As everyone is aware as well as a sentence suspended for two years both brothers were also tagged and placed under a home curfew.
I’ve shown and proven before that these tags and curfews are a dead loss. Upwards of 60% of those convicted violate the terms. I’ve shown before that its G4S who more or less have a monopoly on the electronic tag and curfew ‘market’. And I have also pointed out the irony of handing someone a home curfew when their offences were committed in the home.
In a nutshell, as a means of punishment the tagging and curfew system is a total and utter failure. It does however generate a great deal of revenue for the G4S group and as you are surely aware by now, its the heads of corporations like that who really have the ear of Ministers.
Politicians often find themselves with a nice cushy seat on the board of directors of a company or they probably have shares and stocks in such companies. So while the system may be a failure in terms of punishment it is a major financial success for G4S and their political lackeys.
However, this system (scam) that they are running does come with terms and conditions. It is definitely worth you reading these and understanding them;
Home Detention Curfews (Electronic Tag)
How does Home Detention Curfew work?
When a prisoner is released on tag they are required to stay at the registered address, that will have been approved prior to the release, for the duration of their curfew.
An electronic tag will be attached to the prisoners ankle, and resembles a bulky watch.
The electronic tag is waterproof and shockproof, so the prisoner can wash and bath as normal.
When the prisoner is fitted with the tag, a monitoring box will be installed in the property registered for the prisoners curfew.
This will be able to monitor when the prison is in the property to show whether or not the curfew conditions have are being complied with. When the prisoner leaves the property, a signal will be sent to the control centre to notify them of his absence.
If the person leaves the property during his curfew hours, the control centre will be notified and he will be in breach of the Home Detention Curfew.
Change of address
Usually the registered and approved address linked with the Home Detention curfew must remain the same through the detention.
If a person is on tag from a prison, in exceptional circumstance, upon application to the prison Governor Changes may be made.
If the person is on bail from the court or a community order, where electronic tagging is a requirement, the person must seek the Courts permission before any changes are made to the registered address.
The parts I have underlined are of specific importance here. It is absolutely and blatantly clear that the prisoners MUST stay at the ‘approved address’. This is logical otherwise it would render it totally pointless.
It is also blatantly clear that “the registered and approved address linked with the Home Detention curfew must remain the same through the detention”.
Now we already know that failed to happen once already and that they appear to have been give yet more special snowflake rights to leave their previous address at Soton St, Redcar.
We all know by now they then moved to Otley Terrace, Darlington.
Here’s where it gets interesting again though.
According to all trusted sources and according to at least one journalist, everything is still registered to that Darlington address. That’s maybe not such a surprise in terms of general house bills or something, but I am speaking here of the actual stated address on their present conditions. There is no change to that. That remains as the known address in Darlington, yet it would be the first thing to be updated.
If they have not been staying at that address then they are possibly in violation of the stated terms. That’s how I’d see it and that was the thinking of the reporter I spoke with. It states it clearly – they must stay at the registered address. If they are not staying at the registered address in Darlington it would seem like a clear breach to me. What use is a home curfew if they can stay in places other than the one stated on the notice?
I’ve since be handed two more addresses. No idea if they have any value yet but in every official sense they are meant to be staying at Otley Terrace.
Keep in mind that there has been zero activity at the Otley Terrace address. Keep in mind we contacted the landlady to inform her who she had there, in case she was unaware. And keep in mind she replied back and that while she was tentative (to say the least), she did state that the matter would be dealt with and her property would be up for let again very soon.
She said she was shocked to discover who they really were, although she never did actually confirm if she had been tricked by the use of the name ‘White’ or if they had let the place under ‘Frankish’ and she was just ignorant to the facts. We’ve always suggested giving her the benefit of the doubt though as we can see how easy it would be to find yourself unwittingly sucked into this.
We contacted her yesterday to update her on the fact that the terms of the order still shows her house. We did not do this in the sense of saying “you’ve lied to us and they are still there”. On the contrary, we asked and informed he on the chance that they are NOT there. Because if they are not there and that’s the address registered to their home curfew terms then they would appear to be in violation of those terms.
Would they not?
(Pictured – the next home that the Government will put them in as compensation to Vannah for ‘triggered feels’)