Yep, that's how I felt about it.
I don't know how this investigation into the sentencing works, but hopefully the home secretary or whoever does it can just switch that concurrently into a consecutively and that's the last we need to hear of him.
Of course things are never simple and rarely have the right outcomes in cases like this
Any chance you could avoid using a thread that has covered - and will cover, undoubtedly - some pretty sensitive and serious areas as a venue for another one of your relentless campaigns?
I've never quite understood how the distinction between awarding sentences consecutively vs concurrently is made in UK law. I'm aware that in the US, it is much more common to have sentences run consecutively, with the result that people end up with 250 year sentences (which always seems faintly ludicrous to me), but it seems that it is only rarely that such sentencing is done here.Again, though, his barrister would have had grounds for appeal based on precedent - i.e. there's little precedent in cases of multiple sexual offences, for consecutive sentences, they're almost always served concurrently unless there are only two or three offences. It's a shitter, but it's constitutionally correct.
God Save the Queen and her significantly right wing, but ultimately constitutional Regime.
The Variety Club should provide a list of their members sorted by age.Lot of 'rumour' outing him
