|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Fri 24 Jul 23:46
The scum bags that did this,should rot in hell.Apparently,their friends, cheered in court,when the charge was reduced, to manslaughter. Lowest of the low .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 25 Jul 00:10
Threatened, intimidated the jury and possibly even succeeded seeing as one of the jurors was dismissed for mouthing to the scumbags 'bye boys'.
They'll be out before the decade is finished.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Sat 25 Jul 00:12
Apparently from a travelling community. I won't say any more,appart, from saying they tried to cover it up.Your frightened to say anything, or your labelled racist.These people have no respect for anyone.
Post Edited (Sat 25 Jul 00:24)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parfection
Date: Sat 25 Jul 06:45
“Apparently from a travelling community“
I fail to see why this matters.
I do, incidentally, agree with your other statement that “these people have no respect for anyone” - their behaviour amply demonstrates this. I just can’t accept that it’s necessary to make their social heritage an issue. After all, if anyone in court had raised this as a stick with which to beat the accused, the whole trial would, rightly, have been declared null and void. It’s no better than raising someone’s race, religion, sexuality etc; we’re not entitled to make assumptions based on such things - and amen to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 25 Jul 19:01
The Pic of the three of them laughing says it all really .... I'm sure they won't be laughing when ensconced at her majesty's pleasure...
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
Post Edited (Sat 25 Jul 19:02)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Boomer
Date: Sat 25 Jul 21:57
His wife must be devastated looking at their smirking faces, they should be locked up for the rest of their lives however will be back on the streets within 10 years.
We are far too lenient at times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 25 Jul 22:21
I wouldn't rad as much as you do into selected photographs and edited highlights from the case. The police have traditionally taken an 'eye for n eye' attitude whenever an officer is killed on duty so they will be frustrated that the maximum charge was manslaughter.
The bald facts as reported, selectively, by the media indicate that murder was a more likely charge- for the driver at least.
However only the jury heard the full, story and they were not convinced by the murder charge. The allegations of jury intimidation are totally withut public evidence and part and parcel o a police prosecution which fails to attain the maximum sentence. The suggestion is the jury were intimidated, a calumny to which they have no recourse in law. Interesting that the last time I came across this allegation was when a couple of ne'erdowells from the travelling community were shot by a farmer when they were attempting to burgle his farm. Jury intimidation sees to be a Romany predilection
.So not a satisfactory for the deceased policeman's wife and family. But Sheku Bayoh's family has waited longer for less.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Sat 25 Jul 22:21
I did not have a problem with them,alegetedly coming from the travelling community, just stateing facts from certain media sources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sun 26 Jul 03:13
We shouldn't have a concern about identifying the travelling community as being a problem. Their social heritage is an issue. Criminal activity is encouraged within it and this is no popular myth or misapprehension. This is a fact.
Ask any country policeman and he will tell you that the moment they encamp nearby or come through with a travelling fayre, the incidence of crime (usually petty, burglary, theft, etc) grows markedly.
Might not be PC, but it is the reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parfection
Date: Sun 26 Jul 03:54
This may or may not be the case Oz - if I’m being honest, I don’t have ready access to stats and figures pertaining to the volume of arrests and charges amongst the travelling community. I’m happy to bow to your knowledge here.
What I do know is that if someone’s social background were raised as any kind of explanation or cause of their position as someone standing trial in a court of law, then that process would be declared at once as a mistrial. We cannot make any assumption of guilt, or indeed innocence, based on the social background of the person before the court. That’s what I was meaning, rather than trying to confirm or deny the incidence of offending in travellers. I hope that makes sense 😀.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sun 26 Jul 04:33
I agree that it is wrong and dangerous and indeed illegal to prejudge a court case on the basis of social background. To be fair, my comments on the criminality of the travelling community were largely second-hand and relate to social conversations I have had on the subject with policemen in past years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sun 26 Jul 08:18
The police suspicion of Travellers may be well founded but it has resulted in a very bad relationship developing over the years. The reported comments and behaviour of those found guilty of killing the unfortunate policeman were callous in the extreme: to them the police are sworn enemies.
That attitude is matched by the police towards the Travellers. In their inquiry the police arrested every single male member of the site where the car was found. Maybe that was justified given the crime, but the tactic seems to have garnered resentment rather than evidence. Mass arrest was the same tactic used by the police in the so-called Battle of the Beanfield in 1985 when an astonishing 400+ Travellers were arrested only for the cases to be dismissed at trial. ITV footage of police smashing Travellers’ caravan windows and clubbing a pregnant woman was not shown at the time. A clip of children screaming in terror as the police smash the glass used to be available on youtube. It does not make for pleasant viewing. A number of Travellers were given compensation in the aftermath but since the judge awarded legal costs against them, they received nothing.
All that was a while ago and before any of those involved in this present case was even born. However the attitudes on both sides seem to be exactly the same as they were back then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 26 Jul 10:25
A few years back I was working on a project relating to travellers. It was a project involving police, health and the local authority. Everyone was very clear there were health and education issues in the camps but the police rep was very clearly of the opinion they were a waste of time and just a bother. In fairness to her, the treatment travellers receive is far, far better than what an average UK resident gets. However, the attitude was clear and there was no hiding her disdain for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Thaipar
Date: Sun 26 Jul 10:39
One of the male travellers who was innocent and played no part in it was arrested, charged and locked up for a month even though he told police of his whereabouts.
They forensically searched his phone and Google placed him nowhere near the crime.
Now that's going to cost the taxpayers 10's of thousands in compensation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sun 26 Jul 11:28
"Interesting that the last time I came across this allegation was when a couple of ne'erdowells from the travelling community were shot by a farmer when they were attempting to burgle his farm."
Is that the Tony Martin incident from 1999 ?
There are several aspects of that case which influenced opinions at the time.
I didn't know the offenders were from the travelling community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 26 Jul 13:10
Crikey just seen the footage of them smirking and laughing on their way to prison. I'm sure they'll come out in a five or six years reformed characters though.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sun 26 Jul 13:47
VEE,
Yes the Tony Martin case was the one I was thinking about. Both the burglars that he surprised were from Travelling community as I recall. Martin's problem was not that he shot at the burglars but that the one who died had been shot in the back..
TOWK,
There is little chance that the guilty men will change their contemptuous attitude to the police in particular and the law in general. There is equally little chance of the police changing their attitude to Travellers since they can harass and on occasion attack Travellerrs with impunity. I'd be interested in your observations of the available footage of the Battle of the Beanfield and whether any of the police captured on film reformed their behaviour..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 26 Jul 15:00
Here is footage and news report from Beanfield.
https://youtu.be/6LHizyCtakw
Certainly seems an over the top reaction and arguably criminal response by the police.
"There is little chance that the guilty men will change their contemptuous attitude to the police in particular and the law in general."
I'm going to say their contemptuous attitude extends well beyond the police and the law and also encompasses society.
The law they were breaking that night that led to the brutal death of that young man was theft. It wasn't a policeman's bike they were stealing. They weren't doing it to 'stick it to The Man'.
It could have been the property of a lawyer, a brickies labourer or a nurse and if any of them tried to stop them they could have just as easily suffered the same fate as the PC. The smirks on their faces would have still been the same regardless.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sun 26 Jul 15:21
You might be right in saying that the contempt stretches to society as a whole. But when the law acts against you then there will be little chance of any respect emerging. When a Traveller breaks the law he is arrested and charged. When a policeman does the same he is pretty much immune.
The smirking is not all one way. During the attack in the Beanfield a police helicopter with a microphone was egging the police on. We don't have any photographic evidence of how the police reacted to their actions once back in the police canteen but I doubt if it was low key.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sun 26 Jul 18:48
"VEE,
Yes the Tony Martin case was the one I was thinking about. Both the burglars that he surprised were from Travelling community as I recall. Martin's problem was not that he shot at the burglars but that the one who died had been shot in the back."
More to it than that Sammer.
Martin had previously held a coterminous firearms licence but had had it withdrawn by a court (following a police application) after discharging one of his guns recklessly.
The police visited him twice at his farm and warned him that retention of any firearm was illegal.
Martin actually set up a trap by leaving an exterior window unsecured to entice the burglars on to his property.
When they were surprised in the act they both turned about and attempted to flee, that's when Martin shot one of them in the back.
He then (almost certainly deliberately) delayed calling an ambulance and that contributed to the death of the wounded offender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 26 Jul 19:23
There was also the case last year of a 79 year old man who stabbed to death an armed burglar, who happened to be a member of a travelling community, who confronted him in his home. The pensioner is now living under a different identity in a new location due to fear of reprisals.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sun 26 Jul 21:07
Fear of reprisals is a term bandied about freely when the Traveller community are involved in crime. In reality the greatest fear of reprisal any citizen encounters is when he or she confronts the police successfully. It might be a driving issue, a dispute outside a pub, a political rally. But rest assured there will be recriminations if you cross the policer and wrongfoot them.
I had such an incident many years ago and subsequently sold my car, which was then stopped repeatedly by its new owner. I had not broken any law or even been charged, but I had made the copper look a bit silly. I would take reprisals from the Travellers before I would take them from the police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Sun 26 Jul 21:19
The travelling community that are entrenched at Cartmore Industrial Estate, Lochgelly are charming people!🙄🙄🙄
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 26 Jul 21:24
No sure if that pensioner would agree but it's all about opinions I suppose.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Sun 26 Jul 22:49
Had a trio of travelling people, at my door,looking for scrap.While I was talking to them ,at my front door, two of them,ran round,into my back garden ,and tried to nick my,gas patio heater.Luckily,my lovely lab,sorted them.! A few sore bites were delivered. Being partially sighted,they thought I was a soft touch.Dont mess with a lab in its territory ,needless to say they left empty handed.!😅
Post Edited (Sun 26 Jul 23:22)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Mon 27 Jul 00:29
Pretty sad to see such racism displayed on this thread against the travelling community. Imagine the outrage on here if the words 'gypsy' or 'travellers' in some of the posts above were replaced by 'black' or 'Pakistani'. As usual, when travelling folk are the target, no one seems to care
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Mon 27 Jul 03:14
This isn't racist any more than calling a group of Rangers fans a lot of ***** is.
The travellers come anywhere from Ireland to Romania and most places in between. They are not a race, they are an amalgam.
They would probably argue that they don't belong to any country and as such, they don't have to abide by any laws.
To illustrate this, in 2017 there were 13,000 authorised pitches in England for travellers to stay at, yet there were almost 3,000 traveller caravans on unauthorised sites.
As oft said above, they treat the law and people's rights to their property with utter contempt.
Little wonder that they come into conflict with the Police so often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 27 Jul 11:18
Quote:
red-star-par, Mon 27 Jul 00:29
Pretty sad to see such racism displayed on this thread against the travelling community. Imagine the outrage on here if the words 'gypsy' or 'travellers' in some of the posts above were replaced by 'black' or 'Pakistani'. As usual, when travelling folk are the target, no one seems to care
You can't be racist when they are not a race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Mon 27 Jul 22:56
Let's get this straight. Most of the travelling people are probably law abiding. But ,in my experience most,are devious, shop lifters, and robbing,cheating people, for want of a better word.Stop dressing them up to be victims.They choose the life they live.Oz,you are bang on.Look,at the filth they leave,and destruction they cause when they depart villages and towns. Remember, you and I, are paying,for the mess they leave.I know,that people, in other walks of life do the same,but they seem to do it with impunity,with total disregard for the rest of decent society.
Post Edited (Mon 27 Jul 23:04)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 27 Jul 23:36
If some Travelling people don’t respect the law then that doesn’t give them immunity from being arrested and charged when they break it. Their attitude is irrelevant and of course they will have brought the problem on themselves if they break the law. On that I think we can agree.
But there is clearly on this site, and I believe amongst the police generally, a negative attitude that mirrors that shown by some Travellers: that they are viewed as law breakers who therefore don’t deserve the protection of the law enjoyed by the rest of society. This is the point that I think Red Star was alluding to.
The mass arrests at the Beanfield in 1985 -over 400- were the highest number since WW2, totally out of proportion to the threat presented. Was Stonehenge really under threat of takeover? To put that number in perspective, an Old Firm riot would struggle to muster 100 arrests. The Travellers were not ’dressed up as victims’ in the legal case which followed around six years later, for the jury found in their favour. The judge made sure that by awarding costs against the Travellers they would receive none of the compensation due. It seems from reading comments on this site that his decision would be applauded by some.
The same mass arrest policy was used in the case of PC Harper- as I said earlier, maybe with justification given the horrific nature of the crime. But it produced zilch in the way of evidence, as the police must have suspected from the outset: the key evidence came from forensics and phone activity. So it seems to have been harassment, a shakedown of the local Travellers, designed to unsettle them in the vain hope they might shop one of their own. As if. As much chance of them doing that as the police shopping one of theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Tue 28 Jul 05:46
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Tue 28 Jul 08:50
<<The same mass arrest policy was used in the case of PC Harper- as I said earlier, maybe with justification given the horrific nature of the crime. But it produced zilch in the way of evidence, as the police must have suspected from the outset: the key evidence came from forensics and phone activity. So it seems to have been harassment, a shakedown of the local Travellers, designed to unsettle them in the vain hope they might shop one of their own. As if. As much chance of them doing that as the police shopping one of theirs.>>
No - I would imagine that it was a deliberate internment to make sure that the guilty ones did not disappear off to Ireland overnight - as I'm certain would have happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: TAFKA_Super_Petrie
Date: Tue 28 Jul 08:58
I know the stigma and cliches are hard to shift but whenever they are/were previously around my local patch the usual shennanigans start to sky rocket.
Cold calling and doorstepping vulnerable people for stuff like gutters needing cleaned / roof repointed / driveway pressure washed......
Intimidating local businesses; for example looking for lockins and such like constantly in the local pubs when it's young ladies on shift behind the bar and generally leaving their patch looking like the afrermath of a music festival with the added novelty of human waste dotted around.
Seen this with my own eyes and it's groundhog day; rinse, recycle, repeat every 9 months or so when they reappear.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"People always talk about Ronaldinho and magic, but I didn't see him today. I saw Henrik Larsson; that's where the magic was."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Tue 28 Jul 09:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Tue 28 Jul 09:32
<<But there is clearly on this site, and I believe amongst the police generally, a negative attitude that mirrors that shown by some Travellers: that they are viewed as law breakers who therefore don’t deserve the protection of the law enjoyed by the rest of society.>>
They do NOT deserve the <protection of the law enjoyed by the rest of society> - the society that they refuse to be part of, however, our society ensures that they DO receive it, often more than the 'rest of society' when they start screaming about 'racism' & 'persecution'.
Ultimately though, we're not talking about <protection of the law> - we are talking about having some/any respect for the law and actually obeying the law of the land.
- which is sadly lacking in the vast majority of cases.
Now - don't get me wrong, I'm not alleging that ALL travellers are scumbag criminals - despite the fact that a large number are.
I've met a large number of Romany folks and whilst I wouldn't leave my wallet lying around, none were out to rob/mug/assault me,
- these people are thrown in the same class as the 'Irish travellers' (colloquially refereed to as 'knackers' in Eire)
The 'knackers' way of life has produced a good number of talented and bloody hard boxers - but not a lot else in the way of contribution to the society that they leech off, demand rights from, and see thieving from as a reasonable career choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Grant
Date: Tue 28 Jul 12:37
Beanfield has absolutely no relevance to Andrew Harper. Like absolutely none, of no relevance in the slightest. Despite that it's absolutely not a shock to see Sammer try and link the two and make them seem like they are in any way relevant to one another, a woeful poster.
I like literally right next to Stonehenge, the new age travellers are not the same, in the slightest as the travellers of that you would associate the word with in Scotland, new age travellers are hippies. All about peace, love, and showering occasionally. The travellers involved in the Andrew Harper case are not.
I see literally no relevance at all as to why its been brought up so much on this thread, well I do, sammer gonna sammer.
Quote:
sammer, Mon 27 Jul 23:36
The same mass arrest policy was used in the case of PC Harper- as I said earlier, maybe with justification given the horrific nature of the crime. But it produced zilch in the way of evidence, as the police must have suspected from the outset: the key evidence came from forensics and phone activity. .
Like, you're either being willfully ignorant, or you're a few sandwiches short of a picnic. The reason they brought in the whole campsite was because as a community the travellers would've moved hell and high water to make the three males involved in this dissappear, and good luck trying to find them then. At which point what good is your forensics and phone activity?
It's almost like sammer, the police had a better grasp on this than you. Someone who thinks police officers should cut around with balsa wood batons because tasers makes them Nazis. Absolutely wild.
Post Edited (Tue 28 Jul 12:51)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Tue 28 Jul 13:13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 28 Jul 14:25
Ignoring their background and the victims profession - a group of men knowingly dragged a man behind a car until he was dead.
The question now is how to punish them. To do so the jury needs answers to questions like - did the driver know? Did any of the other people in the car try and stop the car from continuing on its journey? Did any of them actively encourage the continuation?
They'll all be getting time for theft and road offences, but imagine the person getting the most time will be the driver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 28 Jul 15:51
That argument is over, jake89. They have been found guilty of manslaughter, not murder, and will be sentenced on that basis. The jury has no say in the sentencing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 28 Jul 16:10
But they'll be sentenced on the basis of what they did, not who they are or who they did it to. Them being travellers shouldn't impact on the decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 28 Jul 16:21
Yes, but it's up to the judge now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Tue 28 Jul 18:00
The Tories have long distinguished between the ‘deserving poor’ and ‘undeserving poor’ and now Grant has established a distinction between ‘hippie Travellers’ and ‘criminal Travellers.’ Since the police have often failed to make this distinction his observations might be useful to them even if they are thin on evidence. Living near Wiltshire is about the stretch of it and I doubt he has ever been inside a Travellers’ camp site and spoken to them. But BigJPar thinks he is right so there might be something in it.
Mass arrest on suspicion is a sure fire way to lose respect for the law. It probably makes no difference to Travellers since they don’t respect the law much in the first place but the idea the guilty men might have disappeared without trace is fanciful; even Ghislaine Maxwell was known to the FBI months ago and she has a better network than three travellers who might hotfoot it another Travellers’ camp. Somebody on here was absolutely certain they would have scarpered to Ireland for what that was worth, but their being arrested and extradited from the Republic of Ireland would have been a mere formality.
Luxembourg Par thinks that Travellers do not deserve the protection of the law. That is a very dangerous road to go down and fortunately the UN expects every person who is accused of committing a crime being subject to what the Americans call due process. Even the criminals at Nuremberg, mass murderers who had laughed in the face of every international treaty ever written, were given due process. If we were strong enough to give it to them, then it should be afforded to Travellers, whatever your prejudice.
The ‘balsa wood truncheon’ referred to by Grant was of course never mentioned by me but was coined either by him or a fellow defender of the police. My point was that truncheons do not usually kill, whilst tasers are an instrument of torture that can do so- I think around 12 deaths have been attributed to their use since they were introduced in the UK. The WHO considers the use of tasers to be potentially torture and I think 12 deaths is 12 too many. Nonetheless several commentators on here claimed they would rather be tasered than truncheoned, one of whom claimed to be an ex-policeman.
Regarding the sentencing on Friday, we can assume the maximum penalty will be imposed on the driver of the vehicle who was fortunate to escape a murder charge. The judge may even allude to his frustration when issuing sentence. The thief who jumped in the car window and had a respectable work record and no previous conviction will probably receive a slightly shorter sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Grant
Date: Tue 28 Jul 18:25
Quote:
sammer, Tue 28 Jul 18:00
The Tories have long distinguished between the ‘deserving poor’ and ‘undeserving poor’ and now Grant has established a distinction between ‘hippie Travellers’ and ‘criminal Travellers.’ .
Lol wut? Just admit your comparison, along with your posts on the matter, was an absolute crock of **** and move on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Tue 28 Jul 23:50
Why should I move on?
Grant you have, over a number of years on this site, attempted to intimidate those who oppose your views. With limited success, but that has been a feature of your life I imagine, ever since the school playground. Were you hiding behind the sheds until the teachers called in the lines? I suspect you were. I knpw your voice of old. It's jealous, reductive, grudging at best. Loud and fearful. Short on fact, big on opinion.
You have used assertion rather than argument.
You have used caricature rather than detail to make a case.
You think emotion carries more weight than reason.
You make false claims.
You have still to grasp the difference between argument and debate.
And of course the 'ad hominem' insults which are always a sign of man losing an argument.
I am very happy to engage you anytime in the sense that a good Communist will engage a good Fascist. I've just been to Stalingrad and that was a good result so I am feeling pretty good. But have a good picnic 1938 style. The rest will follow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Grant
Date: Wed 29 Jul 00:36
Quote:
sammer, Tue 28 Jul 23:50
Why should I move on?
Grant you have, over a number of years on this site, attempted to intimidate those who oppose your views. With limited success, but that has been a feature of your life I imagine, ever since the school playground. Were you hiding behind the sheds until the teachers called in the lines? I suspect you were. I knpw your voice of old. It's jealous, reductive, grudging at best. Loud and fearful. Short on fact, big on opinion.
You have used assertion rather than argument.
You have used caricature rather than detail to make a case.
You think emotion carries more weight than reason.
You make false claims.
You have still to grasp the difference between argument and debate.
And of course the 'ad hominem' insults which are always a sign of man losing an argument.
I am very happy to engage you anytime in the sense that a good Communist will engage a good Fascist. I've just been to Stalingrad and that was a good result so I am feeling pretty good. But have a good picnic 1938 style. The rest will follow.
There's little to no point engaging with you
sammer though, it'd be like playing chess with a pigeon, regardless of what happens you're going to **** on the board and strut around thinking you've nailed it.
You've chatted absolute nonsense throughout this thread, in an ever changing world I suppose the consistency with what you do that is at least comforting.
If I have over a number of years attempted to intimidate other posters then it won't be a drama finding an example - That's another point you're chatting nonsense on
I have absolutely no words for whatever fantasy you've contucted with regards to school, that was very, very, very weird.
The next bit is yet more waffle, I've pointed out where you were wrong on this thread, there's no argument or debate about it, you're just utterly wrong.
Come down to Stonehenge during the summer solstace, then fire over to Rathkeale and try and say with a straight fact they're the same travellers. That isn't a point that needs laboured to anyone else, because to everyone else it's utterly obvious. It's only you that seems intent on making them out to be the same group.
I mentioned I live next to Stonehenge because I do, you'll be hard pressed to find many that live closer, during the solstace there are many, many many new age travellers, they're actually at Stonehenge all year round, I'd know that because I run past them often. And like everyone else I've had dealings with the Irish, and Romani travellers, as similar as they may seem they're very proud of there roots and would point out the difference between those two groups, if you were to try and say to one that they're the same as a new age traveller you would quite rightly get laughed out the joint, there's no debate or argument to be had here, you're wrong. The police and absolutely no one else has problems differentiating between the two, outwith you.
The decision to arrest all the males at the traveller site was correct for the reasons not just outlined by me, but by the other posters on this thread.
Beanfield was a travesty, it also happened 35? Years ago, it has absolutely no relevance to Andrew Harper yet you keep bringing it up and trying to draw lines between the incident. It's just the usual grandstanding that you do on every thread.
Now carry on sammer, spread your wings, knock over the pieces and post yet more ****.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Wed 29 Jul 04:56
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 29 Jul 09:07
Meanwhile back on topic :-
PC Andrew Harper's widow has written to the prime minister to ask for a retrial after her husband's killers were acquitted of murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Wed 29 Jul 10:45
Emmm whut?
<<Luxembourg Par thinks that Travellers do not deserve the protection of the law. That is a very dangerous road to go down and fortunately the UN expects every person who is accused of committing a crime being subject to what the Americans call due process>>
There is a massive difference between deserving and receiving.
<< however, our society ensures that they DO receive it, often more than the 'rest of society' when they start screaming about 'racism' & 'persecution'.>>
At least read threads that you try to comment on - rather than simply casting your aspersions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Gareth Keenan Investigates
Date: Wed 29 Jul 17:20
Sammer claiming he fears getting his car pulled over a couple times a year more than a horde of manky lawless travellers turning up on his doorstep looking for revenge has made for outstanding reading. Simply astonishing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 29 Jul 19:04
Oh Jings Sammer looks like the OGPU and NKPV are after you :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 29 Jul 23:15
My Russian lady friend is ex- GRU so I don't have to worry too much on the Moscow front.
Luxemburg Par is semi literate since he thinks changing his opinion mid sentence alters his meaning. He said what he said, then denied it. Make up your mind Luxo.
Flushing out fascists is not very hard work but I can claim some meagre success in that area. 'Manky lawless travellers' was not the best extricated but the most recent. Travellers are around 0.01 of the UK population so an easy target for fascists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Gareth Keenan Investigates
Date: Thu 30 Jul 11:25
Would be interesting to see the percentage of travellers in the U.K. who have a tax paying job yet they always seem to have plenty money. Wonder why that is...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Thu 30 Jul 12:01
Oh behave yourself sammer.
I was very clear, your insinuations are just more obnoxious claptrap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: JTH123
Date: Thu 30 Jul 13:37
Quote:
Gareth Keenan Investigates, Thu 30 Jul 11:25
Would be interesting to see the percentage of travellers in the U.K. who have a tax paying job yet they always seem to have plenty money. Wonder why that is...
Not quite sure about the plenty money bit but it would be interesting to see a stat on whether they are net contributors to the state or not. I suspect I know the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Thu 30 Jul 14:00
Think it's safe to say that most,don't contribute anything. Running around in posh cars,4x4s,and lovely caravans,who are they trying to kid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 30 Jul 14:33
Quote:
JTH123, Thu 30 Jul 13:37
Quote:
Gareth Keenan Investigates, Thu 30 Jul 11:25
Would be interesting to see the percentage of travellers in the U.K. who have a tax paying job yet they always seem to have plenty money. Wonder why that is...
Not quite sure about the plenty money bit but it would be interesting to see a stat on whether they are net contributors to the state or not. I suspect I know the answer.
I think it's the case that anyone not paying the 40% tax rate is a net receiver rather than contributor so I dont think that's a particularly good metric!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Thu 30 Jul 16:28
They used to come down my way every year to harvest the winkles and sell them Unfortunately they did not size them at the sea and return the small/young They carted them up to the car park riddled and sized them put them into sacks, but just left the small/young lying there to die ..........Grrrrrrr
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: JTH123
Date: Thu 30 Jul 18:04
I'd be surprised at that LPF but I'll bow to your superior knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 31 Jul 13:48
The driver was sentenced to 16 years and the other two to 13 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Thaipar
Date: Fri 31 Jul 14:17
Quote:
wee eck, Fri 31 Jul 13:48
The driver was sentenced to 16 years and the other two to 13 years.
Which is more than some get for murder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 31 Jul 14:31
They'll be eligible for parole after serving two thirds. By my reckoning that means two of them will be under the age of 28 when they get to resume their lives. 28 of course being the age of PC Harper when they killed him.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 31 Jul 16:21
These are pretty heavy sentences for young men but they can have no complaints. I think there's a general feeling that the driver of the car got off light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 31 Jul 16:31
As much as I detest these three reprobates for the misery their actions have inflicted I do have to wonder if they could have really been aware that they were dragging the poor man behind them. That said they were engaging in a deliberate malicious criminal act which led to the death of another person so I
have absolutely no sympathy for them whatsoever.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 31 Jul 17:36
Hopefully they'll have to pick the soap up in the shower!😡😡😡
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: twin par
Date: Fri 31 Jul 18:45
They will get their totties now.Hell mend them.Scum of the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 31 Jul 20:22
Might they not be revered in prison for killing a cop?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 31 Jul 21:00
Towk I think any driver would be aware of dragging something behind their car Did they know it was a police constable ...Only they will know ....I read today that the police advanced drivers could not replicate the speed and control on the Country roads that the three reprobates flew from the crime ..... I only hope poor PC Harper was unconscious for all of it ....Poor soul RIP
Wee Eck I hope not but maybe by some However they will not be revered by the Prison staff
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
Post Edited (Fri 31 Jul 21:15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 31 Jul 21:12
I've never dragged anything behind my car so I just assumed that something of the weight of a person wouldn't give any sort of resistance as you accelerate? Gruesome stuff that I really don't want to contemplate.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Grant
Date: Sat 1 Aug 02:02
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Fri 31 Jul 21:12
I've never dragged anything behind my car so I just assumed that something of the weight of a person wouldn't give any sort of resistance as you accelerate? Gruesome stuff that I really don't want to contemplate.
Truthfully, it wouldn't. If you've got 3 passengers already you wouldn't notice the extra weight being dragged along.
I think that's what the argument hinged on, whether they know PC Harper was attached to the car, due to the blood trail left behind it showed the car swerving from side to side on the road which one side argued they knew he was attached, and of course the defenders denied.
Without knowing the exact details, while you wouldn't feel the difference in the car, if you're getting Chased by the police I reckon you'd be paying very, very close attention to what was happening behind you.
Sammer will probably say that makes me a fascist while referencing some vague hippy incident from the 1720's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 1 Aug 23:10
Far from it. I think your points are very well made, especially in regard to the culprits looking behind them.
I suspect the driver would have sensed something in the steering yet the police attempted to recreate the crime and so far as I am aware, this was not presented as prosecution evidence. I assume it was inconclusive as to what a driver would have known.
The issue, aside from the theft of a vehicle, is whether the guilty men knew that the policeman was being dragged. The jury, who heard everything, decided they could not, beyond reasonable doubt, be convinced the guilty men were aware of this.
I think like all juries they did their best and tried to be fair. I think the judge did too. He spoke well. A terrible case that we will all remember.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 1 Aug 23:16
A senior police officer has said today that it is important that all travelling communities aren't assumed to have criminal tendencies just because of this incident and the outcome of the trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MikeyLeonard
Date: Sun 2 Aug 00:32
Quote:
wee eck, Sat 1 Aug 23:16
A senior police officer has said today that it is important that all travelling communities aren't assumed to have criminal tendencies just because of this incident and the outcome of the trial.
Aye, fair enough Eck, that's his opinion from his experience in his dealings with them, others have differing opinions from theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Sun 2 Aug 01:11
Many years ago a friend of mine was involved in an incident where he dragged someone along the road and he didn't have a clue.
A biker had crashed and a lorry and cars had stopped. As my mate went passed he hit the biker and dragged him for about 100 meters.
My pal thought he had went over something that might have fallen from the lorry.
He was shocked when he got a visit from the police the next day.
He was charged with causing death by dangerous driving but was found not guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Sun 2 Aug 09:39
Quote:
sadindiefreak, Sun 2 Aug 01:11
Many years ago a friend of mine was involved in an incident where he dragged someone along the road and he didn't have a clue.
A biker had crashed and a lorry and cars had stopped. As my mate went passed he hit the biker and dragged him for about 100 meters.
My pal thought he had went over something that might have fallen from the lorry.
He was shocked when he got a visit from the police the next day.
He was charged with causing death by dangerous driving but was found not guilty.
Jeez, he is lucky he wasn't a gypsy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Grant
Date: Sun 2 Aug 11:50
Quote:
sadindiefreak, Sun 2 Aug 01:11
Many years ago a friend of mine was involved in an incident where he dragged someone along the road and he didn't have a clue.
A biker had crashed and a lorry and cars had stopped. As my mate went passed he hit the biker and dragged him for about 100 meters.
My pal thought he had went over something that might have fallen from the lorry.
He was shocked when he got a visit from the police the next day.
He was charged with causing death by dangerous driving but was found not guilty.
Aye, unless you have reason to, I highly doubt most people would notice, especially if the adrenaline is going.
My only doubt would be, as I said previously was that having just done a getaway I just don't beleive no one in the car would've looked behind them. That then leads down another rabbit hole of because of the length of rope, would you have seen it? Etc, etc.
It is absolutely horrible, can't imagine the grief the widow is going through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Tue 4 Aug 18:17
Three teenagers jailed for killing a police officer will have their sentences reviewed after claims they are too lenient.
PC Andrew Harper suffered catastrophic injuries after his ankles got caught in a strap attached to a car in Berkshire last August.
Driver Henry Long was jailed for 16 years and accomplices Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole for 13 years on Friday.
The Attorney General's Office said it had been asked to review the sentences.
John Howell, who was PC Harper's MP, previously said he would ask for a review of the manslaughter sentences after the teenagers were cleared of murder.
The Henley MP said "the crime of manslaughter is a very serious one" and the sentences "handed down by the judge are very severe".
But he added: "The question is does the punishment fit the crime?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 19 Aug 16:24
This from the Beeb
Two of PC Andrew Harper's killers have launched appeals against their manslaughter convictions.
The police officer sustained catastrophic injuries when he was dragged behind a getaway car driven by Henry Long in Berkshire last August.
Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole, who were also in the car, have lodged applications with the Court of Appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 21 Aug 13:50
This from Aunty
The killers of PC Andrew Harper have had their sentences referred to the Court of Appeal after the attorney general considered them to be "unduly lenient".
Suella Braverman QC said attacks against emergency workers should be "punished with the greatest severity".
PC Harper, 28, suffered catastrophic injuries when he was dragged behind a getaway car in Berkshire last August.
Henry Long, Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole were convicted of manslaughter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Thaipar
Date: Fri 21 Aug 14:15
Manslaughter in the UKk is typically between 2 and 10 years. Unduly lenient I think not. I think someone getting caught in a rope attached to a car would not be detected whilst driving.
You are on rough terrain how is it possible to know your car is pulling an object whilst trying to speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 21 Aug 14:48
The trial judge said he had mitigated the sentences in light of the ages of the offenders. The driver's was mitigated from 24 years to 16 because of his age and guilty plea and the passengers' from 20 to 13 because of their ages and 'immaturity'. They were 17 at the time of the offence and the driver was 18.
The driver can apply for parole after serving 10 years 8 months of his sentence. The passengers had already applied to appeal against their convictions and sentences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Thaipar
Date: Fri 21 Aug 15:48
Quote:
wee eck, Fri 21 Aug 14:48
The trial judge said he had mitigated the sentences in light of the ages of the offenders. The driver's was mitigated from 24 years to 16 because of his age and guilty plea and the passengers' from 20 to 13 because of their ages and 'immaturity'. They were 17 at the time of the offence and the driver was 18.
The driver can apply for parole after serving 10 years 8 months of his sentence. The passengers had already applied to appeal against their convictions and sentences.
So I think the original sentences were fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 21 Aug 17:14
In line with precedent perhaps but I don't think they could ever be called fair.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 21 Aug 18:46
There should be no place for this sort of "mob justice" in a civilised society.
Victims, random members of the public or newspapers should have no influence over sentencing decisions by our courts.
The way we do it is the only fair way we have; it ensures that sentencing decisions are taken by responsible individuals with relevant experience who are privy to ALL of the admissible evidence and background material in a case.
The erosion of the courts' independence from political pressure will never make them better or fairer.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 21 Aug 19:07
Victims do have an influence on the sentencing which is why victim impact statements(think they go by another name) are allowed by the courts before sentencing is decided.
I do agree that really that public opinion shouldn't influence the courts or the sentencing arrangements but then again it did stop the heinous John Warboys getting released after a ridiculously short sentence for the multiple horrific rapes he committed so sometimes two wrongs do make a right.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 21 Aug 19:18
I'd rather we set free a thousand guilty people than lock up one single innocent person.
We, as a free and open society, only have the right to lock up the guilty, and only for as long as necessary. So we have to make pretty damn sure that's what we are doing.
If aspects of the system, which have to be in place to prevent people from staying in prison longer than absolutely necessary, result in despicable individuals being released early then that's the price we pay for not living in an autocratic hellhole where the owners of newspapers decide who goes to prison and for how long.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 21 Aug 19:33
Oh deary deary me wotsit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 23 Aug 11:43
<<I'd rather we set free a thousand guilty people than lock up one single innocent person.>>
WTF?
We are talking about one guilty plea and two found guilty by the courts - and are discussing length of sentence - don't try to branch off onto your view of the general system - you'll start squealing about capital punishment next...
<<If aspects of the system, ... result in despicable individuals being released early then that's the price we pay for not living in an autocratic hellhole>>
I sincerely hope that you and your loved ones are never the victims of a rapist or murderer released early from prison after spending 3 years locked up for a previous offence.
- but if you/they were, can I assume you will just smile, shrug your shoulders and happily agree that it was a price worth paying?
Get with the real world wotsit - your pathetic, simplistic, 'holier than thou' p!sh is a fine example of what's wrong with this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sun 23 Aug 11:57
Which country is that Lux?
I'm not going to judge my attitude to crime and punishment based on my emotional reaction to personal misfortune - that's a completely messed up way to decide these things
Although when my uncle was murdered I, and my family, hoped for justice, not revenge
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 23 Aug 12:06
I mentioned 'revenge'?
'Justice' must be seen to be fair and equitable - or it isn't justice.
You wanted justice, but would have been happy for his murderer to be one of the < thousand guilty people > freed in your statement, to avoid the possibility of one erroneous lockup?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 23 Aug 12:34
To be fair Lux if yourself or a loved one was to spend twenty years in prison for a crime you didn't commit would you just shrug and say it is a price worth paying so that the guilty get harsher sentences?
I can see the points you are both making. Public opinion should have no influence on sentencing as that is a matter for the law. In this case the law is being applied as the individuals found guilty will not receive any sentence higher than that which the law allows. Yes certain newspapers have made an issue of the sentences dished out to these cretins but then so have the family of the man who isn't here anymore to be heard.
To be honest I'm not really sure what people mean when they ask for justice. Seriously can anyone define it for me?
Edited to fix a spelling mistake.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
Post Edited (Sun 23 Aug 13:43)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 23 Aug 16:30
<<To be fair Lux if yourself or a loved one was to spend twenty years in prison for a crime you didn't commit would you just shrug and say it is a price worth paying so that the guilty get harsher sentences?>>
That's a failing of the court, by finding an innocent person guilty - the length of time served is immaterial - one day is too long if truly innocent.
Completely separate from penalties prescribed by the law and/or harshness of sentence.
You simply cannot keep sentences low for the guilty just in case someone innocent is harshly sentenced.
- Sentences can be quashed on appeal, if innocence can be proven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 23 Aug 17:25
<<I'd rather we set free a thousand guilty people than lock up one single innocent person.>>
That was Wotsit's statement that you took issue with. Nothing to do with sentences. Are you saying that's a sentiment you don't agree with?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 23 Aug 17:45
I was saying that it was nothing to do with the discussion, which WAS about sentences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sun 23 Aug 19:22
The judge explained the reasoning behind his sentences very clearly after the jury found the defendants guilty of manslaughter.
TOWK and Luxembourg Par are not satisfied that the sentences are either fair or just. What would have been fair or just sentences?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 23 Aug 19:51
Exactly. What would be fair or just. I'm still waiting for justice to be explained to me.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Fri 28 Aug 09:39
From Aunty :-
The killers of hero policeman Andrew Harper have received £465,000 in legal aid, the Mail can reveal.
The astonishing sum was paid to solicitors and barristers defending the three teenagers who dragged the constable to his death behind a car for more than a mile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 28 Aug 10:14
Good. Everyone is entitled to a defence not just the rich. They've had a decent one by the look of it and been found guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: JTH123
Date: Fri 28 Aug 12:47
Maybe so LPF but that's a huge amount of taxpayers money.
I was on a jury about 10 years or so ago and the sheer amount of money wasted in the legal system shocked me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Thaipar
Date: Fri 28 Aug 14:18
As I pointed out earlier in the thread the guys were sentenced to longer than what someone would potentially be for what can only be described as murder.
All the pandering about his wife meeting cabinet ministers is really just an appeasement. The sentences weren't lenient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 28 Aug 16:09
The driver, who was sentenced to 16 years, is now appealing against his sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Fri 28 Aug 16:31
Legal system is a licence to print money!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Fri 28 Aug 17:25
Quote:
wee eck, Fri 28 Aug 16:09
The driver, who was sentenced to 16 years, is now appealing against his sentence.
I guess if his legal representatives are making that kind of money, another drawn out case is in their best interests
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: buffy
Date: Sat 29 Aug 13:48
“The killers of hero policeman Andrew Harper have received £465,000 in legal aid, the Mail can reveal.
The astonishing sum was paid to solicitors and barristers defending the three teenagers”
It’s not really astonishing. Typical headline without any investigative journalism imo.
First of all this amount of legal aid is for three people so split it between each client and their respective Solicitors.
Secondly, there’s an enormous amount of work required to be undertaken in criminal cases.
Lastly, legal aid is not paid to solicitors willy nilly; they have to apply for it based on some work they’ve already undertaken, therefore it’s sometimes retrospective. Depending on the backlog of applications there can be a very long wait for payments (sometimes up to 18 months). It’s not a five minute job.
I’d type a list of work carried out by criminal law Solicitors but there’s not enough room on the page and you’d likely fall asleep before the halfway mark but if you’re truly interested have a look at the SLAB fees. English law costs will be similar. Legal Aid Fees
”Buffy’s Buns are the finest in Fife”, J. Spence 2019”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sat 29 Aug 16:13
Quote:
JTH123, Fri 28 Aug 12:47
Maybe so LPF but that's a huge amount of taxpayers money.
I was on a jury about 10 years or so ago and the sheer amount of money wasted in the legal system shocked me.
Its not really in the grand scheme of things. Its circa £150k per person but when you consider the seriousness of the case and the fact you've got a grieving family looking for justice on one side and people who have a significant amount of their life's liberty at stake on the other; I don't see that as a disproportionate large outlay vs what's at stake for both sides.
The law is a complex beast and its often not easy to interpret which is why the guys that can do it get well paid.
The victims of crime have a right to a sound prosecution and the defendants have a right to be considered as innocent until proven guilty with an associated legal defence team. The more serious or complex cases are obviously to cost more but less than Messi's salary for a week is OK with me. Others may obviously disagree though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sat 29 Aug 16:14
Sorry I missed Buffys reply before I responded and I agree with most of that too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: JTH123
Date: Sat 29 Aug 20:19
No you're right LPF. I'm not looking at the big picture. I'm keeping it simple.
These 3 were out petty thieving other people's property. Not caring about the people who were going to be victims of their crime. They killed a policeman whilst trying to get away.
We (the taxpayer) collectively then paid nearly half a million pounds in legal fees representing them.
Of course I understand and agree about everyone being entitled to a fair trial etc but the numbers stagger me. And like I said earlier it's the tip of the iceberg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 29 Aug 21:00
The victims of crime have a right to a sound prosecution and the defendants have a right to be considered as innocent until proven guilty with an associated legal defence team. The more serious or complex cases are obviously to cost more but less than Messi's salary for a week is OK with me.
Oh deary deary me LPF
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 29 Aug 21:14
While I agree with the substance of LPFs post I don't see what the comparison to Messi's wage adds to it. You could also say that their lawyers fees were the same as the annual wages of fifteen nurses or six GPs etc.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: EastEndBoy
Date: Wed 16 Dec 14:15
I see the appeals court threw out an attempt by the Attorney General to have their sentences increased.
Correct decision all things considered. The appeal was nothing more than a political stunt.
...ken?
|
|
|
|
|
|
