
but there was a pedantic argument available about how to define "sexed up".
Murder is a far-fetched theory. There could not have been any logical
reason to kill David Kelly. He had given damaging interviews to Andrew Gilligan and to Susan Watts.-a He tried desperately to back-track and to deny what he had said, and faced shame and disgrace and the end of a worthwhile career.-a He had no secrets that then had to be suppressed.
On 11/08/2026 14:58, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/08/2026 13:29, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 12:56, John wrote:
On 05/08/2026 13:01, The Todal wrote:
PETER HITCHENS: I have no time for the Tories, but they were absolutely >>>>> right about Rwanda scheme
I never understood the Rwanda scheme. At best, it would have
resulted in 400 being sent there a year. Hardly the deterrent they
hoped it would be.
Boris Johnson is still very proud of the Rwanda scheme but what on
earth was the logic behind it? A refugee escapes from torture and
persecution, risks his life on a small boat, comes to Britain and has
a very slim chance of being chosen to go to Rwanda for his asylum
application to be processed there. Is that really a deterrent?
Well, it wasn't supposed to be just a very slim chance of course; it
just proved a bit too expensive to make it any different.
The numbers didn't stack up - it could only ever have been a very small number sent to Rwanda.
Is the implication that if you are sent to Rwanda you will be butt-
raped by prison guards?
No, it was that you'd find yourself dumped in a primitive foreign
country further away from the UK than you started having spent all the
cash in your pockets.
But the UK government had to assert that Rwanda was a safe country in
which to live and that the refugees would not suffer any detriment or persecution.
Or merely that you will be kept in agreeable accommodation which
might be no worse than the internment camps in Britain?
But not in Britain; that's the point.-a And in no accommodation if/when
your asylum claim fails because your claim of torture and persecution
is totally bogus, or can't even begin to be substantiated.-a You're
safe here in Rwanda would be the argument, so off you go into the rain
forest, you're no longer our concern.
The assumption - your assumption - being that many or most asylum
seekers are bogus chancers who haven't suffered torture or persecution.
Such people would eventually be returned to their country of origin
after exhausting whatever appeals process there was (and even in Rwanda
it would have to be a fair system).
So the bottom line is, if you are genuinely a victim of torture and persecution and are escaping from likely arrest, torture and execution, you'd rather stay in Iran or Afghanistan or Syria or Somalia rather than risk making a new life in sunny Rwanda.
There is nothing especially comfortable about our asylum hotels,
hostels, houses of multiple occupation, that would attract refugees to Britain rather than Rwanda.
So the entire plan was fuckwitted, typical of Tory thinking, based on
the deluded Tory belief that asylum seekers live in first class British hotels with generous handouts from our government.
On 11/08/2026 11:37, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:01, The Todal wrote:
On 05/08/2026 10:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 05/08/2026 09:50, The Todal wrote:Latest: after being advised by his officials that there were no valid
On 05/08/2026 09:22, Norman Wells wrote:So you, presumably, would be the arbiter of what can and can't be
On 05/08/2026 08:43, The Todal wrote:
I don't think the press should keep giving airtime to individuals >>>>>>>> such as Ms Adlam, demanding that their case should take
precedence over others.
You're in favour of press censorship then?
Of course. It's actually responsible journalism. I wouldn't want
the Press to keep peddling the opinions of Tommy Robinson (eg that >>>>>> the Muslims are trying to take over our country and must be stopped >>>>>> by the firmest possible means) and an editor should not give
prominence to single-cause activists with a chip on their shoulder. >>>>>
published? If not you then who? What and whose rules would they
have to follow?
Especially as Ms Adlam and the journalists who have taken an
interest in her campaign have not presented the full picture.
Here is at least a fuller picture. Too boring perhaps for the lazy >>>>>> public to read or the lazy journalists to summarise.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LONG-BOWERS-
COLE- AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf
quote
Long [the driver] is 19 years old and was 18 when the offence was
committed and at the date of conviction.
Bowers and Cole are 18 years old at the date of conviction, and
were both 17 years old when the offences were committed. The
difference between them and Long in age is approximately 1 year.
None of them is intelligent. None of them had any real education.
Their parents appear to have taken them out of school far too
young. Bowers and Cole suffer from serious learning difficulties,
although they have managed to work for their fathers. Long is
brighter but chose to be a thieve. Long was in charge that night
and was giving the orders.
Oh, the poor dears! I don't think it makes their crime any the less. >>>>
grounds for making exceptions for Bowers and Cole and keeping them in
prison,
Personal exceptions can't legitimately be made, but general exceptions
can be of course. The problem with that, though, is firstly defining
what the general exceptions should be, eg all those convicted of
manslaughter perhaps, and the fact that many more would be caught by
them, meaning that the prisons will continue to be overcrowded and
likely to exceed capacity.
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back
in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027. Those rules can be changed, as they
were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be
increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence. >>>
But we don't have the prison capacity to cope with the status quo let
alone any increase. So, something has to give.
Incidentally, had Cole and Bowers been prosecuted and convicted of
murder rather than manslaughter, they would not as I understand it be
eligible for release before two-thirds of their sentence had been served. >>>
It's a bit of a mystery to me why they were not prosecuted for murder,
but you'll have to put that question to that nice Mr Starmer who was
Director of Public Prosecutions at the time.
Or, of course, you could read the judge's sentencing remarks which make
it very clear that they were prosecuted for murder
Yes, you're right about that. My bad. And my apologies to Mr Starmer.
Perhaps what I should have said was it's a bit of a mystery to me why
they were not convicted of murder on the facts.
We could have a debate about whether alternative verdicts, which give a
jury the right to make a lesser, and far easier on their own
consciences, judgement, which they will almost certainly take, but
that's perhaps not for here.
On 11/08/2026 12:50, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:37, The Todal wrote:
Just to be clear, I am not claiming that Cole and Bowers are mischievous scamps, loveable rogues, remorseful and repentant. They are unpleasant
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LONG-BOWERS-COLE-
AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf
quote
The jury were not sure that Henry Long knew that as he was driving
from Admoor Lane to Ufton Lane the car he was driving was dragging a
human body. That is what the prosecution had to prove before anyone
could be convicted of murder and they did not succeed in doing so.
These young men therefore fall to be sentenced for manslaughter. Cases
of manslaughter range greatly in seriousness. Sometimes death may be
caused by an act of gross carelessness, sometimes a case of
manslaughter may be very close to a case of murder in its seriousness.
That is so here. This is a very serious case of manslaughter.
Maybe when you quoted from the sentencing remarks earlier and tried to
justify the early release and minimise the behaviour of Cole and Bowers
(in the interests of course of 'a fuller picture. Too boring perhaps for
the lazy public to read') based on their feckless traveller upbringing,
you should also have quoted:
young men. You mention "traveller upbringing" and I would guess that you
see them as typical gypsies, pikeys, bred into a life of crime. Maybe
there is unfortunately something in that belief.
But the fact remains that they were passengers in the car and the driver
of the car, Henry Long, was the boss and it is perhaps somewhat
unrealistic in the middle of a car chase to expect the passengers to
force the driver to stop, though certainly they should have tried and
should subsequently have shown proper remorse.
And if the only reason to keep them in prison for a few more months is
that the victim happened to be a police officer and the victim's mother deeply resents the fact that the jury rejected a murder verdict, maybe
the government, the justice secretary, the home secretary, should not
bow to the whims of the tabloids and should take a stand on principle.
There are many convicts who are as despicable as Cole and Bowers. Is it
the hope that the press won't discover them and force the government to
make an "exception" of each and every one?
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
I would just remind you that Keir Starmer was a barrister He was also
Director of Public Prosecutions at the time of the PC Harper case. He
didn't seem a shining beacon when he became PM.
No, you really can't blame Starmer for any of the decisions made about prosecuting these defendants.
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back
in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027. Those rules can be changed, as they
were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be
increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence.
Is that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5
years with release half way through, that would be fixed. being et out
early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners
must serve their full sentence...
On 11/08/2026 12:56, John wrote:
On 05/08/2026 13:01, The Todal wrote:
PETER HITCHENS: I have no time for the Tories, but they were absolutely
right about Rwanda scheme
I never understood the Rwanda scheme. At best, it would have resulted
in 400 being sent there a year. Hardly the deterrent they hoped it
would be.
Boris Johnson is still very proud of the Rwanda scheme but what on earth was the logic behind it?
A [person claiming to be a refugee] [claims to have escaped] from torture and persecution...
On 11/08/2026 12:47, John wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:01, The Todal wrote:
Latest: after being advised by his officials that there were no valid
grounds for making exceptions for Bowers and Cole and keeping them in
prison, Andy Burnham has ordered his officials to "find a way" in
order to appease the press and Ms Adlam.
It's not just them, the public also needs to be assured we're not just
letting prisoners out willy nilly. If rapists shouldn't be freed, why
should reckless criminals which resulted in the death of someone
carrying out their public duty?
A simple answer, exclude all cases where it involves the manslaughter
of emergency workers.
One problem with that is that there is no definition of 'emergency
workers'. Another is that there was no such law or rule at the time of
the offence, so it would be unconstitutionally retrospective and discriminatory if applied now only to such a narrow class of offenders.
On 11 Aug 2026 at 14:43:06 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 12:54, John wrote:
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners
must serve their full sentence?
Nothing at all. It's what we elect governments to do if they see fit.
There is a normal presumption against retrospectively changing the rules to the detriment of individuals, even though Parliament clearly has that power.
On 11/08/2026 14:20, GB wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well Blair found a way to keep David Kelly quiet. But at least he
had the diplomatic good sense not to admit to it.
Are you suggesting that David Kelly was murdered? And Tony Blair
ordered it? And, only a very few people have the keen insight
necessary to discern what happened? You, being one.
I think David Kelly was driven to kill himself, because Blair and his side-kick Campbell were obsessed with uncovering the mole (Kelly) and
proving to the world that the dossier was not sexed up. Which it was,
but there was a pedantic argument available about how to define "sexed up".
Murder is a far-fetched theory. There could not have been any logical
reason to kill David Kelly. He had given damaging interviews to Andrew Gilligan and to Susan Watts. He tried desperately to back-track and to
deny what he had said, and faced shame and disgrace and the end of a worthwhile career. He had no secrets that then had to be suppressed.
On 11/08/2026 11:37 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
[ ... ]
I would just remind you that Keir Starmer was a barrister He was also
Director of Public Prosecutions at the time of the PC Harper case. He
didn't seem a shining beacon when he became PM.
No, you really can't blame Starmer for any of the decisions made about
prosecuting these defendants.
Correct. The cases did not come across his desk, as the narrative would
have it, did they?
After all, he was only in charge of the people actually doing the work, wasn't he?
His main tasks were making the tea and ordering the paper clips.
I expect he was excellent at those.
On 11/08/2026 03:09 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 14:20, GB wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well Blair found a way to keep David Kelly quiet.-a But at least he
had the diplomatic good sense not to admit to it.
Are you suggesting that David Kelly was murdered? And Tony Blair
ordered it? And, only a very few people have the keen insight
necessary to discern what happened? You, being one.
I think David Kelly was driven to kill himself, because Blair and his
side-kick Campbell were obsessed with uncovering the mole (Kelly) and
proving to the world that the dossier was not sexed up. Which it was,
but there was a pedantic argument available about how to define "sexed
up".
On what basis do you "think" that?
Murder is a far-fetched theory. There could not have been any logical
reason to kill David Kelly. He had given damaging interviews to Andrew
Gilligan and to Susan Watts.-a He tried desperately to back-track and to
deny what he had said, and faced shame and disgrace and the end of a
worthwhile career.-a He had no secrets that then had to be suppressed.
Why is your interpretation of the known facts any more cogent than those
of others?
On 11/08/2026 12:54 PM, John wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back
in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027.-a Those rules can be changed, as they
were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be
increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence.
Is that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5
years with release half way through, that would be fixed.-a being et out
early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners
must serve their full sentence...
...and thereby agreeing with the general view of the population?
On 11/08/2026 12:54 PM, John wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back
in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027. Those rules can be changed, as they
were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be
increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence.
Is that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5
years with release half way through, that would be fixed. being et out
early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners
must serve their full sentence...
...and thereby agreeing with the general view of the population?
On 11/08/2026 16:25, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 03:09 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 14:20, GB wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well Blair found a way to keep David Kelly quiet. But at least he
had the diplomatic good sense not to admit to it.
Are you suggesting that David Kelly was murdered? And Tony Blair
ordered it? And, only a very few people have the keen insight
necessary to discern what happened? You, being one.
I think David Kelly was driven to kill himself, because Blair and his
side-kick Campbell were obsessed with uncovering the mole (Kelly) and
proving to the world that the dossier was not sexed up. Which it was,
but there was a pedantic argument available about how to define
"sexed up".
On what basis do you "think" that?
On what basis do you ask that question?
Murder is a far-fetched theory. There could not have been any logical
reason to kill David Kelly. He had given damaging interviews to Andrew
Gilligan and to Susan Watts. He tried desperately to back-track and to
deny what he had said, and faced shame and disgrace and the end of a
worthwhile career. He had no secrets that then had to be suppressed.
Why is your interpretation of the known facts any more cogent than
those of others?
Which others? Which interpretations? Am I supposed to offer "balance" by citing every other possible interpretation? Am I the BBC?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:37 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
[ ... ]
I would just remind you that Keir Starmer was a barrister He was also >>>> Director of Public Prosecutions at the time of the PC Harper case. He >>>> didn't seem a shining beacon when he became PM.
No, you really can't blame Starmer for any of the decisions made about
prosecuting these defendants.
Correct. The cases did not come across his desk, as the narrative would
have it, did they?
After all, he was only in charge of the people actually doing the work,
wasn't he?
His main tasks were making the tea and ordering the paper clips.
I expect he was excellent at those.
Withering sarcasm aside, it seems the correct decision was made in this case.
Are you intending to give Starmer credit for it?
On 11 Aug 2026 at 16:08:11 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 12:54 PM, John wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter backIs that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5
in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027. Those rules can be changed, as they
were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be
increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence. >>>
years with release half way through, that would be fixed. being et out
early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners
must serve their full sentence...
...and thereby agreeing with the general view of the population?
Surely the general population cannot be so stupid and ignorant as not to know and understand that sentences are decided on the basis of the rules about when
people will normally be released?
On 11/08/2026 04:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 16:25, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 03:09 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 14:20, GB wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well Blair found a way to keep David Kelly quiet. But at least he >>>>>> had the diplomatic good sense not to admit to it.
Are you suggesting that David Kelly was murdered? And Tony Blair
ordered it? And, only a very few people have the keen insight
necessary to discern what happened? You, being one.
I think David Kelly was driven to kill himself, because Blair and his
side-kick Campbell were obsessed with uncovering the mole (Kelly) and
proving to the world that the dossier was not sexed up. Which it was,
but there was a pedantic argument available about how to define
"sexed up".
On what basis do you "think" that?
On what basis do you ask that question?
Murder is a far-fetched theory. There could not have been any logical
reason to kill David Kelly. He had given damaging interviews to Andrew >>>> Gilligan and to Susan Watts. He tried desperately to back-track and to >>>> deny what he had said, and faced shame and disgrace and the end of a
worthwhile career. He had no secrets that then had to be suppressed.
Why is your interpretation of the known facts any more cogent than
those of others?
Which others? Which interpretations? Am I supposed to offer "balance" by
citing every other possible interpretation? Am I the BBC?
Not at all. And that is NOT what I asked you.
I asked you why [and by necessary implication, how] your interpretation
of the known facts was any more cogent than those of others.
From what I can remember, usenet (not this NG, I admit) was alive with theories about Kelly having been murdered.
Some "think" this, others "think" that. There doesn't appear to be a
party political dimension to it either.
How is one to know whose side to take?
On 11/08/2026 04:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 16:25, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 03:09 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 14:20, GB wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well Blair found a way to keep David Kelly quiet.-a But at least he >>>>>> had the diplomatic good sense not to admit to it.
Are you suggesting that David Kelly was murdered? And Tony Blair
ordered it? And, only a very few people have the keen insight
necessary to discern what happened? You, being one.
I think David Kelly was driven to kill himself, because Blair and his
side-kick Campbell were obsessed with uncovering the mole (Kelly) and
proving to the world that the dossier was not sexed up. Which it was,
but there was a pedantic argument available about how to define
"sexed up".
On what basis do you "think" that?
On what basis do you ask that question?
Murder is a far-fetched theory. There could not have been any logical
reason to kill David Kelly. He had given damaging interviews to Andrew >>>> Gilligan and to Susan Watts.-a He tried desperately to back-track and to >>>> deny what he had said, and faced shame and disgrace and the end of a
worthwhile career.-a He had no secrets that then had to be suppressed.
Why is your interpretation of the known facts any more cogent than
those of others?
Which others? Which interpretations? Am I supposed to offer "balance" by
citing every other possible interpretation?-a Am I the BBC?
Not at all. And that is NOT what I asked you.
I asked you why [and by necessary implication, how] your interpretation
of the known facts was any more cogent than those of others.
From what I can remember, usenet (not this NG, I admit) was alive with theories about Kelly having been murdered.
Some "think" this, others "think" that. There doesn't appear to be a
party political dimension to it either.
How is one to know whose side to take?
On 11/08/2026 17:11, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 04:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 16:25, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 03:09 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 14:20, GB wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well Blair found a way to keep David Kelly quiet. But at least he >>>>>>> had the diplomatic good sense not to admit to it.
Are you suggesting that David Kelly was murdered? And Tony Blair
ordered it? And, only a very few people have the keen insight
necessary to discern what happened? You, being one.
I think David Kelly was driven to kill himself, because Blair and his >>>>> side-kick Campbell were obsessed with uncovering the mole (Kelly) and >>>>> proving to the world that the dossier was not sexed up. Which it was, >>>>> but there was a pedantic argument available about how to define
"sexed up".
On what basis do you "think" that?
On what basis do you ask that question?
Why is your interpretation of the known facts any more cogent than
Murder is a far-fetched theory. There could not have been any logical >>>>> reason to kill David Kelly. He had given damaging interviews to Andrew >>>>> Gilligan and to Susan Watts. He tried desperately to back-track and to >>>>> deny what he had said, and faced shame and disgrace and the end of a >>>>> worthwhile career. He had no secrets that then had to be suppressed. >>>>
those of others?
Which others? Which interpretations? Am I supposed to offer "balance" by >>> citing every other possible interpretation? Am I the BBC?
Not at all. And that is NOT what I asked you.
I asked you why [and by necessary implication, how] your interpretation
of the known facts was any more cogent than those of others.
From what I can remember, usenet (not this NG, I admit) was alive with
theories about Kelly having been murdered.
Some "think" this, others "think" that. There doesn't appear to be a
party political dimension to it either.
How is one to know whose side to take?
You have previously indicated a reluctance to follow hyperlinks that are offered to you, so that makes it difficult to answer your question in a
way that you might find useful.
You could read the Hutton Report. My quotations are selective, inevitably.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20090128222051/http:/www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/index.htm
quote
I am satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life and that the principal
cause of death was bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist which
Dr Kelly had inflicted on himself with the knife found beside his body.
It is probable that the ingestion of an excess amount of Coproxamol
tablets coupled with apparently clinically silent coronary artery
disease would have played a part in bringing about death more certainly
and more rapidly than it would have otherwise been the case. I am
further satisfied that no other person was involved in the death of Dr
Kelly and that Dr Kelly was not suffering from any significant mental
illness at the time he took his own life.
The term "sexed-up" is a slang expression, the meaning of which lacks
clarity in the context of the discussion of the dossier. It is capable
of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was
embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable to make the case against Saddam Hussein stronger, or it could
mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed
to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the
case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in
it permitted. If the term is used in this latter sense, then because of
the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of
making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government "sexed-up" the dossier. However in the context of the
broadcasts in which the "sexing-up" allegation was reported and having
regard to the other allegations reported in those broadcasts, I consider
that the allegation was unfounded as it would have been understood by
those who heard the broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been
embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false or
unreliable, which was not the case.
On the issue of the factors which may have led Dr Kelly to take his own
life I adopt as my own conclusion the opinion which Professor Hawton,
the Professor of Psychiatry at Oxford University, expressed in the
course of his evidence:
Q. Have you considered, now, with the benefit of hindsight that we all
have, what factors did contribute to Dr Kelly's death?
A. I think that as far as one can deduce, the major factor was the
severe loss of self esteem, resulting from his feeling that people had
lost trust in him and from his dismay at being exposed to the media.
Q. And why have you singled that out as a major factor?
A. Well, he talked a lot about it; and I think being such a private man,
I think this was anathema to him to be exposed, you know, publicly in
this way. In a sense, I think he would have seen it as being publicly disgraced.
Q. What other factors do you think were relevant?
A. Well, I think that carrying on that theme, I think that he must have
begun - he is likely to have begun to think that, first of all, the
prospects for continuing in his previous work role were diminishing very markedly and, indeed, my conjecture that he had begun to fear he would
lose his job altogether.
Q. What effect is that likely to have had on him?
A. Well, I think that would have filled him with a profound sense of hopelessness; and that, in a sense, his life's work had been not wasted
but that had been totally undermined.
Well actually it's very simple; otherwise they would find the defendants not guilty, if they thought murder hadn't been proved. The difficulty in this case, as I recall, was proving that the driver or either of the passengers knew that the police officer was being dragged behind the car, or that that likelihood was so high that they were reckless as to that fact. I agree that another jury might have assessed the evidence differently.
On 11/08/2026 04:51 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 at 16:08:11 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 12:54 PM, John wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back >>>>> in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, underIs that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5 >>>> years with release half way through, that would be fixed. being et out >>>> early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027. Those rules can be changed, as they >>>>> were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be >>>>> increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence. >>>>
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners >>>> must serve their full sentence...
...and thereby agreeing with the general view of the population?
Surely the general population cannot be so stupid and ignorant as not to know
and understand that sentences are decided on the basis of the rules about when
people will normally be released?
What an odd remark to make.
Surely you are aware that many people (I suggest it's a majority) want
the actual sentence handed down to be served in full (perhaps even if it
is calculated on a necessarily different basis)?
For instance: nine years, get out after six.
Why not just six years in the first place?
Openness and honesty in sentencing.
On 11/08/2026 04:51 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 at 16:08:11 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 12:54 PM, John wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back >>>>> in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027.-a Those rules can be changed, as they >>>>> were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be >>>>> increased by the government to anything up to the full term of
sentence.
Is that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5 >>>> years with release half way through, that would be fixed.-a being et out >>>> early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners >>>> must serve their full sentence...
...and thereby agreeing with the general view of the population?
Surely the general population cannot be so stupid and ignorant as not
to know
and understand that sentences are decided on the basis of the rules
about when
people will normally be released?
What an odd remark to make.
Surely you are aware that many people (I suggest it's a majority) want
the actual sentence handed down to be served in full (perhaps even if it
is calculated on a necessarily different basis)?
For instance: nine years, get out after six.
Why not just six years in the first place?
Openness and honesty in sentencing.
On 11 Aug 2026 at 17:11:17 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 04:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 16:25, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 03:09 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 14:20, GB wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well Blair found a way to keep David Kelly quiet. But at least he >>>>>>> had the diplomatic good sense not to admit to it.
Are you suggesting that David Kelly was murdered? And Tony Blair
ordered it? And, only a very few people have the keen insight
necessary to discern what happened? You, being one.
I think David Kelly was driven to kill himself, because Blair and his >>>>> side-kick Campbell were obsessed with uncovering the mole (Kelly) and >>>>> proving to the world that the dossier was not sexed up. Which it was, >>>>> but there was a pedantic argument available about how to define
"sexed up".
On what basis do you "think" that?
On what basis do you ask that question?
Why is your interpretation of the known facts any more cogent than
Murder is a far-fetched theory. There could not have been any logical >>>>> reason to kill David Kelly. He had given damaging interviews to Andrew >>>>> Gilligan and to Susan Watts. He tried desperately to back-track and to >>>>> deny what he had said, and faced shame and disgrace and the end of a >>>>> worthwhile career. He had no secrets that then had to be suppressed. >>>>
those of others?
Which others? Which interpretations? Am I supposed to offer "balance" by >>> citing every other possible interpretation? Am I the BBC?
Not at all. And that is NOT what I asked you.
I asked you why [and by necessary implication, how] your interpretation
of the known facts was any more cogent than those of others.
From what I can remember, usenet (not this NG, I admit) was alive with
theories about Kelly having been murdered.
Some "think" this, others "think" that. There doesn't appear to be a
party political dimension to it either.
How is one to know whose side to take?
It must be unfortunate to be in a state of mind where one cannot form an opinion unless one's favoured party tells you it is a party political issue and therefore which opinion you should have.
There are actually great realms
of human thought where you will be on your own, without clear advice from the Tory Party as to which side to believe.
On 11/08/2026 16:08, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 12:54 PM, John wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter backIs that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5
in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027.-a Those rules can be changed, as they
were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be
increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence. >>>
years with release half way through, that would be fixed.-a being et out >>> early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners
must serve their full sentence...
...and thereby agreeing with the general view of the population?
Very true. The general view is that sentences need to be longer and the
full term should be served.
On 11 Aug 2026 at 17:34:15 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 17:11, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 04:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 16:25, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 03:09 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 14:20, GB wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well Blair found a way to keep David Kelly quiet. But at least he >>>>>>>> had the diplomatic good sense not to admit to it.
Are you suggesting that David Kelly was murdered? And Tony Blair >>>>>>> ordered it? And, only a very few people have the keen insight
necessary to discern what happened? You, being one.
I think David Kelly was driven to kill himself, because Blair and his >>>>>> side-kick Campbell were obsessed with uncovering the mole (Kelly) and >>>>>> proving to the world that the dossier was not sexed up. Which it was, >>>>>> but there was a pedantic argument available about how to define
"sexed up".
On what basis do you "think" that?
On what basis do you ask that question?
Why is your interpretation of the known facts any more cogent than
Murder is a far-fetched theory. There could not have been any logical >>>>>> reason to kill David Kelly. He had given damaging interviews to Andrew >>>>>> Gilligan and to Susan Watts. He tried desperately to back-track and to >>>>>> deny what he had said, and faced shame and disgrace and the end of a >>>>>> worthwhile career. He had no secrets that then had to be suppressed. >>>>>
those of others?
Which others? Which interpretations? Am I supposed to offer "balance" by >>>> citing every other possible interpretation? Am I the BBC?
Not at all. And that is NOT what I asked you.
I asked you why [and by necessary implication, how] your interpretation
of the known facts was any more cogent than those of others.
From what I can remember, usenet (not this NG, I admit) was alive with >>> theories about Kelly having been murdered.
Some "think" this, others "think" that. There doesn't appear to be a
party political dimension to it either.
How is one to know whose side to take?
You have previously indicated a reluctance to follow hyperlinks that are
offered to you, so that makes it difficult to answer your question in a
way that you might find useful.
You could read the Hutton Report. My quotations are selective, inevitably. >>
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20090128222051/http:/www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/index.htm
quote
I am satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life and that the principal
cause of death was bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist which
Dr Kelly had inflicted on himself with the knife found beside his body.
It is probable that the ingestion of an excess amount of Coproxamol
tablets coupled with apparently clinically silent coronary artery
disease would have played a part in bringing about death more certainly
and more rapidly than it would have otherwise been the case. I am
further satisfied that no other person was involved in the death of Dr
Kelly and that Dr Kelly was not suffering from any significant mental
illness at the time he took his own life.
So much so that a "Hutton" became a euphemism for a lying government functionary.
On 11 Aug 2026 at 14:43:06 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 12:54, John wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter backIs that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5
in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027. Those rules can be changed, as they
were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be
increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence. >>>
years with release half way through, that would be fixed.
The sentence is for the full term. Early release is subject to whatever
rules the government decides but is not mandatory.
You need to distinguish between an early release scheme, as now applies, and the rules for how much of a sentence is normally served, which is part of the original sentence.
being et out
early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
Not if it's within the sentence handed down.
That is simply not so. The original sentence *entails* a presumed release time
before the term of the sentence is finished, and judges sentence on this basis.
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners
must serve their full sentence?
Nothing at all. It's what we elect governments to do if they see fit.
There is a normal presumption against retrospectively changing the rules to the detriment of individuals, even though Parliament clearly has that power.
On 11 Aug 2026 at 17:15:22 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 04:51 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 at 16:08:11 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 12:54 PM, John wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back >>>>>> in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, underIs that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5 >>>>> years with release half way through, that would be fixed. being et out >>>>> early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027. Those rules can be changed, as they >>>>>> were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be >>>>>> increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence. >>>>>
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners >>>>> must serve their full sentence...
...and thereby agreeing with the general view of the population?
Surely the general population cannot be so stupid and ignorant as not to know
and understand that sentences are decided on the basis of the rules about when
people will normally be released?
What an odd remark to make.
Surely you are aware that many people (I suggest it's a majority) want
the actual sentence handed down to be served in full (perhaps even if it
is calculated on a necessarily different basis)?
For instance: nine years, get out after six.
Why not just six years in the first place?
Openness and honesty in sentencing.
Might it just be a good idea to include some years of supervised release in the sentence?
If so this is just semantics, whether you give a figure for the
total supervision or just the incarceration time, and people who want to have an opinion have an obligation to understand what they are talking about.
On 11/08/2026 17:15, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 04:51 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Aug 2026 at 16:08:11 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 12:54 PM, John wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back >>>>>> in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027. Those rules can be changed, as they >>>>>> were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be >>>>>> increased by the government to anything up to the full term of
sentence.
Is that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5 >>>>> years with release half way through, that would be fixed. being et
out
early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners >>>>> must serve their full sentence...
...and thereby agreeing with the general view of the population?
Surely the general population cannot be so stupid and ignorant as not
to know
and understand that sentences are decided on the basis of the rules
about when
people will normally be released?
What an odd remark to make.
Surely you are aware that many people (I suggest it's a majority) want
the actual sentence handed down to be served in full (perhaps even if
it is calculated on a necessarily different basis)?
For instance: nine years, get out after six.
Why not just six years in the first place?
Openness and honesty in sentencing.
The reason is that the sentence handed down is the proper sentence.
Release early is a privilege conditional on such things as good
behaviour and of course the rules imposed by the government, which it is
free to vary as it decides. When released early, it is on licence
meaning that any further offence or breach of conditions mean a return
to prison to complete the sentence in full.
Most prisoners are released early, but it is not a right, nor is it
total freedom. There is considerable control for the whole term.
On 11/08/2026 17:11, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 04:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 16:25, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 03:09 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 11/08/2026 14:20, GB wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well Blair found a way to keep David Kelly quiet. But at least he >>>>>>> had the diplomatic good sense not to admit to it.
Are you suggesting that David Kelly was murdered? And Tony Blair
ordered it? And, only a very few people have the keen insight
necessary to discern what happened? You, being one.
I think David Kelly was driven to kill himself, because Blair and his >>>>> side-kick Campbell were obsessed with uncovering the mole (Kelly) and >>>>> proving to the world that the dossier was not sexed up. Which it was, >>>>> but there was a pedantic argument available about how to define
"sexed up".
On what basis do you "think" that?
On what basis do you ask that question?
Why is your interpretation of the known facts any more cogent than
Murder is a far-fetched theory. There could not have been any logical >>>>> reason to kill David Kelly. He had given damaging interviews to Andrew >>>>> Gilligan and to Susan Watts. He tried desperately to back-track
and to
deny what he had said, and faced shame and disgrace and the end of a >>>>> worthwhile career. He had no secrets that then had to be suppressed. >>>>
those of others?
Which others? Which interpretations? Am I supposed to offer "balance" by >>> citing every other possible interpretation? Am I the BBC?
Not at all. And that is NOT what I asked you.
I asked you why [and by necessary implication, how] your
interpretation of the known facts was any more cogent than those of
others.
From what I can remember, usenet (not this NG, I admit) was alive
with theories about Kelly having been murdered.
Some "think" this, others "think" that. There doesn't appear to be a
party political dimension to it either.
How is one to know whose side to take?
You have previously indicated a reluctance to follow hyperlinks that are offered to you, so that makes it difficult to answer your question in a
way that you might find useful.
You could read the Hutton Report. My quotations are selective, inevitably.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20090128222051/http:/www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/index.htm
quote
I am satisfied that Dr Kelly took his own life and that the principal
cause of death was bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist which
Dr Kelly had inflicted on himself with the knife found beside his body.
It is probable that the ingestion of an excess amount of Coproxamol
tablets coupled with apparently clinically silent coronary artery
disease would have played a part in bringing about death more certainly
and more rapidly than it would have otherwise been the case. I am
further satisfied that no other person was involved in the death of Dr
Kelly and that Dr Kelly was not suffering from any significant mental
illness at the time he took his own life.
The term "sexed-up" is a slang expression, the meaning of which lacks
clarity in the context of the discussion of the dossier. It is capable
of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was
embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable to make the case against Saddam Hussein stronger, or it could
mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed
to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the
case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in
it permitted. If the term is used in this latter sense, then because of
the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of
making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government "sexed-up" the dossier. However in the context of the
broadcasts in which the "sexing-up" allegation was reported and having
regard to the other allegations reported in those broadcasts, I consider
that the allegation was unfounded as it would have been understood by
those who heard the broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been
embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false or
unreliable, which was not the case.
On the issue of the factors which may have led Dr Kelly to take his own
life I adopt as my own conclusion the opinion which Professor Hawton,
the Professor of Psychiatry at Oxford University, expressed in the
course of his evidence:
Q. Have you considered, now, with the benefit of hindsight that we all
have, what factors did contribute to Dr Kelly's death?
A. I think that as far as one can deduce, the major factor was the
severe loss of self esteem, resulting from his feeling that people had
lost trust in him and from his dismay at being exposed to the media.
Q. And why have you singled that out as a major factor?
A. Well, he talked a lot about it; and I think being such a private man,
I think this was anathema to him to be exposed, you know, publicly in
this way. In a sense, I think he would have seen it as being publicly disgraced.
Q. What other factors do you think were relevant?
A. Well, I think that carrying on that theme, I think that he must have
begun - he is likely to have begun to think that, first of all, the
prospects for continuing in his previous work role were diminishing very markedly and, indeed, my conjecture that he had begun to fear he would
lose his job altogether.
Q. What effect is that likely to have had on him?
A. Well, I think that would have filled him with a profound sense of hopelessness; and that, in a sense, his life's work had been not wasted
but that had been totally undermined.
On 11 Aug 2026 at 16:08:11 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 12:54 PM, John wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter backIs that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5
in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, under
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027. Those rules can be changed, as they
were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be
increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence. >>>
years with release half way through, that would be fixed. being et out
early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners
must serve their full sentence...
...and thereby agreeing with the general view of the population?
Surely the general population cannot be so stupid and ignorant as not to know and understand that sentences are decided on the basis of the rules about when
people will normally be released?
On 2026-08-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/08/2026 16:08, JNugent wrote:
On 11/08/2026 12:54 PM, John wrote:
On 11/08/2026 11:19, Norman Wells wrote:
Cole and Bowers were both sentenced to 13 years for manslaughter back >>>>> in 2020, and the normal rules mean they should be released, underIs that true? I would have thought if you've been sentenced to (say) 5 >>>> years with release half way through, that would be fixed. being et out >>>> early is a bonus, having to serve longer would be grossly unfair.
licence and probably tagged of course, after serving 50% of their
time, which is in January 2027. Those rules can be changed, as they >>>>> were (reduced) in the Sentencing Act 2026 but could theoretically be >>>>> increased by the government to anything up to the full term of sentence. >>>>
If it is true, what's to stop a future Government saying all prisoners >>>> must serve their full sentence...
...and thereby agreeing with the general view of the population?
Very true. The general view is that sentences need to be longer and the
full term should be served.
That is only the "general view", if it is, because the public don't
generally realise that this would mean that people would not be on
licence (parole) when they were released, and would therefore not be
subject to monitoring or recall.
Very true. The general view is that sentences need to be longer and the
full term should be served.
Having regard to the overcrowding of our prisons, I hope that some
worthy citizens will step up to the plate and offer their own homes as annexes to our prisons, and offer their own services as deputy prison officers.
On 11 Aug 2026 at 17:34:15 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Q. What effect is that likely to have had on [David Kelly]?
A. Well, I think that would have filled him with a profound sense of
hopelessness; and that, in a sense, his life's work had been not wasted
but that had been totally undermined.
So much so that a "Hutton" became a euphemism for a lying government functionary.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[rCa]
On the issue of the factors which may have led Dr Kelly to take his own
life I adopt as my own conclusion the opinion which Professor Hawton,
the Professor of Psychiatry at Oxford University, expressed in the
course of his evidence:
Q. Have you considered, now, with the benefit of hindsight that we all
have, what factors did contribute to Dr Kelly's death?
A. I think that as far as one can deduce, the major factor was the
severe loss of self esteem, resulting from his feeling that people had
lost trust in him and from his dismay at being exposed to the media.
Q. And why have you singled that out as a major factor?
A. Well, he talked a lot about it; and I think being such a private man,
I think this was anathema to him to be exposed, you know, publicly in
this way. In a sense, I think he would have seen it as being publicly
disgraced.
Q. What other factors do you think were relevant?
A. Well, I think that carrying on that theme, I think that he must have
begun - he is likely to have begun to think that, first of all, the
prospects for continuing in his previous work role were diminishing very
markedly and, indeed, my conjecture that he had begun to fear he would
lose his job altogether.
Q. What effect is that likely to have had on him?
A. Well, I think that would have filled him with a profound sense of
hopelessness; and that, in a sense, his life's work had been not wasted
but that had been totally undermined.
Quote:
According to Mrs Kelly, the couple left the house within 15 minutes and
drove to Cornwall, breaking the journey overnight in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, where they arrived by 9:45 pm.[107]
Although the trip to Cornwall was described by Mrs Kelly at the Hutton Inquiry,[108][109] Baker considers that there are "problems with the
version of events we are asked to accept";[110] Goslett writes that Kelly played cribbage with a pub team in Kingston Bagpuize that night and was
there until at least 10:30 pm. None of those on Kelly's cribbage team were asked to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.
Unquote.
Funny, that. But itrCOs yet one more inconsistency among so many, between the official narrative and the other evidence.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)>
On the issue of the factors which may have led Dr Kelly to take his own
life I adopt as my own conclusion the opinion which Professor Hawton,
the Professor of Psychiatry at Oxford University, expressed in the
course of his evidence:
Q. Have you considered, now, with the benefit of hindsight that we all
have, what factors did contribute to Dr Kelly's death?
A. I think that as far as one can deduce, the major factor was the
severe loss of self esteem, resulting from his feeling that people had
lost trust in him and from his dismay at being exposed to the media.
Q. And why have you singled that out as a major factor?
A. Well, he talked a lot about it; and I think being such a private man,
I think this was anathema to him to be exposed, you know, publicly in
this way. In a sense, I think he would have seen it as being publicly disgraced.
Q. What other factors do you think were relevant?
A. Well, I think that carrying on that theme, I think that he must have begun - he is likely to have begun to think that, first of all, the prospects for continuing in his previous work role were diminishing very markedly and, indeed, my conjecture that he had begun to fear he would
lose his job altogether.
Q. What effect is that likely to have had on him?
A. Well, I think that would have filled him with a profound sense of hopelessness; and that, in a sense, his life's work had been not wasted
but that had been totally undermined.
On 11/08/2026 14:20, GB wrote:
On 11/08/2026 10:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well Blair found a way to keep David Kelly quiet.-a But at least he
had the
diplomatic good sense not to admit to it.
Are you suggesting that David Kelly was murdered? And Tony Blair
ordered it? And, only a very few people have the keen insight
necessary to discern what happened? You, being one.
I think David Kelly was driven to kill himself, because Blair and his side-kick Campbell were obsessed with uncovering the mole (Kelly) and proving to the world that the dossier was not sexed up. Which it was,
but there was a pedantic argument available about how to define "sexed up".
On 11/08/2026 19:27, GB wrote:
On 11/08/2026 16:55, The Todal wrote:
Very true. The general view is that sentences need to be longer and
the full term should be served.
Having regard to the overcrowding of our prisons, I hope that some
worthy citizens will step up to the plate and offer their own homes
as annexes to our prisons, and offer their own services as deputy
prison officers.
Late Victorian prison sentences were much shorter than now, but prison
conditions were intentionally much harsher, eg hard labour.
Maybe bring back transportation. Transport them to Rwanda?
On 12/08/2026 09:26, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[rCa]
On the issue of the factors which may have led Dr Kelly to take his own
life I adopt as my own conclusion the opinion which Professor Hawton,
the Professor of Psychiatry at Oxford University, expressed in the
course of his evidence:
Q. Have you considered, now, with the benefit of hindsight that we all
have, what factors did contribute to Dr Kelly's death?
A. I think that as far as one can deduce, the major factor was the
severe loss of self esteem, resulting from his feeling that people had
lost trust in him and from his dismay at being exposed to the media.
Q. And why have you singled that out as a major factor?
A. Well, he talked a lot about it; and I think being such a private man, >>> I think this was anathema to him to be exposed, you know, publicly in
this way. In a sense, I think he would have seen it as being publicly
disgraced.
Q. What other factors do you think were relevant?
A. Well, I think that carrying on that theme, I think that he must have
begun - he is likely to have begun to think that, first of all, the
prospects for continuing in his previous work role were diminishing very >>> markedly and, indeed, my conjecture that he had begun to fear he would
lose his job altogether.
Q. What effect is that likely to have had on him?
A. Well, I think that would have filled him with a profound sense of
hopelessness; and that, in a sense, his life's work had been not wasted
but that had been totally undermined.
Quote:
According to Mrs Kelly, the couple left the house within 15 minutes and
drove to Cornwall, breaking the journey overnight in Weston-super-Mare,
Somerset, where they arrived by 9:45 pm.[107]
Although the trip to Cornwall was described by Mrs Kelly at the Hutton
Inquiry,[108][109] Baker considers that there are "problems with the
version of events we are asked to accept";[110] Goslett writes that Kelly
played cribbage with a pub team in Kingston Bagpuize that night and was
there until at least 10:30 pm. None of those on Kelly's cribbage team were >> asked to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry.
Unquote.
Funny, that. But itrCOs yet one more inconsistency among so many, between the
official narrative and the other evidence.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)>
There are bound to be inconsistencies. Go on, let's have your theory.
Was David Kelly murdered? Who benefited, or could potentially have benefited, from that?
Dr Kelly was a weapons inspector who was convinced
that Saddam was concealing weapons of mass destruction.
Did Saddam send a hit squad to kill Dr Kelly?
According to media reports of a different death, the normal procedure for
an assassination is to firstly engage a team to carry out the act, and then another team is engaged to assassinate the assassins, there being no other connection between the two teams. Apparently that safeguards everyone involved, as the first team know who theyrCOve bumped off, but the second team have merely totalled some nonentities.
If that is the case here, only those who commissioned the acts know the actual facts of the matter, and unsurprisingly they would stay well in the background.
Unless you know differently, of course.
On 04/08/2026 10:55, The Todal wrote:
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
There's no sentence that could possibly satisfy Debbie Adlam. So,
there's really no point in asking her what she thinks.
Incidentally, if we're trying to reduce the prison population, why was >Robert Bush sentenced to 20 years? (He's the undertaker, who didn't get >round to burying bodies and let them pile up.) I'm sure other
undertakers would get the message that it's important to keep on top of >their work if Bush had been sentenced to 3 or 4 years.
On 2026-08-12, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
According to media reports of a different death, the normal procedure for
an assassination is to firstly engage a team to carry out the act, and then >> another team is engaged to assassinate the assassins, there being no other >> connection between the two teams. Apparently that safeguards everyone
involved, as the first team know who theyrCOve bumped off, but the second
team have merely totalled some nonentities.
If that is the case here, only those who commissioned the acts know the
actual facts of the matter, and unsurprisingly they would stay well in the >> background.
Unless you know differently, of course.
Whilst I am of course not remotely an expert in state-backed
assassinations, given the only contrary opinion is sourced to
unspecified "media reports" I will venture that the "normal
procedure" being to assassinate the assassins seems somewhat
unlikely, as your assassins would therefore never assassinate
anyone and would either refuse to carry it out if that option
was available to them or go into hiding if it wasn't.
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 10:55, The Todal wrote:
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
There's no sentence that could possibly satisfy Debbie Adlam. So,
there's really no point in asking her what she thinks.
Incidentally, if we're trying to reduce the prison population, why was
Robert Bush sentenced to 20 years? (He's the undertaker, who didn't get
round to burying bodies and let them pile up.) I'm sure other
undertakers would get the message that it's important to keep on top of
their work if Bush had been sentenced to 3 or 4 years.
Robert Bush was convicted of over 90 offences of fraud by false representation over a 12 year period, as well as offences of theft and fraudulent trading. The context of those offences isn't really relevant
here; the simple fact is that he was a sustained and serial committer of serious financial offences. Even if he'd committed those offences while running a grocery store, rather than an undertakers, he'd be looking at a long sentence.
Also, this is one of those fairly uncommon cases where sentences have been imposed consecutively rather than concurrently. The offence of fraudulent trading contrary to the Companies Act has been dealt with as an unrelated offence, and hence added to rather than running alongside his sentence for the other offences. This, too, has made the final sentence significantly longer than it might otherwise have been.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-12, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
According to media reports of a different death, the normal
procedure for an assassination is to firstly engage a team to carry
out the act, and then another team is engaged to assassinate the
assassins, there being no other connection between the two teams.
Apparently that safeguards everyone involved, as the first team know
who theyrCOve bumped off, but the second team have merely totalled
some nonentities.
If that is the case here, only those who commissioned the acts know
the actual facts of the matter, and unsurprisingly they would stay
well in the background.
Unless you know differently, of course.
Whilst I am of course not remotely an expert in state-backed
assassinations, given the only contrary opinion is sourced to
unspecified "media reports" I will venture that the "normal
procedure" being to assassinate the assassins seems somewhat
unlikely, as your assassins would therefore never assassinate
anyone and would either refuse to carry it out if that option
was available to them or go into hiding if it wasn't.
You seem to have a touching belief in the intellectual capabilities of the general population.
Just consider the depths to which people will sink for money,
ideology, religion, politics, revenge, sex, or whatever.
On 12/08/2026 10:08 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 10:55, The Todal wrote:
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
There's no sentence that could possibly satisfy Debbie Adlam. So,
there's really no point in asking her what she thinks.
Incidentally, if we're trying to reduce the prison population, why was
Robert Bush sentenced to 20 years? (He's the undertaker, who didn't get
round to burying bodies and let them pile up.)-a I'm sure other
undertakers would get the message that it's important to keep on top of
their work if Bush had been sentenced to 3 or 4 years.
Robert Bush was convicted of over 90 offences of fraud by false
representation over a 12 year period, as well as offences of theft and
fraudulent trading. The context of those offences isn't really relevant
here; the simple fact is that he was a sustained and serial committer of
serious financial offences. Even if he'd committed those offences while
running a grocery store, rather than an undertakers, he'd be looking at a
long sentence.
Also, this is one of those fairly uncommon cases where sentences have
been
imposed consecutively rather than concurrently. The offence of fraudulent
trading contrary to the Companies Act has been dealt with as an unrelated
offence, and hence added to rather than running alongside his sentence
for
the other offences. This, too, has made the final sentence significantly
longer than it might otherwise have been.
100% agreed.
The 20 year sentence was well over the top.
On 13/08/2026 08:29, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2026 10:08 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 10:55, The Todal wrote:
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
There's no sentence that could possibly satisfy Debbie Adlam. So,
there's really no point in asking her what she thinks.
Incidentally, if we're trying to reduce the prison population, why was >>>> Robert Bush sentenced to 20 years? (He's the undertaker, who didn't get >>>> round to burying bodies and let them pile up.)-a I'm sure other
undertakers would get the message that it's important to keep on top of >>>> their work if Bush had been sentenced to 3 or 4 years.
Robert Bush was convicted of over 90 offences of fraud by false
representation over a 12 year period, as well as offences of theft and
fraudulent trading. The context of those offences isn't really relevant
here; the simple fact is that he was a sustained and serial committer of >>> serious financial offences. Even if he'd committed those offences while
running a grocery store, rather than an undertakers, he'd be looking at a >>> long sentence.
Also, this is one of those fairly uncommon cases where sentences have been >>> imposed consecutively rather than concurrently. The offence of fraudulent >>> trading contrary to the Companies Act has been dealt with as an unrelated >>> offence, and hence added to rather than running alongside his sentence for >>> the other offences. This, too, has made the final sentence significantly >>> longer than it might otherwise have been.
100% agreed.
The 20 year sentence was well over the top.
I daresay he will appeal, if his lawyers think there is any mileage in an appeal. Presumably you disagree with Mr Justice Hilliard, but I think if
you study the judicial guidelines you would have difficulty finding fault with his reasoning. I think the reality is that you haven't properly understood the extent of Robert Bush's crimes and the effect of those crimes, and you probably think that it's just a question of a few unburied bodies that are of no value.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Robert-Bush-sentencing-Final.pdf
quotes
On 2026-08-12, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-12, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
According to media reports of a different death, the normal
procedure for an assassination is to firstly engage a team to carry
out the act, and then another team is engaged to assassinate the
assassins, there being no other connection between the two teams.
Apparently that safeguards everyone involved, as the first team know
who theyrCOve bumped off, but the second team have merely totalled
some nonentities.
If that is the case here, only those who commissioned the acts know
the actual facts of the matter, and unsurprisingly they would stay
well in the background.
Unless you know differently, of course.
Whilst I am of course not remotely an expert in state-backed
assassinations, given the only contrary opinion is sourced to
unspecified "media reports" I will venture that the "normal
procedure" being to assassinate the assassins seems somewhat
unlikely, as your assassins would therefore never assassinate
anyone and would either refuse to carry it out if that option
was available to them or go into hiding if it wasn't.
You seem to have a touching belief in the intellectual capabilities of the >> general population.
Your comment only makes sense if you think that when governments want
to assassinate a high-profile target they pick someone randomly from
the general population to be the assassin. Again, I'm not an expert,
but this seems unlikely to me.
Just consider the depths to which people will sink for money,
ideology, religion, politics, revenge, sex, or whatever.
If they're that dedicated you wouldn't need to assassinate the
assassins, you'd just tell them to kill themselves afterwards.
Well, that's an interesting point actually. There is, under UK law, no property in a dead body. No-one can own one. That being the case, canThe 20 year sentence was well over the top.
I daresay he will appeal, if his lawyers think there is any mileage in
an appeal. Presumably you disagree with Mr Justice Hilliard, but I think
if you study the judicial guidelines you would have difficulty finding
fault with his reasoning. I think the reality is that you haven't
properly understood the extent of Robert Bush's crimes and the effect of those crimes, and you probably think that it's just a question of a few unburied bodies that are of no value.
On 13/08/2026 08:29, JNugent wrote:
On 12/08/2026 10:08 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 04/08/2026 10:55, The Todal wrote:
Should Debbie Adlam be given this much publicity?
There's no sentence that could possibly satisfy Debbie Adlam. So,
there's really no point in asking her what she thinks.
Incidentally, if we're trying to reduce the prison population, why was >>>> Robert Bush sentenced to 20 years? (He's the undertaker, who didn't get >>>> round to burying bodies and let them pile up.) I'm sure other
undertakers would get the message that it's important to keep on top of >>>> their work if Bush had been sentenced to 3 or 4 years.
Robert Bush was convicted of over 90 offences of fraud by false
representation over a 12 year period, as well as offences of theft and
fraudulent trading. The context of those offences isn't really relevant
here; the simple fact is that he was a sustained and serial committer of >>> serious financial offences. Even if he'd committed those offences while
running a grocery store, rather than an undertakers, he'd be looking
at a
long sentence.
Also, this is one of those fairly uncommon cases where sentences have
been
imposed consecutively rather than concurrently. The offence of
fraudulent
trading contrary to the Companies Act has been dealt with as an
unrelated
offence, and hence added to rather than running alongside his
sentence for
the other offences. This, too, has made the final sentence significantly >>> longer than it might otherwise have been.
100% agreed.
The 20 year sentence was well over the top.
I daresay he will appeal, if his lawyers think there is any mileage in
an appeal. Presumably you disagree with Mr Justice Hilliard, but I think
if you study the judicial guidelines you would have difficulty finding
fault with his reasoning. I think the reality is that you haven't
properly understood the extent of Robert Bush's crimes and the effect of those crimes, and you probably think that it's just a question of a few unburied bodies that are of no value.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Robert-Bush-sentencing-Final.pdf
quotes
The defendant pleaded guilty on 15 October 2025 to Counts 31-60, 30
counts of fraud by false representation, contrary to s.1 of the Fraud
Act 2006; Count 61, an offence of fraudulent trading, contrary to s.993
of the Companies Act 2006; Count 62, a further count of fraud by false representation with 57 victims; and Counts 63-66, 4 further counts of
fraud by false representation.
It was on 6 March 2024 that the state of the Legacy premises in
Hessle Road, Hull, became known. 30 bodies were found in varying
states of decomposition. The defendant was to tell the police that the
bodies had not been cremated because of cash flow problems. I reject
that entirely and without hesitation. There was no problem with the
flow of cash as such. The only problem was with the direction in which
the cash was flowing. It should have been funding what the defendantrCOs customers had understood they were paying him for, namely the proper
care of the remains of a deceased person in accordance with the normal
and expected practices of a competent funeral director; for cremation to
take place straight after or soon after the conclusion of the funeral service; and to be provided with the correct ashes.
I am satisfied that in order to maximise his dishonest profit, the
defendant paid as little attention as he thought he could get away with
when dealing with those who were entrusted to him. He saw, for
example, no need to pay for adequate refrigeration. He spent other
peoplerCOs money on improvements to his own home whilst the Hessle
Road premises were in a deplorable state. There was obviously a cost to carrying out a cremation, but he would only pay that when it suited
him to do so, or when personal expenditure permitted, rather than
when he had agreed to or when proper practice or common decency
demanded. He was in Arizona on holiday when these offences were
discovered. He must have chosen not to spend the cost of his holiday
on cremating some of those who were at Legacy.
Count 61 is a count of fraudulent trading. It reflects the dishonest
sale by the defendant of funeral plans to 226 people who paid -u562,117
on the understanding that the money would be held either with Legacy
itself or by a third-party insurer. This was separate and distinct
offending from the fraudulent conduct I have dealt with thus far.
Regulations stipulate that client money should be held securely in a
separate account. None of the funeral plans was transferred to a third-
party insurer, and monies from the pre-paid plans were transferred into
the personal accounts of the defendant and his wife. The defendant
used paperwork purporting to show that funeral plans were with
legitimate providers, but no money was ever received by them.
The prosecution submitted that, taking account of totality, the
overall sentence before giving credit for the pleas of guilty would be
in the range of 20-25 yearsrCO imprisonment. Mr Wright said that he was
not going to descend to figures but I did not understand him to take
issue with the prosecutionrCOs bracket. In any event, I have considered
the matter for myself and have made my own assessment as I must. The responsibility is mine.
On 13/08/2026 10:55, The Todal wrote:
Well, that's an interesting point actually.-a There is, under UK law, no property in a dead body.-a No-one can own one.-a That being the case, canThe 20 year sentence was well over the top.
I daresay he will appeal, if his lawyers think there is any mileage in
an appeal. Presumably you disagree with Mr Justice Hilliard, but I
think if you study the judicial guidelines you would have difficulty
finding fault with his reasoning. I think the reality is that you
haven't properly understood the extent of Robert Bush's crimes and the
effect of those crimes, and you probably think that it's just a
question of a few unburied bodies that are of no value.
it be said that any body has any value?-a If so, to whom?
On 13/08/2026 11:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:55, The Todal wrote:
Well, that's an interesting point actually.-a There is, under UK law,The 20 year sentence was well over the top.
I daresay he will appeal, if his lawyers think there is any mileage
in an appeal. Presumably you disagree with Mr Justice Hilliard, but I
think if you study the judicial guidelines you would have difficulty
finding fault with his reasoning. I think the reality is that you
haven't properly understood the extent of Robert Bush's crimes and
the effect of those crimes, and you probably think that it's just a
question of a few unburied bodies that are of no value.
no property in a dead body.-a No-one can own one.-a That being the case,
can it be said that any body has any value?-a If so, to whom?
The Doodeward case is probably still good law - no property in a corpse unless it has been altered, preserved, had work done to it.
So if it was just thrown into a sack and left rotting on a shelf,
there's probably no property in it.
That doesn't mean that you can abuse and disrespect and sodomise a
corpse and not break the law. I hope this news does not oblige you to
alter any plans that you may have made.
On 13/08/2026 10:55, The Todal wrote:
Well, that's an interesting point actually. There is, under UK law, no property in a dead body. No-one can own one. That being the case, canThe 20 year sentence was well over the top.
I daresay he will appeal, if his lawyers think there is any mileage in
an appeal. Presumably you disagree with Mr Justice Hilliard, but I think
if you study the judicial guidelines you would have difficulty finding
fault with his reasoning. I think the reality is that you haven't
properly understood the extent of Robert Bush's crimes and the effect of
those crimes, and you probably think that it's just a question of a few
unburied bodies that are of no value.
it be said that any body has any value? If so, to whom?
On 13/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
The prosecution submitted that, taking account of totality, the
overall sentence before giving credit for the pleas of guilty would be
in the range of 20-25 yearsA imprisonment. Mr Wright said that he was
not going to descend to figures but I did not understand him to take
issue with the prosecutionAs bracket. In any event, I have considered
the matter for myself and have made my own assessment as I must. The
responsibility is mine.
I don't disagree with any of that factual material. The point is,
though, that these were crimes of relatively simple dishonesty.
Twenty year sentences are surely not handed down routinely for theft or >fraud.
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:02:34 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
The prosecution submitted that, taking account of totality, the
overall sentence before giving credit for the pleas of guilty would be
in the range of 20-25 years-A imprisonment. Mr Wright said that he was
not going to descend to figures but I did not understand him to take
issue with the prosecution-As bracket. In any event, I have considered
the matter for myself and have made my own assessment as I must. The
responsibility is mine.
I don't disagree with any of that factual material. The point is,
though, that these were crimes of relatively simple dishonesty.
Twenty year sentences are surely not handed down routinely for theft or
fraud.
For a single offence, no. But these were a very large number of offences committed over a considerable period of time.
Without the additional offences related to preventing a burial, Bush's sentence would probably have been about 15 years, after taking account of
the severity of his fraudulent activities and the imposition of consective sentences for unrelated offences. I don't thinkk bumping that up to 20 years when adding in the common law offences related to his treatment of the corpses in his care is excessive.
Mark
On 14 Aug 2026 at 23:10:31 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:02:34 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
The prosecution submitted that, taking account of totality, the
overall sentence before giving credit for the pleas of guilty would be >>>> in the range of 20-25 years-A imprisonment. Mr Wright said that he was >>>> not going to descend to figures but I did not understand him to take
issue with the prosecution-As bracket. In any event, I have considered >>>> the matter for myself and have made my own assessment as I must. The
responsibility is mine.
I don't disagree with any of that factual material. The point is,
though, that these were crimes of relatively simple dishonesty.
Twenty year sentences are surely not handed down routinely for theft or
fraud.
For a single offence, no. But these were a very large number of offences
committed over a considerable period of time.
Without the additional offences related to preventing a burial, Bush's
sentence would probably have been about 15 years, after taking account of
the severity of his fraudulent activities and the imposition of consective >> sentences for unrelated offences. I don't thinkk bumping that up to 20 years >> when adding in the common law offences related to his treatment of the
corpses in his care is excessive.
Mark
It sounds to me somewhat like charging either two or three different offences for the same crime, which I thought was generally considered unjust.
On 15/08/2026 02:00 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Aug 2026 at 23:10:31 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:02:34 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 13/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
The prosecution submitted that, taking account of totality, the
overall sentence before giving credit for the pleas of guilty would be >>>>> in the range of 20-25 years-A imprisonment. Mr Wright said that he was >>>>> not going to descend to figures but I did not understand him to take >>>>> issue with the prosecution-As bracket. In any event, I have considered >>>>> the matter for myself and have made my own assessment as I must. The >>>>> responsibility is mine.
I don't disagree with any of that factual material. The point is,
though, that these were crimes of relatively simple dishonesty.
Twenty year sentences are surely not handed down routinely for theft or >>>> fraud.
For a single offence, no. But these were a very large number of offences >>> committed over a considerable period of time.
Without the additional offences related to preventing a burial, Bush's
sentence would probably have been about 15 years, after taking
account of
the severity of his fraudulent activities and the imposition of
consective
sentences for unrelated offences. I don't thinkk bumping that up to
20 years
when adding in the common law offences related to his treatment of the
corpses in his care is excessive.
Mark
It sounds to me somewhat like charging either two or three different
offences
for the same crime, which I thought was generally considered unjust.
A single incident may easily involve more than one offence.
A traffic accident could (theoretically) involve:
(a) driving without a licence *
(b) driving without insurance *
(c) driving with a vehicle not compliant with the C&U regs (eg, a bald
-a-a-a tyre or two, faulty brakes) *
(d) driving a vehicle without a requisite MOT test certificate *
(e) driving with more than the permitted amount of alcohol in the blood
-a-a-a (or otherwise unfit through drugs) *
(e) failing to comply with traffic signs (eg, red traffic lights)
(f) driving at a speed in excess of the applicable speed limit
(g) driving without due care and attention, or
(h) driving dangerously.
In many cases of a traffic accident, some of those might not be pressed
to a charge and summons, but all the easy ones * (and more) might well be.
On 15/08/2026 08:31, JNugent wrote:
On 15/08/2026 02:00 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Aug 2026 at 23:10:31 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:02:34 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 13/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
The prosecution submitted that, taking account of totality, the
overall sentence before giving credit for the pleas of guilty
would be
in the range of 20-25 years-A imprisonment. Mr Wright said that he was >>>>>> not going to descend to figures but I did not understand him to take >>>>>> issue with the prosecution-As bracket. In any event, I have considered >>>>>> the matter for myself and have made my own assessment as I must. The >>>>>> responsibility is mine.
I don't disagree with any of that factual material. The point is,
though, that these were crimes of relatively simple dishonesty.
Twenty year sentences are surely not handed down routinely for
theft or
fraud.
For a single offence, no. But these were a very large number of
offences
committed over a considerable period of time.
Without the additional offences related to preventing a burial, Bush's >>>> sentence would probably have been about 15 years, after taking
account of
the severity of his fraudulent activities and the imposition of
consective
sentences for unrelated offences. I don't thinkk bumping that up to
20 years
when adding in the common law offences related to his treatment of the >>>> corpses in his care is excessive.
Mark
It sounds to me somewhat like charging either two or three different
offences
for the same crime, which I thought was generally considered unjust.
A single incident may easily involve more than one offence.
A traffic accident could (theoretically) involve:
(a) driving without a licence *
(b) driving without insurance *
(c) driving with a vehicle not compliant with the C&U regs (eg, a bald
tyre or two, faulty brakes) *
(d) driving a vehicle without a requisite MOT test certificate *
(e) driving with more than the permitted amount of alcohol in the blood
(or otherwise unfit through drugs) *
(e) failing to comply with traffic signs (eg, red traffic lights)
(f) driving at a speed in excess of the applicable speed limit
(g) driving without due care and attention, or
(h) driving dangerously.
In many cases of a traffic accident, some of those might not be
pressed to a charge and summons, but all the easy ones * (and more)
might well be.
But, if those charges all relate to a single incident, any prison
sentences run concurrently?
If a person in a position of trust stole a similar amount of money (I'm guessing maybe -u200k) over a very lengthy period, I think the sentence
would be around 5 years.
I know that Bush has caused an awful lot of upset to an awful lot of
people, but it seems a daft use of our rather scarce prison resources to
lock him up for vastly longer.
I'm really commenting here on the overall outcome, not on the
nitty-gritty of how the court got there. If Mr Bush serves his full 20
years, it's going to cost the taxpayer the best part of -u1m to lock him up.
On 15/08/2026 11:23 AM, GB wrote:
On 15/08/2026 08:31, JNugent wrote:
On 15/08/2026 02:00 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Aug 2026 at 23:10:31 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:02:34 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 13/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
The prosecution submitted that, taking account of totality, the
overall sentence before giving credit for the pleas of guilty
would be
in the range of 20-25 years-A imprisonment. Mr Wright said that he was >>>>>>> not going to descend to figures but I did not understand him to take >>>>>>> issue with the prosecution-As bracket. In any event, I have considered >>>>>>> the matter for myself and have made my own assessment as I must. The >>>>>>> responsibility is mine.
I don't disagree with any of that factual material. The point is,
though, that these were crimes of relatively simple dishonesty.
Twenty year sentences are surely not handed down routinely for
theft or
fraud.
For a single offence, no. But these were a very large number of
offences
committed over a considerable period of time.
Without the additional offences related to preventing a burial, Bush's >>>>> sentence would probably have been about 15 years, after taking
account of
the severity of his fraudulent activities and the imposition of
consective
sentences for unrelated offences. I don't thinkk bumping that up to
20 years
when adding in the common law offences related to his treatment of the >>>>> corpses in his care is excessive.
Mark
It sounds to me somewhat like charging either two or three different
offences
for the same crime, which I thought was generally considered unjust.
A single incident may easily involve more than one offence.
A traffic accident could (theoretically) involve:
(a) driving without a licence *
(b) driving without insurance *
(c) driving with a vehicle not compliant with the C&U regs (eg, a bald
tyre or two, faulty brakes) *
(d) driving a vehicle without a requisite MOT test certificate *
(e) driving with more than the permitted amount of alcohol in the blood
(or otherwise unfit through drugs) *
(e) failing to comply with traffic signs (eg, red traffic lights)
(f) driving at a speed in excess of the applicable speed limit
(g) driving without due care and attention, or
(h) driving dangerously.
In many cases of a traffic accident, some of those might not be
pressed to a charge and summons, but all the easy ones * (and more)
might well be.
But, if those charges all relate to a single incident, any prison
sentences run concurrently?
AFAICS, not many of them usually result in a custodial sentence.
If a person in a position of trust stole a similar amount of money (I'm
guessing maybe -u200k) over a very lengthy period, I think the sentence
would be around 5 years.
I know that Bush has caused an awful lot of upset to an awful lot of
people, but it seems a daft use of our rather scarce prison resources to
lock him up for vastly longer.
I'm really commenting here on the overall outcome, not on the
nitty-gritty of how the court got there. If Mr Bush serves his full 20
years, it's going to cost the taxpayer the best part of -u1m to lock him up.
I can't remember how old he is, but he may move from prison straight to
State pension. Hey, would he be entitled to it whilst in prison (as long
as the entitlement conditions were satisfied)?
I can't remember how old he is, but he may move from prison straight to
State pension. Hey, would he be entitled to it whilst in prison (as long
as the entitlement conditions were satisfied)?
No.
On 15 Aug 2026 at 15:31:00 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/08/2026 11:23 AM, GB wrote:
On 15/08/2026 08:31, JNugent wrote:
On 15/08/2026 02:00 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Aug 2026 at 23:10:31 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:02:34 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 13/08/2026 10:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
The prosecution submitted that, taking account of totality, the >>>>>>>> overall sentence before giving credit for the pleas of guilty
would be
in the range of 20-25 years-A imprisonment. Mr Wright said that he was >>>>>>>> not going to descend to figures but I did not understand him to take >>>>>>>> issue with the prosecution-As bracket. In any event, I have considered >>>>>>>> the matter for myself and have made my own assessment as I must. The >>>>>>>> responsibility is mine.
I don't disagree with any of that factual material. The point is, >>>>>>> though, that these were crimes of relatively simple dishonesty.
Twenty year sentences are surely not handed down routinely for
theft or
fraud.
For a single offence, no. But these were a very large number of
offences
committed over a considerable period of time.
Without the additional offences related to preventing a burial, Bush's >>>>>> sentence would probably have been about 15 years, after taking
account of
the severity of his fraudulent activities and the imposition of
consective
sentences for unrelated offences. I don't thinkk bumping that up to >>>>>> 20 years
when adding in the common law offences related to his treatment of the >>>>>> corpses in his care is excessive.
Mark
It sounds to me somewhat like charging either two or three different >>>>> offences
for the same crime, which I thought was generally considered unjust.
A single incident may easily involve more than one offence.
A traffic accident could (theoretically) involve:
(a) driving without a licence *
(b) driving without insurance *
(c) driving with a vehicle not compliant with the C&U regs (eg, a bald >>>> tyre or two, faulty brakes) *
(d) driving a vehicle without a requisite MOT test certificate *
(e) driving with more than the permitted amount of alcohol in the blood >>>> (or otherwise unfit through drugs) *
(e) failing to comply with traffic signs (eg, red traffic lights)
(f) driving at a speed in excess of the applicable speed limit
(g) driving without due care and attention, or
(h) driving dangerously.
In many cases of a traffic accident, some of those might not be
pressed to a charge and summons, but all the easy ones * (and more)
might well be.
But, if those charges all relate to a single incident, any prison
sentences run concurrently?
AFAICS, not many of them usually result in a custodial sentence.
If a person in a position of trust stole a similar amount of money (I'm
guessing maybe -u200k) over a very lengthy period, I think the sentence
would be around 5 years.
I know that Bush has caused an awful lot of upset to an awful lot of
people, but it seems a daft use of our rather scarce prison resources to >>> lock him up for vastly longer.
I'm really commenting here on the overall outcome, not on the
nitty-gritty of how the court got there. If Mr Bush serves his full 20
years, it's going to cost the taxpayer the best part of -u1m to lock him up.
I can't remember how old he is, but he may move from prison straight to
State pension. Hey, would he be entitled to it whilst in prison (as long
as the entitlement conditions were satisfied)?
No.
If a person in a position of trust stole a similar amount of money (I'm guessing maybe -u200k) over a very lengthy period, I think the sentence would be around 5 years.
I know that Bush has caused an awful lot of upset to an awful lot of
people, but it seems a daft use of our rather scarce prison resources to lock him up for vastly longer.
I'm really commenting here on the overall outcome, not on the nitty-gritty of how the court got there. If Mr Bush serves his full 20 years, it's going to cost the taxpayer the best part of -u1m to lock him up.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:38:47 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,566 |