On Apr 11, 12:23=A0pm, "TG'sFM" <suv...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
=A0Prison
> > > > > > >>>> 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
net=
work.
>
> > > > > > >> No - but avoiding tax is not the same as outright theft
(inde=
ed, the
> > > > > > >> tax itself is closer to theft). =A0People like you want him
p=
enalised
> > > > > > >> 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
t=
hat
> > > > > > the penalty was excessive. =A0In fact, the ATO made it clear
tha=
t
> > > > > > they wanted a high-profile scalp, so it's quite plausible they
w=
ere
> > > > > > extra aggresive.
>
> > > > > > > Plus, he was involved with that turd Farnham, which is
potenti=
ally
> > > > > > > a crime in of itself.
>
> > > > > > A good point.
>
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Fleeced
>
> > > > > His 'aggressive' prosecution is quite normal. =A0If a teacher is
c=
harged
> > > > > 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.
=
=A0The
> > > > > same applies to policemen charged with disonesty offences etc
etc =
etc.
>
> > > > 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
al=
so
> > > > 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. =A0That 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. =A0He was just lazy and didn't bother with the practical
> test.
You're confusing the drivel he claimed in his defence for the facts of
the matter.
|
