On Apr 11, 1:57 pm, "Wolfy 'Dial-up' Wildeblood"
<wolfgangwildebl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 11:41 am, "TG'sFM" <suv...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 1:34 pm, "Wolfy 'Dial-up' Wildeblood"
>
> > <wolfgangwildebl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On Apr 11, 6:11 am, "TG'sFM" <suv...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 11, 8:01 am, "Fleeced" <flee...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Je=DFus" wrote:
> > > > > >>>> Fair enough - his sentence was excessive anyway. Prison
> > > > > >>>> should be reserved for more serious crimes.
> > > > > >>> What an arse-licker.
> > > > > >>> IOW any crimes of a financial nature should be exempt,
right?
> > > > > >>> Especially if you're well known, or part of the old boys
netwo=
rk.
>
> > > > > >> No - but avoiding tax is not the same as outright theft
(indeed=
, the
> > > > > >> tax itself is closer to theft). People like you want him
penal=
ised
> > > > > >> more than he should be simply because he is rich and famous.
>
> > > > > > No, I don't want him to be exempt from what everyone else is
> > > > > > subject to.
>
> > > > > I never said I wanted special treatment for him either, simply
tha=
t
> > > > > the penalty was excessive. In fact, the ATO made it clear that
> > > > > they wanted a high-profile scalp, so it's quite plausible they
wer=
e
> > > > > extra aggresive.
>
> > > > > > Plus, he was involved with that turd Farnham, which is
potential=
ly
> > > > > > a crime in of itself.
>
> > > > > A good point.
>
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Fleeced
>
> > > > His 'aggressive' prosecution is quite normal. If a teacher is
charg=
ed
> > > > with molesting a boy then you would expect he will face a higher
> > > > penalty than if it were just joe average facing the same charge.
Th=
e
> > > > same applies to policemen charged with disonesty offences etc etc
et=
c.
>
> > > That is what we would expect, but in the real world the opposite is
> > > usually the case. Policemen charged with dishonesty offences usually
> > > avoid any penalty because of their "previous good character". A good
> > > example is that **** who got himself murdered in WA this week. The
> > > courts are indirectly responsible for his death, because if he were
in=
> > > gaol where he should have been, his son wouldn't have been able to
> > > kill him. (Unless of course he (the son, the alleged killer) were
also=
> > > in gaol.)
>
> > > Here's a question for you all: is murdering someone who doesn't
> > > deserve to be alive really a crime?
>
> > His 'crime' was to issue drivers licenses to a few mates without
> > giving them a practical driving test. That is hardly jail worthy,
> > ****rley?
>
> Corrupt police and public officials should face the death penalty,
> without exception. Their crime is uniquely disgusting.
I couldn't agree more, however this particular coppers actions were
not corrupt. He was just lazy and didn't bother with the practical
test. Here in Quilpie, our local copper just gets you to drive around
the block, and if you make it back in one piece, you pass. He doesn't
even go with them. So this sort of thing still happens today, but it
still isn't corruption, so hence not worthy of the death penalty.
|
