About Cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies.

Burglar stole underwear from Pantside house appeared at Newport Magistrate's Court

Burglar stole underwear from Pantside house appeared at Newport Magistrate's Court

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:09am Mon 9 Jun 14

Mervyn James says...

Exchange is no robbery lol....
Exchange is no robbery lol.... Mervyn James
  • Score: -6

10:14am Mon 9 Jun 14

pwharley says...

It's fortunate he didn't steal other underwear, otherwise we might have to rename the location Braside!
It's fortunate he didn't steal other underwear, otherwise we might have to rename the location Braside! pwharley
  • Score: -7

11:14am Mon 9 Jun 14

KarloMarko says...

I can see one this being directly lifted by the Daily Mail website!

He went in underhand, he was in a tights spot, he began to pant, it was the middle of the nightie....
I can see one this being directly lifted by the Daily Mail website! He went in underhand, he was in a tights spot, he began to pant, it was the middle of the nightie.... KarloMarko
  • Score: -5

1:54pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

One assumes the householder was a former cohabitant or similar, for had it been a "stranger" crime 6 months in prison for doing it 3 times would be outrageous. Sorry, just re-read it and see it is a relationship breakdown case. Still an incredibly lenient sentence, suggesting the Judge felt the impact on the victim was minimal.
PS mothers, if you want your sons to aim low in life and invariably fail-call them Connor.
One assumes the householder was a former cohabitant or similar, for had it been a "stranger" crime 6 months in prison for doing it 3 times would be outrageous. Sorry, just re-read it and see it is a relationship breakdown case. Still an incredibly lenient sentence, suggesting the Judge felt the impact on the victim was minimal. PS mothers, if you want your sons to aim low in life and invariably fail-call them Connor. Dai Rear
  • Score: -2

2:51pm Mon 9 Jun 14

-trigg- says...

Dai Rear wrote:
One assumes the householder was a former cohabitant or similar, for had it been a "stranger" crime 6 months in prison for doing it 3 times would be outrageous. Sorry, just re-read it and see it is a relationship breakdown case. Still an incredibly lenient sentence, suggesting the Judge felt the impact on the victim was minimal. PS mothers, if you want your sons to aim low in life and invariably fail-call them Connor.
Unless the article has been updated I must be missing the part where it mentions any previous relationship with the victim.

Didn't we have new anti-stalking legislation introduced fairly, complete with "tougher" sentences recently which would appear to be applicable in this case?
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: One assumes the householder was a former cohabitant or similar, for had it been a "stranger" crime 6 months in prison for doing it 3 times would be outrageous. Sorry, just re-read it and see it is a relationship breakdown case. Still an incredibly lenient sentence, suggesting the Judge felt the impact on the victim was minimal. PS mothers, if you want your sons to aim low in life and invariably fail-call them Connor.[/p][/quote]Unless the article has been updated I must be missing the part where it mentions any previous relationship with the victim. Didn't we have new anti-stalking legislation introduced fairly, complete with "tougher" sentences recently which would appear to be applicable in this case? -trigg-
  • Score: 5

3:01pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

Look, if he'd burgled the house and checked out where his victim worked it would be so sinister that no sane judge-and Malcolm Bishop is a wise old bird, would have given him less than 6. Put the neighbour knowing who he is, with the fact he knows the place of work, and you get a failed relationship, don't you? The clincher is that you don't burgle a house for penny-annie stuff you could get for tuppence in a charity shop, do you?
Burglary dwelling is the right charge (well done CPS) because of the 14 year maximum as against 5 max for violent harassment.
Look, if he'd burgled the house and checked out where his victim worked it would be so sinister that no sane judge-and Malcolm Bishop is a wise old bird, would have given him less than 6. Put the neighbour knowing who he is, with the fact he knows the place of work, and you get a failed relationship, don't you? The clincher is that you don't burgle a house for penny-annie stuff you could get for tuppence in a charity shop, do you? Burglary dwelling is the right charge (well done CPS) because of the 14 year maximum as against 5 max for violent harassment. Dai Rear
  • Score: -8

3:23pm Mon 9 Jun 14

PantResident says...

There was no relationship between the victim and the criminal. He was a "gardener" who lives in her street not in Porthcawl that's all a scam for his mother not paying council tax! He's the person who smashed a guys skull in outside Treowen shop a couple of years ago. This sentence is far too short and very overdue!
There was no relationship between the victim and the criminal. He was a "gardener" who lives in her street not in Porthcawl that's all a scam for his mother not paying council tax! He's the person who smashed a guys skull in outside Treowen shop a couple of years ago. This sentence is far too short and very overdue! PantResident
  • Score: 12

3:34pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

PantResident wrote:
There was no relationship between the victim and the criminal. He was a "gardener" who lives in her street not in Porthcawl that's all a scam for his mother not paying council tax! He's the person who smashed a guys skull in outside Treowen shop a couple of years ago. This sentence is far too short and very overdue!
Thanks. Guessed wrong. Sorry. What a pity the article was written in the way it was, rather than your clear description of what happened. It IS a stranger crime then and the sentence is derisory and insulting to the victim.
[quote][p][bold]PantResident[/bold] wrote: There was no relationship between the victim and the criminal. He was a "gardener" who lives in her street not in Porthcawl that's all a scam for his mother not paying council tax! He's the person who smashed a guys skull in outside Treowen shop a couple of years ago. This sentence is far too short and very overdue![/p][/quote]Thanks. Guessed wrong. Sorry. What a pity the article was written in the way it was, rather than your clear description of what happened. It IS a stranger crime then and the sentence is derisory and insulting to the victim. Dai Rear
  • Score: -3

9:06pm Mon 9 Jun 14

arjwain says...

fair enough ...but i seen a police crime program 4 teens burgled a sting house ..a house set up to be burgled .. as there was a spate in that area ,the 4 boys went to court they was released .i guess for the next 2 years they must be good boys ..burglary should carry the same sentence more if the house is occupied at the time ,,
not different depending on the judge .
burglary should be 10 years
rape life
knife crime 10
robbery 10
taking of life you lose yours .
simples
fair enough ...but i seen a police crime program 4 teens burgled a sting house ..a house set up to be burgled .. as there was a spate in that area ,the 4 boys went to court they was released .i guess for the next 2 years they must be good boys ..burglary should carry the same sentence more if the house is occupied at the time ,, not different depending on the judge . burglary should be 10 years rape life knife crime 10 robbery 10 taking of life you lose yours . simples arjwain
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Bloggers

Keep in touch with local news

Sign up for email alerts

Most read stories

  • 1