Jump to content

More ridiculous justice


Les Henson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Living proof the rural community is disposible

we had an estate 110 go missing, 2 rifles and a shotgun in the back, the dibble didnt even bother turning up.

This country legal system sucks, not advocating anything but the people like that deserve to be on the wrong end of an accidental discharge.... sorry officer, thought it was a rat

fuggin sickening

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, god bless our judiciary :angry:

Perhaps a few law lords hanging from the branches of a tree would stiffen the resolve of the lawmakers and encourage them to stop listening to this socialist/liberal metropolitan elite who know nothing of the real world or life outside of the metropolitan centres.

Perhaps then the law would be tailored to the need for punishment rather than human rights of the "victim" in the dock.

ramble, ramble, ramble ...

Mo :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, I suppose I'll try to correct a few misconceptions.

1. Manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of Life imprisonment, so the judge could impose a sentence that would amount to close to the 10-15 normally served for Murder [although the normal tariff for Manslaughter is from 3 for the least serious case, to 7-10 for the top end; not negligible either way]

2. The sentence for conspiracy to steal, with several similar offences taken into consideration, would quite possibly be consecutive to the Manslaughter sentence, perhaps a 5 year bid, so 15 in all is not inconceivable.

3. It sounds as though there was no count for aggravated burglary; had there been, that would be a possible 5-10 too.

Murder is a crime of 'specific intent'. That is, the killer had to either have intended death/really serious bodily harm. Intent to scare/ intent to cause minor injury/ recklessness as to causing really serious injury are not sufficient. Those particular laws go back way beyond the current judiciary; indeed Judge Jeffries himself would have paid at least lip-service to them. They were certainly the laws when people were being hanged for murder not 50 years back.

The lady's testimony, emotive though it looks on paper, is not only dubious evidence of the 'I could see from his face at a distance of ~ Meters, beyond the reflections in a car windscreen, precisely what he was thinking, I'm so psychic, certainly not what he wanted me to think' variety, there's every chance that her oral evidence wouldn't have matched up [who else, on being the victim of a crime, has had a policeman 'putting words into their mouth' on the written statement? Most people tend naturally to increased honesty/frankness when in court, particularly when the written words are not their natural way of expressing themselves / when they had been tempted into overstating the evidence in the heat of the moment]; plus, most relevant of all to the prosecutor, it refers to a different transaction; there being no evidence — other than forensics — of how the driver looked/how the car was driven at the time of the incident that caused the death.

The fact that the prosecution accepted the Manslaughter plea; didn't add a count for aggravated burglary, relates to the fact that there was a lack of evidence. I daresay the prosecutor would have been well aware of incidental factors such as the width of the lane, the nature of the collision, the agility of the poor man who died, etcetera, all weighed against a considered opinion of how a jury, hearing only relevant admissible evidence, properly directed by a judge, would have viewed the case — after all, it's the 12 people who have to satisfy themselves so that they are sure that a defendant deserves 15 years in prison, whose opinions really count.

The fact is that rules of evidence are there precisely to prevent the kind of 'trial by media/ suspicion=guilt' effect that is in danger of being reinstated. The death penalty would be a good idea, were it not for Derek Bentley, the Confait case, the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, + countless other less famous people hanged in error. In fact, it's the mistrust of various aspects of the justice system itself that leads juries to acquit; in such a case they would not have convicted of an offence carrying a death penalty in a million years.

The judge has all the papers in front of him, so has the opportunity to assess the case in a similar fashion to the prosecutor; I'd see what sentence he imposes before calling for the heads of the law lords, who may just be preventing YOU from getting lynched one day.

nice day :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Living proof the rural community is disposible

we had an estate 110 go missing, 2 rifles and a shotgun in the back, the dibble didnt even bother turning up.

This country legal system sucks, not advocating anything but the people like that deserve to be on the wrong end of an accidental discharge.... sorry officer, thought it was a rat

fuggin sickening

That, on the other hand, I tend to agree with!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the woman did exaggerate about the distance/staring eyes etc, and the lane was very narrow, he could have stopped couldn't he? I appreciate the lack of evidence thing and no, we don't really know all the facts. These brothers are well-knkown and have extensiive previous history both before and ofter this offence. I hope the judge sentences them accordingly. Unfortunately it's just as likely they will get off lightly.

Les.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we had an estate 110 go missing, 2 rifles and a shotgun in the back, the dibble didnt even bother turning up.

I was told by someone that I trust (so its not liable to be fairy story) that a friend of their's had his dog stolen. He suspected who had it, so checked the local 'travellers' site. Sure enough, he saw his dog.

When reporting the theft to the local police he was told they could do nothing as 'they suspected the travellers to be armed' !!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Living proof the rural community is disposible

we had an estate 110 go missing, 2 rifles and a shotgun in the back, the dibble didnt even bother turning up.

This country legal system sucks, not advocating anything but the people like that deserve to be on the wrong end of an accidental discharge.... sorry officer, thought it was a rat

fuggin sickening

Didn't want to turn up but prob related the theft to FARM who then would look into inadequate 'security' of firearms and discussed removal of SGC/FAC? I have had that happen to colleagues - seriously.

How would that law apply to cars. Oh, you've had you car stolen and it was used in a hit and run.

'Inadequate security sir. We are therefore fining you and confiscating your driving licence'

Bunch of harris! :blink:

Bit off topic but .......................................................

Edited by Cartman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cartman - we spent a few sweaty days as the loss of an FAC means a loss of a livelyhood, to be honest we though he was a goner but they didnt even bat an eyelid.... would have expected at least a hard time and the place crawling with police but nothing - in a way that was just as disturbing.

we have a tried and tested method or "encouraging" travellers to leave. hand hovering on the PTO lever and 8 tonnes of pig slurry tends to focus minds. If that doesnt work (so far so good) a manitou will lift a pretty big caravan without even noticing.

Im sure I should attend some focus group to help me empathise with the pc intentions of society but as far as Im concerned you should have the right to protect family with extreme prejudice and property with appropriate force.

Lots of love

Captain reasonable aka Jez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add: the BBC report is really a bit distorted, it's sadly getting typical from the Beeb; in the Manchester Evening News it is made clear that squires's defence is that Mr Boffey jumped in front of the car "suddenly".

Assuming that he had been saying that all along; he couldn't necessarily have known when originally interviewed, that there would have been no witnesses at all to the event, so it does tend to raise a reasonable doubt that that could be what happened. The sad moral of the story being: 1. don't leave your keys in an unlocked car, even in your own farmyard; 2. As an absolute, don't try apprehending a car thief by standing in the way of a dangerously driven Land Rover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sad moral of the story being:

1. don't leave your keys in an unlocked car, even in your own farmyard;

2. As an absolute, don't try apprehending a car thief by standing in the way of a dangerously driven Land Rover.

Indeed, in fact I would go as far as saying it's probably a bad idea to stand in front of any moving car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm torn on the capital punishment issue. On one hand why should we pay for him to be fed, kept warm and dry? And on the other, what difference is there in him unintentionally killing a man, and another person being instructed and paid for intentionally killing him?

Sorry - blonde mode now reinstated :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12-years, christ that's rubbish! he'll be paroled long before then and helped back into society.

Dunno about a life for a life. I agree with it if it was proven to be intentional, so he would be ok I suppose.

There should be a guaranteed minimum sentence for certain crimes, such as murder, rape, paedophilia, etc

As for the cost - isn't it something like £400 per day?

Les.

Edited by Les Henson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge wasn't being particularly lenient either. As he said, the sentence is close to the top of the range for Manslaughter, as the public demands it. Rest assured, I suppose, that in 6+ years' time, with advances in technology, unless he's a very changed man, that kind of person with that kind of attitude is quickly returned to his rightful place. I seem to recall £400 per day is for category A prisoners — serious threats to national security; squires is possibly category B, bog standard local prison fodder.

Open prisons cost a mere £200 pw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Eugenics wasn't such a bad idea after all. Winston himself was a fan, the project simply needs adjusting so that it's the people with their eyes too close together [clear evidence of a thuggish/ dishonest nature] who get the Bromine tea.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy