A man has been banned from his home town for ten years after terrorising its residents for the past three decades. Mark Bowkett, 40, described by police as the “Scourge of Lydney”, was expelled from the town and the surrounding areas as part of an antisocial behaviour order made at Gloucestershire Magistrates’ Court. It has left him homeless and separated him from his wife and seven children. The order was granted after behaviour that brought him an average of two criminal convictions a year since 1977
Two convictions a year since he was 12. During which time he's fathered 7 kids. I'll take a wild guess that the taxpayer will have been stumping up for their trainers, not to mention Daddy's legal expenses.
Over at Tim's he's asking when exactly the concept of exile was reintroduced to English law.
"Such an advance in freedom, liberty and civilization."I'd imagine it's a major advance in freedom, liberty and civilization for the guy's neighbours. But, as commenter Pete points out, what exactly is the point of moving this nasty bit of woirk elsewhere, to terrorise others ?
"This is nimbyism taken to new heights of selfishness."It seems likely that Mr B will be just as unpleasant wherever he ends up. Whatever happened to "detention at Her Majesty's pleasure" ?
North to Sheffield, where the close-knit Bennett family are an object lesson in caring for their children.
"On the day of the crash in April, Bennett, then 19, had bought the Subaru car for £5,500, using part of a cash payout his mother had received to care for his disabled brother."Your tax money at work, helping the unfortunate (or their brothers, anyway) to buy an Impreza. Young Mr Bennett was banned from driving at the time, incidentally. In fact he'd never held a license or taken a driving lesson.
"Andrew Bennett, 20, had been drinking lager and smoking cannabis before he lost control of a high-powered sports car that he had owned for less than a day.
He was racing at 90mph when the vehicle span and crashed into trees.
Bennett’s girlfriend, Kirsty Cash, 17, was flung through the windscreen of the Subaru Impreza and was found unconscious on the other side of the road behind a wall.
Sheffield Crown Court was told that there was a good chance that Miss Cash would have survived if she had received prompt medical care.
Bennett refused to allow another passenger, Joanne Kilner-Farr, to dial 999, telling her he would “smash her face in”. Instead he telephoned his family and constructed a plan to cover up the accident.
He persuaded his mother’s partner to drive to the scene at Worrall, near Sheffield. Miss Cash was bundled into the car and taken to his mother’s home in the Stannington area of the city, where she was placed on a bed upstairs.
His mother’s partner, Robin Scholes, then returned to the scene of the accident with Steven Scott, a friend of Bennett, and set fire to the vehicle.
Bennett waited until an hour after the crash before — realising that Miss Cash was no longer breathing — he finally agreed to call an ambulance. By then she was dead."
Associating with lowlife can be dangerous to the health.
"Bennett, who is unemployed, pleaded guilty to manslaughter ..."
Unemployed ? You amaze me. Surely not. I'll take another wild guess that the taxpayer has been stumping up to keep the Bennett family in lager and tabs for the last 20 years or so. Also amazingly, Judge Alan Goldsack seemed to think he should have been banged up earlier.
“You are 20 and this is your sixteenth court appearance since you made your first in 2002, aged 16. The majority have been for offences involving motor vehicles. It is too late now to say whether locking you up earlier in your criminal career might have brought it to an abrupt halt.”
Doesn't the judge know you shouldn't lock up anyone under 23 ?
And finally ... let's away to the leafy shires, John Major's Huntingdon no less, where the Oxmoor Estate shows that no matter where you are, the underclass lifestyle can be yours.
"A woman is facing jail after admitting being in charge of the dog which viciously savaged little George Brown.
The four-year-old was in surgery for four hours, needed 200 stitches, and will be scarred for life following the horrific attack on August 14.
Toni Badcock, 30, of Thongsley, Huntingdon, pleaded guilty at Huntingdon Magistrates' Court today (Wednesday, 27 September) to being in charge of a dog which was dangerously out of control in a public place and caused injury to George.
In addition she pleaded guilty to three similar charges relating to another incident on May 24 when George, a 14-year-old girl and a seven-year-old boy were hurt.
Craig McDougall, prosecuting, said: "It is an extremely tragic matter we are dealing with. George was savaged and received severe facial injuries."
The dog, which belonged to Badcock's partner Michael Feehily, was said to be extremely large, powerful and dangerous.
On the first occasion on May 24, Badcock was at Feehily's address in Norfolk Road, Huntingdon, and at 6pm she opened the front door and the dog escaped onto the green area outside where children were playing.
The bulldog, called Buddy, started to jump around and the children started screaming, the dog knocked over George, grabbing hold of his foot, and the other two children tried to get him off, before running to a nearby house.
George and the other children suffered minor injuries.
On Monday, August 14 the dog struck again, but this time with horrific consequences.
The court heard mum of four Badcock had opened the front door in Norfolk Road to call her children in at 8pm.
The dog escaped and George tried to run away but fell back and hit his head on the pavement. Someone tried to get the dog off but it kept attacking him.
George was rushed to Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Huntingdon, where he underwent a blood transfusion before being transferred to the facial injuries unit at Addenbrooke's Hospital for surgery.
David Potter, mitigating, said Badcock offered her sincere apologies to the children and their families.
"Mum-of-four". Aged 30. "Partner". Call me a complete old cynic, but I'll take yet another wild guess that the taxpayer may just possibly have been keeping the Badcock family fed, clothed and housed.
11 comments:
Yes, the dogs were deadly. But the owners, as you can tell by looking at their photos, are clearly responsible, active community people.
Whatever happened to that idea of using abandoned camps as prisons that was on the cover of The Sun a while ago? Were the environmentalists worried a tree might be cut down to make way for a prisoner that has cut a child's throat?
"David Potter, mitigating, said Badcock offered her sincere apologies to the children and their families."
Has anyone ever been convinced by this type of mitigation? Has it ever made any difference to the sentence? Why do lawyers bother?
Umbongo:
My take is that it's a form of Kabucki theatre. The defence has to go through the motions of presenting mitigating circumstances, just like the bench has to pretend that they were seriously thinking of giving a stiff sentance.
In reality, the defence presents a twinkie defence, the judge pronounces a loony sentance and everyone's happy.
Badcock?
Really?
Dumbjon,
The reason that lawyers say that sort of thing is that they are under a duty to do so if their client has instructed them to say it.
But hey, the lawyers are always an easy target...
"But the owners, as you can tell by looking at their photos, are clearly responsible, active community people."
Anyone else read the reports of the Rottweiller baby savaging/follow-up stabbing murder cases recently, and idly begin to wonder if you needed to get out a pen & paper to work out exactly who was related to whom, and how?
It was like 'Trisha' crossed with 'Jerry Springer' with overtones of 'When Animals Attack'....
I suspect the Dangerous Dogs Act missed a trick in suggesting that certain breeds of dog, rather than their owners, should be neutered & muzzled when in public.....
Yes, martin, every scrote I've ever met has fluent in the language of psychobabble. Puuuleaze!
Anyway, police officers have a duty to get convictions, but we don't let them beat confessions out of suspects. Ditto, with doctors, financial advisers and surveyors. All have professional standards to adhere to, but lawyers sprinkle some monkey dust about their need to 'zealously protect their clients' or whatever and suddenly all bets are off.
Doubtless the lawyers are legally correct - after all, it's the laws they helped create in the first place, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't call them what they are.
The alleged female in the photograph reminds me of the Predator in the celebrated film of the same name. my lack of web skills prevents me from displaying an image in corroboration - one only needs to use the useful Google tool to find out.
martin
Lawyers are officially "officers of the court". As such they owe a duty, not just to their clients, but to see that the interests of "justice" are served. This doesn't mean they have to go along with everything the CPS decides is right but neither does it mean that they have to go along with everything the scrotes they are defending ask of them. Particularly they are not supposed to lie for their clients. In respect of your common or garden anti-social turd, "sincere" regret is almost always a lie which, by expressing on behalf of their clients, is not serving the cause of justice.
9 months..thats a Joke.
This should be treated as attempted murder with a decent sentence to drive home the message to these nasty little Oiks.
This is the reason I allways go tooled up whenever I take my children to the "Dogs on a lease at all times" play parks I'll run the risk of prosecution in order to protect my Babes
Post a Comment