Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 22 2010, 11:33 AM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=12792


An offender with a record of violence is free to walk the streets of Newbury until April 8th.

Makes you feel all warm inside knowing people like this are wandering about.

Posted by: JeffG Mar 22 2010, 11:40 AM

You also wonder why they dignify a convicted criminal with 'Mr' in the NWN report.

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 22 2010, 11:44 AM

The law neither represents us or protects us. It has lost it's meaning for many of us law-abiding citizens as it puts the rights of the criminal before ours.
A shameful and unfair system that needs to be reveiwed.

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 22 2010, 11:46 AM

A misguided address very similar to Members of Parliment refering to themselves as "the right honourable"

Posted by: JeffG Mar 22 2010, 11:52 AM

(Going completely off-topic, only members of the Privy Council are referred to as "right honourable". Ordinary members are just "honourable" - so they like us to think. )

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 22 2010, 11:55 AM

A contradiction in terms eh!!!!

Posted by: x2lls Mar 22 2010, 03:25 PM

This area has far more than it's fair share of morons. Still, I suppose we would do well in a 'spot the braincell' competition.

Posted by: Iommi Mar 22 2010, 03:39 PM

Who are you referring to? This thread, site or St Georges Ave?

Posted by: x2lls Mar 22 2010, 07:41 PM

The subject matter of this topic.

Posted by: Jayjay Mar 23 2010, 07:46 AM

Can you elaborate a bit x2lls. You appear to be saying you approve of vicious, violent louts running around Newbury. I am sure you are either not saying that, or there is more to the story.

Posted by: x2lls Mar 23 2010, 12:24 PM

How do you think I approve of such behaviour?, which in no way I do.
My comment was referring to my own experience of such morons as mentioned by the original post. The reference to a spot the braincell competition was meant to be derogatory in regard to said morons.

Posted by: Jo Jo Apr 3 2010, 01:42 AM

He was on bail for a whole year before the case even went to court, in my opinion he should have been locked up straight away for this type of hate crime. A violent man was wandering about in Newbury and no one knew apart from the police and the victim. Well done NWN for keeping Newbury residents updated.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Apr 3 2010, 10:51 AM

Sorry, but what he did, did not become a 'crime' until he was convicted.

The law is based on innocent until proven guilty (except perhaps for motoring offences ). This is why there is a presumption of bail rather than remand within the law.

Whilst it might have seemed right in this case to impose immediate custody, there has as a norm - for the protection of the freedom of us all - to be measured justice in a court of law rather than immediate custody. This is also why, for a remanded defendant who is found guilty, a credit for time served on remand when sentencing.

Posted by: Exhausted Apr 5 2010, 08:25 PM

I don't think you read the article correctly, he was found guilty of the offence, it was a violent attack and he has previous for similar offences. He is out on bail while they make up their minds what the punishment should be. In my view he should have been placed in custody until April 8th and if it was knocked off what must be a custodial sentence then so be it. Pity the wheels of justice took a year to get there.

Posted by: GMR Apr 5 2010, 08:58 PM

It seems that the police no longer represent the public but put the interests of the criminal first.

Posted by: Jeven Apr 6 2010, 12:02 AM

Eh? Surely the decision of remand or bail is up to the judge not the Police. The Police are only involved as far as arresting people and then passing the decision of whether to charge to the CPS who then hope the judge (and jury if it gets that far) make a good decision on behalf of the public.

The Police are constantly complaining that they have some criminals who they arrest pretty much every week but the judges still give them lenient sentences (or even worse community 'punishments'). In fact I remember some local police saying that if you put away about 15 - 20 criminals the crime in the area would be reduced by ~ 80% (until some new ones came along to fill the void.)

As much as I love a good, unreasoned, police bashing in this case they aren't even involved slightly in the process which is to blame.

Posted by: Jo Jo Apr 7 2010, 06:58 PM

Posted by: Jo Jo Apr 7 2010, 07:01 PM

The young police officer that was responsible for this case did an excellent job.

Let's see what punishment he gets tomorrow.

Posted by: GMR Apr 7 2010, 08:28 PM

Yes, if it gets that far. But as a recent Panorama programme has shown that the police don’t always to cases to the CPS to save on paperwork. And we are talking about serious cases.



Also; the police can give warnings or make them sign contracts. Neither is true justice.



I agree that is also the case. But not the total story; read above.



As I pointed out not all police bashing are ‘unreasoned’. Also many others on here have also pointed that out as well.

Posted by: GMR Apr 7 2010, 08:28 PM

Which case?

Posted by: Bloggo Apr 8 2010, 10:28 AM

The system of law in this Country is effectively breaking down because of the rights of the criminal taking precedent over the rights of the victims.
Until this is addressed the public is at risk of assault , robbery or worse.
You need to ask yourself which Political party has the b**ls to address this and overturn the crazy EU directives that propergate this position and vote for them.

Posted by: JeffG Apr 8 2010, 12:42 PM

Which EU directives are those? (Just looking for some facts.)

Posted by: Bloggo Apr 8 2010, 12:48 PM

The crazy ones!
For example, the one that won't allow us to deport rapists, murderers etc back to their own EU Country of origin.

Posted by: Iommi Apr 8 2010, 12:52 PM

As far as I am aware, the perpetrator and the victim have equal rights under law. A convicted perpetrator, however, can lose his freedom if so sentenced. I can't say I know that criminals take precedent over law abiding people. What do you mean?

Posted by: Bloggo Apr 8 2010, 12:57 PM

I'm sure you know this.
For example, a man who has had his home broken into and retaliates out of frustration and anger can, and has, been convicted by the CPS of a crime against the perpetrator of the break-in.

Posted by: Iommi Apr 8 2010, 01:03 PM

I know of people who have shown 'disproportionate force' get convicted , but this is not common and indeed, not proof that a criminal has more rights than the law abiding. A far as I know, that is not the case. In law, we are meant to be all treated equal.

Posted by: Bloggo Apr 8 2010, 01:04 PM

OK, have it your way.

Posted by: Iommi Apr 8 2010, 01:07 PM

To draw on your example, if a person was to break into your home and assault you, they could find themselves in court for this offence.

I don't see any precedence in law, in favour of the criminal.

Perhaps what you should argue, is that criminals should 'lose rights' over the law abiding. You might find more takers for that.

Posted by: JeffG Apr 8 2010, 01:08 PM

Still looking for facts, other than something you just made up. I refer my honourable friend to this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7079709.stm

in particular:

Posted by: Bloggo Apr 8 2010, 01:17 PM

Yep, I have read it already. The problem is that this Country has difficulty in expelling non EU criminals in a timely fashion before they go underground let alone EU member citizens who are able to use the mass of EU legislation, regulation and human rights law to avoid deportation.

Posted by: Iommi Apr 8 2010, 01:21 PM

I would also support you in the idea that sometimes, the police can appear to 'side' with crooks, rather than deal with them appropriately.

Posted by: Bloggo Apr 8 2010, 01:24 PM

Thank you, I'm gratified that you appreciate what I am trying to say. But it is also the CPS and justice system who seem to be so willing to come down on the side of the criminal in some of these instances.

Posted by: Jeven Apr 9 2010, 02:55 PM

If the home owner punched the guy in the face and knocked him out (or hit him with some house hold object) that should be fine. On the other-hand if the home owner ran after the criminal and kicked him in for several minutes it wouldn't. There's a big difference between a reasonable action such as knocking someone out or restraining them when they're in your house and an unreasonable action such as kicking the crap out of them after you have them restrained.

Remember innocent until proven guilty, and even then the punishment is up to an impartial peer (judge) not the victim.



(I'm not saying I agree with the system as it is, I'm just stating that it does allow the home owner to use reasonable force (and you can justify quite a lot in the heat of the moment). Sadly the press seem to be trying to imply that it doesn't. Having said that any smart person would get their family into a room, lock themselves in and call the Police rather than confront the potentially armed burglar)

Posted by: Bloggo Apr 9 2010, 03:20 PM

How about kicking the crap out of them whilst they are in your house?


That is always assuming that you have the time to do this.

Posted by: Jeven Apr 9 2010, 03:30 PM

As I say, if you're kicking the crap out of them when they are no longer a threat to you or your family then you're dealing out a punishment on a innocent (in the eyes of the law) person. That's (at the moment) the judges job, not the home owners. Not saying I agree with that, but that's how it is.

And yeah of course. If someone broke into my house and I didn't have time to get everyone safely into the room I'd be looking to hit the burglar with someone hard to stop him being a threat, as is my right.



(Of course this is just my interpretation of the law based on precedent from cases where this has been tested in court and how it has been explained by the Police and CPS.)

Posted by: user23 Apr 10 2010, 08:06 AM

True, it's all well and good restraining them or defending yourself but if you decide to attack them what if you end up killing them?

Posted by: Bloggo Apr 12 2010, 07:33 AM

If someone breaks into my home with the intention of stealing from me or causing me and my family harm then then as far as I am concerned they give up any rights to be treated as civilised people will be subject to my justice which will be tempered by how outraged and scared I am at that moment.
Fear can make one extremely violent.

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 12 2010, 08:11 AM

Many, if not most, feel this way so why does common sense never prevail any more?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 12 2010, 08:21 AM

Because 'justice' is in favour of the criminal now and not the home owner. If I broke into your home Biker1 and you hit me. I could sue you.

On a more sinister note I was walking down Station Road yesterday and two 15 to 17 year old youngsters asked me if I have had any credit on my phone as they 'needed' to ring their dad. I suggested to them that I did not have a phone on me (which was true as it was at home on charge) only to be met with a volley of abuse and F words. If I had 'lent' them my phone I would not have seen it again as I'm 99% certain they would have legged it. Be aware!

Posted by: Bloggo Apr 12 2010, 10:49 AM

Because they think they can get away with it these yobs are becoming bolder. To be accosted like this is very worrying as it suggests that they are roaming the streets looking for targets.

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 13 2010, 10:17 AM

I agree with both Bloggo and TDH but the point of my question was:- if the majority of people want change to bring the law back on the side of the victim why does it not happen?

Is the "Liberal Lobby" that powerful?

Posted by: Iommi Apr 13 2010, 11:03 AM

It is to do with the whole ethos of British law, in other words, there are no guilty people until it is proven. You are not guilty of anything until the end of a trial. I think the law is largely correct. The problem seems that it appears inconsistent sometimes. It is not helped by sensationalist reporting by the right-wing press.

Posted by: Bloggo Apr 13 2010, 12:14 PM

Yes, I think it probably is.
What each of us has to do is complain to the Police, The Council and your MP every time we see a miscarriage of how we see the justice system should be working and demand that there is a change.
The forthcoming election is a great opportunity to let anyone in authority that asks for your opinion to make sure you tell them what is wrong with the system.