PC Andrew Harper

[MirokuMK70]

Is it any wonder these do as you likey scumbags feel free to operate with such impunity. The sentence is a disgrace.

[lord_seagrave]

Full sentencing remarks at https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-long-bowers-and-cole/

LS

[grrclark]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

More than I expected, not enough by far, and certainly no deterrent .

Same as myself.

[grrclark]

1 hour ago, lord_seagrave said:

Full sentencing remarks at https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-long-bowers-and-cole/

LS

Thanks for posting that and it is definitely worth a read.  I think the judge has imposed the maximum he could within the constraints of the sentencing guidelines and also mitigating against the risk of an appeal against the sentence.

I get the feeling from reading the judges remarks that if he thought he could have given a harder sentence then he would have.

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, grrclark said:

I think the judge has imposed the maximum he could within the constraints of the sentencing guidelines

If sentencing 'guidelines' are the same sort of guidelines as Firearms Licensing guidelines - the judge has pretty much free hand.

The only time I have done jury service, the judge sentenced the accused to the maximum available to him - to run consecutively - and that was for a guilty plea.  The judge made it clear (we as "members of the jury in waiting" were called in to witness the sentencing) that now the person had pleaded guilty (a change of plea on the first day of trial) - he was able to disclose that the accused had a long string of similar offences dating back to childhood ...... which had gradually been getting worse and now included violence against a probation officer.  He therefore felt his aim in setting sentence was more to protect the public than offer any leniency to the accused who had not responded to previous sentences.

I would say that this case has many similarities; long term serial offenders, not sign of remorse/wishing to reform, violence there .......

Should have been far more.  The sentencing notes make pretty clear that they pretty much must have known that they were dragging the victim and were quite prepared to take risks to get away.

[Lloyd90]

On 25/07/2020 at 12:07, JohnfromUK said:

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.

 

If you think we should be able to pick and choose who gets human rights then you don’t understand the point of them I am afraid. 
 

 

[Westley]

2 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

If you think we should be able to pick and choose who gets human rights then you don’t understand the point of them I am afraid. 
 

 

I am afraid too, afraid that I do NOT see the point of them either  ??

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Some elements of society should forgo their human rights because of their continued poor behaviour!

[Lloyd90]

2 minutes ago, Westley said:

I am afraid too, afraid that I do NOT see the point of them either  ??

People seem to think Human Rights is some right you activate when your arrested. 
 

They’re active all the time. They’re the reason the government can’t listen to your phone calls with no good reason, and a court order. 
 

They’re the reason you can’t be locked up for undetermined amounts of time with no charge, no good cause and without telling you your rights and why your there. 
 

They cover many aspects all the time. They stop councils from over stepping their boundaries and treating people with care and support needs (too) badly. 
 

Theyre the rights they allow you to believe what you want to believe, follow the religion you want to follow, and as we have seen in China recently, stops the government putting you in forced labour camps because of your religion. 
 

Everyone benefits from them, whether you can see it or not. 
 

It might be a bit distasteful that someone who commits a horrible crime gets the same protection, but that’s the price of everyone else getting those freedoms and protections. 

4 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Some elements of society should forgo their human rights because of their continued poor behaviour!

Or perhaps the authorities should use the powers available to them to actually tackle these lawless people instead of not even trying. If they were motivated to crack down on them then they could. 

[JohnfromUK]

11 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

If you think we should be able to pick and choose who gets human rights then you don’t understand the point of them I am afraid.

The answer to that is here

2 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Some elements of society should forgo their human rights because of their continued poor behaviour!

In my view the bereaved family have a right to justice; the persons pleaded/proved guilty have in my view behaved contrary to continuing to receive full rights and should be on a very 'limited set'.  If that is picking and chosing - they yes, I do think we should be able to pick and choose who gets the 'full set' and who gets the 'bare minimum'.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

2 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Or perhaps the authorities should use the powers available to them to actually tackle these lawless people instead of not even trying. If they were motivated to crack down on them then they could. 

And pigs might fly, I can hear them preparing for take off at the airfield as I type.

[Lloyd90]

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

And pigs might fly, I can hear them preparing for take off at the airfield as I type.

If the authorities won’t do anything currently then saying we should remove the human rights of gypsy’s won’t suddenly make the Police tackle the problem will it. 
 

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

No it is a constant problem and will probably never be solved!

[Medic1281]

29 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

They’re active all the time. They’re the reason the government can’t listen to your phone calls with no good reason, and a court order. 
 

Can’t they?!

[Lloyd90]

32 minutes ago, Medic1281 said:

Can’t they?!

Not without an order signed by a judge. 

[Medic1281]

Hmmm, maybe. 

[grrclark]

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:
If you think we should be able to pick and choose who gets human rights then you don’t understand the point of them I am afraid. 

A message lost on many sadly.

1 hour ago, Lloyd90 said:

If you think we should be able to pick and choose who gets human rights then you don’t understand the point of them I am afraid. 

 

[Westley]

2 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

If the authorities won’t do anything currently then saying we should remove the human rights of gypsy’s won’t suddenly make the Police tackle the problem will it. 
 

 

To the best of my knowledge, the Police did a superb job tackling this problem. The evidence was there for all but 11 people to see. It was also blatantly obvious to those present in the Court, that the the defendants were full of remorse for their actions too.  I have seen more than my fair share of defendants plead 'Not Guilty' to Murder, but 'Guilty' to Manslaughter and get a mere pittance of a sentence. 

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

If you think we should be able to pick and choose who gets human rights then you don’t understand the point of them I am afraid. 
 

 

I know we've had this one before. But the UK worked fine before the HRA came along, infact, it was much of the UKs work that was copied when making it. The biggest problem with the HRA is it is rarely used for law abiding people, infact almost everyone has probably had their HRs breached at some point, but who's got the money to take it to court. The HRA is used most often to get scum bags and terrorists what they want.

[Rewulf]

23 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

If the authorities won’t do anything currently then saying we should remove the human rights of gypsy’s won’t suddenly make the Police tackle the problem will it

They cant tackle the problem , largely BECAUSE of the fear of infringing human rights.

Knowing full well theres an army of human rights lawyers chomping at the bit to fight for people enjoying protected minority status, makes many in law,  and the higher judiciary pause and think of the possible negative outcomes.

Meanwhile the victims human rights, dignity , and injury , get chucked into the long grass.

[GingerCat]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

They cant tackle the problem , largely BECAUSE of the fear of infringing human rights.

Knowing full well theres an army of human rights lawyers chomping at the bit to fight for people enjoying protected minority status, makes many in law,  and the higher judiciary pause and think of the possible negative outcomes.

Meanwhile the victims human rights, dignity , and injury , get chucked into the long grass.

Its not that at all. Its simply resources. The resources need to deal with the type of offending far outstrip whats available for more serious offending and thats where it goes. Policing has been cut well into the bone and its going to get worse before (if) it gets any better. 

On 31/07/2020 at 18:50, Lloyd90 said:

Not without an order signed by a judge. 

Secretary of state. The judge doesn't have the power. 

[Lloyd90]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

They cant tackle the problem , largely BECAUSE of the fear of infringing human rights.

Knowing full well theres an army of human rights lawyers chomping at the bit to fight for people enjoying protected minority status, makes many in law,  and the higher judiciary pause and think of the possible negative outcomes.

Meanwhile the victims human rights, dignity , and injury , get chucked into the long grass.

 

That's complete nonsence. 

99% of these crimes are a complete resource drain with no possible chance of a conviction. Someone steals a vehicle or some equipment from a farm or house overnight, its gone by morning with no trace. 

What do you want the Police to do? Search every single house in the area? 

 

We all know that a lot of stolen vehicles are on the ferry overnight and early morning before anyone even knows they're nicked. The Police could stop every car going onto the ferry and check them... but they don't. Same as they don't stop every lorry coming and going from France and all the ports in the UK.

It's got nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with the massive amount of time and manpower that would take up. 

 

 

On Thursday night I had 11 people that needed to be detained under the Mental Health Act, I was the only AMHP covering 4 big local authorities from 12.45am - 09.15am. Prior to that time I had a second colleague from 4.45pm to 12.45am when she finished. 

We had 6 Police officers in 3 different emergency rooms detaining people to them and having to wait there because all the short term mental health assessment beds were full. These people were all actively stating they were going to take their own life or actively trying to when Police picked them up. 

 

Next time you phone Police at 4am to complain that someone has pinched the tools you left in the garden shed, and your sat shouting about how they didn't even turn up to investigate and instead gave you a crime reference number, think that maybe, just maybe, they're out dealing with real life and death emergencies, and your tools being pinched is the least of their worries. 

 

The lads who phoned me up complaining about being stuck at A&E got told that whilst they had to sit and wait with 1 bloke, I had 11 people I was responsible for assessing, and not a single MH bed to detain them to, leaving me totally powerless to do anything. They said I had it worse than them and decided not to give me any grief about not being able to come out. 

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, GingerCat said:

Its not that at all. Its simply resources. The resources need to deal with the type of offending far outstrip whats available for more serious offending and thats where it goes. Policing has been cut well into the bone and its going to get worse before (if) it gets any better. 

Secretary of state. The judge doesn't have the power. 

I usually agree with what you say but I think your wrong here, resources certainly play a huge part, policing is now reactive rather than proactive, but the other part of the problem these days is cops are unable to tackle the lawless element of society, their hands are tied by a system that punishes the good guys worse than the bad guys, when a scrote crashes a car being chased by the police, the system doesn't blame the driver, it blames the cop who was chasing, the guy incharge, society for not hugging them enough, infact pretty much everyone bar the bad guy. Just look at the sentence Andrew Harper's family have to carry for the rest of their lives and tell me the punishment those three got fitted the crime? Our society is broken and it starts with criminals having no fear and no respect for the law.

[GingerCat]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

I usually agree with what you say but I think your wrong here, resources certainly play a huge part, policing is now reactive rather than proactive, but the other part of the problem these days is cops are unable to tackle the lawless element of society, their hands are tied by a system that punishes the good guys worse than the bad guys, when a scrote crashes a car being chased by the police, the system doesn't blame the driver, it blames the cop who was chasing, the guy incharge, society for not hugging them enough, infact pretty much everyone bar the bad guy. Just look at the sentence Andrew Harper's family have to carry for the rest of their lives and tell me the punishment those three got fitted the crime? Our society is broken and it starts with criminals having no fear and no respect for the law.

I don't disagree with anything you said but the point being made was that cops don't police certain communities out of fear of reprisals. That isn't true , its down to resources and the lack of. The rest if it has nothing to do with the police and is an issue for society. 

[12gauge82]

8 hours ago, GingerCat said:

I don't disagree with anything you said but the point being made was that cops don't police certain communities out of fear of reprisals. That isn't true , its down to resources and the lack of. The rest if it has nothing to do with the police and is an issue for society. 

Apologies I misunderstood your original post, imho you were spot on again.