by phil4 » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:28 pm
I agree completely, scrote shouldn't have done it.
Yes, the fine does seem lenient.
I say seems, as I don't know what damage was actually done, (see previous post), nor scrotes circumstances.
Also, I'm very used to seeing stupidly lenient sentances... and indeed my whole theory on sentancing is at odds with UK law. My theory is simple, sentance on what is done wrong, not the outcome.
I agree completely, scrote shouldn't have done it.
Yes, the fine does seem lenient.
I say seems, as I don't know what damage was actually done, (see previous post), nor scrotes circumstances.
Also, I'm very used to seeing stupidly lenient sentances... and indeed my whole theory on sentancing is at odds with UK law. My theory is simple, sentance on what is done wrong, not the outcome.