Re: Moore : Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:13 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

There does seem to be a determination, by the courts, to not send people to prison. You only need to read the T&A to know that lots of people who ought (imo) to be banged up don't appear to be. As long as that remains the case, I'll hold out some hope that a guy with a job might be cut some slack and given (another?) final chance.

Don't know if it's a help or a hindrance, but he is in a job which has plenty of opportunity for community service.

Re: Moore : Fri Apr 28, 2017 2:55 pm  

REDWHITEANDBLUE wrote:

It mentions in further charges of assault discharge of an electric incapacitation device, probably some sort of stunning device that will definately cause him some problems now I think along with the assaults.

Well if he goes down, maybe he could lend it to Caro to help his tackling?

[Bulliac]

Re: Moore : Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:32 pm  

HamsterChops wrote:

I'm not the only one then that watches Traffic Cops on a Monday night and shouts abuse at the TV when it tells you what "next to nothing" sentences a lot of the local idiots get for driving, drugs and assault offences then....

Oh there are plenty, on TV. It is baffling how loads of (apparently) perfectly good evidence isn't enough for the DPP to prosecute. To be right, I guess the law should show a little mercy sometimes, but there ought to be limits!

Maybe from a legal insider's point of view it is different, I don't know, I assume there are genuine reasons (other than the prisons supposedly being full) why the prosecutions don't come off, but I'm just generally baffled how, for instance, anyone is still LEGALLY driving with around 50 points on their licence. My 'ead 'urts!

Re: Moore : Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:36 pm  

So a policeman can walk around with a taser but when it is wrestled off them it becomes an offensive weapon. How does that work? Surely the copper should have to take more care of it? Funny old world.

Re: Moore : Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:17 am  

debaser wrote:

So a policeman can walk around with a taser but when it is wrestled off them it becomes an offensive weapon. How does that work? Surely the copper should have to take more care of it? Funny old world.

It's an offensive weapon in the hands of anybody. But an authorised officer can legitimately carry one, and provided he can prove just cause and complying with the relevant rules and regulations, he can use it.

Whereas in the hands of anyone else, it is automatically an offensive weapon full stop, end of, don't pass Go, don't collect £200, go straight to jail. A sidestick is an offensive weapon too. Same reason the police can carry them and we can't.

Re: Moore : Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:51 am  

Not being an expert but surely assault on the police should be a custodial sentence. I really can't believe you'd want this type of person playing for your club if he is found guilty.

Re: Moore : Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:39 am  

Norman Bates wrote:

Not being an expert but surely assault on the police should be a custodial sentence. I really can't believe you'd want this type of person playing for your club if he is found guilty.

Not exactly in a position to be choosy, are we? If he gets a custodial sentence, so be it. Personally I think he'd be very fortunate not to.

Re: Moore : Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:41 am  

Norman Bates wrote:

Not being an expert but surely assault on the police should be a custodial sentence. I really can't believe you'd want this type of person playing for your club if he is found guilty.

I'd let Peter Sutcliffe play for us if he had a good step, electric pace and a kicking game.

Re: Moore : Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:01 pm  

HamsterChops wrote:

I'd let Peter Sutcliffe play for us if he had a good step, electric pace and a kicking game.

Nah he runs with a limp, think he's got a stone in his sock or something

Re: Moore : Sun Apr 30, 2017 4:01 pm  

HamsterChops wrote:

I'd let Peter Sutcliffe play for us if he had a good step, electric pace and a kicking game.

FFS. Might be time to leave this alone.