Thursday, February 11, 2010


If you're after some cash, force your way into someone's home brandishing weapons and threatening rape and murder. Reast assured you will not go to jail.

(Contribution by Stan Moss)

Last year two "drink and drug fuelled yobs" broke into a house in Hull armed with a knuckle duster and a spade demanding money as they threatened to burn everything, rape the mother and then kill the whole family.

They then grabbed an ornamental sword and reiterated their threats.

The two then dropped the sword but continued with the death threats, at which point Mr Fullard (the homeowner) grabbed the weapon and sliced one of the intruders' ear off in self defence (see photo). He was arrested and, after a legal ordeal that lasted ten months, he was finally cleared.

The two armed scumbags (both with previous convictions) were given a 6-month suspended sentence (meaning that they won't spend a single minute behind bars) and 100 hours of community work, which they should complete within two weeks tops.

The moral of the story? If you're after some cash, force your way into someone's home. Feel free to brandish weapons and to threaten rape, arson and murder. Reast assured you will not go to jail.

Just as a term of reference, in 2005 two young men caught spraying graffiti onto trains in Manchester were sentenced to 10 months' youth detention. They actually did time. The judge said "he hoped it would deter others".

Also in 2005, a 73-year-old OAP from Exeter was sentenced to prison for refusing to pay an outstanding council tax bill of £53.71. A 71-year-old from Northamptonshire was jailed for 28 days for a similar offence.

The reader can decide whether the justice system in Britain is fucked up or not.


Ben E said...

Good article - there is a definitely a disparity in the way different types of crime are viewed. It suggests that the judiciary isn't very joined up in its thinking.

Go to see a film and you will be warned that piracy will incur a potential 10 year jail sentence and an unlimited fine. This is considerably more than one would for child molestation (and potentially death by dangerous driving).

Another disparity is the executive powers that the Child Support Agency has as compared to HMRC (in no small part thanks to last year's welfare reform bill). If the CSA wants your money they have a range of powers that can only be described as extrajudicial: removal of passports, driving licences, and administrative liability orders (which in effect allow them to contract private debt collectors and grant them powers similar to County Court bailiffs without recourse to judicial intervention) without having to prove that the amounts owing are correct. HMRC on the other hand has to apply to the courts for all of these measures and can be refused if they don't prove their calculations. A cursory search for the cost of tax evasion yields this article. Go figure.

Ceri said...

Ben- in relation to your point on the CSA. The main target (in rhetoric anyway) of the CSA has been the poor/'underclass'- feckless fathers leaving their children to be brought up by single mothers on income support.
In some ways, it seems that the as the legal system has hit the poor less hard through judicial means, it has become ever more intolerant and aggressive through non- Judicial means- CSA, benefit policy, school exclusions. I'm afraid I don't have a snap answer as to why, but it seems to point to a way of moulding behaviour more through finacial means that out and out punishment through prison.