Vomit row leads to cabbie assault in Hove (From The Argus)

19 previous convictions and now its six whole weeks in jail - now waiting for bibble to defend this sortof person and blame the Police he's now up to 20!

Mr Papp said Cheesman's girfriend was now 12 weeks pregnant.

Another chav on the way.

Another drunken night and 12 weeks pregnant - yippee cant wait to have to support another mistake in this world!!!!!!

Lashed out?

Intelligent person..not

Scum..yes!

Another classic example of why the 'three strikes and you're out' policy used in the US should be used here.
What a total waste of oxygen.

Argus, how about an experiment? Let's see if Cheesman Jr ends up contributing to society or becomes a burden to tax payers.

called back on license untill october, does that mean this 6 week sentence is consecutive ie served at the end of his original recall period or is it concurrent and therefore not actually served at all. my guess is the later and i would almost lay a bet that the compensation never gets paid either.

to be honest i think it's wrong to involve the child, and to call it a mistake is uncalled for.
i know trevor and he has tried to contribute not being the most successful but is misunderstood.
and his girlsfreind is a good contributor to society and does alot for people.
and for people to say *lashed out, scumbag* is like calling half the population scumbags cos' i know plenty of people that would lash out if someone was to be so rude to their other half and they would lash out even more so after a few drinks , most men become way over comfident and bulshy after a few beverages.
he wasnt right doing it but people can never say they havent felt like belting someone after a few drinks.
but people are being quite harsh not to him but to the unborn child that hasnt done anything wrong cannot defend itself and hasnt had the chance to contribute.

So, he was sentenced to 2 years in October but was out and about being a pain in the butt in June. I make that about 8 months out of the 24 he was sentenced to.

But I'm a bit puzzled. He wasn't paroled, he was released on licence. One (of many) of the standard conditions for these licences is that the released offender does not commit any offence.

A breach of the licence can mean the offender is recalled to prison. Simple question: why wasn't he recalled? Until the case is heard, of course, he is not considered not guilty of having committed the offence, but there is case law which backs up the recall in such circumstances.

Recalls are handled by the probation service or the prison, not the parole board. So where were they in this case?

Also, the judge could have ordered that the remainder of the previous sentence, i.e. the one the offender was released early from, to be served as he commited another offence while that sentence was still "live". So why didn't the judge do that?

The judge didn't do it because he wanted to read what nonsense you post on The Argus online.

Taxi drivers have receipt books and are supposed to provide you with a recipt on request. If a taxi driver indeed asks for more than the standard £25 for cleaning a 'soiling incident' - get a receipt for what has been paid - then take it up with his company after. Not all taxi drivers are honest - but running off or giving them a smack when you've had a few bevvies is not the way to go...

How did the misunderstood Trevor 'contribute'? By assaulting people, vandalising and dealing drugs? Wake up and smell the coffee.

The USA criticizes our health service, someone really should draw their attention to our justice service.

cakes wrote:
to be honest i think it's wrong to involve the child, and to call it a mistake is uncalled for.
i know trevor and he has tried to contribute not being the most successful but is misunderstood.
and his girlsfreind is a good contributor to society and does alot for people.
and for people to say *lashed out, scumbag* is like calling half the population scumbags cos' i know plenty of people that would lash out if someone was to be so rude to their other half and they would lash out even more so after a few drinks , most men become way over comfident and bulshy after a few beverages.
he wasnt right doing it but people can never say they havent felt like belting someone after a few drinks.
but people are being quite harsh not to him but to the unborn child that hasnt done anything wrong cannot defend itself and hasnt had the chance to contribute.

I have to deal with scum like this every night when I work the doors, the answer is simple, if you can't handle your drink, DON'T drink.

cakes wrote:
to be honest i think it's wrong to involve the child, and to call it a mistake is uncalled for. i know trevor and he has tried to contribute not being the most successful but is misunderstood. and his girlsfreind is a good contributor to society and does alot for people. and for people to say *lashed out, scumbag* is like calling half the population scumbags cos' i know plenty of people that would lash out if someone was to be so rude to their other half and they would lash out even more so after a few drinks , most men become way over comfident and bulshy after a few beverages. he wasnt right doing it but people can never say they havent felt like belting someone after a few drinks. but people are being quite harsh not to him but to the unborn child that hasnt done anything wrong cannot defend itself and hasnt had the chance to contribute.

"he wasnt right doing it but people can never say they havent felt like belting someone after a few drinks."

What a totally stupid and ridiculous statement.
I have NEVER felt like belting someone after a few drinks, and most NORMAL people would say the same.

What a sorry outlook you must have on life. And what a stupid excuse to offer for this total loser assaulting the cab driver. With his existing record he should be locked up for good. None of us would miss him in the slightest.

Cakes, portslade you give me a great laugh..
.
Trevor being misunderstood, what part of being misunderstood????.
The 19 previous convictions or the drug dealing????
.

Well being 12 weeks pregnant, and likes to drink, I suppose so.

Cakes, portslade you are a reback..........Now go and join Trevor.

Cakes, portslade you give me a great laugh..
.
Trevor being misunderstood, what part of being misunderstood????.
The 19 previous convictions or the drug dealing????
.
... And his girlsfreind is a good contributor to society and does alot for people....
Well being 12 weeks pregnant, and likes to drink, I suppose so.

Cakes, portslade you are a reback..........Now go and join Trevor.

g1mp wrote:
The judge didn't do it because he wanted to read what nonsense you post on The Argus online.

thats probably the most sensible or worthy comment on this page.

Lawson-land wrote:
Taxi drivers have receipt books and are supposed to provide you with a recipt on request. If a taxi driver indeed asks for more than the standard £25 for cleaning a 'soiling incident' - get a receipt for what has been paid - then take it up with his company after. Not all taxi drivers are honest - but running off or giving them a smack when you've had a few bevvies is not the way to go...

The "standard" is not £25. It is £50 enforceable by law.
http://www.streamlin
etaxis.org/fares.htm
l

bibble wrote:
So, he was sentenced to 2 years in October but was out and about being a pain in the butt in June. I make that about 8 months out of the 24 he was sentenced to. But I'm a bit puzzled. He wasn't paroled, he was released on licence. One (of many) of the standard conditions for these licences is that the released offender does not commit any offence. A breach of the licence can mean the offender is recalled to prison. Simple question: why wasn't he recalled? Until the case is heard, of course, he is not considered not guilty of having committed the offence, but there is case law which backs up the recall in such circumstances. Recalls are handled by the probation service or the prison, not the parole board. So where were they in this case? Also, the judge could have ordered that the remainder of the previous sentence, i.e. the one the offender was released early from, to be served as he commited another offence while that sentence was still "live". So why didn't the judge do that?

usual blah blah - cops fault,

justice systems fault

Its a pity people like you and them don't take personal responsibility for themselves and stop blaming the whole world.

And the guy who says most people he knows would start a fight in such circumstances?

Was the taxi driver supposed to say nothing incase he was knifed - this is a guy who works hard for himself and a vomit full car would have to be taken out of commission loosing money until its valeted at around £60(?)

Do you live in some sort of sink estate where the authorities have given up on the dregs of society -

Losing a half an evening's work, taking time out to get the cab cleaned and paying for the service puts a cabbie about £200 out of pocket. £50 is not too much to ask, and it is the standard charge which can be seen on the list of charges. It is in addition to the fare.

That fella who said we all feel like belting people needs to change his lifestyle, so does the lass who is 12 weeks pregnant by a repeat offender. Get away from him, he's a wrong 'un

bibble wrote:
So, he was sentenced to 2 years in October but was out and about being a pain in the butt in June. I make that about 8 months out of the 24 he was sentenced to. But I'm a bit puzzled. He wasn't paroled, he was released on licence. One (of many) of the standard conditions for these licences is that the released offender does not commit any offence. A breach of the licence can mean the offender is recalled to prison. Simple question: why wasn't he recalled? Until the case is heard, of course, he is not considered not guilty of having committed the offence, but there is case law which backs up the recall in such circumstances. Recalls are handled by the probation service or the prison, not the parole board. So where were they in this case? Also, the judge could have ordered that the remainder of the previous sentence, i.e. the one the offender was released early from, to be served as he commited another offence while that sentence was still "live". So why didn't the judge do that?

Drone, drone, drone, drone... bad police... drone... drone... drone...zzzzzzzzzzzz
zz........

cakes wrote:
to be honest i think it's wrong to involve the child, and to call it a mistake is uncalled for. i know trevor and he has tried to contribute not being the most successful but is misunderstood. and his girlsfreind is a good contributor to society and does alot for people. and for people to say *lashed out, scumbag* is like calling half the population scumbags cos' i know plenty of people that would lash out if someone was to be so rude to their other half and they would lash out even more so after a few drinks , most men become way over comfident and bulshy after a few beverages. he wasnt right doing it but people can never say they havent felt like belting someone after a few drinks. but people are being quite harsh not to him but to the unborn child that hasnt done anything wrong cannot defend itself and hasnt had the chance to contribute.

Can I ask, is it nice on that cloud of yours? and is there any room for poor Trev and his ilk?

You make a bit of money and like the idea of a gated estate as you want to feel safe from the sort of vermin/underclass that is referred to on this case but what happens?

the authorities don't like the way we think or behave and now Councils veto any new gated estates 99.999% of the time.

If only they stopped wasting money on pretend jobs for wishy washy middle class failures and backed up the Police for a change

Could the people picking on Bibble please learn to read at an adults level since he does n't mention the police once in his article but has simply stated a few facts. x

lastgasp wrote:
Could the people picking on Bibble please learn to read at an adults level since he does n't mention the police once in his article but has simply stated a few facts. x

Why? He doesn't.

Yeah!

Cakes.
as you know Trevor, would you call him "misunderstood" if he belted you after being sick in your car?
Are you 12 weeks pregnant by any chance?

cakes wrote:
to be honest i think it's wrong to involve the child, and to call it a mistake is uncalled for. i know trevor and he has tried to contribute not being the most successful but is misunderstood. and his girlsfreind is a good contributor to society and does alot for people. and for people to say *lashed out, scumbag* is like calling half the population scumbags cos' i know plenty of people that would lash out if someone was to be so rude to their other half and they would lash out even more so after a few drinks , most men become way over comfident and bulshy after a few beverages. he wasnt right doing it but people can never say they havent felt like belting someone after a few drinks. but people are being quite harsh not to him but to the unborn child that hasnt done anything wrong cannot defend itself and hasnt had the chance to contribute.

i agree that bringing an unborn child into this is unfair and uncalled for.
but he shouldnt of lashed out at all.
cakes dont defend him he isnt worth defending but defending the child is fair enough, but it's parents should know better reap the consiquence of their actions.