Re: Raynor??? : Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:23 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

Indeed, which is why many expect he might get a fairly lengthy custodial sentence. (fairly lengthy in the scheme of things that is, less than 2 years I'd imagine)

If found guilty he'll be in and out in 6 months imo.[/quote]

With a suspended sentence already in place?

IMO he should have got 2 years for the assault anyway.

Re: Raynor??? : Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:25 am  

Standee wrote:

With a suspended sentence already in place?

IMO he should have got 2 years for the assault anyway.

Ive said before, i agree re the assault. I just dont have any faith in our legal system. In an ideal world he would have done 2 years for assault and then this additional offence would have meant a 5 year stretch for me. He'll be lucky not to do time but i dont imagine he'll do more than 6 months of a 12 month sentence, he's not de-frauded a large enough amount to get anything more severe.

Re: Raynor??? : Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:30 am  

Big Dave T wrote:

Ive said before, i agree re the assault. I just dont have any faith in our legal system. In an ideal world he would have done 2 years for assault and then this additional offence would have meant a 5 year stretch for me. He'll be lucky not to do time but i dont imagine he'll do more than 6 months of a 12 month sentence, he's not de-frauded a large enough amount to get anything more severe.

be interesting to see if they take his home under the proceeds of crime legislation, they should.

Re: Raynor??? : Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:34 am  

Standee wrote:

be interesting to see if they take his home under the proceeds of crime legislation, they should.

Would depend how much he would owe should he be found guilty i guess. If its 100k i would guess he wouldnt need to sell his house for example.

Re: Raynor??? : Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:02 pm  

Standee wrote:

be interesting to see if they take his home under the proceeds of crime legislation, they should.

How about selling the shirt off his back?

Re: Raynor??? : Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:04 pm  

withernsea zebra wrote:

How about selling the shirt off his back?

Theyll take what they can to reclaim any monies made by illegal means.

Re: Raynor??? : Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:08 pm  

Big Dave T wrote:

Theyll take what they can to reclaim any monies made by illegal means.

Are we allowed the court case first?

Re: Raynor??? : Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:08 pm  

Standee wrote:

If found guilty he'll be in and out in 6 months imo.

With a suspended sentence already in place?

IMO he should have got 2 years for the assault anyway.[/quote]


Yes he should have, but as with Ben Cockayne, some sports stars seem to be able to get away with anything!

Re: Raynor??? : Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:10 pm  

withernsea zebra wrote:

Are we allowed the court case first?

Read my posts back, ive said 'if'

There's nothing wrong with us discussing it, thats what this forums for.

Re: Raynor??? : Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:12 pm  

GM1 wrote:

Yes he should have, but as with Ben Cockayne, some sports stars seem to be able to get away with anything!

Not just sports stars is it, its a wider issue to do with our entire legal system leaking money with very few people feeling it's fit for purpose. Sadly the decision makers senior lawyers are entirely happy to pick up fat salaries and dish out pitiful punishments.... and the senior bankers get stick!!