pin Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Anyone remember that case in Herts, two ladies out training gun dogs in some woods, ended up being convicted? Did anyone else just get a mail from her with a document about their appeal attached? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurch Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Is it true they were offered help by the BASC team but turned it down because they didn't want to join? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sussexboy Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 I've had an e-mail from her. I was incensed by this at the time and wrote to my local MP who is a barrister (aren't they all!!) complaining about the waste of time and money this case represented, not to mention bringing the law into disrepute by using it wrongly. He almost agreed with me and it looks like the appeal judge did too. Reading the letter that was appended to the e-mail it looks like the judge showed a large degree of compassion and common sense as well by hearing the other womans appeal "out of time" and quashing that also. It's good to see justice done, albeit a bit late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Good to see plod get a kick up the ***** sometimes - sometimes its richly deserved. No public good was acheived in that prosecution - not even as a test case to secure a precedent - as it has now bit them back! Thanks pin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Indeed. And the police get irritated when people do say "haven't you got anything better to do, or shouldn't you be out catching real criminals?".... Queue Old Bill's arrival to tell me that they were breaking the law, were therefore crminals and as such deserved to be hauled before the Courts... blah blah blah "I AM A ROBOT, PERSONAL DISCRETION, WHAT? DOES NOT COMPUTE. ERROR. ERROR. I JUST FOLLOW ORDERS....". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBill Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 The old bill haven't prosecuted anyone for years and years. The Crown Prosecution Service do the prosecuting and they are independant from the police. The police collate the facts and present it to the CPS who deceide whether a prosecution should ensue. Still, on the bright side I'm glad no-one expects the old bill to actually do anything- I could do with a rest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted February 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Not prosecuted, persecuted perhaps in this case? I sent an email of support to Sue and I still think it was wrong she was even prosecuted. She was in a place she didn't have permission to be with a starting pistol, but more through error on her part than a deliberate act. Letter of the law is one thing, I think common sense should have prevailed here with the error of her ways spelled out so it wouldn't happen again, prosecuting these ladies was a total waste of time, effort and dare I say it, resources. Now I think I read somewhere the police were short on those? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBill Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 I totally agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobt Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 I wonder? were the general public scared by somone with a gun? if so that is the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted February 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Did you read the story? Yes someone called the cops because they saw someone with a gun in some woods near a picnic area. Yes someone was scared or worried enough to call. Like I said letter of the law these ladies committed an offence, I don't think that's in dispute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobt Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 yes I read it, so the CPS decided to take the case, the police only pass it forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted February 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 I'm fully aware of that, in fact I can't be ***** any more, you've missed my point entirely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBill Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 I've grown up with guns, a lot of here have but some have just happily adopted them;-) but the vast majority of the general public just don't see guns about as much as you used to. Every time they see a gun on telly someone's doing a die hard or a Ryan with 'em- hence the public concern. Of course it doesn't help that the majority of starting pistols resemble ordinary handguns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobt Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 Pin I havent missed your point, we just fail to agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted February 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 No, you've missed my point. What I have said is I think the police should have used their discretion in this case and cautioned or otherwise dealt with these ladies rather than passing the matter to the CPS. I am quite sure that in order to pass a matter of this nature to the CPS there are untold forms and other paperwork that requires filling in, not to mention statements from the officers concerned plus follow up work, presumably advice from senior officers etc. I am fully aware the police don't prosecute, they do however ask the CPS to consider doing so, just the same as they can fail to bring the matter to their attention. I know what you are trying to say, but I wasn't arguing that point at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorfolkBoy Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 No, you've missed my point. What I have said is I think the police should have used their discretion in this case and cautioned or otherwise dealt with these ladies rather than passing the matter to the CPS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobt Posted February 5, 2007 Report Share Posted February 5, 2007 ok then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 Pin, I did not get the e mail, what did it say. I offered my support to their case as well, It is just a disgrace. The police do not show discretion any more it was an easy arrest for them. Had someone reported "do as you likey's" fly tipping or a load of junkies "shooting up" they wouldn't have bothered as they may well get some resistance, or possibly a slap. 2 middle aged women traning dogs, they would rush at the chance. And as for all the "old bill" on here rushing to defend all the corrupt coppers that the farce has, don't bother. I have 3 very good friends who were all coppers, they left the farce as they couldn't deal with the bent lazy individuals that call themselves coppers. I had more respect for them when they did give you a clip round the ear, not hide behind speed camera's and the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 Pin just a slight aside but didn't they have permission from the landowner to be there but the area happened to be one which the public has access to? and it was due to that that they were prosecuted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 The point is that it should have been... "due to no harmfull action or intent - the matter is dropped" after carefull consideration. Some jobsworth decided to be malicious to them ladies - probably because they were scornfull of the police involvement - and solvent. Had - as someone else pointed out - it been do as you likeys the matter would never have gone to court because they would have been long gone to wherever they like - if indeed they were even who they said they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin Posted February 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 Pin just a slight aside but didn't they have permission from the landowner to be there but the area happened to be one which the public has access to? and it was due to that that they were prosecuted. Might be my misunderstanding there alex, if it is I will hold my hands up. My understanding was that they did have permission to be in an area but were walking either too or from it and were either in or close to a picnic area which is when someone saw them and called the cops... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 it had lots of dodgy reporting its just down the road from me our local paper reported it as police officers thought they were being shot at etc, but I believe they tried to get the police to speak to the landowner as he knew they were there etc, but yes the issue was over the public having access to that area due to it being near a picnic area. I'm just glad common sense prevailed in the end! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 It is a pity that common sense wasn't applied in the first instance, then perhaps two innocent people wouldn't have been put through that trauma. The issue was that the police acted inapropriately. My back garden is near a playing field, but the public aren't allowed in there. These women were not on public land. It may well have been NEAR a picnic area. But the women were in a privately owned would and the landowner knew they were there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlander Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 Resources are scarce...yeh between plods ears! A bl**** disgrace when there's so much real crime going on without hinderance and now even if someone is caught and prosecuted they're unlikely to go to prison, 'cause there's no room there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBill Posted February 6, 2007 Report Share Posted February 6, 2007 It may well have been NEAR a picnic area. But the women were in a privately owned would and the landowner knew they were there. I only have a brief overview of the entire thing and am not privvy to the close detail, so I'm unsure how I would have dealt with it at the scene. Just to clarify for some though, a privately owned field is still actually a public place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.