PC Andrew Harper

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

it's totally backwards and very sad to see

I'm in my early 60's.  When I was a boy, we had a local policeman - who we all knew (by name), and who knew all our names - and who our parents were.  If we misbehaved, he would pop round for a 'cup of tea' with the parents .......... and as a result - either the child would be brought in for a 'few words' from the policeman (in the parents presence), or there wpuld be a 'talking to' from the parents later.

It bred a respect for the policeman (and his colleagues) and we also knew that if we were ourselves in trouble needing police assistance - who to go to and that we would get a fair hearing.  It was a sound system.

Nowadays - there is no local policing - and I think many parents are highly to blame in not bringing up their kids with a level of respect for 'the authorities' - though it is questionable whether the current authorities always deserve respect.

[12gauge82]

6 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I'm in my early 60's.  When I was a boy, we had a local policeman - who we all knew (by name), and who knew all our names - and who our parents were.  If we misbehaved, he would pop round for a 'cup of tea' with the parents .......... and as a result - either the child would be brought in for a 'few words' from the policeman (in the parents presence), or there wpuld be a 'talking to' from the parents later.

It bred a respect for the policeman (and his colleagues) and we also knew that if we were ourselves in trouble needing police assistance - who to go to and that we would get a fair hearing.  It was a sound system.

Nowadays - there is no local policing - and I think many parents are highly to blame in not bringing up their kids with a level of respect for 'the authorities' - though it is questionable whether the current authorities always deserve respect.

Absolutely, there are literally areas of society that have become lawless. They'd probably teach their kids to stone a copper who drove down their street, much less invite them in for a cuppa.

[yod dropper]

Manslaughter sentences are typically 2-10 years which as we know only half of that is behind bars. The alleged fourth one from the 'Caravan Site' (BBC), Jed Foster, appears to be suing Thames Valley Police. This is how I get to my worldview.

[Mungler]

I really hope that some good will come of this and we get all the laws necessary (and more) to stop the ever growing scourge of lawless travellers.

I do wonder how we as a country reached this point, where overt and endemic criminality goes unprosecuted and unpunished.

[Lloyd90]

I’m surprised a copper / ex-copper hasn’t visited some of those law abiding travellers in the middle of the night personally. 
 

Knock, knock... bang, bang. 

[Scully]

I’m surprised we haven’t yet got to the stage where vigilantism isn’t becoming a problem, considering some of the sentences we’ve seen handed out over recent years. 
It doesn’t make it right, but perfectly understandable in my opinion. 

[dodgy dave]

if that was so the vigalantes  would get the higher sentence your not alowed to protect your self you know

[Scully]

15 minutes ago, dodgy dave said:

if that was so the vigalantes  would get the higher sentence your not alowed to protect your self you know

Agreed, but only if you’re caught. 🙂

[Yellow Bear]

55 minutes ago, Mungler said:

I do wonder how we as a country reached this point, where overt and endemic criminality goes unprosecuted and unpunished.

Easy in 5 words   -  Cherie Blair and Labour party

[The Heron]

I was talking to a couple on one of my permissions last night where I haven't been for ages because of the coronavirus they were telling me about our caravan friends who turn up in middle of the night with dogs and guns digging badger sets and hare coursing when they rang the police the police said they weren't coming and gave them a crime number. 

 

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

Easy in 5 words   -  Cherie Blair and Labour party

Certainly - and I would add the whole obsession with the way in which we apply what is known as "Human" Rights.

In my view - the victim (and family) have full rights - including the right to justice - that should be respected.

By breaking the law, the criminal gives up many of his/her rights in society.

Cherie Blair was also (I was reliably informed at the time by someone who walked the corridors of power in those days) responsible for the hunting ban legislation - which no one much wanted to waste time on - but she persuaded Tony Blair it must have priority.  He - (apparently) wanted to leave alone.  She was persuaded by Campbell to keep nagging him about it.

4 minutes ago, The Heron said:

I was talking to a couple on one of my permissions last night where I haven't been for ages because of the coronavirus they were telling me about our caravan friends who turn up in middle of the night with dogs and guns digging badger sets and hare coursing when they rang the police the police said they weren't coming and gave them a crime number. 

 

One of these just convicted of the manslaughter has (so the papers say) regularly posted hare coursing pictures - which doesn't square well with his claim (by his lawyer in court apparently) to be illiterate.

[udderlyoffroad]

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

By breaking the law, the criminal gives up many of his/her rights in society.

The problem is you create a chicken and egg situation.  Fine, the rights of the victim trump the rights of the assailant - I think most people could get on board with that, and even define that as a concept in law with whatever replaces the human rights act.

But he does have to be found guilty (Beyond all reasonable doubt) first.

If you start removing protections in law for those only charged with a crime, that way banana republics lie....

Another idea, the threshold for conviction for intimidating jurors should be dramatically lowered.  I'm willing to bet, in this day and age, threats via social media can be logged, produced in court, and the scum doing this can get a little holiday on her maj quite quickly.

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

But he does have to be found guilty (Beyond all reasonable doubt) first.

Agreed - I used the word "criminal" as for someone convicted in the sense of someone not yet convicted would have been termed "accused".

I also agree on 'coming down hard' for any attempt to get at the jury - but again can be very hard to 'prove' beyond reasonable doubt ........ and I suspect is very vulnerable to false allegations designed to muddy the waters for some sections of society.

The basic problem is that we all 'know in our own minds' that certain groups have little or no respect for the law - and they take that as an advantage to claim that they cannot get fair trials because of who they are ........ and the bias against their section of society - just as all minorities try and play the race/BLM/feminist/religious minority/gay/trans/benefits/difficult childhood/etc/etc. cards.

Lets be clear - there should be NO bias - either for or against - but so many including me have what many would call a natural inbuilt bias that I cannot deny is there - but IF I was on a jury might influence my opinion.  I cannot get away from that.

[FOXHUNTER1]

Absolutely disgraceful......bring back capital punishment for these scum. Why pay to look after them they should be put to sleep. I bet if I did the same thing I would be guilty of murder and doing life , sick of this liberal looniness. 

[southeastpete]

1 hour ago, FOXHUNTER1 said:

Absolutely disgraceful......bring back capital punishment for these scum. Why pay to look after them they should be put to sleep. I bet if I did the same thing I would be guilty of murder and doing life , sick of this liberal looniness. 

Without a doubt. If the culprits had been middle aged, straight, able bodied, middle class, white males, they’d have been banged up for murder quicker than you could blink!

[mel b3]

6 hours ago, Mungler said:

I really hope that some good will come of this and we get all the laws necessary (and more) to stop the ever growing scourge of lawless travellers.

I do wonder how we as a country reached this point, where overt and endemic criminality goes unprosecuted and unpunished.

It would be nice to think so , but it'll never happen , the mess that were in with travellers , and criminals in general , will only get worse .

Personally,  I'd be quite happy for those murderous travelling scum , to be choked to death with the police officers boot laces , whilst their family were forced to watch.

[Wymondley]

20 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

No. There is not a requirement to exclusively specifically "set out to kill". Murder can be proved when death results because of an intention to cause really serious injury. The law says "intention to cause grievous bodily harm". And, yes, unpalatable as it is I agree that a conviction for murder may well have been successfully appealed. Better in that sense that they have been convicted of manslaughter regardless of the bitter taste that somehow they have avoided murder convictions. I think the prosecuting brief wasn't up to the task. The man Long admitted swerving violently. He says to "release" the policeman. That should have been conduct enough to prove intention to cause grievous bodily harm if probed enough.

"Murder can be proved when death results because of an intention to cause really serious injury."

Intention needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution would have to prove that each person accused of murder realised their actions would result in the death of PC Harper.

The defence would show they were young, poorly educated and at the time of the offence,  incapable of rational thought, thus sowing the those seeds of doubt.

IMO manslaughter is a safer verdict, there is still the availability of a sufficiently high sentence but with less risk of appeal.

 

 

[enfieldspares]

7 minutes ago, Wymondley said:

"Murder can be proved when death results because of an intention to cause really serious injury."

Intention needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution would have to prove that each person accused of murder realised their actions would result in the death of PC Harper.

The defence would show they were young, poorly educated and at the time of the offence,  incapable of rational thought, thus sowing the those seeds of doubt.

IMO manslaughter is a safer verdict, there is still the availability of a sufficiently high sentence but with less risk of appeal.

 

 

Sadly I agree. I hope that the sentence however is severe. Vermin.

[Wymondley]

2 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Sadly I agree. I hope that the sentence however is severe. Vermin.

Logic and legality aside, I doubt the sentence will ever be severe enough.

[Newbie to this]

2 minutes ago, Wymondley said:

Logic and legality aside, I doubt the sentence will ever be severe enough.

Spot on

[Vince Green]

My mate Dave was a prison officer for most of his working life. He said the way they break a prisoner was to put them in a cell with somebody they were afraid of, and I mean seriously afraid of. A lot can be achieved by subtle means.

Nobody is a big man then 

Edited July 25, 2020 by Vince Green

[four-wheel-drive]

I think that we should copy the Americans on this if they were sentenced to 999 years then they could knock off 50% for good behaviour then after only 500 years they could be out and free to start a new life.

[Vince Green]

9 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

.

I also agree on 'coming down hard' for any attempt to get at the jury - but again can be very hard to 'prove' beyond reasonable doubt ........ and I suspect is very vulnerable to false allegations designed to muddy the waters for some sections of society.

 

In years gone by jury knobbling was endemic in big cases

[JohnfromUK]

It now seems that a claim for compensation against Thames Valley Police is to be submitted

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/friend-of-officers-killers-sues-police-for-unlawful-arrest-c0mg7zkf0

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8560225/Man-wrongly-accused-PC-Andrew-Harpers-murder-starts-bid-compensation-police.html

[yod dropper]

Things that shape my view of the world. In case you thought you were being predjudiced, from a 2014 report:

"The question ‘Do you consider yourself to be Gypsy, Romany or Traveller?’ was first introduced into Inspectorate surveys in 2009. In 2012–2013, 5% of prisoners responded ‘yes’ to this question" (So that's 1 in 20 of those in prison).

"strikingly high in some prisons. In 2012–2013, 12% of prisoners at HMP Elmley, 11% at HMP Gloucester and 10% at HMP Winchester identified themselves as being Gypsy, Romany or Traveller"

"in secure training centres (STCs) which hold young people aged between 12 and 18 years old, a notably higher 12% considered themselves to be Gypsy, Romany or Traveller. In Medway STC in Kent, this figure was 22%" (So that's 1 in 8 of those in STCs).

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/prisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/04/gypsies-romany-travellers-findings.pdf