Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Got kids? Get out of jail free.

A burglar was freed from jail today – after judges ruled his five children would suffer as much as he would if he remained behind bars.

Our judicial system isn’t just unfit for purpose, it’s batshit crazy too.  As of today jailing criminals infringes the human rights of their kids.  Some fucking legal precedent, eh?

Wayne Steven Bishop, 33, was serving an eight-month sentence, imposed at Nottingham Crown Court in April after he admitted burglary and dangerous driving.

Burglary and dangerous driving.  A real paragon for his kids to look down to.

But he is the sole carer of his five children – aged between five and 13 – for five nights a week and claims it was not in their ‘best interests’ that he stay in prison.

Then he shouldn’t have committed the crimes then, should he.  What about the human rights of Bishop’s victims whose property he broke into and stole from?  Don’t they have a right not to be targetted by a lowlife bastard?  Obviously not.  We must think of the cheeeeldren, mustn’t we.

His QC, Ian Wise, told Mr Justice Maddison and Mr Justice Sweeney at the Court of Appeal that the court had not properly taken into account the effect on the children.

Bishop didn’t give a kipper’s dick about the consequences of being caught so why should the Court of Appeal?  They are there to administer justice (hah!).  Give the brats over to the local social services and make their old man pay for what he did by doing the time he’s been given.

Since his incarceration, they have been cared for by his sister during the week and his ex-partner at weekends, but the situation has been difficult for all parties.

The sister is a single parent with seven children to look after already – five of them her own – and she lives seven miles from the schools which her nieces and nephews attend.

So it’s not just his kids lives he’s fucked up.  What a sterling citizen!  Presumably his “ex” is mother to some or all of the kids.  How come she isn’t on the scene to do what any decent mother would do and step into the breach instead of leaving it to the scumbag’s sister who has an equally big brood plus two to spare?  How come she gets off with doing part-time so Bishop can get off doing hard time?  They are her kids too aren’t they?

Pointing to Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention – which guarantees respect for family life – Mr Wise said judges should have the well-being of children at the forefront of their minds when their sole carer might be sent to prison.

And if Bishop had killed or injured someone while driving the getaway van and crashing into a police car?  What then?  Does the welfare of criminal’s family trump the rights of the victim?

‘We submit that the judge erred in law in failing to have proper or any regard to the children that he was the sole carer for,’ he told the appeal judges.

I submit that the Court of Appeal crapped all over the law by overturning a reasonable judgement.  Let’s blame the judge presiding over the original case for doing his job.  What we don’t do is blame the selfish prick who went out to commit the crime despite knowing he was the sole carer of five kids.

‘The interests of the children should be central to the decision-making process where children are affected by a decision.’

The kids were affected by their father’s decision when he decided to commit burglary and drive his van into a police car.  That’s the only decision that should be taken into consideration.  He didn’t give a fuck about the consequences and now he gets let off his custodial sentence.  And this is justice how?

Mr Justice Sweeney questioned whether it had been in the children’s best interests for their father to be out committing burglary and asked who had been looking after them at that time.

But the judges together concluded that not enough attention had been paid to the effect that Bishop’s incarceration might have – and is actually now having – on his children.


‘It is apparent that the position of the children is a highly unsatisfactory one in the absence of the appellant himself,’ said Mr Justice Maddison.

It’s highly unstatisfactory that a precedent has been set for every lowlife scumbag criminal who has spawned to not do time.

He continued: ‘It is important that criminals should not think that children can provide some sort of licence to commit criminal offences with impunity.

So why set the precedent then?

‘All of that said, however, we have to be aware of the highly unsatisfactory and difficult situation faced by the children and those now doing their best to look after them.

Yeah, the kids have a thieving cunt for a father who’s using them as a get out of jail free card.  I’d call that highly unsatisfactory too.

‘We have come to the conclusion that the appropriate course is to allow the appeal and to suspend for a period of two years the consecutive sentences which were pronounced by the judge.’

Justice gets shafted thanks to legal weaselling and that’s considered appropriate?

Bishop, of Clifton, was prosecuted after he was caught driving away from the scene of a burglary at Mansfield Rugby Club in the early hours of September 2 last year.

He and three other men raided the premises, taking only some chocolate, before he and one of his accomplices drove off in a transit van.

Bishop clipped a police vehicle and drove through red lights before he eventually drove up a dead-end street and was arrested. He admitted all charges.

And all Bishop got away with was some bars of fucking chocolate?  Seems like the law isn’t the only big loser here…


  1. JuliaM says:

    Look on the bright side, maybe this is the case that will wake people up to the absurdity of the ECHR and get them united behind junking it?

  2. RAB says:

    I think we the Tweetple already know how absurd the ECHR is, it’s those elevated insulated, arrogant and thick as pigshit asshole High Court Judges who need to get the message, along with the Brussels pecker suckers we call Politicians.

  3. The Apiarist says:

    So who was looking after his kids when he was out in his stripey jumper, mask and swag bag?

  4. Paul Marks says:

    If governments approve vaguely worded “human rights” treaties (conventions…..) then this is the sort of thing we must expect.

    And a new “British Bill of Rights” will not change this (and, given who would write it, would be a terrible idea anyway) – not whilst we continue to be in the Convention.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: