Theskeat Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Not so long ago a Copper got 6 months for a £100000+ fraud this week a single mother trying to feed her kids gets 4 months for a £13000 fraud, maybe she was was not a member of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Not so long ago a Copper got 6 months for a £100000+ fraud this week a single mother trying to feed her kids gets 4 months for a £13000 fraud, maybe she was was not a member of the club. In my opinion she should have been given five years. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 So what would you have put the sentences at then...come on I am sitting comfortably and I'd love to know..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 The police man was found guilt of a crime. Six months and the total loss of his career seems about right to me. The woman was guilty of a crime. The crime that she committed was against all tax payers and it must be made clear to the many people who might be tempted to try the same simply not to be worth the price that they will have to pay if discovered. Justice in MY opinion would have been better served if, as I previously wrote, she had been handed down five years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Since when was someone defrauding the DHSS news worthy? Anyway, lets see if other people who have done fraud against the tax payers get similar treatment, no need to mention any names, you know who I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Since when was someone defrauding the DHSS news worthy? Anyway, lets see if other people who have done fraud against the tax payers get similar treatment, no need to mention any names, you know who I mean. I fail to see how a person who is joint signatory on a document is not equally responsible for that to which the document refers. That is beyond bizarre. BTW, didn’t she look old and haggard in the picture in the paper! Very true to life I thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Five posts in and a derail into a Ned thread. Awesome, it's just like the good old days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted July 14, 2006 Author Share Posted July 14, 2006 You cant blame me this time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PNP Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 My understanding of the case about the copper is that he had taken out loans from banks, which he had then not used all of the money for the stated purpose of the loan. For example if you were to take out a loan for £10K for a new car, and then only spent £8K of it on the car, and spent the other £2K on a holiday. This is counted as fraud, and in his position he should have probably know better, but I wonder how many others have had loans and done something similiar, without having criminal proceedings brought against them I also understand that the loans were paid back to the financial institutions within the proper and agreed time frames. Sounds to me that he actually got prosecuted because he was a copper, they probably wouldn't have bothered or be interested in Joe public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted July 14, 2006 Author Share Posted July 14, 2006 Did he not rip his own work mates off too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PNP Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Just telling you what I know, but to my knowledge that was not one of the charges that he was found guilty of. I wouldn't really like to comment too much on this for fear of getting other facts wrong in regards to the other charges that were dropped, but he was prosecuted for incorrect use of loans (I'm sure there is an official name for the offence, but I don't know it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Just telling you what I know, but to my knowledge that was not one of the charges that he was found guilty of. I wouldn't really like to comment too much on this for fear of getting other facts wrong in regards to the other charges that were dropped, but he was prosecuted for incorrect use of loans (I'm sure there is an official name for the offence, but I don't know it). Gaining pecuniary advantage by deception? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.