Have Kids - Avoid Prison

13th January 2014

Well that's only if you're a chav who commits crime of course.

I'm reading this more and more - Judges giving non-custodial sentences because it may affect the criminal's family.

Please discuss.


A kitchen designer cheated the benefits system out of more than £39,000 while owning two houses and having almost a maximum holding of premium bonds.

Kevin Meredith, 44, failed to tell those granting him income support and paying his council tax as a lone parent, that he was getting £600-a-month rent from tenants and had £27,000 entered each month for the ERNIE draw which could have won him £1m.

For five years Meredith, the father of four sons – three of them grown up – committed a fraud on taxpayers, receiving £34,835 in income support and £3,126 in council tax, prosecutor Gareth Evans told Cardiff Crown Court.

When the authorities eventually caught up with him, he told them “Usually I’m ethical but this started and I couldn’t see a way out of it. I couldn’t think of a way of stopping it and putting things right”.

He also said he feared a conviction could affect his position as a foster father.

Mr Evans said Meredith’s claims had been fraudulent from the outset.

He did not admit that he owned and rented out a property in Thomas Street, Cardiff which had been occupied by his parents or say he had savings of £27,000 put into premium bonds.


Part-time judge, Recorder Jeremy Jenkins said Meredith’s cheating richly deserved an 18-month prison sentence but for the sake of his young son and his elderly parents it would be suspended for two years.

He also ordered him to carry out 180 hours unpaid community work and gave him six months to pay the £1,740 cost of his prosecution.


Recorder Jenkins told him: “The benefit system is there for those in need not for people to abuse.

“Taxpayers justifiably feel cheated when they realise their hard-earned taxes are being stolen from them.”


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/benefits-cheat-avoids-jail-after-6496581

Austerity. No money anymore for provision of the child. You put the father in prison and the child turns out to go living in the streets.

Hell, probably no money for the incarceration, either. Conservatives never think things through.

Original Quill wrote:Austerity.  No money anymore for provision of the child.  You put the father in prison and the child turns out to go living in the streets.

Hell, probably no money for the incarceration, either.  Conservatives never think things through.

What do you mean, Conservatives don't think things through? Are you saying they're softer than the last government?

I don't think many benefit theives do go to prison do they?

I mean that Conservatives have no comprehension of economics. In an interdependent society, things like child care and protective services cost money. If you want modern civilization, it costs...pay the bills. Otherwise, the result is putting criminals back on the street, as in this case.

People who cry for austerity never consider the consequences. That's what I mean about not thinking things through.

Spindleshanks wrote:I don't think many benefit theives do go to prison do they?

Hell, bank robbers don't go to prison anymore. Prisons cost too much money.

Austerity again.

Original Quill wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:I don't think many benefit theives do go to prison do they?

Hell, bank robbers don't go to prison anymore.  Prisons cost too much money.

Austerity again.

someone must do, they are full or nearly full aren't they?

Spindleshanks wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Hell, bank robbers don't go to prison anymore.  Prisons cost too much money.

Austerity again.

someone must do, they are full or nearly full aren't they?

Criminal justice is a two-way street.  The more laws you have, the more people you put in prison.  The more people you put in prison, the more prison money you need.

Austerity works the reverse way.  If you ain't got money, you let 'em go.

Haha...you even have to pay for the laws you harbour.

Original Quill wrote:I mean that Conservatives have no comprehension of economics.  In an interdependent society, things like child care and protective services cost money.  If you want modern civilization, it costs...pay the bills.  Otherwise, the result is putting criminals back on the street, as in this case.

People who cry for austerity never consider the consequences.  That's what I mean about not thinking things through.

What pisses me off is when people bitch and moan about not having enough money for certain services but the second a Government tries to introduce higher taxes or cuts to different services then people start bitching and moaning again.

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I mean that Conservatives have no comprehension of economics.  In an interdependent society, things like child care and protective services cost money.  If you want modern civilization, it costs...pay the bills.  Otherwise, the result is putting criminals back on the street, as in this case.

People who cry for austerity never consider the consequences.  That's what I mean about not thinking things through.

What pisses me off is when people bitch and moan about not having enough money for certain services but the second a Government tries to introduce higher taxes or cuts to different services then people start bitching and moaning again.

Very true.

So, we can only do a certain amount of things because we can only spend a certain amount of money.

If the above is correct, and I think we all agree that it is, who should the money be spent on, who should lose some things, who should be punished, and who should not?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

What pisses me off is when people bitch and moan about not having enough money for certain services but the second a Government tries to introduce higher taxes or cuts to different services then people start bitching and moaning again.

Very true.

So, we can only do a certain amount of things because we can only spend a certain amount of money.

If the above is correct, and I think we all agree that it is, who should the money be spent on, who should lose some things, who should be punished, and who should not?

Now you are thinking it through, andy. Let's go to the top of the list, where most of the money is wasted. The military. We don't need all those toys. We could take all of that money and pay for social programs--child care, education, food, medical care, housing, etc.--a thousand times over and still have money left over. So pare down the military to bare necessities.

Next, in a free market economy, it's ridiculous to give away all those oil leases, land leases and other state opportunities. Nor do we need to give them such enormous tax considerations.

Now, I think we have solved half of our economic problems right there. Austerity...psh. Who needs it.

Original Quill wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Very true.

So, we can only do a certain amount of things because we can only spend a certain amount of money.

If the above is correct, and I think we all agree that it is, who should the money be spent on, who should lose some things, who should be punished, and who should not?

Now you are thinking it through, andy.  Let's go to the top of the list, where most of the money is wasted.  The military.  We don't need all those toys.  We could take all of that money and pay for social programs--child care, education, food, medical care, housing, etc.--a thousand times over and still have money left over.  So pare down the military to bare necessities.

Next, in a free market economy, it's ridiculous to give away all those oil leases, land leases and other state opportunities.  Nor do we need to give them such enormous tax considerations.

Now, I think we have solved half of our economic problems right there.  Austerity...psh.  Who needs it.

Hmmm...

Well I think we need to protect British lives first. British lives are under real threat in the Falklands.

I think foreign aid should be diverted to the military.

Any other ideas?

Sensible ones, preferably.

The Falklands? How much do you need to spend to defend 3,000 people?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Now you are thinking it through, andy.  Let's go to the top of the list, where most of the money is wasted.  The military.  We don't need all those toys.  We could take all of that money and pay for social programs--child care, education, food, medical care, housing, etc.--a thousand times over and still have money left over.  So pare down the military to bare necessities.

Next, in a free market economy, it's ridiculous to give away all those oil leases, land leases and other state opportunities.  Nor do we need to give them such enormous tax considerations.

Now, I think we have solved half of our economic problems right there.  Austerity...psh.  Who needs it.

Hmmm...

Well I think we need to protect British lives first.  British lives are under real threat in the Falklands.

I think foreign aid should be diverted to the military.

Any other ideas?  

Sensible ones, preferably.

You could protect all those lives by pulling out and handing over the Falklands to glorious Argentina.

Ben_Reilly wrote:The Falklands? How much do you need to spend to defend 3,000 people?

Well, enough to fund an army, navy and air force which is able to defeat another country's combined armed forces, 8,000 miles away.

A lot?

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Hmmm...

Well I think we need to protect British lives first.  British lives are under real threat in the Falklands.

I think foreign aid should be diverted to the military.

Any other ideas?  

Sensible ones, preferably.

You could protect all those lives by pulling out and handing over the Falklands to glorious Argentina.

And you'd be happy if England came over and took over your street, next year?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

You could protect all those lives by pulling out and handing over the Falklands to glorious Argentina.

And you'd be happy if England came over and took over your street, next year?

You already did that hundreds of years ago sure, didn't you?

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

And you'd be happy if England came over and took over your street, next year?

You already did that hundreds of years ago sure, didn't you?

I wasn't born hundreds of years ago.

Stop whinging about things people did hundreds of years ago.

I have never had any slaves, either!

BigAndy9 wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

You already did that hundreds of years ago sure, didn't you?

I wasn't born hundreds of years ago.

Stop whinging about things people did hundreds of years ago.

I have never had any slaves, either!

It's still 100% your fault.
You need to take responsibility for your ancestors.
Reparations when?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

You already did that hundreds of years ago sure, didn't you?

I wasn't born hundreds of years ago.

Stop whinging about things people did hundreds of years ago.

I have never had any slaves, either!

You are losing the topic, andy.  Less military, more money.  Remember?

Frankly, I think Queen O'Hearts makes a good point.  Those Falkland islands are costing you guys a mint.  Maybe you can't afford them.

Choices. Hard choices. If you can't afford to keep your populus happy and healthy, of what use are a couple of rocks in the South Atlantic?

Original Quill wrote:
what use are a couple of rocks in the South Atlantic?

The UK likes to pretend it is still an empire.

They got a couple of islands off the coast of France--Jersey and Guernsey. Diego Garcia is still their's. Bermuda, Virgin Islands and Caymans.

Time to rein it in, andy. Y'all can't afford it.

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
what use are a couple of rocks in the South Atlantic?

The UK likes to pretend it is still an empire.

Haven't heard anybody call it that in

...ever.

In fact, the only thing I've ever heard is hang on, let me copy and paste it


The UK likes to pretend it is still an empire

Original Quill wrote:They got a couple of islands off the coast of France--Jersey and Guernsey.  Diego Garcia is still their's.  Bermuda, Virgin Islands and Caymans.

Time to rein it in, andy.  Y'all can't afford it.

Now this I like.

You're right Quill. One thing about me, i'm always willing to learn a lesson or two.

We can't afford it all and I've made my decision.

We must kill off the poor, lazy, sick people of the country to keep those islands running.

Did I say must - I meant we're half way through the process.


  

BigAndy9 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:They got a couple of islands off the coast of France--Jersey and Guernsey.  Diego Garcia is still their's.  Bermuda, Virgin Islands and Caymans.

Time to rein it in, andy.  Y'all can't afford it.

Now this I like.

You're right Quill.  One thing about me, i'm always willing to learn a lesson or two.

We can't afford it all and I've made my decision.

We must kill off the poor, lazy, sick people of the country to keep those islands running.

Did I say must - I meant we're half way through the process.


  

The bloodlust of the British Empire knows no bounds!
How horrifying.

Well, I think she's got a bigger point. You guys spend a disproportionate sum of money on a military, when all that is at stake are a couple of rocks here and there.

Why don't y'all do what we did with the Philippines? Cut 'em loose. Sell those aircraft carriers. Use the money for council home improvements and daycare.

BigAndy9 wrote:
We must kill off the poor, lazy, sick people of the country to keep those islands running.

Did I say must - I meant we're half way through the process.


  

Well, you're damn sure trying. Once you got no islands, no aircraft carriers and no people, will you finally be happy?

Lol.

Original Quill wrote:Well, I think she's got a bigger point.  You guys spend a disproportionate sum of money on a military, when all that is at stake are a couple of rocks here and there.  

Why don't y'all do what we did with the Philippines?  Cut 'em loose.  Sell those aircraft carriers.  Use the money for council home improvements and daycare.

I'm sure we've cut loose a lot more countries than you - all those who have asked us to in fact.

Actually - what did you have to cut loose? Oh well, never mind.

Ok, I don't think you understand, it is people we're talking about, not land. Real lives.

When they want to go, I think we should let them go.

It's like talking to a couple of jealous little kids...

BigAndy9 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Well, I think she's got a bigger point.  You guys spend a disproportionate sum of money on a military, when all that is at stake are a couple of rocks here and there.  

Why don't y'all do what we did with the Philippines?  Cut 'em loose.  Sell those aircraft carriers.  Use the money for council home improvements and daycare.

I'm sure we've cut loose a lot more countries than you - all those who have asked us to in fact.

Last I checked Quills country and my country had to wage war to split off from you.

Original Quill wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I wasn't born hundreds of years ago.

Stop whinging about things people did hundreds of years ago.

I have never had any slaves, either!

You are losing the topic, andy.  Less military, more money.  Remember?

Frankly, I think Queen O'Hearts makes a good point.  Those Falkland islands are costing you guys a mint.  Maybe you can't afford them.

Choices.  Hard choices.  If you can't afford to keep your populus happy and healthy, of what use are a couple of rocks in the South Atlantic?

What about the wishes of the Falklanders? Do they have no say?

And the ones that did ask you - the commonwealth - are only semi-autonomous.

Oh please Sphinx, get real, you dont think the fate of 3000 odd penguin huggers is of any concern do you? Dont you rather, recon the govts interest in those bits of rock over there <<<<>>>> is more likely to do with the possibility of OIL down thataways.

Original Quill wrote:They got a couple of islands off the coast of France--Jersey and Guernsey.  Diego Garcia is still their's.  Bermuda, Virgin Islands and Caymans.

Time to rein it in, andy.  Y'all can't afford it.

Jersey and Guernsey dont belong to the UK.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Well, I think she's got a bigger point.  You guys spend a disproportionate sum of money on a military, when all that is at stake are a couple of rocks here and there.  

Why don't y'all do what we did with the Philippines?  Cut 'em loose.  Sell those aircraft carriers.  Use the money for council home improvements and daycare.

I'm sure we've cut loose a lot more countries than you - all those who have asked us to in fact.

Actually - what did you have to cut loose?  Oh well, never mind.

Ok, I don't think you understand, it is people we're talking about, not land.  Real lives.

When they want to go, I think we should let them go.

We had all those possessions left over from the Spanish-American War. The difference is that we never had such an ego that we went empire-building in the first place. To America, that was déclassé.

Britain has spun most of those possessions of, and that's a good thing. Now you need to get rid of all the hardware used to keep them.

grumpy old git wrote:Oh please Sphinx, get real, you dont think the fate of 3000 odd penguin huggers is of any concern do you? Dont you rather, recon the govts interest in those bits of rock over there <<<<>>>> is more likely to do with the possibility of OIL down thataways.

The reason for the governments concern is irrelevant at this junction. I am asking if the wishes of the islanders are irrelevant.

NemsAgain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:They got a couple of islands off the coast of France--Jersey and Guernsey.  Diego Garcia is still their's.  Bermuda, Virgin Islands and Caymans.

Time to rein it in, andy.  Y'all can't afford it.

Jersey and Guernsey dont belong to the UK.

Don't they still belong to the Royal family? That's how they came up on them, isn't it?

Queen Of Hearts wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I'm sure we've cut loose a lot more countries than you - all those who have asked us to in fact.

Last I checked Quills country and my country had to wage war to split off from you.

Me?

Not me Sunshine.

I've already said - I let the people decide.

Original Quill wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

Jersey and Guernsey dont belong to the UK.

Don't they still belong to the Royal family?  That's how they came up on them, isn't it?

She is our Queen yes, the Islands are Crown dependencies. Separate government, money, laws and almost extinct language etc

sphinx wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:Oh please Sphinx, get real, you dont think the fate of 3000 odd penguin huggers is of any concern do you? Dont you rather, recon the govts interest in those bits of rock over there <<<<>>>> is more likely to do with the possibility of OIL down thataways.

The reason for the governments concern is irrelevant at this junction.  I am asking if the wishes of the islanders are irrelevant.

They are ex-Brits, aren't they? Now granted, I don't feel any more sentimental for ex-Spaniards. But the point is that no one has any real or natural claim on the islands.

But we're getting off the point. We were talking austerity, and the need to pare down things. Well, if those islands are the only reason Britain maintains a military, cut them loose.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The reason for the governments concern is irrelevant at this junction.  I am asking if the wishes of the islanders are irrelevant.

They are ex-Brits, aren't they?  Now granted, I don't feel any more sentimental for ex-Spaniards.  But the point is that no one has any real or natural claim on the islands.

But we're getting off the point.  We were talking austerity, and the need to pare down things.  Well, if those islands are the only reason Britain maintains a military, cut them loose.

Nah, the Islanders voted to remain British and they will

NemsAgain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Don't they still belong to the Royal family?  That's how they came up on them, isn't it?

She is our Queen yes, the Islands are Crown dependencies. Separate government, money, laws and almost extinct language etc

Interesting. But, still, Britain maintains possession of other islands that necessitate a military presence, and as such, cost money. Now, Conservatives are on this austerity kick. I can think of no better place to start than with real estate you can't afford.

NemsAgain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They are ex-Brits, aren't they?  Now granted, I don't feel any more sentimental for ex-Spaniards.  But the point is that no one has any real or natural claim on the islands.

But we're getting off the point.  We were talking austerity, and the need to pare down things.  Well, if those islands are the only reason Britain maintains a military, cut them loose.

Nah, the Islanders voted to remain British and they will

My point is that nobody's vote is binding. Andy says Britain needs a costly military to protect the Falklands. I say cut them loose, pare down the military budget and get the benefits and daycare/education systems going again back home.

Original Quill wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

She is our Queen yes, the Islands are Crown dependencies. Separate government, money, laws and almost extinct language etc

Interesting.  But, still, Britain maintains possession of other islands that necessitate a military presence, and as such, cost money.  Now, Conservatives are on this austerity kick.  I can think of no better place to start than with real estate you can't afford.

Thats it Britain hasnt maintained a military presence in the islands in modern times, which is how the Germans just walked in.

Original Quill wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

Nah, the Islanders voted to remain British and they will

My point is that nobody's vote is binding.  Andy says Britain needs a costly military to protect the Falklands.  I say cut them loose, pare down the military budget and get the benefits and daycare/education systems going again back home.

To be honest, the Falklands has no bearing on the military budget - our military is designed...

Actually, go and have a look yourself.

The military is at the smallest our government believes it can be.

So, back to the topic.

Face it everybody - Quill, Beekeeper and one or two British posters (no names) just like to have a go at the country of other posters. Just take a look back.

The reason? Because nobody is talking about their country!

I think Britain should just do what every other country seems to do with their military spending and find a way for the U.S. to foot the bill

 ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: 

Andy, you're evading. Not very "big" of you. The issue here is wasted money in a budget. I simply pointed out that, in any country's budget, the military takes the lion's share. You raised the Falklands as justification for a military.

I said you could eliminate all of that and not have to go on these austerity binges. This isn't about nationalities...it's universal. Spend too much...have less money.

Now, I know you are going to get into Keynesian economics. So, yes, spend that same money on people, and they will grow the economy. Much better than aircraft carriers.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think Britain should just do what every other country seems to do with their military spending and find a way for the U.S. to foot the bill

 ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: ::sexbnan: 

They do. You'd be surprised who bankrolls some of those silly strategic operations on islands in very handy locations   

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The reason for the governments concern is irrelevant at this junction.  I am asking if the wishes of the islanders are irrelevant.

They are ex-Brits, aren't they?  Now granted, I don't feel any more sentimental for ex-Spaniards.  But the point is that no one has any real or natural claim on the islands.

But we're getting off the point.  We were talking austerity, and the need to pare down things.  Well, if those islands are the only reason Britain maintains a military, cut them loose.

Actually the islanders have been there so long they are not ex anything but are Islanders. Their wishes frequently and strongly expressed are to remain as British citizens.

I mean if you have 3000 people on the Islands wishing to remain British citizens why should they be entitled to less protection than 3000 people in Cornwall who wish to remain British citizens if they France announced they wanted to claim that.

As for maintaining the military the reasons do encompass the issue of the Falklands but are far deeper and something those who immediately shout reduce the military have already rejected. Try reading (reading not watching) starship troopers.