Jump to content

Remember Sue Jones?


pin
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...