Dashcam catches man red handed keying Aston
Discussion
Love it, so Gary Brissett is the victim now, no he is a prick who committed a crime and thankfully will have to pay the price, hopefully dashcams, mobile phones and all the other cameras around might make bellends like this one think about their actions, even if it only to save their own pathetic selves from jail or ridicule,
SidewaysSi said:
ManOpener said:
She's entitled to her opinion, the same way we're entitled to ridicule it.
But should a paper be allowed to publish an article that condones criminal damage?Pan Pan Pan said:
Pity we cant wire cars with a system that delivers 30 thousand volts, as soon as the key breaks through the paintwork, and makes contact with the metal.
It is really quite easy and readily available!I had a problem with rats gnawing the wiring in my tractors. I decided to wire them up using an electric fencer unit which cost about £60 and delivers about 10,000 volts but little amps. (It is not a good idea to kill the livestock you are trying to contain!)
In the shed which had a reinforced concrete floor I connected the positive to the tractor and the.negative to the metal RSJs of the building.
The result was sensational when I turned on the switch.
There was.a lot of squealing and a rat leapt out of the tractor and every time it's feet hit the ground it squealed and leapt in the air again.
I have not seen a rat in the building since and have not had to use any nasty poison
The downside is that sometimes I forget when I am walking past the tractor and put my hand on the tyre and receive a fairish belt. You may not think you would receive a shock from a rubber tyre but all tyres have a certain conductivity I think to release the build up of static electricity when travelling.
So this would definitely deter a man with a key.
The fencers are designed to work off 12 volts as well as mains and are quite compact
The only worry is the little old lady with the weak heart who just happens to brush by the car on her way to the shops.................
Edited by Vanin on Saturday 12th September 11:07
Edited by Vanin on Saturday 12th September 11:10
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3234039/Ca...
Goes to court in a polo shirt and gets let off with £1100 fine and 8 weeks suspended.
You'd get done harsher for dropping a winning lottery ticket.
Goes to court in a polo shirt and gets let off with £1100 fine and 8 weeks suspended.
You'd get done harsher for dropping a winning lottery ticket.
I have a couple of points.
Firstly, how is it possible for a painter and decorator to be unemployed in London. If you put a card in a newsagents window you would have more work than you could handle.
Secondly. The article says he receives £600 a month in benefits. That's a lot more than job seekers allowance so why is it so high and is it meant to cover rent etc. I'd think his rent is paid as well and the £600 is basically for food and pocket money. Very nice too.
Firstly, how is it possible for a painter and decorator to be unemployed in London. If you put a card in a newsagents window you would have more work than you could handle.
Secondly. The article says he receives £600 a month in benefits. That's a lot more than job seekers allowance so why is it so high and is it meant to cover rent etc. I'd think his rent is paid as well and the £600 is basically for food and pocket money. Very nice too.
Jim the Sunderer said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3234039/Ca...
Goes to court in a polo shirt and gets let off with £1100 fine and 8 weeks suspended.
You'd get done harsher for dropping a winning lottery ticket.
well props to the owner of the Aston for his plea in mitigation - will matey boy have learned from this?Goes to court in a polo shirt and gets let off with £1100 fine and 8 weeks suspended.
You'd get done harsher for dropping a winning lottery ticket.
Jim the Sunderer said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3234039/Ca...
Goes to court in a polo shirt and gets let off with £1100 fine and 8 weeks suspended.
You'd get done harsher for dropping a winning lottery ticket.
Would be a fGoes to court in a polo shirt and gets let off with £1100 fine and 8 weeks suspended.
You'd get done harsher for dropping a winning lottery ticket.
king joke except it isn't, so what is the deterrent and what exactly is 8 weeks suspended, does he get hung upside down and flogged to death, am sure he will be remotely bothered with paying off an £1100 fine when he's on the dole sponging off the rest of us!!!Now if someone had knocked on his door and broken his legs he might think twice before doing it again, but as it stands he will be laughing his head off. So where is the justice?
This type of leniency by this judge beggars belief, though I do wonder whether these judges would harden their attitudes when their own cars and houses are targeted by lowlifes due to the fact that in the remotest event they are caught red handed by the police, they will then walk away from the court room and laughing their heads off due to their petty excuses for leniency, oh for heavens sake wake up and pull your heads out of your bottoms, you are a total laughing stock to the UK legal system.
It's a good job I'm not in power because if I was there would be no nanny state TV, mobile phone or any other educational stuff, just a hard bed and a bucket to s
t in. I complained to the Herald and got this response...
Dear Reader,
Thank you for your comments regarding Catriona Stewart’s column in The Herald of September 11. I am sorry that the column has offended you. This was neither Catriona’s intention, nor The Herald’s.
Her intention was to use the story about the conviction for “keying” an expensive car as a starting point to write about her views on people who drive expensive, high-performance cars. Her views
that such people tend to drive aggressively and in a disrespectful way – will be shared by some readers but opposed by others.
That is her opinion and she is entitled to express it in a newspaper that believes in free speech and open debate. Her intention was to use the example of “keying” to reinforce her position on such drivers. This she strove to do by making references to “keying” that were intended to be sardonic.
Catriona would never “key” or otherwise vandalise a car. The Herald condones neither action and believes that those convicted of such offences should be punished appropriately by the law.
With the benefit of hindsight, we should all have taken greater care to ensure that the finished article was less intemperate in tone.
We believe in balance as well as tone and, in today’s edition, we published an article by the commentator Andrew McKie that takes issue with Catriona’s views in a clear-headed and intelligent way. In addition, we published on today’s Letters Pages correspondence from three readers who disagree with Catriona. I have attached both in case you have not had the opportunity to read them.
Our intention in publishing Catriona’s article was to stimulate interest and debate. We have certainly done so in this case and I am sorry if you believe this has been the outcome for reasons that are questionable or wrong.
Yours sincerely,
Barclay McBain
Deputy Editor
Herald & Times Group | 200 Renfield St | Glasgow | G2 3QB
t 0141 302 7042 & 0141 302 6650
e barclay.mcbain@theherald.co.uk
w heraldscotland.com
ANDREW MCKIE commentator
Iread about a man caught putting a
brick through a newspaper office
window. A swanky broadsheet
newspaper, like The Herald. Do you
know what The Herald will set you
back? £1.30.
Good for him. I reckon the mindless,
pointless vandalism was OK because
he didn’t much like Catriona Stewart’s
column on Friday.
All self-evident nonsense; except Ms
Stewart’s column, which was only
partly nonsense.
Her central point – inspired by the
case of a man accused of vandalising
an expensive car, apparently just
because it was an expensive car – was
that rich people spending money on
pointlessly expensive items was
immoral.
That’s a defensible, possibly a
popular, position. I’ll come to why I
don’t share it in a moment, but I
understand it. The vulgar rich, and
their ostentatious purchases, often are
horrible. Ms Stewart didn’t want to
generalise, but generalised: “You can’t
spend more than a house worth on a
car and claim the moral high ground.”
Sounds reasonable, but she then
praises the Fiat 500, and in July you
could have bought two houses (count
’em) in Tonypandy, south Wales, for
less than one of those costs. So it
depends on the price of the house, and
car. Which means it’s not a moral
absolute, surely?
A moral absolute is that attacking
someone else’s property out of
disapproval, envy, or even high-minded
Corbynite class spite, is wrong.
All right-thinking people agree that
only a fool with more money than
sense would buy a solid gold Apple
watch with an Hermes strap, for
example. But that doesn’t give us the
right to smash theirs up with a
hammer.
Besides, lots of people apart from the
rich spend in ways that seem bizarre
What if you live like a pauper to buy
haute couture, or first editions, or Star
Wars memorabilia, or expensive wine?
I think those daft priorities, but that
doesn’t create a moral right to tell
people, even horrible rich people, what
they can spend their money on.
In a free society, anyone has the
right to regard other people’s priorities
as selfish, obscene or foolish.
They haven’t the right to appropriate
or attack their possessions, and
shouldn’t draw a conclusion about the
moral priorities of their owners
By all means take the view that
owners of expensive cars, as a class, are
repulsive.
It’s a demonstratively stupid stance –
like thinking all Nationalists are racist,
all Tories callous, all Liberal
Democratss unprincipled, or all Labour
supporters economically illiterate – but
it’s your right to hold it, and to express
it. That’s as far as your rights go,
though.
It’s also the right of people to spend
their money on what they want. As it
happens, sometimes even apparently
pointless ostentatious expenditure has
its place: without expensive cars, there
would be less research on modest cars
and, without couture, no high street.
But even if it didn’t have a place,
even if it offends you, it doesn’t
legitimise theft or vandalism.
Feel free to be offended, no matter
how daft your taking offence may be, as
long as you also remember there’s no
right not to be offended.
Dear Reader,
Thank you for your comments regarding Catriona Stewart’s column in The Herald of September 11. I am sorry that the column has offended you. This was neither Catriona’s intention, nor The Herald’s.
Her intention was to use the story about the conviction for “keying” an expensive car as a starting point to write about her views on people who drive expensive, high-performance cars. Her views
that such people tend to drive aggressively and in a disrespectful way – will be shared by some readers but opposed by others.
That is her opinion and she is entitled to express it in a newspaper that believes in free speech and open debate. Her intention was to use the example of “keying” to reinforce her position on such drivers. This she strove to do by making references to “keying” that were intended to be sardonic.
Catriona would never “key” or otherwise vandalise a car. The Herald condones neither action and believes that those convicted of such offences should be punished appropriately by the law.
With the benefit of hindsight, we should all have taken greater care to ensure that the finished article was less intemperate in tone.
We believe in balance as well as tone and, in today’s edition, we published an article by the commentator Andrew McKie that takes issue with Catriona’s views in a clear-headed and intelligent way. In addition, we published on today’s Letters Pages correspondence from three readers who disagree with Catriona. I have attached both in case you have not had the opportunity to read them.
Our intention in publishing Catriona’s article was to stimulate interest and debate. We have certainly done so in this case and I am sorry if you believe this has been the outcome for reasons that are questionable or wrong.
Yours sincerely,
Barclay McBain
Deputy Editor
Herald & Times Group | 200 Renfield St | Glasgow | G2 3QB
t 0141 302 7042 & 0141 302 6650
e barclay.mcbain@theherald.co.uk
w heraldscotland.com
ANDREW MCKIE commentator
Iread about a man caught putting a
brick through a newspaper office
window. A swanky broadsheet
newspaper, like The Herald. Do you
know what The Herald will set you
back? £1.30.
Good for him. I reckon the mindless,
pointless vandalism was OK because
he didn’t much like Catriona Stewart’s
column on Friday.
All self-evident nonsense; except Ms
Stewart’s column, which was only
partly nonsense.
Her central point – inspired by the
case of a man accused of vandalising
an expensive car, apparently just
because it was an expensive car – was
that rich people spending money on
pointlessly expensive items was
immoral.
That’s a defensible, possibly a
popular, position. I’ll come to why I
don’t share it in a moment, but I
understand it. The vulgar rich, and
their ostentatious purchases, often are
horrible. Ms Stewart didn’t want to
generalise, but generalised: “You can’t
spend more than a house worth on a
car and claim the moral high ground.”
Sounds reasonable, but she then
praises the Fiat 500, and in July you
could have bought two houses (count
’em) in Tonypandy, south Wales, for
less than one of those costs. So it
depends on the price of the house, and
car. Which means it’s not a moral
absolute, surely?
A moral absolute is that attacking
someone else’s property out of
disapproval, envy, or even high-minded
Corbynite class spite, is wrong.
All right-thinking people agree that
only a fool with more money than
sense would buy a solid gold Apple
watch with an Hermes strap, for
example. But that doesn’t give us the
right to smash theirs up with a
hammer.
Besides, lots of people apart from the
rich spend in ways that seem bizarre
What if you live like a pauper to buy
haute couture, or first editions, or Star
Wars memorabilia, or expensive wine?
I think those daft priorities, but that
doesn’t create a moral right to tell
people, even horrible rich people, what
they can spend their money on.
In a free society, anyone has the
right to regard other people’s priorities
as selfish, obscene or foolish.
They haven’t the right to appropriate
or attack their possessions, and
shouldn’t draw a conclusion about the
moral priorities of their owners
By all means take the view that
owners of expensive cars, as a class, are
repulsive.
It’s a demonstratively stupid stance –
like thinking all Nationalists are racist,
all Tories callous, all Liberal
Democratss unprincipled, or all Labour
supporters economically illiterate – but
it’s your right to hold it, and to express
it. That’s as far as your rights go,
though.
It’s also the right of people to spend
their money on what they want. As it
happens, sometimes even apparently
pointless ostentatious expenditure has
its place: without expensive cars, there
would be less research on modest cars
and, without couture, no high street.
But even if it didn’t have a place,
even if it offends you, it doesn’t
legitimise theft or vandalism.
Feel free to be offended, no matter
how daft your taking offence may be, as
long as you also remember there’s no
right not to be offended.
Jim the Sunderer said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3234039/Ca...
Goes to court in a polo shirt and gets let off with £1100 fine and 8 weeks suspended.
You'd get done harsher for dropping a winning lottery ticket.
"Upon watching the CCTV footage it was reported to police and Mr Brissett was later identified by three police officers.'"Goes to court in a polo shirt and gets let off with £1100 fine and 8 weeks suspended.
You'd get done harsher for dropping a winning lottery ticket.
So I wonder what his other impulsive behaviours have been in the past. Also as he isn't working we all know he will only pay £1 a month or something anyway
Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 15th September 01:40
ruggedscotty said:
I complained to the Herald and got this response...
Dear Reader,
Thank you for your comments regarding Catriona Stewart’s column in The Herald of September 11. I am sorry that the column has offended you. This was neither Catriona’s intention, nor The Herald’s.
Her intention was to use the story about the conviction for “keying” an expensive car as a starting point to write about her views on people who drive expensive, high-performance cars. Her views
that such people tend to drive aggressively and in a disrespectful way – will be shared by some readers but opposed by others.
That is her opinion and she is entitled to express it in a newspaper that believes in free speech and open debate. Her intention was to use the example of “keying” to reinforce her position on such drivers. This she strove to do by making references to “keying” that were intended to be sardonic.
Catriona would never “key” or otherwise vandalise a car. The Herald condones neither action and believes that those convicted of such offences should be punished appropriately by the law.
With the benefit of hindsight, we should all have taken greater care to ensure that the finished article was less intemperate in tone.
We believe in balance as well as tone and, in today’s edition, we published an article by the commentator Andrew McKie that takes issue with Catriona’s views in a clear-headed and intelligent way. In addition, we published on today’s Letters Pages correspondence from three readers who disagree with Catriona. I have attached both in case you have not had the opportunity to read them.
Our intention in publishing Catriona’s article was to stimulate interest and debate. We have certainly done so in this case and I am sorry if you believe this has been the outcome for reasons that are questionable or wrong.
Yours sincerely,
Barclay McBain
Deputy Editor
Herald & Times Group | 200 Renfield St | Glasgow | G2 3QB
t 0141 302 7042 & 0141 302 6650
e barclay.mcbain@theherald.co.uk
w heraldscotland.com
in other words 'fDear Reader,
Thank you for your comments regarding Catriona Stewart’s column in The Herald of September 11. I am sorry that the column has offended you. This was neither Catriona’s intention, nor The Herald’s.
Her intention was to use the story about the conviction for “keying” an expensive car as a starting point to write about her views on people who drive expensive, high-performance cars. Her views
that such people tend to drive aggressively and in a disrespectful way – will be shared by some readers but opposed by others.
That is her opinion and she is entitled to express it in a newspaper that believes in free speech and open debate. Her intention was to use the example of “keying” to reinforce her position on such drivers. This she strove to do by making references to “keying” that were intended to be sardonic.
Catriona would never “key” or otherwise vandalise a car. The Herald condones neither action and believes that those convicted of such offences should be punished appropriately by the law.
With the benefit of hindsight, we should all have taken greater care to ensure that the finished article was less intemperate in tone.
We believe in balance as well as tone and, in today’s edition, we published an article by the commentator Andrew McKie that takes issue with Catriona’s views in a clear-headed and intelligent way. In addition, we published on today’s Letters Pages correspondence from three readers who disagree with Catriona. I have attached both in case you have not had the opportunity to read them.
Our intention in publishing Catriona’s article was to stimulate interest and debate. We have certainly done so in this case and I am sorry if you believe this has been the outcome for reasons that are questionable or wrong.
Yours sincerely,
Barclay McBain
Deputy Editor
Herald & Times Group | 200 Renfield St | Glasgow | G2 3QB
t 0141 302 7042 & 0141 302 6650
e barclay.mcbain@theherald.co.uk
w heraldscotland.com
k off' 
rich888 said:
Would be a fking joke except it isn't, so what is the deterrent and what exactly is 8 weeks suspended, does he get hung upside down and flogged to death, am sure he will be remotely bothered with paying off an £1100 fine when he's on the dole sponging off the rest of us!!!
Now if someone had knocked on his door and broken his legs he might think twice before doing it again, but as it stands he will be laughing his head off. So where is the justice?
This type of leniency by this judge beggars belief, though I do wonder whether these judges would harden their attitudes when their own cars and houses are targeted by lowlifes due to the fact that in the remotest event they are caught red handed by the police, they will then walk away from the court room and laughing their heads off due to their petty excuses for leniency, oh for heavens sake wake up and pull your heads out of your bottoms, you are a total laughing stock to the UK legal system.
It's a good job I'm not in power because if I was there would be no nanny state TV, mobile phone or any other educational stuff, just a hard bed and a bucket to st in.
I have to agree with this. The guy has nothing so the courts go soft. Perhaps if he had a job and a few quid in the bank he'd have been made more of an example. Very weak.king joke except it isn't, so what is the deterrent and what exactly is 8 weeks suspended, does he get hung upside down and flogged to death, am sure he will be remotely bothered with paying off an £1100 fine when he's on the dole sponging off the rest of us!!!Now if someone had knocked on his door and broken his legs he might think twice before doing it again, but as it stands he will be laughing his head off. So where is the justice?
This type of leniency by this judge beggars belief, though I do wonder whether these judges would harden their attitudes when their own cars and houses are targeted by lowlifes due to the fact that in the remotest event they are caught red handed by the police, they will then walk away from the court room and laughing their heads off due to their petty excuses for leniency, oh for heavens sake wake up and pull your heads out of your bottoms, you are a total laughing stock to the UK legal system.
It's a good job I'm not in power because if I was there would be no nanny state TV, mobile phone or any other educational stuff, just a hard bed and a bucket to s
t in. Just for balance on that point of view:
If you are claiming 3 or 4 hundred pounds in benefit per week to support two children and a mentally ill wife- £2000 (inc compensation) is an awful lot of money to have to pay. THis notion that it wouldn't matter to him because he is on benefits is actually incorrect and the opposite is true.
Additionally the owner said he did not wish to see a custodial sentence and the lack of any violence involved was cited.
Im not defending him, and I don't think the sentence was anywhere near enough, but I am just countering the suggestion that it is 'nothing' and not a deterrent.
As an aside, what I don't understand: He was seemingly fined £1000 and £750 compensation. Why isn't he ordered to pay the whole cost of the damage i.e. £7k? How can that be left to the insurer?
Or is that fine just for the criminal act and he can be sued for the damage afterwards?
If you are claiming 3 or 4 hundred pounds in benefit per week to support two children and a mentally ill wife- £2000 (inc compensation) is an awful lot of money to have to pay. THis notion that it wouldn't matter to him because he is on benefits is actually incorrect and the opposite is true.
Additionally the owner said he did not wish to see a custodial sentence and the lack of any violence involved was cited.
Im not defending him, and I don't think the sentence was anywhere near enough, but I am just countering the suggestion that it is 'nothing' and not a deterrent.
As an aside, what I don't understand: He was seemingly fined £1000 and £750 compensation. Why isn't he ordered to pay the whole cost of the damage i.e. £7k? How can that be left to the insurer?
Or is that fine just for the criminal act and he can be sued for the damage afterwards?
blindswelledrat said:
Just for balance on that point of view:
If you are claiming 3 or 4 hundred pounds in benefit per week to support two children and a mentally ill wife- £2000 (inc compensation) is an awful lot of money to have to pay. THis notion that it wouldn't matter to him because he is on benefits is actually incorrect and the opposite is true.
Additionally the owner said he did not wish to see a custodial sentence and the lack of any violence involved was cited.
Im not defending him, and I don't think the sentence was anywhere near enough, but I am just countering the suggestion that it is 'nothing' and not a deterrent.
As an aside, what I don't understand: He was seemingly fined £1000 and £750 compensation. Why isn't he ordered to pay the whole cost of the damage i.e. £7k? How can that be left to the insurer?
Or is that fine just for the criminal act and he can be sued for the damage afterwards?
Yep.If you are claiming 3 or 4 hundred pounds in benefit per week to support two children and a mentally ill wife- £2000 (inc compensation) is an awful lot of money to have to pay. THis notion that it wouldn't matter to him because he is on benefits is actually incorrect and the opposite is true.
Additionally the owner said he did not wish to see a custodial sentence and the lack of any violence involved was cited.
Im not defending him, and I don't think the sentence was anywhere near enough, but I am just countering the suggestion that it is 'nothing' and not a deterrent.
As an aside, what I don't understand: He was seemingly fined £1000 and £750 compensation. Why isn't he ordered to pay the whole cost of the damage i.e. £7k? How can that be left to the insurer?
Or is that fine just for the criminal act and he can be sued for the damage afterwards?
But there is no way that he will ever pay the fine, let alone the compensation that the driver could be awarded in a civil claim. Fines like this simply get written off after a while. They are notional.
blindswelledrat said:
Just for balance on that point of view:
If you are claiming 3 or 4 hundred pounds in benefit per week to support two children and a mentally ill wife- £2000 (inc compensation) is an awful lot of money to have to pay. THis notion that it wouldn't matter to him because he is on benefits is actually incorrect and the opposite is true.
Additionally the owner said he did not wish to see a custodial sentence and the lack of any violence involved was cited.
Im not defending him, and I don't think the sentence was anywhere near enough, but I am just countering the suggestion that it is 'nothing' and not a deterrent.
As an aside, what I don't understand: He was seemingly fined £1000 and £750 compensation. Why isn't he ordered to pay the whole cost of the damage i.e. £7k? How can that be left to the insurer?
Or is that fine just for the criminal act and he can be sued for the damage afterwards?
There is little point in suing the guy if he hasn't got any money? As for the insurers they'll do all they can to wriggle out of it I would suspect. Second only to the crime itself is the motor insurance industry!If you are claiming 3 or 4 hundred pounds in benefit per week to support two children and a mentally ill wife- £2000 (inc compensation) is an awful lot of money to have to pay. THis notion that it wouldn't matter to him because he is on benefits is actually incorrect and the opposite is true.
Additionally the owner said he did not wish to see a custodial sentence and the lack of any violence involved was cited.
Im not defending him, and I don't think the sentence was anywhere near enough, but I am just countering the suggestion that it is 'nothing' and not a deterrent.
As an aside, what I don't understand: He was seemingly fined £1000 and £750 compensation. Why isn't he ordered to pay the whole cost of the damage i.e. £7k? How can that be left to the insurer?
Or is that fine just for the criminal act and he can be sued for the damage afterwards?
As for the guy, I couldn't care less. The real tragedy, as has been already pointed out, is the child
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff