rudemedic Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 http://www.owtb.co.uk/index.php/topic/43745-announcement-trust-oldham-fraud-case/page-5#entry664658 16 weeks imprisonment, likely to serve 8 weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Reports of the prosecution barrister citing a "long and difficult-to-read" victim impact statement from Barry Owen. How I yearn for a world in which bad prose attracts light jail sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I'm not sure ololololololololoollllloooolloolllooo has any place in a British court room. Shame for Mike, looks like he did get the hanging judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 First reaction was surprise at a custodial sentence, but cold, hard look at the facts makes me realise I shouldn't have been. Mr. Nuttall is not a fool. He knows what he did and what potential impact it had. His remorse will help him. He now has time to think about it, and then hopefully move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 The judge was apparently cross because the case was sent to Manchester rather than being dealt with in Oldham, ergo jail. I'd love to know whether first offences of a similar magnitude and style normally attract jail sentences. If they do, the justice system is :censored:ed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I've often wondered who came up with the relative sentencing guidelines for fraud and violent crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetramfixer Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I'd love to know whether first offences of a similar magnitude and style normally attract jail sentences. If they do, the justice system is :censored:ed. Well there's a story on sky news of a couple who held a girl as a slave .. the similarity to what you say is their daughter has been found guilty of falsifying information to obtain benefits and got 12 months community order and 300 hours unpaid work . Benefits by deception is still theft in my book .. so what's the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Looks like he has had a harsher sentence due to his background and expertise, like if he had been a doctor and he'd sawn someone's leg off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryBosch Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Jesus. Seems harsh. He's hardly a threat to public safety or likely to be in a position to do it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) Jesus. Seems harsh. He's hardly a threat to public safety or likely to be in a position to do it again.Funny, because there have been cases before where people have gone one to another. Voluntary organisations don't tend to do CRB checks... I agree with other sentiments that benefit fraud is only the same, however the position of Trust in this case cannot be disregarded. The size of the fraud is only relevant to the size of the organisation. The Trust has what? 30k in its accounts? He took 10% in the hope it wouldn't be noticed. What if it was a bigger organisation with 300-400k? 10% is 30k so would that sentence still have been harsh? Not great examples I know, but order of magnitude has to come into it. Edit: quick google and I have no clue how much The Trust has in its accounts so that figure is totally made up and guestimates! Edited October 23, 2013 by blueatheart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Can't believe he's been given time. I've no knowledge about prison sentences so I don't really know what he'd have expected but I didn't see that coming. Whether or not the sentence reflects the crime I don't know, but he's a decent bloke so irrespective of his crime, I hope it's not too bad on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lags Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Can't believe he's been given time. I've no knowledge about prison sentences so I don't really know what he'd have expected but I didn't see that coming. Whether or not the sentence reflects the crime I don't know, but he's a decent bloke so irrespective of his crime, I hope it's not too bad on him. Yeah seems harsh if it's first time conviction, but you do the crime it's a chance you take. Nice bloke or not he did it. He'll be sat there tonight deep in thought of that I am sure and wondering just how he ended up there and what consequence it will now have on his life. Hopefully he's not in a hard prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Yeah seems harsh if it's first time conviction, but you do the crime it's a chance you take. Nice bloke or not he did it. He'll be sat there tonight deep in thought of that I am sure and wondering just how he ended up there and what consequence it will now have on his life. Hopefully he's not in a hard prison. This echoes my thoughts. The judge has clearly taken a dim view of the nature of the crime, as he is entitled to. :censored:er knows how bad Bazza's letter must have been for it to be flagged up like that by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slash Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 the justice system is :censored:ed. You're not kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 The Judge added... "Funds came from working class, often poor people who support the club because that is what they were brought up with." Stereotyping? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 The Judge added... "Funds came from working class, often poor people who support the club because that is what they were brought up with." Stereotyping? Or pretty :censored:ing factual. End of the day if there were enough latics fans out there with money we wouldn't be owned by American Isreali's. I know loads of latics fans that genuinely can't afford to go but make sacrifices so that they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Or pretty :censored:ing factual. I know loads of latics fans that genuinely can't afford to go but make sacrifices so that they can. I'm one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Reports of the prosecution barrister citing a "long and difficult-to-read" victim impact statement from Barry Owen. How I yearn for a world in which bad prose attracts light jail sentences.That's :censored:ing hilarious, that it was the prosecutor who described Barry's statement as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petelatics Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Nice bloke? He's nicked our money - bang him up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 In regards of today's judgement and sentencing of ex Trust Director Michael Nuttall we (Trust Oldham) would like to thank everyone that has expressed and sent support during the investigation. The sentence shows how serious the court found this matter and we hope that in time the hard work put into Trust Oldham by its volunteers is not tainted by the actions of one individual. Now this matter has been concluded we will work hard to restore the faith shown by fans and we thank you for your support. It is now we ask fans to join the trust. If anyone is interested to become a trust director there is a place for you. The court venue changes were down to the mitigating circumstance Mike gave at his hearing. Personally speaking as someone who considered Mike a friend and a fellow tic I'm disappointed that he felt that was his only option and to try and play a system to his own benefit. His family will be devistated and I know a lot of his old regulars are angry. I feel more let down by him than angry..... I hoped he would get a community order not prison there are people walking the streets of oldham and Manchester mugging and raping people and getting let off with cautions but the sentence was within the magistrates Powers and always a possibility. Now this has all been concluded and the house put back in order as such we need need blood to take things forward... The energy needed to focus and deflect negativity takes it's toll !! Without new people on board..... Well you know the rest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Break The Silence Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I'd be genuinely interested to see what Mcgoo thinks of the sentence, in his professional capacity. On one hand I think prison is the correct outcome, bearing in mind the prolonged period of dishonesty while in a position of trust but, as Wardle points out, it seems you can half kill someone in the street and get nowt for it. Mcgoo? You about old bean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinevillawill Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Look on the bright side, Mike. They could've chopped your hands off like they do in 'lesser civilised' countries. High five? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted October 23, 2013 Author Share Posted October 23, 2013 The Judge added... "Funds came from working class, often poor people who support the club because that is what they were brought up with." Stereotyping? Just a bit, although perhaps the non-working class don't give money to the trust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimeblue Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 The Judge added... "Funds came from working class, often poor people who support the club because that is what they were brought up with." Stereotyping? Probably what was said in the mentioned letter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.