[Alvin]

Just heard that john and Anne Darwin have been sentenced to 6.5 years in prison each.More than a rapist and most murderers and child molesters serve.

and what exactly did these public enemies No 1 do.

Found themselves in debt and decided to defraud an insurance company of £250,000

Of course we all have great sympathy with these glorified bookmakers,who welch on every bet they can.

Now call me an old cynic ,but did not the drectors of Northern Rock defraud every man woman and child in the UK of 100 billion.

and there sentence a couple of hundred thousand as a performance bonus.

Appaling the sheer ignorance in the UK where even the law is compromised by political and economic considerations.

I am ashamed of my fellow Brits.

are we heading for a time when trials and sentences are performed in the Big Brother House.?

Alvin

[Indizine]

I totally agree the Criminal Justice System is a farce.

[Mike]

the reason they got harsh sentancing, as the judge mentioned, was the callous nature with which they deceived their 2 sons. How anyone can do that to another human, let alone there children is beyond me

[Alvin]

Originally Posted by Mike

the reason they got harsh sentancing, as the judge mentioned, was the callous nature with which they deceived their 2 sons. How anyone can do that to another human, let alone there children is beyond me

well Mike my sons have been deceiving me for years especially when they want to borrow money.

Deceiving someone is not against the law or half the population would be in jug.

Defrauding is against the law.

There sentenced should have been based on the laws they had broken and not the lies they had told there sons.

deceit is all around us,but nobody tells the truth about it.

P.S plus I thing the likely hood of the sons not knowing about the scam is 1 million to 1.unless they happen to be blind,deaf and certainly dumb

Alvin

[Martin-Subbynet]

TBH I couldn't care less about them... Sick people!

You can say deceiving someone isn't against the law, but pretending to be dead is, defrauding an insurance company is, and lying to all your closest friends and family is frankly immoral and a lot worse than any other crime they committed.

I'd happily shoot both of them between the eyes.

I'm a little surprised at your take on this news Alvin, and hate to say it but you appeared to have read and kept up with the story, and then heard the judge give his verdict based on all the evidence - but have decided upon yourself a completely different outcome.

She didn't get extra time for lying to her sons, she got it for lying to everyone, she lied to the police when they asked what happened to him when he disappeared, she lied to the insurance company, she lied to her family and had a fake funeral, she lied to the press when he mysteriously returned from the dead acting all surprised and she lied in the dock and blamed her husband when it was blatantly obvious she was as much to blame.

This woman would have kept lying until the end, and did.

The Northern Rock saga is another issue altogether, and really shouldn't be used a benchmark for justice in this country.

[boxby]

Crimes against property, and particularly for financial gain, always seem to get sentenced harsher than crimes against the person.
Totally wonky!!

[Alvin]

Originally Posted by Martin-Subbynet

This woman would have kept lying until the end, and did.

Of course she would,Its called the survival instinct and without it your in serious trouble in this life.

Alvin

[Martin-Subbynet]

Yeah her survival instinct done her well... Now a jailbird and all that. She should have taken tips from Ray Mears instead!

[Alvin]

Martin my point is they were not sentenced for there actual crime.Which was defrauding an insurance company out of £250,000.

But the sentence was based on the projected emotional response of various members of society.

Whose to know that the sons were not glad to find there old geezer had snuffed it.

And are mortified to find the old bugger still alive.?

Alvin

[Martin-Subbynet]

Originally Posted by Alvin

Martin my point is they were not sentenced for there actual crime.Which was defrauding an insurance company out of £250,000.

To be fair mate she was sentenced on six counts of fraud and nine money laundering charges, and for lying. When you enter the dock you take an oath, and she broke this oath. Its not the police who brought charges against her for lying, its the judge - and at his discretion, she got an extra three months in jail for doing it.

But the sentence was based on the projected emotional response of various members of society.

Well, she was sentenced by a jury who heard the evidence and are obviously swayed somewhat by the emotional argument. The judge himself can only give a sentence within the guidelines laid out by government, and he decided (as a Judge) to give the fullest sentence possible because of the "cruelty and grief" to the family.

This is right, . This wasn't a case where the insurance company was the only victim, because the family and friends of the Darwin's were victims too.

Saying that all sentences are always based on emotional response, take animal cruelty, you'll receive a different sentence in this country that you would in Spain.

Whose to know that the sons were not glad to find there old geezer had snuffed it.

And are mortified to find the old bugger still alive.?

I dunno, a public statement saying they couldn't believe what happened and now didn't want anything else to do with their parents might be an indication of how they felt.