Six and a half years for scamming conwoman PCSO
Discussion
That's a pretty stiff sentence, more than I thought when I first read about this a while back. Her child will also be taken away from her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2769467/Ja...
Terrible offence preying on the confused like that, but I'm quite surprised at the sentencing. Pour encourager les autres?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2769467/Ja...
Terrible offence preying on the confused like that, but I'm quite surprised at the sentencing. Pour encourager les autres?
I've got mixed feelings about this.
It was hardly the most sophisticated crime. She's no intellectual giant. So stupidity had a part to play in this offence.
However, what she did was such an abuse of her authority that it is breathtaking. 6.5 years seems reasonable to me.
Many might assume that she became pregnant as a means of getting a reduced sentence, but then that is an assumption: I don't know.
But there are kids here. We all know that being taken into care is not, perhaps, the best way to ensure that a child's welfare is taken care of. They would appear to be the real victims here.
I feel sad for the kids.
It was hardly the most sophisticated crime. She's no intellectual giant. So stupidity had a part to play in this offence.
However, what she did was such an abuse of her authority that it is breathtaking. 6.5 years seems reasonable to me.
Many might assume that she became pregnant as a means of getting a reduced sentence, but then that is an assumption: I don't know.
But there are kids here. We all know that being taken into care is not, perhaps, the best way to ensure that a child's welfare is taken care of. They would appear to be the real victims here.
I feel sad for the kids.
Edited by Derek Smith on Thursday 25th September 18:56
Got to be one of the dumbest criminals ever.
Did she not think at least some of the people who handed her cash would come looking for it at a later date?
And she's not exactly difficult to identify.
I suspect the report went something like this - "Well, we handed over our wad of cash to a PSCO, possibly a woman, but I'm not sure. Reminds me of Mrs Doubtfire."
Did she not think at least some of the people who handed her cash would come looking for it at a later date?
And she's not exactly difficult to identify.
I suspect the report went something like this - "Well, we handed over our wad of cash to a PSCO, possibly a woman, but I'm not sure. Reminds me of Mrs Doubtfire."
I think its too harsh! Yes she has to be punished for what she did. However it was a relatively small sum (in comparison to the amount we have just been raped for by our financial institutions). If I had lost a couple of grand to her, I would be angry. I wouldnt however think it was any kind of justice to have her lose her child as punishment. A judgement without honour 
Not harsh at all. Being in a Public Office (paid or not) has with it the expectation of complete honesty. We live in a country that still expects integrity, honesty and trust from those who serve us. It matters not if it was £50 or £50,000. The deterant part of the sentence is most important in these cases.
I remember when breaking or robbing a public call box meant an immediate custodial sentence. It wasnt that long ago either.
I remember when breaking or robbing a public call box meant an immediate custodial sentence. It wasnt that long ago either.
Edited by TVR1 on Thursday 25th September 20:11
Derek Smith said:
I've got mixed feelings about this.
It was hardly the most sophisticated crime. She's no intellectual giant. So stupidity had a part to play in this offence.
However, what she did was such an abuse of her authority that it is breathtaking. 6.5 years seems reasonable to me.
Many might assume that she became pregnant as a means of getting a reduced sentence, but then that is an assumption: I don't know.
But there are kids here. We all know that being taken into care is not, perhaps, the best way to ensure that a child's welfare is taken care of. They would appear to be the real victims here.
I feel sad for the kids.
The ideal situation would be for the father to look after the kid. Not sure if one is aroundIt was hardly the most sophisticated crime. She's no intellectual giant. So stupidity had a part to play in this offence.
However, what she did was such an abuse of her authority that it is breathtaking. 6.5 years seems reasonable to me.
Many might assume that she became pregnant as a means of getting a reduced sentence, but then that is an assumption: I don't know.
But there are kids here. We all know that being taken into care is not, perhaps, the best way to ensure that a child's welfare is taken care of. They would appear to be the real victims here.
I feel sad for the kids.
Edited by Derek Smith on Thursday 25th September 18:56
TVR1 said:
IanA2 said:
So remind me, what did the Bankers get?
Rich?
Where is the integrity and honesty of most of them?
Apologies for the diversion off topic
.A shame about the PCSO's kid going in to care, but if she'd learned that misbehaviour can have consequences at an early age - and
put it into practice - then she wouldn't be in this situation now 
.surveyor said:
Can I have a summary that does not involve the Daily Scum?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/articl...I'd be more interested in why she was nicking the money. And the real reasons - not the one the lawyer threw out in mitigation. If she was really suffering from financial hardship and was trying to help say an elderly parent then I think the sentence if obscenely harsh. If she was just a wrong un then it's a bit soft. I'm not fan of sending people to prison, but to the people she robbed (I'm going to assume most were foreigners) she was a Police Officer. PSCO's dress up like Police, in some cases are given Police powers and to those who don't work in the field or have experience of the system will be taken as Police Officers. I think that's intentional with uniform..
However I don't get what her kid has to do with it. Sorry but I never hear of judges taking pity on fathers so they can see their kids grow up. We live in a society which quite rightly says that someones sex should not define them. Then we have a judiciary that seems to sentence people on the basis of this... (Not in this case, but in many others I've witnessed first hand). If women wish to be payed the same as men, and looked at in the same way they should stop expected preferential treatment. In the Army we were told we needed to pass certain tests to be capable to do our jobs.. It was made clear to us if we could not run in the required time we were putting our colleagues and friends in danger, however a female soldier doing the same job was told she didn't need to achieve the same standard. I never understood how that worked. Always made me furious.
However I don't get what her kid has to do with it. Sorry but I never hear of judges taking pity on fathers so they can see their kids grow up. We live in a society which quite rightly says that someones sex should not define them. Then we have a judiciary that seems to sentence people on the basis of this... (Not in this case, but in many others I've witnessed first hand). If women wish to be payed the same as men, and looked at in the same way they should stop expected preferential treatment. In the Army we were told we needed to pass certain tests to be capable to do our jobs.. It was made clear to us if we could not run in the required time we were putting our colleagues and friends in danger, however a female soldier doing the same job was told she didn't need to achieve the same standard. I never understood how that worked. Always made me furious.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff