Fake Oxford University student Nicola Boardman cheats parents out of £250k

Scroll to see replies

Considering that she spent the money on holidays and a marriage, why do you think she wouldn't have?

And do you seriously believe that heroin addicts going through withdrawals painstakingly plan several-year-long fraud operations to get their next fix? Ludicrous. This isn't some addict committing a crime out of desperation, but people will see whatever they want to see.

mug shut up, you're obviously deluded

Reply 21

TimmonaPortella

What a god awful person. 3 years isn't nearly enough.

Original post by Fullofsurprises

More than anything though, this kind of story exposes why we need tougher punishments for big drug dealers in particular and new methods of persecuting and removing small drug dealers from the streets.

Yeah, what we need to do is intensify the drug war, so we can build on the success we've already - oh.

Dem dreams for £3m.

Original post by JordanL_

Did I suggest it wasn't?

She's a criminal. She's not a criminal because she used heroin.

Technically she is, heroin possession is a criminal offence, but your insinuation that heroin didn't make her commit fraud on such a huge scale is, of course, correct.

Reply 24

Fullofsurprises

Original post by alexs2602

Technically she is, heroin possession is a criminal offence, but your insinuation that heroin didn't make her commit fraud on such a huge scale is, of course, correct.

It's hard to know the background facts from the article - maybe heroin was the key driver, maybe not, but most heroin addicts are not particularly well balanced or rational in their behaviour, which is why that stuff about "high functioning" addicts is mostly rubbish. I certainly wouldn't want to be a passenger on a plane flown by one of these high functioners.

Reply 25

Fullofsurprises

Original post by TimmonaPortella

What a god awful person. 3 years isn't nearly enough.

Yeah, what we need to do is intensify the drug war, so we can build on the success we've already - oh.

I did say "new methods" - for sure, the old methods haven't worked terribly well. :rolleyes:

One new method would be to have a very intensive programme of support, therapy, tough love and detox for addicts. Of course, this kind of thing would cost a lot of money and the government are much fonder of imprisoning people (easy Mail headlines) than treating them.

Reply 26

alexs2602

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Maybe, maybe not but even in your previous comment you displayed massive ignorance on this topic.

Original post by Fullofsurprises

The drug war is a total failure and has caused suffering to untold millions because it forces drug production and distribution into the hands of people who are willing to resort to violence, preying on the vulnerable, adulterating substances etc. This needs to be in the hands of people who can be regulated. Sure, it would probably end up in the hands of "big X" but I think even that's much more preferable than cartels, gangsters etc. It would no longer be in the hands of the violent etc, that's the biggest problem.

Not to mention misinformation. People need drug education and the government spreads lies which harm drug users.

But drugs don't really cause people to do what she did. If anything the system is to blame because it treats addicts as criminals rather than a health problem.

Reply 27

TimmonaPortella

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I did say "new methods" - for sure, the old methods haven't worked terribly well. :rolleyes:

I very much agree with the emphasis on treatment of problem drug users.

I think criminalisation is part of the problem, though, as well as fundamentally improper interference in the personal lives of adults. Not to mention that I simply don't believe that you can do anything much about supply. Drugs have found a way onto the streets up to now and will continue to do so. The question is the extent to which you want to grant criminal gangs artificial monopoly power in that market.

Reply 28

Twinpeaks

Original post by jneill

Answer to the first part: a drug addict.

Answer to the second part: blind love?

Considering her apparent history you would have thought the parents, or at the very least, her siblings, would have been more suspicious. And what PhD earns you £3m... unbelievable.

No there's definitely more than just drug addiction behind this.

"She then became pregnant and told her parents that she had a stillbirth and invited them to a "sham" ceremony where the ashes were scattered, in an attempt to gain further sympathy."

The complete disregard for her parents emotions, the complete lack of guilt/ remorse, the leeching life style... Sociopathy alarm bells are ringing.

Reply 29

Doones

Original post by Twinpeaks

Yes true. IANAD but I doubt heroin would be a good solution to her problem.

Reply 30

TimmonaPortella

Original post by jneill

Considering her apparent history you would have thought the parents, or at the very least, her siblings, would have been more suspicious. And what PhD earns you £3m... unbelievable.

I don't know if I could ever blame anyone for falling for a deception of this scale by their own daughter. Even if they were suspicious they probably didn't want to believe it.

Reply 31

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Twinpeaks

There's clearly some very severe personality issues at work. Some of it sounds like typical con artist behaviour except that the mark in this case is her own parents, rather sadly.

Reply 32

Doones

Original post by TimmonaPortella

I don't know if I could ever blame anyone for falling for a deception of this scale by their own daughter. Even if they were suspicious they probably didn't want to believe it.

Yep, hence my first answer: blind love... (but you would think at least her two siblings would have suspected something).

Reply 33

TimmonaPortella

Original post by jneill

Yep, hence my first answer: blind love... (but you would think at least her two siblings would have suspected something).

Ah. I didn't read the question you were answering :giggle:

Reply 34

Twinpeaks

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I did say "new methods" - for sure, the old methods haven't worked terribly well. :rolleyes:

Even with that though, when convicted drug addicts after going through rehabilitation are put into social housing in deprived areas, it is incredibly hard not to fall into the similar life style. It's social drift.

Most former criminal addicts are only accepted into deprived estates, they struggle to find work, they become demolarised, they befriend similar people who are in similar situations. Often these social groups consist of drug addicts/ criminals themselves.

It is incredibly difficult to stay on the right path in those circumstances. Our circumstances is one of the strongest drivers of our behaviour, and is a very large predictor of risk of relapse/ recidivism. But of course it is incredibly difficult to overcome such contextual factors. What decent housing, workplace, even individual would accept, offer work, and befriend an ex-addict with a criminal past? Unfortunately very few.

Reply 35

DanteTheDoorKnob

Maybe she's just a clever sociopath? The drugs are meant to tilt us towards a certain position 'of course she did it she was an addict' I don't know that much but heroin addicts don't have anywhere near enough sanity to pull of a long term con like this.

Reply 36

macromicro

Original post by Fullofsurprises

we need tougher punishments for big drug dealers

Do you really think a drug kingpin cares if he gets 20 years or 30 or 40? When will you nanny state apologists realise that punishment is not the best form of deterrence? How much more do we need to be losing the war on drugs until the penny drops?

Drug usage isn't bad. The reasons why certain people take certain drugs is bad (e.g. being born into a high-crime area and finding mental escape in drugs that leads to addiction compared to a philosophy student taking some LSD in search of intellectual awakening) and that is the real problem that must be fixed - inequality.