Farmer Saint

Has anyone got a robot lawnmower? Currently our garden is just over an acre, so I cut it with one of our smaller tractors with a flail, but even that is like smashing a walnut with a sledgehammer. It also means I still have to do the edging. I was wondering if anyone has a robot mower, and more specifically a Husqvarna one, and whether the amount of land (circa 6000m squared) has caused any issues?

To be fair I think we'd all say that wouldn't we. Got to call his bluff.

We also need your net worth @Osvaldorama We need a laugh, debating with you is very boring

Have you got the stats for it?

So he's have moved irrelevant as to who was in charge then, like that shyster Jim Ratcliffe. Anyway, we need figures Captain.

So, yes, a tax haven. Funny how none of these billionaires move to non-tax havens isn't it. All an excuse to pay as little tax as humanly possible.

I've tried to tell him.

So come on, what's your net worth? Very interested as to who this "millionaire in our midst" is 😂😂😂

Where's he moved to? As I said above, I assume it's a place he will pay minimal tax, rather than a place where he just won't pay inheritance tax.

As said before, I have no real issue with the disparity - completely different cases, judges, pleads, profiles and aggravating factors. There is no link between the cases apart from the fact both are sexual assaults which is a very wide remit.

What was he charged with? What is the offence called?

Is there a concept of sexually assaulting a minor? There is the concept of sexually assaulting an under 13 for sure. I finished my degree in 2004 and didn't do Criminal Law in my last year, so couldn't tell you. The likelihood is he would have got a plea deal for a fine, hence why it went to magistrates court. It's not the simple third off as sexual assault starts at a community order for least serious offences and goes up to 10 years for most serious. I would have thought he'd have got two very light (maybe 1 to 2 month) sentences if it had gone to court properly.

Yes it does, that's how sentencing works? You plead guilty you tend to get massive tariff reductions. That would have been agreed before the case even started. "Plead guilty and you'll get a fine". What difference do you think the girl being 14 makes?

I see where your issue is now. However, you've missed a very, very obvious reason as to why the sentences are very different. I'll give you 3 guesses as to what that reason is.

Yes, in the absence of the case law I probably would. Slapping two women's arses is definitely far less egregious than fondling breasts and then putting your face in someone's vagina with added humiliation. Would you expect to get 8 months for slapping a woman's arse? Or would you expect a fine of £400 if you groped a woman's breast?

What you on about, he was convicted of 3 assaults for a total of 18 months? DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH YOU LAZY PRICK. "I pass a sentence of imprisonment for 9 months for count 3, 18 months for count 5 (reduced from 2 years to allow for totality), and 8 months for count 7: Those sentences are all concurrent to one another to further allow for totality, but consecutive to the sentence for rape."

It might have been, but what's your point? He touched two women's bottoms. How is that comparable to 3 assaults, groping breasts, forced kissing with sexual violence, putting his face in someone's vagina and two counts of humiliation? Do you not understand tariffs and aggravating factors? You are seriously showing yourself up here.

Yup, you just don't get it - that's fine, we can just add the Law to Business, Economics and Politics. Amazing the straws people will grasp at just because someone has brown skin.

I think you've just proved my point, you know nothing about how the law works. The fact that you do not understand that violence against a person is very, very different to violence against an inanimate object is flabbergasting, and further cements your reputation on here. I'm not defending anything, as I haven't read the case notes or the judgement, but the legal definition of a minor in a sexual assault case is under 13, due to the mental inability to consent.

What violence was there against the person? Have you read the full ruling from that case?

No he didn't, this is what he did: Your victim in count 3 was a professional woman at the party of a man you both knew. It was July 2004, and she had seen you on the television and wanted to be introduced to you, as she thought you were funny. You were told there was a woman who wanted to meet you. That was all you needed to feel entitled to grab her breasts as she sat talking to you. In your trial, you said you had never touched a woman sexually without her consent, and that included this woman. In light of the jury’s verdicts, that was one of a series of lies you told. The effect on her had her wandering the streets of London, phoning a friend in the middle of night, tearful and distressed. I accept I need to be cautious in assessing her reaction, as the jury acquitted you of a later attack on the same woman, but something caused her that great upset. In her victim impact statement, which she read to the court this morning, she spoke of being extremely upset and traumatised, feeling vulnerable every time she went out for the evening, and feeling sick on the many occasions she saw you in newspapers or on the television. In terms of the relevant guideline, that offence falls into category 3B. It displayed your casual, arrogant disregard of any woman’s right to say “no” to you. In my view, the degree of upset caused to the victim is significantly above that which would normally follow from a sexual assault in the 3B category, so this is an occasion where I am satisfied it would be contrary to the interests of justice not to go above the prescribed sentencing range. Around the same time, the victim in count 5 was doing her job. You appeared with an entourage of a woman and two or three men. In the trial, the victim gave an account which I accept without reservation. She said: “He said, “aye, aye”, and grabbed me by my face and started to kiss me. He was pushing his body against mine, walking me backwards so my back was against the wall. The three men and a woman were stood there. He was just kissing me, he was very frenzied, no greeting, no time for me to understand what went on. This was a perfect stranger who just grabbed me and ran his hands over my body while I had my back against the wall. “The kiss was hard and sloppy, he kissed me all down my neck, and his hands were, at that same time, all over me. He touched my bum and my breasts, with his other hand just pinning me against the wall with his body pressed up against me, so I was not able to move. It was rough, very, very rough. I was in shock. “The others did nothing. I looked at the woman; I looked at her; she didn’t say anything, nor did the men, they did not move. It was the middle of my working day. There was a point where I somehow managed to put my hand and I pushed him and told him to “f*** off”, quite loud, then he kind of stumbled back and he made like a sound like it was funny, and there was a guy by the door, he started to laugh.” That offence falls into the upper part of category 2B as it was sustained, there was the added humiliation of you assaulting her in front of an audience and the laughter afterwards, and the violence used to pin her to the wall was beyond the force that any sexual assault will involve. Count 7 shows yet again your staggering arrogance, and it shows how your entourage indulged your dreadful behaviour. Towards the end of 2009, you were making an advertisement for a DVD of your work. You were there with two men who were your friends or associates. The victim was a woman, helping produce the advertisement. You got into a bad mood and she was then told by one of the men with you that you would not continue unless she gave you a massage. She was taken aback but felt she had no choice. You then entered the room and placed your face in her lap, positioned so that when you told her to get on with it, she could feel your breath on her vagina. She reluctantly pressed her thumbs into your shoulders, then exclaimed how bony you were, leading your acolytes to laugh (possibly at you rather than her), and you to leap up and start insulting her with childish but sexualised comments about whether she had a “fanny”. Those insults, in front of an audience, said after the assault, amount to an additional humiliation. The whole episode reeks of casual disrespect and your belief that fame meant you could act how you liked, when you liked, unhindered by the rules by which decent people live. Your victim for that offence wrote, in her impact statement, of being left upset, losing her trust in people and not feeling safe in her workplace: That count falls into category 2B of the guidelines, and her words are a reminder that even in crimes which, under the guidelines I have to follow, are not the most serious, the consequences for the victim are profound and lasting. I think you just don't understand how the law works.

What a prick, but far less serious than the sexual assaults that Brand got 18 months for. Don't forget there are also aggravating factors, such as humiliation as it was done in front of an audience.

Did you listen to the sentencing, and what each part of the sentence was for?

So come on, what's your net worth? You're asking other people so I guess you're happy to share that information.

He's like a child - it seems to be very common on this forum for those on the right to act like this.