Just like Jesus

[Roses]

So would any responsible person, but there are more equivocal, borderline cases. Would you report an illegal immigrant who might have escaped poverty and oppression in their home country, or a shoplifter in Tesco who might be stealing food because they are unemployed and desperate?

I would report a shoplifter, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. As for illegal immigrants as sorry as I feel for the genuine ones, they are in danger of being exploited by the bad guys and treated as slaves, so I would alert the authorities in the hope their welfare should be taken into consideration if deportation is on the cards.

[SteveH]

So much for the season of goodwill.

[jeremyp]

Only if you get a custodial sentence of more than a year, I think.

That's the rule and if she went by the letter of it, I'd accept her decision, especially if her constituency party and her constituents are OK with it, but she has been convicted of lying to law enforcement officials, I'm not sure that looks particularly good on the CV of a Member of Parliament, never mind a solicitor.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is no general legal requirement to report a crime.

That is correct, but irrelevant to the current case. While there may be no legal requirement to report a crime there is a legal requirement not to lie to police during inquiries into a crime. So specifically, although there may be no requirement for someone speeding to fess up to the police, there is a requirement for them not to lie if their car was caught speeding and the police ask whether they were driving the car at the time.

For the record, I doubt she will get a custodial sentence of a year or more. Most likely a few months, as was the case for Chris Huhne who was sentenced to 8 months.

[ProfessorDavey]

So much for the season of goodwill.

So do you think that the judicial system should be more lenient at one time of the year than at another, noting of course that when a case is heard and perhaps when sentencing occurs is a pretty random event in relation to when the original offence actually occurred.

So if you believe in seasonal leniency, should that be linked to the date when the offence occurred or the date when the sentence is handed down.

Of course this is all non-sense - the judicial system should be the same throughout the year.

[Aruntraveller]

So do you think that the judicial system should be more lenient at one time of the year than at another, noting of course that when a case is heard and perhaps when sentencing occurs is a pretty random event in relation to when the original offence actually occurred.

So if you believe in seasonal leniency, should that be linked to the date when the offence occurred or the date when the sentence is handed down.

Of course this is all non-sense - the judicial system should be the same throughout the year.

I think Oliphants response was to LR's preceding post rather than a comment on the entirety of the subject.

[Nearly Sane]

So do you think that the judicial system should be more lenient at one time of the year than at another, noting of course that when a case is heard and perhaps when sentencing occurs is a pretty random event in relation to when the original offence actually occurred.

So if you believe in seasonal leniency, should that be linked to the date when the offence occurred or the date when the sentence is handed down.

Of course this is all non-sense - the judicial system should be the same throughout the year.

so you got a good deal on New Year straw obviously.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think Oliphants response was to LR's preceding post rather than a comment on the entirety of the subject.

Perhaps so, but it isn't clear from his post, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to clarify whether he thinks that the judicial system should be more lenient at this time of the year, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of his post.

[Aruntraveller]

Perhaps so, but it isn't clear from his post, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to clarify whether he thinks that the judicial system should be more lenient at this time of the year, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of his post.

Well as I say, I thought it was fairly obvious he was reacting to LR's position on the subject. I don't think he was even suggesting seasonal leniency. Just leniency for those that perhaps deserve it but don't always get it.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps so, but it isn't clear from his post, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to clarify whether he thinks that the judicial system should be more lenient at this time of the year, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of his post.

Except that isn't what you did. You imperfectly unreasonably created a whole position for him with no evidence and no question mark which would be how you might do 'clarification '.

[SteveH]

Perhaps so, but it isn't clear from his post, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to clarify whether he thinks that the judicial system should be more lenient at this time of the year, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of his post.

I think it was pretty clear that I was referring to LR's attitude.

[Udayana]

That is correct, but irrelevant to the current case. While there may be no legal requirement to report a crime there is a legal requirement not to lie to police during inquiries into a crime. So specifically, although there may be no requirement for someone speeding to fess up to the police, there is a requirement for them not to lie if their car was caught speeding and the police ask whether they were driving the car at the time.

For the record, I doubt she will get a custodial sentence of a year or more. Most likely a few months, as was the case for Chris Huhne who was sentenced to 8 months.

Well I was replying to LR's general (off topic) post.

On this specific case, I expect Fiona Onasanya will serve a couple of months as you suggest. IMO, based on the press reports, rightly so.

I knew and liked Chris Huhne when he was the MP for my area, but do not think it is  is acceptable for someone convicted for attempting to pervert the course of justice to continue as an MP.

[Udayana]

Well as I say, I thought it was fairly obvious he was reacting to LR's position on the subject. I don't think he was even suggesting seasonal leniency. Just leniency for those that perhaps deserve it but don't always get it.

Seems to me that OC was not taking any position but just issuing a pointless comment to piss off LR.

[Aruntraveller]

Seems to me that OC was not taking any position but just issuing a pointless comment to piss off LR.

In that post I'd agree, but the context of the discussion was such that LR had a very fixed idea over punishment whereas OC tended to a more lenient approach, which lead to the curt reply.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think it was pretty clear that I was referring to LR's attitude.

Thanks for clarifying, but no it wasn't clear what you meant which was why I felt the need to ask. The lack of clarify wasn't helped by the fact that your comment was not in response to a specific comment by another poster - i.e. no 'quote' from a previous reply.

And you actually haven't answered my question and I'd be grateful if you would as I remain confused as to the relevance of the 'season'. So please can you tell me whether you think that the judicial system should be more lenient at one time of the year than at another.

[ProfessorDavey]

In that post I'd agree, but the context of the discussion was such that LR had a very fixed idea over punishment whereas OC tended to a more lenient approach, which lead to the curt reply.

Which returns us to the notion of the 'season'. Even if directed specifically at LR's fixed ideas over punishment - referring to the season of goodwill implies (certainly to me) that LR's views should be more moderated (i.e. more lenient in legal terms) at this particular time of year. So, in effect, that it's OK to want to 'lock em up and throw away the key' in June (as it isn't the season of goodwill), but not so during the season of goodwill.

Alternatively he was just marking a snarky comment to rile LR - and that certainly seems to have worked in spades (noting the thread on the General Discussion section) - so much for the season of goodwill in that respect.

[SteveH]

Thanks for clarifying, but no it wasn't clear what you meant which was why I felt the need to ask. The lack of clarify wasn't helped by the fact that your comment was not in response to a specific comment by another poster - i.e. no 'quote' from a previous reply.

And you actually haven't answered my question and I'd be grateful if you would as I remain confused as to the relevance of the 'season'. So please can you tell me whether you think that the judicial system should be more lenient at one time of the year than at another.

No, of course not.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

PD
Re: #64

I thought it was not difficult to understand. You quote a post or name a specific poster and/or post # if you are addressing the person who posted and making specific points about what they said. You use the Reply button if you don’t really want a one to one conversation with the poster but just want to comment on what you thought of the previous post.

LR said she would alert the police or authorities  if she saw someone shoplifting after it was pointed out that the shoplifter could be doing it out of need because they are poor. Christmas is traditionally considered the season of goodwill and LR posted her comment at Christmas and OC’s reply was that LR’s post did not reflect the traditional idea of magnanimity or generosity associated with the season.

Not seeing where judicial sentencing comes into LR’s comment that she would alert the authorities or OC’s reply, commenting on LR’s post.

[SteveH]

PD
Re: #64

I thought it was not difficult to understand. You quote a post or name a specific poster and/or post # if you are addressing the person who posted and making specific points about what they said. You use the Reply button if you don’t really want a one to one conversation with the poster but just want to comment on what you thought of the previous post.

LR said she would alert the police or authorities  if she saw someone shoplifting after it was pointed out that the shoplifter could be doing it out of need because they are poor. Christmas is traditionally considered the season of goodwill and LR posted her comment at Christmas and OC’s reply was that LR’s post did not reflect the traditional idea of magnanimity or generosity associated with the season.

Not seeing where judicial sentencing comes into LR’s comment that she would alert the authorities or OC’s reply, commenting on LR’s post.

Exactemundo.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which returns us to the notion of the 'season'. Even if directed specifically at LR's fixed ideas over punishment - referring to the season of goodwill implies (certainly to me) that LR's views should be more moderated (i.e. more lenient in legal terms) at this particular time of year. So, in effect, that it's OK to want to 'lock em up and throw away the key' in June (as it isn't the season of goodwill), but not so during the season of goodwill.

Alternatively he was just marking a snarky comment to rile LR - and that certainly seems to have worked in spades (noting the thread on the General Discussion section) - so much for the season of goodwill in that respect.

People make snarky comments to rile each other up on here all the time. LR doesn’t get any worse comments than anyone else. No one is forced to stay but many do despite the comments. Some people, when taking a break from the forum, prefer to write a farewell post and then come back when they’ve cooled down.

I’ve lost count of the number of times LR has written a farewell post and then come back.

[jeremyp]

No, of course not.

So why would you expect Little Roses to take a more lenient view of sentencing at Christmas time, if you do not believe that yourself?

[SteveH]

So why would you expect Little Roses to take a more lenient view of sentencing at Christmas time, if you do not believe that yourself?

Oh ffs! It was a throwaway sarky comment!

[jeremyp]

Oh ffs! It was a throwaway sarky comment!

Yes it was, but, as is often is the case, the debate about it has overtaken the thread.

[SteveH]

Yes it was, but, as is often is the case, the debate about it has overtaken the thread.

Entirely due to your nit-picking obsessiverness.

[Udayana]

Entirely due to your nit-picking obsessiverness.

There we have another ... do you actually have anything other than snide personal comments to contribute?