Sarah Everard murder | Wayne Couzens given whole-life sentence

[bluethrunthru]

Say it ain't fucking so.

Of course its true..........we sit and see the US Police and think well their recruitment and training means that those recruiting who's shoot first ask questions later and maybe be a little racist means that couldn't happen here but tell you what misogynists and racists will look to recruit similar and when you look to recruit volume quickly corners are cut and misogynists recruit misogynists - they feel safer in a crowd eh?
As for training - honestly so few cops have an in depth knowledge of the law it is scary - they are a bunch of robots most of whom know little about their jobs. So many others - gas fitters - sparkies - nurses need to know in depth the law as it applies to their job. I watched a video yesterday where a copper said he was going to arrest a You Tuber for trespassing.... thats a civil not criminal act so not his business......the copper then moved to section 5 public order - when the You Tuber asked who was being put in fear or being offended as required by the act as the law requires the copper said he was. There is case law that states a Police officer cannot be a victim of section 5 public order because its reasonable to expect in their line of work they will be sworn at or shouted at.
When I lived in Middleton there were a married couple across the road - both job - regularly fighting in the street (obviously marriage on the rocks) - Police attended regularly but no action ever taken. One time I had my car on the drive on axle stands changing my front brake discs and a Police car on BLUE LIGHTS came to my house asked me what I was doing and warned me not to drive my car with no brake discs as in her view it "could" be dangerous.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The wider point here though is that people who commit serious crimes usually graduate to them from lesser crimes. How many times do you read about a murderer who has previous convictions for abh gbh etc etc

If we got hold of these cunts earlier, gave them punitive sentences and made prison less of a cakewalk the streets would be safer. The only key point really is to keep them all in jail as long as possible - once a **** always a **** in my experience.

You know sentences have been creeping up, for violent and sexual crimes in particular, for the last 50 years? How much more punitive do you want it to be?

You’re entitled to think sentences are too lenient, but if that's based on the belief that sentences have been going down for the last 30 years, then you’re manifestly wrong.

I get a feeling no amount of punishment will be enough for some folk.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Of course its true..........we sit and see the US Police and think well their recruitment and training means that those recruiting who's shoot first ask questions later and maybe be a little racist means that couldn't happen here but tell you what misogynists and racists will look to recruit similar and when you look to recruit volume quickly corners are cut and misogynists recruit misogynists - they feel safer in a crowd eh?
As for training - honestly so few cops have an in depth knowledge of the law it is scary - they are a bunch of robots most of whom know little about their jobs. So many others - gas fitters - sparkies - nurses need to know in depth the law as it applies to their job. I watched a video yesterday where a copper said he was going to arrest a You Tuber for trespassing.... thats a civil not criminal act so not his business......the copper then moved to section 5 public order - when the You Tuber asked who was being put in fear or being offended as required by the act as the law requires the copper said he was. There is case law that states a Police officer cannot be a victim of section 5 public order because its reasonable to expect in their line of work they will be sworn at or shouted at.
When I lived in Middleton there were a married couple across the road - both job - regularly fighting in the street (obviously marriage on the rocks) - Police attended regularly but no action ever taken. One time I had my car on the drive on axle stands changing my front brake discs and a Police car on BLUE LIGHTS came to my house asked me what I was doing and warned me not to drive my car with no brake discs as in her view it "could" be dangerous.

I'd imagine some, not all, gas fitters, sparkies etc would know very small parts of legislation specific to their role - or at least be able to pass tests giving answers based on it.

As for Police, there's absolutely tonnes of legislation out there and it'd be completely unreasonable to expect them to even know half of this statute or that sub section.

Most would be fairly well versed in the stuff they deal with perhaps week in, week out. Ask a bobby in the middle of London a question on legislation surrounding fertiliser or pesticides and they'd probably struggle to give you the answer, but a farmer might know. It doesn't necessarily mean a farmer knows more about the Police's job than they themselves, if you get me.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I'd imagine some, not all, gas fitters, sparkies etc would know very small parts of legislation specific to their role - or at least be able to pass tests giving answers based on it.

As for Police, there's absolutely tonnes of legislation out there and it'd be completely unreasonable to expect them to even know half of this statute or that sub section.

Most would be fairly well versed in the stuff they deal with perhaps week in, week out. Ask a bobby in the middle of London a question on legislation surrounding fertiliser or pesticides and they'd probably struggle to give you the answer, but a farmer might know. It doesn't necessarily mean a farmer knows more about the Police's job than they themselves, if you get me.

Thank you for the response - I'd guess they need to know and understand the difference between criminal and civil law though - or don't you think thats important? Then there is section 5 -they all resort to that - if you attend a match a protest or a church fete thats what they will quote to you. Don't you think its important they know the details of that? The average bobby driving round at night looking for victims or just doing his duty is hardly required to even know what pesticide is what. Most should know about fertilisers though as someone buying or having a load of it should fall under suspicion unless they can show they should have it.

 

[Tangled up in blue.]

Someone will see him off

 

[Gundog’s Gundog]

You know sentences have been creeping up, for violent and sexual crimes in particular, for the last 50 years? How much more punitive do you want it to be?

You’re entitled to think sentences are too lenient, but if that's based on the belief that sentences have been going down for the last 30 years, then you’re manifestly wrong.

I get a feeling no amount of punishment will be enough for some folk.

Much more punitive to answer your question. Your final sentence pretty much sums me up but I’m unashamed about it - what’s wrong with severely punishing bad people who do bad things ?

Honestly I’ve no idea whether sentences have gone up or down in my lifetime but I think they’re woefully inadequate. For every killer who gets a whole life tariff there seem to be many who get sentenced to the incredibly insulting and inadequate “life with a minimum of … fill in your own derisory number” type sentences. Judging by your comments I gather you’re in the legal profession, would you know for example what the average term served for a murder is ? Due to the hugely differing circumstances involved in such a sample it wouldn’t be a particularly informative stat but it would be an interesting starting point for a discussion about severity of sentences.

Of course I accept that each case has its own little nuances and I’m not advocating a blanket life means life policy but my starting point for cold blooded murders especially of children or women where there was a sexual motive would be a full life sentence.

Most rapes and the more serious manslaughter cases should also incur much longer sentences as should serious assaults as should little scrotes carrying knives etc etc etc…

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Thank you for the response - I'd guess they need to know and understand the difference between criminal and civil law though - or don't you think thats important? Then there is section 5 -they all resort to that - if you attend a match a protest or a church fete thats what they will quote to you. Don't you think its important they know the details of that? The average bobby driving round at night looking for victims or just doing his duty is hardly required to even know what pesticide is what. Most should know about fertilisers though as someone buying or having a load of it should fall under suspicion unless they can show they should have it.

Of course it's important to know about the difference between civil law and criminal law and know about very commonly used legislation such as section 5 but I'd be very wary of forming opinion on a video you've watched from some YouTubber account as its very likely to be either set up, completely without context, or showing only parts of what's happened to push a specific agenda.

Also, don't quote me on this because my knowledge of English law is vague, but I'd be extremely surprised if the part you've mentioned about Section 5 not applying to abusing Police officers because it's an expected part of their job is cut and dry and simply allows people to shout, swear and abuse them as much as they like without any kind of retribution?

 

[bluethrunthru]

Of course it's important to know about the difference between civil law and criminal law and know about very commonly used legislation such as section 5 but I'd be very wary of forming opinion on a video you've watched from some YouTubber account as its very likely to be either set up, completely without context, or showing only parts of what's happened to push a specific agenda.

Also, don't quote me on this because my knowledge of English law is vague, but I'd be extremely surprised if the part you've mentioned about Section 5 not applying to abusing Police officers because it's an expected part of their job is cut and dry and simply allows people to shout, swear and abuse them as much as they like without any kind of retribution?

You have to read what I typed - when the officer was made aware that he was trying to use a civil law to make a criminal arrest he switched immediately to Section 5... go on YT ( I know you won't ) to see loads of cops exposed for not knowing the law - however this is what that judgemnt refers to

Police officers[edit]​

In DPP v Orum [1989] 1 WLR 88, [1988] 3 All ER 449, [1989] 88 Cr App R 261 the Divisional Court confirmed that police officers are not unable to be victims of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 caused by swearing and other abusive/threatening behavior, but this behaviour must be in excess of what the officer is or should be used to.

Glidewell LJ said:

I find nothing in the context of the Act of 1986 to persuade me that a police officer may not be a person who is caused harassment, alarm or distress by the various kinds of words and conduct to which section 5(1) applies. I would therefore answer the question in the affirmative, that a police officer can be a person likely to be caused harassment and so on. However, that is not to say that the opposite is necessarily the case, namely, it is not to say that every police officer in this situation is to be assumed to be a person who is caused harassment. Very frequently words and behaviour with which police officers will be wearily familiar will have little emotional impact on them save that of boredom. It may well be that, in appropriate circumstances, justices will decide (indeed they might decide in the present case) as a question of fact that the words and behaviour were not likely in all the circumstances to cause harassment, alarm or distress to either of the police officers. That is a question of fact for the justices to be decided in all the circumstances, the time, the place, the nature of the words used, who the police officers are, and so on.

In Southard v DPP [2006] EWHC 3449 (Admin), [2006] All ER (D) 101, Fulford J. said "I see no basis for the original written argument that this criminal provision is not available when police officers alone are the likely audience or target.", although the court acknowledged the tide is slowly turning on such incidents:

"Finally, although the court considered that the facts of this case came near to the borderline as to whether the ingredients of the offence were made out, it is clear that they concluded"

Holloway v DPP (Admn 21 Oct 2004) Ref: [2004] EWHC 2621 (Admin)) also states that a charge relying on the fact that someone "might have, or could have seen" the conduct is insufficient, compared to whether or not anyone actually did.[5]

 

[bluethrunthru]

GMP shit too - as bad as here with Durham and Cleveland - its strange how the Police are so conditioned they are always right that they overlook the stuff they use as evidence in cases like paper trails and like Couzens overlook things like CCTV - its got to change

Inside Greater Manchester Police's culture of denial and secrecy

In the first of a two-part investigation, Jen Williams reports on what really went wrong at Britain’s second largest force.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

The wider point here though is that people who commit serious crimes usually graduate to them from lesser crimes. How many times do you read about a murderer who has previous convictions for abh gbh etc etc

If we got hold of these cunts earlier, gave them punitive sentences and made prison less of a cakewalk the streets would be safer. The only key point really is to keep them all in jail as long as possible - once a **** always a **** in my experience.

Why not just kill them all?

They won't reoffend then.

What on earth does this have to do with a former police officer with no previous crimes who committed rape and murder?

Maybe you could start a new thread to discuss rather than pollute this one.