He always semmed a sandwich short of a picnic to me whenever i heard him interviewed - which wasn't often. Surprised people trusted him - he'd have been the last player i would have said would go on to be a financial whizz kid.
He always semmed a sandwich short of a picnic to me whenever i heard him interviewed - which wasn't often. Surprised people trusted him - he'd have been the last player i would have said would go on to be a financial whizz kid.
But it's all about demonstrating the trappings of success to gullible people with, no doubt, a certain amount of footballers of a similar intelligence being amongst those - "look at my £2m house, my portfolio of five other houses, my top of the range car" etc etc. People didn't know that he was, on paper, bankrupt.
The toughest sentencing should always be for crimes against the person. What Rufus did was stupid and unforgivable and should be punished but 7.5 years where he represents no danger to the public is I think harsh. Monetary crimes are proportionally treated more harshly than violent scumbags.
The toughest sentencing should always be for crimes against the person. What Rufus did was stupid and unforgivable and should be punished but 7.5 years where he represents no danger to the public is I think harsh. Monetary crimes are proportionally treated more harshly than violent scumbags.
If that's the bar for frauds involving millions of pounds I'm absolutely gagging to see what sentences Dido Harding, Matthew Hancock and most of Johnsons cabinet receive for the biggest set of frauds in living memory from the treasury
The toughest sentencing should always be for crimes against the person. What Rufus did was stupid and unforgivable and should be punished but 7.5 years where he represents no danger to the public is I think harsh. Monetary crimes are proportionally treated more harshly than violent scumbags.
Don't forget that many violent crimes are one-off moments of madness/drunkenness and are often immediately regretted by both parties Long-term violence of a wanton on-going nature is usually punished accordingly. As in this matter, fraudsters practice their deceit and behaviour for years and years. The perpetrator knows full well what they are doing and how it will hurt people but carries on regardless. The financial juggling, creation of fake documents, etc, etc often means that a perpetrator lives his crime 24/7/365 yet still carries on with no remorse whatsoever.
The toughest sentencing should always be for crimes against the person. What Rufus did was stupid and unforgivable and should be punished but 7.5 years where he represents no danger to the public is I think harsh. Monetary crimes are proportionally treated more harshly than violent scumbags.
Don't forget that many violent crimes are one-off moments of madness/drunkenness and are often immediately regretted by both parties Long-term violence of a wanton on-going nature is usually punished accordingly. As in this matter, fraudsters practice their deceit and behaviour for years and years. The perpetrator knows full well what they are doing and how it will hurt people but carries on regardless. The financial juggling, creation of fake documents, etc, etc often means that a perpetrator lives his crime 24/7/365 yet still carries on with no remorse whatsoever.
The toughest sentencing should always be for crimes against the person. What Rufus did was stupid and unforgivable and should be punished but 7.5 years where he represents no danger to the public is I think harsh. Monetary crimes are proportionally treated more harshly than violent scumbags.
Don't forget that many violent crimes are one-off moments of madness/drunkenness and are often immediately regretted by both parties Long-term violence of a wanton on-going nature is usually punished accordingly. As in this matter, fraudsters practice their deceit and behaviour for years and years. The perpetrator knows full well what they are doing and how it will hurt people but carries on regardless. The financial juggling, creation of fake documents, etc, etc often means that a perpetrator lives his crime 24/7/365 yet still carries on with no remorse whatsoever.
As Algarve says this is an important factor but I still think that despite the good points you make it remains that the perpetrator of non violent crimes is on the whole not any physical danger to the public. With our prisons, like everything else it seems, in crisis and overflowing perhaps these type of crimes need a different way of thinking. Without much thought. 18 months inside followed by the remainder of sentence tagged and under very harsh curfew. ? Rufus will only do half the sentence handed down anyway.
The toughest sentencing should always be for crimes against the person. What Rufus did was stupid and unforgivable and should be punished but 7.5 years where he represents no danger to the public is I think harsh. Monetary crimes are proportionally treated more harshly than violent scumbags.
Don't forget that many violent crimes are one-off moments of madness/drunkenness and are often immediately regretted by both parties Long-term violence of a wanton on-going nature is usually punished accordingly. As in this matter, fraudsters practice their deceit and behaviour for years and years. The perpetrator knows full well what they are doing and how it will hurt people but carries on regardless. The financial juggling, creation of fake documents, etc, etc often means that a perpetrator lives his crime 24/7/365 yet still carries on with no remorse whatsoever.
As Algarve says this is an important factor but I still think that despite the good points you make it remains that the perpetrator of non violent crimes is on the whole not any physical danger to the public. With our prisons, like everything else it seems, in crisis and overflowing perhaps these type of crimes need a different way of thinking. Without much thought. 18 months inside followed by the remainder of sentence tagged and under very harsh curfew. ? Rufus will only do half the sentence handed down anyway.
I fully understand where you are coming from. But sentencing guidelines are complex and take into account a number of factors. A big one is not just to punish the perpetrator but also to act as a deterrence to others. In much violent crime, other than gang-related incidents for example, there is not really a deterrence element necessary. Hardly anybody goes out with the intention of doing someone serious harm.
But if nefarious actions of a long-term fraudster are not punished accordingly, where is the deterrent to stop anybody else thinking, "wow, let's rip someone off for a couple of million and spend a few weeks banged up". That's better than actually working for a living isn't it?"
My experience in these matters puts me in a situation where I could probably design and commit the almost perfect fraud with very little risk of actually getting caught and even less risk of being prosecuted. In addition there would be very little chance of a successful POCA order. So with the odds heavily stacked in my favour, if there was only a very small chance of being banged up for a few months it would seem like a damned good bet: over three years in gaol, less so.
The toughest sentencing should always be for crimes against the person. What Rufus did was stupid and unforgivable and should be punished but 7.5 years where he represents no danger to the public is I think harsh. Monetary crimes are proportionally treated more harshly than violent scumbags.
Don't forget that many violent crimes are one-off moments of madness/drunkenness and are often immediately regretted by both parties Long-term violence of a wanton on-going nature is usually punished accordingly. As in this matter, fraudsters practice their deceit and behaviour for years and years. The perpetrator knows full well what they are doing and how it will hurt people but carries on regardless. The financial juggling, creation of fake documents, etc, etc often means that a perpetrator lives his crime 24/7/365 yet still carries on with no remorse whatsoever.
As Algarve says this is an important factor but I still think that despite the good points you make it remains that the perpetrator of non violent crimes is on the whole not any physical danger to the public. With our prisons, like everything else it seems, in crisis and overflowing perhaps these type of crimes need a different way of thinking. Without much thought. 18 months inside followed by the remainder of sentence tagged and under very harsh curfew. ? Rufus will only do half the sentence handed down anyway.
I get where you are coming from @ShootersHillGuru but there is quite a body of evidence that victims of scams/fraud do go on to suffer longer term health issues, depression, social isolation, anxiety and even have a lower life expectancy as a result. Victim's health (mental and physical) can very quickly spiral downwards as a result. It's a interesting, if depressing, subject that doesn't get the profile it should, hence victims don't get the support they need.
As @cafcfan points out it's already far too easy to commit and get away with fraud. So failure to offer a strong enough penalty as a deterrent on top would only add to the number of frauds (already the most common form of crime in the UK btw).
I'm still gobsmacked a Church had £5m kicking about
Excactly this.
Doesn’t surprise me at all about that church. Had dealings with them in the past and wouldn’t be surprised if they knew what they were into (although I realise they lost money too).
Not kept up with this case, and appreciate he has been proven guilty, but all I can think of when I hear the name Richard Rufus is the 85th minute Wembley May 25th 1998...👍
Comments
charltontvat32acaciagardensmike
Recognise any of our fans in the corner
7.5 year sentence
In 3 years and 9 months time he will be out on good behaviour.
4 years time he makes an offer to buy Charlton Athletic FC that is accepted and he passes Fit and Proper Owners Test.
Can't believe that was actually 25 years ago.
To check the league table...you'd use teletext!
Helens alright. Certainly wouldn't kick her out of bed!
But if nefarious actions of a long-term fraudster are not punished accordingly, where is the deterrent to stop anybody else thinking, "wow, let's rip someone off for a couple of million and spend a few weeks banged up". That's better than actually working for a living isn't it?"
My experience in these matters puts me in a situation where I could probably design and commit the almost perfect fraud with very little risk of actually getting caught and even less risk of being prosecuted. In addition there would be very little chance of a successful POCA order. So with the odds heavily stacked in my favour, if there was only a very small chance of being banged up for a few months it would seem like a damned good bet: over three years in gaol, less so.
As @cafcfan points out it's already far too easy to commit and get away with fraud. So failure to offer a strong enough penalty as a deterrent on top would only add to the number of frauds (already the most common form of crime in the UK btw).
It would rely heavily on the editing, interviewing the right people and timing the atmospheric music of it, to generate what viewers will want to see.
The doc about the Hitchhiker kind of proves they'll be up for anything!
It sounds like a nasty thing to do but docu-soaps have minimal boundaries....and respected privacy no longer exists.
Might encourage Rufus to apologise and victims can get some generated money back.
If this gets nothing but a lol, sew me