Jump to content

Oxford University student who stabbed her lover in a drink & drug fuelled row could be spared jail


Recommended Posts

Hmmmm. Seems soft obvs, but whether its more helpful than a prison sentence, who knows.


If she reoffends the judicial system will have serious egg on its face/possible blood on hands.


Perhaps the period between the offence and trial has shown her to be drug free etc.

It's the DM, they have an agenda.


If the defendant hadn't been white, blond and pretty I doubt very much that this would be covered by them.


Having said that, I'm torn between my belief that the independence of the judiciary must be maintained, as results like this are part of that, and my feeling that escaping a custodial sentence because of what it might do to your future is not quite right when you've taken someone's life.


Overall I hope there's more to her case than is reported by the DM. On the surface of it this seems dodgy, but the Mail isn't a source I'd trust on issues like this. They like to bash judges.

Did she kill him? It's basically the same

story wherever you read it. But no reports on

How bad the injury was.wrong for a decision

to be reached on how bright she is etc.

Suppose it shows that the GMC

employing convicted criminals might not be

something that is questionable.

The junior doctor working in paediatrics from Lordship Lane jailed

for indecent photos of children (family

Roo) could be practising again.

Feels like not only the courts have laws that

can be individualy indiscriminate.

I think that it is less to do with colour and sex and more to do with "promise". Judges will have been through the academic grind, perhaps hving attended Oxbridge and other top unis as part of their training, and will sympathise with people they consider to be too promising to tarnish with a custodial sentence in their early years.
Education should be as irrelevant as ethnicity. For me there is no difference at all between an Oxford medical student and a gangbanger with no qualifications if they choose to stab somebody with bread knife.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Education should be as irrelevant as ethnicity.

> For me there is no difference at all between an

> Oxford medical student and a gangbanger with no

> qualifications if they choose to stab somebody

> with bread knife.


Yes. This.


I really struggle to understand the argument that because someone has a promising future they should be spared a custodial sentence. It's white middle class privilege at it's worst. They've had a privileged start in life, in my opinion they should be treated at least as harshly as someone that hasn't. Perhaps there's even an argument that the law should come down harder on them.

Would you, titchjuicy, be OK with the judge doing exactly the same to a promising, female Chinese or black, etc. student, one that isn't tainted with "WMCP"? If you remove the colour and class, are there no other privileges to be taken into account (such as, perhaps, the privilege of being naturally academic or the privilege of having parents that are especially invested in your education even if they are poor or even the privilege of having been born in the right time and the right place to allow you to even consider to go to college)?

It's absolutely par for the course to say in mitigation for a young defendant "he/she has a really bright future, this was a one off, please pass a sentence that isn't going to f*ck up their life for ever". Obviously you need no/few previous convictions to stand a chance of getting this off the ground, and to have a realistic prospect you need to have some good evidence, but it's certainly not unknown, and in fact some judges are known to be more open to this sort of argument than others. It's also not limited to academic middle class type stuff - in my experience you can also get a result with 'promising young footballer, on the books of a good pro club' or (in front of the right kind of judge) 'serving soldier, has/will risk his life for his country'.


Also absolutely standard to say, where drugs are a factor in the offending, "he/she is now clean so no/little risk of further offending", and similar caveats - judges will have heard that one before a hundred times, at least.


So nothing unusual in this case about those elements, but the particular offence and offender make it 'interesting'.

You can remove all the labels for all i care.


It simply boils down to a question of why one person should be spared prison because she might have a promising future, whereas someone that might not doesn't get the same privileged treatment from a judge.

Personally, I wouldn't want a surgeon who had a history of drug addition anywhere near me.


I would say it's a prime example of pretty white priviledge and that the judge probably fancied her

Her fault she was on drugs.

Her fault she was on alcohol.

Her fault she attached victim with a knife (and other weapons).

Why are intoxicants persistently used as the basis for leniency, like it was something done 'to' them ?!

Most people with a 'troubled' background don't knife others during arguments - not a justification.

If you've got a lot of promise and talent, and you've worked hard to get to where you are to forge a great future for yourself, then it's down to you to ensure you protect that future as best you can - not use it as an excuse to justify heinous acts. If you've a lot to lose, then don't squander it - others will learn (and benefit) from your loss.

What about precedence - will the next 'person of good character' now use their promising future as a caveat for whatever imprisonable offence they commit, citing this case as why they should be let off ?

And finally, it's like a 2-tier viewpoint, where less privileged persons may get heavier sentencing just because they don't (yet) have the options available to the subject of this case.

It's total bollox.

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Her fault she was on drugs.

> Her fault she was on alcohol.

> Her fault she attached victim with a knife (and

> other weapons).

> Why are intoxicants persistently used as the basis

> for leniency, like it was something done 'to' them

> ?!

> Most people with a 'troubled' background don't

> knife others during arguments - not a

> justification.

> If you've got a lot of promise and talent, and

> you've worked hard to get to where you are to

> forge a great future for yourself, then it's down

> to you to ensure you protect that future as best

> you can - not use it as an excuse to justify

> heinous acts. If you've a lot to lose, then don't

> squander it - others will learn (and benefit) from

> your loss.

> What about precedence - will the next 'person of

> good character' now use their promising future as

> a caveat for whatever imprisonable offence they

> commit, citing this case as why they should be let

> off ?

> And finally, it's like a 2-tier viewpoint, where

> less privileged persons may get heavier sentencing

> just because they don't (yet) have the options

> available to the subject of this case.

> It's total bollox.



Except I'm sure I've heard the "He never stood a

chance coming from where he came" argument used also

in mitigation,

"I would say it's a prime example of pretty white priviledge and that the judge probably fancied her"


I would say that this says more about you and your prejudices than shedding any light on the case, but there you go.

She's 24 and a trainee medic- she should therefore have known better on several levels and should be dealt with harshly. How could she avoid the temptation of free drugs with her attitude at 24 years old?

really? what do you think that says about me?


moot point, as I was not involved in making decisions about a drug addict with a propensity to uncontrolled violence having a future as a heart surgeon

Money talks, the best barrister, date when a certain judge is on, who you know, or maybe, as another poster said, can relate with background.

I think the judge said something like its a one

off, or exception to the rule shit.

"Having sat through the entire case and heard the facts I am in a position to make a considered judgement" said...


a) The Judge

b) The people who read an article in the Mail


I'm glad people's sentences are decided by judges and not the majority, but it would make a top TV programme. Imagine... Time or No Time - you hear the prosecution and the defence for one minute each then you decide what people get: green button for freedom, blue button for community service, yellow for prison or red button for a hanging. Choose now and we'll be back with your decision on their life after the break...

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Having sat through the entire case and heard the

> facts I am in a position to make a considered

> judgement" said...

>

> a) The Judge

> b) The people who read an article in the Mail

>

> I'm glad people's sentences are decided by judges

> and not the majority, but it would make a top TV

> programme. Imagine... Time or No Time - you hear

> the prosecution and the defence for one minute

> each then you decide what people get: green button

> for freedom, blue button for community service,

> yellow for prison or red button for a hanging.

> Choose now and we'll be back with your decision on

> their life after the break...



Most of the papers have got the same story telegraph etc but as has been said, no detail on injury. It might seem like a fun game show, but

It's not about the public deciding the sentence

It's about having an opinion, if your son, brother

was imprisoned doing 2yrs for carrying a knife

after being attacked several times on his estate, the last time he used the knife causing a cut which needed stitched on the victim (assailant) arm. The judge took into consideration it was first conviction so showed leniency. Then you read a story like this,

Yes people make assumptions. No we were not in court yes we have media that does not put over

the full story and encourages a divide. It is also assumption to think people are only being led by the daily mail etc rather than from a more personal view.

http://www.graduate.study.cam.ac.uk/graduate-admissions-policy/graduate-applicants-previous-criminal-convictions


From what I can make out from this link specifically Cambridge Uni, she may still be allowed to study there after a prison sentence.

As they have already made a decision on returning,

she'd be sorted.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...