mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 11/8/04 at 02:13 PM |
|
|
Scum bag wins lotto
Scumbag lotto winner link
It has been said that all his victims can now sue him!
|
|
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 11/8/04 at 05:26 PM |
|
|
Read that in the Sun
They ought to share it out among his victims and charge him rent for all his time inside. What was he doing out on licence anyway?
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 11/8/04 at 06:53 PM |
|
|
i dont understand the fuss.
anyone that buys a ticket for the lottery can win, wether they are a good person or a total a$$hole.
I bet a lot of unpleasant wife beaters, dole scroungers, robbers, liers, etc have won.
Hes out on w/e's, so hes nearly released. He was sold a ticket, as same as anyone. So if he wins is it a problem?
atb
steve
ps - hadnt he done 12 years? nowadays thats more than you get for genocide  
[Edited on 11/8/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 11/8/04 at 07:23 PM |
|
|
He will probably be able to get a better lawyer next time and get off!
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
Cita
|
| posted on 11/8/04 at 07:38 PM |
|
|
You are talking b"#l#ks Steve!
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 11/8/04 at 09:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cita
You are talking b"#l#ks Steve!
why?
the guy buys a ticket. he wins. he gets the prize.
wether he loves his mum or dad, or runs over puppies, is an ex rapist, or murderer should have no effect.
Would they have refunded his quid if he hadnt have won?
Should the lottery kiosk ask if you have ever caused a death by dangerous driving? ever had an affair and divorced your wife, leaving her with
nothing?
wtf should being an ex rapist have to do with the lottery and your ability to enter it? If he was 'out' and won, would that be any
different. When, then, does he become able to win the lottery? a year after his sentance finishes? a day? ten years?
The Express paper today ran this article with approx 5 other people quoted that had won and went on to commit a crime..... so exactly what is the
entry requirement to the lottery?
regular church going christian or muslim? charity worker? real nice guy?
Imagine buying a ticket 'excuse me sir, are you a total ba^&tard? already filthy rich? ever parked on a yellow line?'. No. Ok, you can
have a ticket then.
In eastenders, the character that plays dirty den, leslie grantham, in real life served time in germany for killing a taxi driver. Hes still a major
tv star, and can buy lottery tickets.
can he keep his prize if he wins?
It may not seem fair that a rapist can win money when others cant, but life isnt exactly fair is it? Ask the people I saw on TV today starving in the
sudan.
there are much more important issues in life than who wins the lottery, and who sven is shagging this week.
the press need to focus on important issues, not sensationalist crap.
atb
steve
[Edited on 11/8/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 11/8/04 at 09:45 PM |
|
|
steve is probably playing devils advocate, but he's not far from the truth! the guy has been moved to a high security prison cos of fears he
will do a runner. IIRC he is regarded as a current danger, hence he might still be locked up for some time anyway. And you do get less than 12 years
realtime for murders, after parole.
the issue is, he's a c**t, doesnt deserve the money really. But who does? its a mugs game in my books anyway...
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 11/8/04 at 09:51 PM |
|
|
btw - 8 years or so for murder in the UK isnt unusual for a first offence
Joel - you are right, partly I am,
but my basic issue is how do you regulate WHO can do the lottery.....
if he cant do it as a rapist about to leave prison, can he once his sentance is spent?
cos if hes not fit to do the lottery, perhaps the more important issue is that he shouldnt be let out.
atb
steve
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
steve is probably playing devils advocate, but he's not far from the truth! the guy has been moved to a high security prison cos of fears he
will do a runner. IIRC he is regarded as a current danger, hence he might still be locked up for some time anyway. And you do get less than 12 years
realtime for murders, after parole.
the issue is, he's a c**t, doesnt deserve the money really. But who does? its a mugs game in my books anyway...
[Edited on 11/8/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 01:13 AM |
|
|
To add to this...
If Mr Geoffrey Archer bought a lottery ticket whilst he was "on prison leave" and won, should he claimed the money?
He spent very little time in prison even when he should have been locked up... so chances of him winning were proportionally higher than the
rapists!!!
It's the system at fault - not the person. I'd wager the law gets altered very soon anyway, to prevent this happening again.
|
|
|
Cita
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 05:35 AM |
|
|
I understand what you all are saying but it's not because "it's the law" that it is right.
Accoring to the law the judge who convicted Mr. Harding for warning speed violaters a while ago,was probably in legal power of giving such a
punishment,yet everybody,including you Steve, commeneted that this was wrong.
Hitler never signed ONE document or law in which was stated that jews must be killed during WW II nor did he explicitly ever said in public to kill
jews,he "only" talked about "solving the problem".
Technically speaking he cannot be considered as responsible for the holcaust?
My English is not good enough to explain this in a better way but yes it is not right that an actor now becomes a star and making big money after
killing a person,even if he "did his time".
We have managed to believe that he who commited a crime is also a victim and should be threated as such with all the benefits of it.
That rapist now has more than a second chance to lead a "good life" thanks to the lotery tickets bought by millions of good people
probably including the victims.
It is not right that he even had the chance to enter this game during his sentence let alone be enjoying his price for the rest of his life.
All this IMHO of course.
|
|
|
Noodle
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 07:15 AM |
|
|
quote:
... or runs over puppies ...
Now if that were the case he'd have got life or got murdered by some mad old dear of post child-bearing years.
Cheers,
Neil.
Your sort make me sick
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 08:57 AM |
|
|
cita
you dont understand the principle of punishment under english law.
people are put in prison so that society can extract revenge, and the person can pay their debt back to society, and to re-educate them as a
person.
If you commit a crime, and do the time, then your slate is 'clean'. Unless its things like a sexual or offence against children, when you
are put on a register and monitored.
A bank robber or whatever, who kills, might get 25 - 30 years. Once he's out, hes a normal member of society.
Why should he not get a ticket and win?
What, when he's out and his rich relative dies and leaves him a 1m dollar house, happens then? Is he prohibited from being a rich person
forever?
The news today is that blunket, home secretary, want to stop people in prison winning the lottery and keeping the money. If they do, then they have to
pay it into a fund.
duuuuHHHH
so you are gonna buy a ticket if you know you cant keep the money?
This scheme is also going to be used to apply to the convicts families too.
So, mr bloggs goes into prison for killing his neighbour over a garden fence (its happened). Mrs bloggs and her 4 kids have to live on social. She
wins the lottery, but has to give the money back....
is that fair? bollox is it.
limiting a convicts ability to win the lottery will stop him buying a ticket as he knows the money wont be his.
so the whole thing becomes a waste of time.
This is an unfortunate situation, where its spun into a major story by the press, and reactive govenrnment sees a chance to jump on the bandwagon by
bringing in pointless legislation.
The press would go just as nuts if he won 3 years after his 30 year sentance.
its all stuff and nonsence I think.
atb
steve
|
|
|
Skirrow
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 11:01 AM |
|
|
I would have to say that he is quite entitled to buy a ticket and win as much as anyone else is. Nobody should be able to stop him as the lottery has
nothing to do with his crime. If his crime was that he had defruaded the lottery fund out of a load of money then it would be a different matter.
The thing is though, these people are horrible scumbags, so although they are quite entitled to win it, it has to be expected that the general public
will be happy to see them lose all the cash if they do win it. I hope the victims or their relatives get it. This guy might have paid his debt to
society in general, but now it's time to pay his debt to the people he has hurt.
|
|
|
DaveFJ
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 12:19 PM |
|
|
A senior judge yesterday said (on the news) there may be a case for making him hand over a large proportion of the money to his victims..
Dave
"In Support of Help the Heroes" - Always
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 12:52 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by protofj
A senior judge yesterday said (on the news) there may be a case for making him hand over a large proportion of the money to his victims..
why isnt he liable for damages even if he gets a job as a postman after he's released.....
atb
steve
|
|
|
James
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 12:56 PM |
|
|
I have to say I think I agree with Steve.
The problem is- where do you draw the line? If, when he was on day release he'd gone to a pub and played on the frutties and won should he hand
that over aswell?
Where do you draw the line? Just the lottery or the football pools aswell? Ban people from gambling all together? Stop them buying Premium Bonds? No
fruit machines? Ban them from the Bingo hall? That's gambling aswell at the end of the day.
Or do you just put a financial limit on it? Up to a million is ok but above that you give it away?
Would you ban them 'gambling' on the stock market?
That reactionary prick Blunkett is now on about stopping the families of convicts winning aswell. So what, if my evil black-sheep brother murders
someone I have to give away my lottery win do I?
Or maybe you could base it on the crime- guilty of some crimes like rape, murder etc. you can't buy a lottery ticket? Maybe it could be done
with a form you fill in when you buy a ticket? Bit like when you fly to America: Are you a member of a terrorist organisation? Did you murder some
kids? etc. etc.
Don't get me wrong- I don't want someone who's clearly a psycho (and is probably a danger to society when let out) having loads of
money. But at the end of the day he got lucky and it's tough sh!t on the rest of us.
If you start saying he's gotta pay compensation then you start a precident where richer convicts end up being punished more than poor ones. So,
if I've got some savings and I go to prison I get a worse punishment (because I have to pay compensation) than the penniless guy that's
commited the same crime.
James
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 12:58 PM |
|
|
totally agree james.
atb
steve
|
|
|
Cita
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 03:20 PM |
|
|
What can i say,you all seem to feel that it's right and i think it's wrong.
That's all there is to it.
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 03:31 PM |
|
|
Quote" When a person commits a crime they choose not to be a part of our society! Why should we then share our hopes and dreams!
"Unquote
|
|
|
mackie
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 04:02 PM |
|
|
I agree with James and Stephen.
It does suck but there's simply no fair way of stopping someone with the means to buy a ticket from winning.
However, I think that maybe if you are convicted criminal serving a custodial sentence it might be reasonable to restrict your rights to such pay
outs. They day you're let out you have as much chance and right as anyone else though. After all prison is about punishment and restricting your
right to win millions of pounds seems fair in that situation.
I'm sure plenty of real rotters have won large sums and that's just tough on the rest of us.
|
|
|
RoadkillUK
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 06:32 PM |
|
|
Capital punishment should sort this out, kill all the bad guys then they won't be able to buy a ticket 
I think he shouldn't have been 'out' in the first place as he's still serving a sentence. Once he's out, he can do as
he pleases as a free man and member of society.
Roadkill - Lee
www.bradford7.co.uk
Latest Picture (14 Sept 2014)
|
|
|
Cita
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
I'm puzzled with most of the people who reply on this.
The scumbag is on weekend during his sentence,buys a ticket and wins the lotery-the law is the law.
A judge concluded mr Harding broke the law and gives him a sentence,way out of line,but the law is the law.
In Mr Harding's case everybody on this forum,including me, concluded that Mr. Harding did not deserve a punishment,even if it was the law.
In the rapist's case everybody jumps on the support wagon by saying the law is the law,why?
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 09:42 PM |
|
|
i think it seems odd cos its two different situations. mr hardings case was an incompetent prosecution (petty even), a foolish judge and an excessive
sentance.
this case is complicated because its a grey area. IMHO nobody deserves a lottery win, its a crap form of wealth redistribution. 70% ish gets spent on
all sorts of useless stuff. though i would appreciate bags of dosh, i wouldnt want to win it on the lotto. why do i deserve a few quid off everyone in
the country? i havent done anything noble to deserve it. fair enough if its earned honestly, but gambling sucks, completely.
as for this piece of scum, there isnt a legal solution for his situation. rehab is apparently impossible. Prison is about protecting the public and
reforming people, not about getting revenge. As such, this guy should be serving a genuine life sentance. Hence, the error is in the initial sentance,
not the fact that he's been out and won buckets full of cash. had he not won the lotto, barely anyone would even know that this bastard was
wandering out and about in a society that would be better without him.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 10:18 PM |
|
|
The guy has server 14 years - pretty high for rape, which is seldom more than 8 years. Hes soon to be released (which as Joel says, could be wrong in
itself) - hence hes in an open jail with weekends out. The rules allow him to buy a ticket. So, there is no problem. As the law stands.
Mr Harding, although we have sympathy with him, was basically stupid. I think its pretty well known in the UK that flashing your lights to warn of
police presence is illegal. Harding stood with a friiggin big sign warning drivers. So, he broke the law, he got a sentance.
rapist got 14+ years. did (almost) his time.
harding broke the law, and paid his price too.
what cant you understand about that?
both broke 'the law' both got a sentance.
the crux is, the rapist could be out in a month, for all we know.
would you be any more happy if he won the day after he came out?
harding gets more sympathy, cos he could have been warning us. The rapist gets less, cos it could have been your sister.
atb
steve
atb
steve
PS - there was an interview on the radio today with police who arrested the rapist on an earlier offence when he was 14 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!
Blunkett doesnt want him to be a lottery winner, and will legislate. The fact hes a repeat rapist about to be let out is ok then. Its totally fcuked.
Stop thinking about the lottery shyte and think more about why he's being let out!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Cita
I'm puzzled with most of the people who reply on this.
The scumbag is on weekend during his sentence,buys a ticket and wins the lotery-the law is the law.
A judge concluded mr Harding broke the law and gives him a sentence,way out of line,but the law is the law.
In Mr Harding's case everybody on this forum,including me, concluded that Mr. Harding did not deserve a punishment,even if it was the law.
In the rapist's case everybody jumps on the support wagon by saying the law is the law,why?
[Edited on 12/8/04 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
Cita
|
| posted on 12/8/04 at 10:27 PM |
|
|
I dont want this to turn into a personal debate Steve.
You made your view clear and i respect that opinion.
|
|
|
