Anthony Lamont, a man known for repeatedly avoiding payment for meals and drinks, has received a suspended prison sentence after being caught once again in a similar act. On July 16, 2026, Lamont visited The Charles Dickens pub in Broadstairs, where he consumed several alcoholic beverages and a meal totaling approximately £95.80. When confronted about the unpaid bill, he informed the staff that a girlfriend had been contacted to settle the amount. The pub’s employees, however, did not believe his claim and promptly alerted the police. Officers arrived shortly before 5 PM that afternoon. This marked the third instance in which Lamont had attempted to evade paying for his meals. Previously, he had faced similar charges at The Royal Hotel in Deal on June 17, 2024, where he had ordered nine pints, three double vodkas, and fish and chips, totaling £95.80. At that time, he claimed that a friend had a room booked, which he suggested could be used to offset the cost. However, upon investigation, the hotel found no evidence of such a booking or check-in. Lamont’s behavior continued with another incident at Don Vincenzo, an Italian restaurant located on Rochester High Street. There, he ordered a seafood linguine with Jack Daniel's, accumulating a £100 bill. He again informed the staff that he had no means to pay, but this time, the offense was his first. As a result, he was not immediately incarcerated but instead received a suspended sentence. Following these repeated incidents, Lamont was finally brought to justice. In court, he admitted to the latest charge of theft related to the unpaid bill at The Charles Dickens. The judge handed down a 120-day prison sentence, which was suspended for one year. Additionally, Lamont was ordered to compensate the restaurant £100. This sentencing came just five days after he had escaped imprisonment for a similar offense at Don Vincenzo. Kent Police Inspector Matthew Vick commented on the situation, emphasizing the importance of holding individuals like Lamont accountable for their actions. “Lamont's actions were a brazen attempt to take advantage of a local business,” Vick stated. “Thanks to the swift response of pub staff, officers, and the courts, he found himself behind bars just two days later.” The sequence of events highlights the persistent nature of Lamont’s behavior, which has led to multiple confrontations with law enforcement and legal repercussions. Each instance saw him attempting to justify non-payment through fabricated stories, yet each time, the establishments involved managed to secure some form of resolution through either immediate intervention or subsequent legal action. As for what lies ahead, Lamont must adhere to the conditions of his suspended sentence, ensuring that he does not repeat his offenses within the specified period. If he violates these terms, he faces the possibility of actual incarceration. Meanwhile, the affected businesses continue to operate under the assurance that such incidents will be addressed swiftly and effectively by both the authorities and the community.
2 reports
Daily MailIndependentCenterFactual 88Objective 7510 days agoAnthony Lamont, a known 'dine-and-dasher,' was sentenced to 120 days in prison, suspended for a year, and ordered to pay £100 in compensation after failing to pay a £95.80 bill at The Charles Dickens pub in Broadstairs. This marks his third offense, with prior incidents including similar behavior at The Royal Hotel in Deal and Don Vincenzo in Rochester. In each case, Lamont claimed a friend would cover the cost, but these claims were false. At Don Vincenzo, he received a suspended sentence due to it being his first offense. Local authorities emphasized their efforts to hold such individuals accountable and protect local businesses.
Bias read (Center): While the article discusses a criminal act and its legal consequences, it does not present overtly partisan language or frame the issue through a specific ideological lens. The focus remains on the legal process and law enforcement response, with balanced reporting on past and current offenses. No明显
Why factuality (88): The article provides accurate information about Lamont's latest offense at The Charles Dickens, including the total bill (£89.45), his claim about his girlfriend, and the arrest. It also references his prior incidents at The Royal Hotel and Don Vincenzo, matching the cross-source consensus. The arti
Why objectivity (75): The language used is more emotionally charged, such as 'serial dine-and-dasher' and 'sent to jail,' which may suggest a stronger editorial stance against Lamont. While the facts are well-presented, the phrasing leans toward a more punitive narrative, reducing objectivity slightly.
Daily MirrorIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 789 days agoAnthony Lamont, a known dine-and-dash offender, was jailed for two weeks after leaving a £89.45 meal unpaid at The Charles Dickens pub in Broadstairs, Kent. Lamont claimed he had no money but asked staff to charge the bill to his girlfriend, whom he said would arrive to pay. Staff doubted his claim and called police, leading to his arrest. This marks the third time Lamont has been caught engaging in this behavior, with previous incidents including unpaid bills at The Royal Hotel in Deal and Don Vincenzo in Rochester. Kent Police emphasized their efforts to hold such offenders accountable and protect local businesses.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of a criminal offense without overt ideological framing. While the issue of dishonesty and theft is inherently moral, the piece does not take a partisan stance or promote specific political agendas. The focus remains on law enforcement action and the impact on小
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports the details of Anthony Lamont's latest dine-and-dash incident at The Charles Dickens, including the amount owed (£89.45), his claim about texting his girlfriend, and the subsequent arrest. It also mentions his prior offenses at The Royal Hotel and Don Vincenzo, alignin
Why objectivity (78): The tone is somewhat sensational, using phrases like 'brazen dine-and-dash fiend' and 'snagged,' which may imply a negative judgment. While the facts are presented clearly, there is a slight editorial tilt towards portraying Lamont as a habitual offender, though not overtly biased.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
United Kingdom
