I’ve just checked when he was jailed and it was October last year for 18 months, so he’ll still be on licence until April 2026. I know this won’t be the case but even if it was shown that he was attacked and used reasonable force to end the assault, he’s still left the country obviously without the permission of his parole officer, so he’ll be automatically recalled for that.
I got a question mate, because I don't know how it works these days, but if someone is on licence for a crime, is it any crime that will see him recalled, or just a breach of his current terms, ie a **** who shouldn't have access to the internet, would be recalled, if they gained access without authorisation. Or could they still be recalled if it's for randomly lumping some guy in the street? I'm assuming any crime, but I wasn't sure?
You can be recalled for any crime. I’m not sure if pissing in the street is still a criminal act, but you could be recalled for that. So if I went to jail for a violent offence and was caught shoplifting, I could be recalled for that. Licence is just another way of saying you are still serving the sentence the judge handed down to you, but you can serve it in the community now, don’t **** up the chance we are giving you or you’ll do the remainder in here. I know a lad who prefers to serve the full sentence in jail rather than licence. He says it’s more difficult on licence with all the restrictions on you.
Although I would add you can get the ‘this is fine’ meme out for 583 babies in the UK being named Yahya last year. That’s 20 families.
Supreme court has ruled in favour of the banks regarding car finance compensation (over commission). They however, ruled in favour of one customer who incurred the highest (commission?) charges, and it must be repaid in full including with interest (the overcharging part). So lenders will breath a sigh relief as this will cost them something like £20B (this figure still seems high, so maybe not correct) instead of what could have been £44B - the decision was purposely held until todays markets closed, as not to cause an adverse reaction, and to give the markets time to think about the ruling. Treasury also breathing a sigh of relief, who originall rejected these claims, due to the effect it would have on our economy, but the Supreme court does not rule from that angle, it only rules on the application of UK law (so it says). I think the financal sector were worried they were looking at another big PIP level of payouts again. All of this is off the top of my head, so hopefully I've understood it correctly. Edit: Just found a link, but doubt this will include financial numbers... https://news.sky.com/story/money-live-consumer-personal-finance-latest-newsletter-sky-news-13040934
Makes me think of Cassius Clay. Never even attached the name to religion back then, although the boxer obviously had after converting to Islam.
Gotta feel sorry for the kid who turns up at his new muslim school and finds out he's the only kid not called Mohammed, if there are any.
