Councillors label police commissioner's crime plan for Wiltshire as 'almost hopeless' (From Wiltshire Times)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text WILTS TIMES to 80360 or email us
Councillors label police commissioner's crime plan for Wiltshire as 'almost hopeless'
10:54am Monday 4th March 2013 in Wiltshire By Jill Crooks
Angus Macpherson
Councillors have criticised the Wiltshire Police and Crime Commissioner, Angus Macpherson’s, vision for the county and said it contains nothing about his priorities on tackling crime.
Mr Macpherson gave a presentation on his draft Police and Crime Plan for Wiltshire at a meeting of the Wiltshire Police and Crime Panel last Friday in Devizes.
The plan, which is out for public consultation until March 10, covers the next four years.
In it Mr Macpherson has set six priorities - reducing crime and anti social behaviour, protecting vulnerable people, putting victims first, reducing offending, improving the police’s customer service and response to calls for assistance.
Specific proposals include reducing crime and anti social behaviour by 10 per cent, setting up a £1 million innovation fund for organisations and groups to apply for money to reduce crime and increasing the number of Special Constables to 300 (currently there are 180) working at least 16 hours a month
Mr Macpherson, who was elected as Commissioner last November, also wants more people to volunteer in schemes such as Neighbourhood Watch and Community Speed Watch.
But members of the panel were critical of the Commissioner’s plan claiming it placed an over reliance on volunteer involvement.
Members also said the draft plan did not define anti social behaviour and therefore any measure of how it had improved or not would be meaningless.
Wiltshire councillor Richard Britton,chairman of the panel, said there was nothing in the plan that talked about tackling specific crimes.
Mr Macpherson, whose salary is £70,000, said operational policing was the responsibility of Chief Constable Patrick Geenty.
Wiltshire councillor Chris Caswill said: “I like a lot about your priorities - it’s very laudable bringing victim support to the fore and focusing on cutting re-offending. However, this a Police and Crime Plan which says almost nothing about policing and nothing about crime.
"Where are your priorities in relation to crime, for example deaths and injuries on the roads, rural crime, violent crime? You are completely silent on that in the plan. I regard this (plan) as almost hopeless.”
Wiltshire councillor Mike Hewitt agreed: “It’s very broad and very woolly. There’s nothing hard, fast and solid in it.”
The panel also expressed concern about the level of reserves that the Office of the Commissioner will have, which will be about £12 million at the end of this month (March).
The £1 million innovation fund is proposed to come out of the reserves but some councillors thought more money could be taken out of the reserves to pay for other priorities.
Comments(101)
Yer Tis
says...
11:13am Mon 4 Mar 13
We are used to the Police not having priorities, we are used to senior staff passing the buck, we are used to senior staff being vague and not dealing with specific is, we are used to Wiltshire Police blaming everyone but themselves. So when (and I really hope this isn't going to be the case) this plan goes belly up, who will be to blame .... lets guess everyone except the PCC and the senior officers!
lazarus
says...
11:28am Mon 4 Mar 13
Tim Newroman
says...
11:31am Mon 4 Mar 13
A total of around 22% of criminals who do manage to find themselves in court are found 'not guilty'.
The chance of being actually taken to court, found guilty and then given a worthwhile sentence is very, very slight. This is the main reason so many criminals are happy to reoffend, they know the odds are massively in their favour.
It's the courts where our problems lie. The judges themselves are all too aware of who causes the majority of crime in our town, they just choose to still pretend that these people have something to offer and might be able to be 'rehabilitated' - despite all the evidence proving that it's very unlikely (let alone their own personal experience at having to see these same people standing before them every time they're let back out of prison).
Chowmai
says...
12:26pm Mon 4 Mar 13
As far as I am aware the NHS is, in these frugal times, ensuring that there is ‘no fat’ in its staffing levels.
On page 30 we read “I will work with my partners in local government and health to invest in additional independent victim-focused services through leverage of the Victim Surcharge and other appropriate funding streams. At the same time however I will be encouraging delivery partners to make greater use of volunteering capacity themselves.”
And then on page 46 of his plan the Macpherson states: "I will therefore be working with my local authority and health partners to dovetail with their existing commissioning and monitoring arrangements. This means I will be able to minimise cost whilst ensuring that communities are able to see the level of service they should be receiving,"
So, one asks two questions:-
1) At a time when fewer adults are volunteering and when those who are volunteering are doing so to gain experience to enhance their employability and move into paid work how can the PCC guarantee a static and continuous level of support for victims, and the professionals he expects to work alongside volunteers?
2) As manpower levels are reduced across the board within the NHS-PCT and local authorities, How does the PCC expect public servants, who are already overstretched by ‘absorbing the work of the redundant’ , to take on any increased workload caused by a dovetailing relationship?
itsamess3
says...
12:41pm Mon 4 Mar 13
"It's the courts where our problems lie. The judges themselves are all too aware of who causes the majority of crime in our town, they just choose to still pretend that these people have something to offer and might be able to be 'rehabilitated' - despite all the evidence proving that it's very unlikely (let alone their own personal experience at having to see these same people standing before them every time they're let back out of prison).”
Same old drivel day after day--the problem being you have no proof of what you say to be true. If you have i feel sure you would have sent that proof to the correct body--complete with a full transcript of the full proceedings and legal submissions as to how the particular judge was so manifestly wrong.
Similarly so you attack defence lawyers who also come under scrutiny rulings as the law is clear in the respect--should a client admit the crime and ask the lawyer to enter a plea of not guilty--the lawyer must refuse the case. Likewise the lawyer can only submit mitigating circumstances if social reports ordered by the judge contain that information.
Time you spent a little time sitting thyough a few cases--then you just might see what really happens instead of reading half reportys in the press.
Chowmai
says...
12:41pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Chowmai
says...
1:09pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Hmmmf
says...
1:24pm Mon 4 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:
Time you spent a little time sitting thyough a few cases--then you just might see what really happens instead of reading half reportys in the press.
And yet it's difficult to avoid coming to the same conclusion as Tim Newroman when the local rag is full of examples such as these: http://goo.gl/hy3fd
This one in particular attracted my attention:
Adver wrote:
"Judge goes back on threat of jail for drug dealer"
A cannabis dealer given a last chance by a judge was caught with drugs less than three months later. But despite warning Nikolai Snitynski ‘take it from me, if you breach this you will go to prison’, Judge Douglas Field has given him another opportunity to prove he can get clean.
Perception is reality, after all.
house on the hill
says...
2:04pm Mon 4 Mar 13
itsamess3
says...
2:21pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Perception and assumptions-nor news reports give details of social reports to which may have bearing on the decision.
All parties have the opportunity to examine and present the facts--and the right of appeal by both prosecution and defence exists against a sentence if they believe the judge was wrong.
There is no record of an appeal by either party in that case which suggests both accepted that decision.
Perhaps if the police or CPS presented better evidence--the decision may have differed.
Silent Majority
says...
2:25pm Mon 4 Mar 13
I would imaging the answer is almost certainly No.
For if he had ever been victimised in a persistent manner over many months by a gang of organised bullies and petty criminals who come at night like the cowards that they are,destroying your property and terrorising your family, he would know for certain that the quality of evidence and the speed with which it can be gathered is crucial in stopping the anti social/criminal behaviour effectively and dealing with the perpetrators in such a fashion that they don't re-offend because it is not in their best interest to do so for fear of the legal consequense such as jail and eviction from their comfort zones.
And so it is Angus, spend some of your gravy on turning your victims into effective witnesses and watch the crime figures drop significantly. A win win situation.
Victimes become effective witnesses and suffer less, criminal and anti social behaviour drops, less re-offending, it ain't rocket science.
So confident am I that this advice will not be heeded I will pledge £50 to a charity of Angus's choosing if he can prove to me and other victims of anti social/criminal behaviour that the status quo can be changed within the next three months from today by introducing a free programme of training repeat victims to become effective evidence gathers so becoming effective witnesses and therefore reducing their suffering.
Just think of all that lovely gravy able to be saved at each stage of the process. Hmm their might even be some left over at the end, that would be great in these hard times wouldn't it?
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
2:34pm Mon 4 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:Social reports should have naff all to do with sentencing for most crimes. An individual who commits a crime should be recognised as someone who made a decision to do so.
Hmmmf
Perception and assumptions-nor news reports give details of social reports to which may have bearing on the decision.
All parties have the opportunity to examine and present the facts--and the right of appeal by both prosecution and defence exists against a sentence if they believe the judge was wrong.
There is no record of an appeal by either party in that case which suggests both accepted that decision.
Perhaps if the police or CPS presented better evidence--the decision may have differed.
There have been a number of cases reported where someone commiting a violent crime against a person has been let off from jail
A few examples for you.
http://www.swindonad
vertiser.co.uk/news/
10101435.Brothers_wa
ited_to_attack_ex_gi
rlfriend/
http://www.swindonad
vertiser.co.uk/news/
4509719.Violent_thug
_avoids_jail_for_rob
bery/
Here's an interesting example where even the judge was amazed at how lenient a sentence he had to pass was.
http://www.swindonad
vertiser.co.uk/news/
9429049.Judge_appall
ed_at_paltry_sentenc
e/
Many people do not realise they can appeal a sentence.
Tim Newroman
says...
2:40pm Mon 4 Mar 13
I am fully aware of how the legal process works. Unfortunately, that's also how I know how it's exploited by defence lawyers and undermined and misinterpreted by others.
Your bluster and attempted defence of the indefensible really comes to nothing when we consider the actual facts: criminals behind bars cannot commit further widespread crimes within the public arena. Also, it is very, very clear (and a matter of documented evidence, should you wish to peruse the facts) that the judiciary very rarely, if ever, impose maximum sentences for any crimes.
As others have noted, a quick read through the Adver - on just about any day you care to randomly select - will show examples of judges telling convicts that they actually should be sending them to prison... and then no doing so.
Impossible for you to try and defend that kind of behaviour, I'm afraid.
People are starting to realise precisely why our crime rates are not falling as they should be.
Tim Newroman
says...
2:58pm Mon 4 Mar 13
A woman who, her latest murder victim's husband correctly pointed out in court, 'should not have been out on our streets'.
The criminal justice system felt it acceptable that, after she'd murdered her own mother, she should be released back into the community after just six years.
Entirely inevitably, she murdered again and tried her best to murder a third person.
Her sentence today rather gives away the fact that the system, via the judge in question, realise just how bad it looks that yet another innocent person has ended up dying due to the insistence of the system not to deal with convicted criminals appropriately.
The same thing happens, on various levels, up and down the country, ever day, in every town, city and village.
The people who are forced to fund this dismally failed, dangerous and close to evil experiment in leniency and 'rehabilitation' are completely sick of it.
Empty Car Park
says...
3:15pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Hmmmf
says...
4:59pm Mon 4 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:
Perhaps if the police or CPS presented better evidence--the decision may have differed.
Seriously? The evidence presented by the CPS as gathered by the police is what obtains a conviction. It's only after a guilty verdict that the Judge then decides what sentence to impose in line with guidelines laid down by Government.
And as others have pointed out, why should 'social reports' have any bearing at all on sentencing? What difference does it make to a victim of crime if the offender is 'the father of a child', or 'is now in a relationship' or 'is serious about getting off drugs'? Criminals have a choice. Victims don't. Social reports are nothing more than a sop to bleeding-heart liberalism and an attempt at keeping the cost of prisons down, at the expense of victims and of justice.
itsamess3
says...
5:29pm Mon 4 Mar 13
You do like to use newspaper items that rarely paint the full picture. Study the transcripts then you would get the full picture.
Solicitors/barrister
s/counsel have a duty to advise their client as to appeals as to the CPS in relation to the police case.
So yes all criminals will know about right of appeal.
Tim
"I am fully aware of how the legal process works. Unfortunately, that's also how I know how it's exploited by defence lawyers and undermined and misinterpreted by others"
Clearly you do not.
As to the lady convicted-you should have read the IPCC report as it completely condemns the police as had they acted on 999 calls fully by the lady the murder may have been avoided.
She was released from a secure mental institution with strict conditions.
Better if you read these things before you claim to know it all.
There is every chance the sentence will be appealled due to police negligence and she will be placed in a mental unit.
This does show how important the role of the new PCCs to tackle the many problems with policing. Gathering evidence of quality to ensure all the facts are known not just the ones the police believe is enough.
Build more prisons as 3 have closed this year. I also believe any criminal who breaches any condition should be sent straight to prison sily for defying the judges order--then complete the original sentence.
Tim Newroman
says...
5:37pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Criminals defy judge's orders on a routine basis, rarely does anything come of it. Indeed, several local judges seem more than happy to give numerous 'last' chances.
Tim Newroman
says...
5:43pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Just 6 years for her first murder - where she was deemed insane - and yet 37 years for her second murder - where she's been told she's responsible for her own actions. Hmmm.
Let's all just be honest, the murdered woman's husband was correct. Anyone with any level of intelligence knew she would murder again - indeed, she did and tried to murder a third person.
Yet another horrific example of the consequences of the system's insane belief in the myth of 'rehabilitation' and pandering to convicted criminals. These fatal gambles they engage in have got to stop.
itsamess3
says...
5:43pm Mon 4 Mar 13
I do agree with you to a point. However as solicitors etc use the social reports to enter a plea of mitigation its up to the judge to decide if the defendant is worth a chance--or believes the same they would not offend again--if they do there should be no more chances.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
5:54pm Mon 4 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:Please enlighten us with this so called fuller picture then.
Lord Ash
You do like to use newspaper items that rarely paint the full picture. Study the transcripts then you would get the full picture.
Solicitors/barrister
s/counsel have a duty to advise their client as to appeals as to the CPS in relation to the police case.
So yes all criminals will know about right of appeal.
Tim
"I am fully aware of how the legal process works. Unfortunately, that's also how I know how it's exploited by defence lawyers and undermined and misinterpreted by others"
Clearly you do not.
As to the lady convicted-you should have read the IPCC report as it completely condemns the police as had they acted on 999 calls fully by the lady the murder may have been avoided.
She was released from a secure mental institution with strict conditions.
Better if you read these things before you claim to know it all.
There is every chance the sentence will be appealled due to police negligence and she will be placed in a mental unit.
This does show how important the role of the new PCCs to tackle the many problems with policing. Gathering evidence of quality to ensure all the facts are known not just the ones the police believe is enough.
Build more prisons as 3 have closed this year. I also believe any criminal who breaches any condition should be sent straight to prison sily for defying the judges order--then complete the original sentence.
Pick anyone of the links I provided and give a better picture.
Some how I suspect you'll do nothing of the sort because you hide behind comments that are rarely backed up by external reputable sources in a bid to become Swindon's most reputable know-it-all.
Go on humour me......!
Perhaps you can explain the fuller picture as to why the woman who was the victim of assault by three grown men who reportedly lay in wait to ambush her. There is absolutely no justification for not sending those men to prison.
If you can do that, I'll put £50 to the womans aid charity (http://www.womensai
d.org.uk/default.asp
). The conditions are that you need to back up any facts were not accurately reported.
I'll put my money where my mouth is; will you do the same!
WR950
says...
6:01pm Mon 4 Mar 13
PCC's - nobody voted for them and nobody wanted them. They're hopeless now and they always will be.
Millions of pounds wasted on a role with no power, no point and no support. Role on the next general election.
itsamess3
says...
6:27pm Mon 4 Mar 13
What a really poor attempt
As stated--the only ways to know all the facts of a case are 1) to attend the trial or b) get the original transcript and judgement.
I would advise you not to believe all that is in the papers as very rarely is full coverage given.
Obviously there were facts in that case for such a decision--which neither you or i are aware of--or an appeal by the CPS would have been entered.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
6:38pm Mon 4 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:But you claim to know it all.
Lordash
What a really poor attempt
As stated--the only ways to know all the facts of a case are 1) to attend the trial or b) get the original transcript and judgement.
I would advise you not to believe all that is in the papers as very rarely is full coverage given.
Obviously there were facts in that case for such a decision--which neither you or i are aware of--or an appeal by the CPS would have been entered.
The point previously made by me was that "Social reports should have naff all to do with sentencing for most crimes. An individual who commits a crime should be recognised as someone who made a decision to do so.". There should be no question that in this specific case the guilty parties should have been sentenced to jail as it was very much pre-meditated multi person assault.
You made the claim that such articles as the one I linked to rarely report facts. Bit odd that as they will be based on happens inside the court room. These are probably the most factual articles from a newspaper because there is little scope to make them otherwise.
So for all your bluster about how you know about this and know about that you can't back anything up.
Well everyone commenting here now can see what your really all about.
itsamess3
says...
6:45pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Not very good at reading or facts are you?
The woman was not convicted of murder in her earlier case--it was reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
You obviously never bothered to read the IPCC report which would tell you the woman dialled 999 stating the voices were back and she was likely to kill again--the police took her to hospital and left. She phoned 3 more times and the police never ran a PNC check.
I assume you can read the national papers--you can be sure all this will be looked into as even the families of the victims are outraged.
A death and serious injuries could have been avoided.
Facts please not inaccurate comments.
Tim Newroman
says...
6:51pm Mon 4 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:'Obviously'.
Lordash
What a really poor attempt
As stated--the only ways to know all the facts of a case are 1) to attend the trial or b) get the original transcript and judgement.
I would advise you not to believe all that is in the papers as very rarely is full coverage given.
Obviously there were facts in that case for such a decision--which neither you or i are aware of--or an appeal by the CPS would have been entered.
This is the usual attempt used to hide the reality.
It's never a really, really poor sentencing decision or undue leniency... oh, no.
There's always an 'obviously reason why the decision seems so bad, it's just that, rather mysteriously, nobody actually knows what it is.
It's like a religious, circular argument: 'The bad sentence isn't bad because it can't be bad because sentencing is never bad'.
itsamess3
says...
7:01pm Mon 4 Mar 13
The fact of the matter being the papers report the juicy bits rather than the full case.
Clearly the lawyers for the CPC had better infomation than you or the article if they believed the judge was wrong they would have challenged the verdict via appeal.
Guess they had better information than you then.
itsamess3
says...
7:10pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:So you got it wrong and are not man enough to admit it so you resort to drivel.
itsamess3 wrote:'Obviously'.
Lordash
What a really poor attempt
As stated--the only ways to know all the facts of a case are 1) to attend the trial or b) get the original transcript and judgement.
I would advise you not to believe all that is in the papers as very rarely is full coverage given.
Obviously there were facts in that case for such a decision--which neither you or i are aware of--or an appeal by the CPS would have been entered.
This is the usual attempt used to hide the reality.
It's never a really, really poor sentencing decision or undue leniency... oh, no.
There's always an 'obviously reason why the decision seems so bad, it's just that, rather mysteriously, nobody actually knows what it is.
It's like a religious, circular argument: 'The bad sentence isn't bad because it can't be bad because sentencing is never bad'.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
7:11pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Quote "Clearly the lawyers for the CPC had better infomation than you or the article if they believed the judge was wrong they would have challenged the verdict via appeal"......
Perhaps it is more evidence of a fundamentally broken criminal justice system.
Bobfm ,
says...
7:11pm Mon 4 Mar 13
The prosecution has the right to appeal an unduly lenient sentence. Perhaps, Tim, you should join Oliver, Mr Blackwell, 20Eyes, I 2 Could Do That etc (as they all have very similar views to you on this issue) and lobby the CPS to appeal every time you believe a judge has failed to sentence correctly.
And that's no sarcastic. For what it's worth I actually agree with the general principle other than you do bang on about it ad nauseum most days on this site. Action rather than rhetoric would be better and, if you have taken action, maybe explain what you've done as that might motivate others to do similar.
One thing is for sure, simply moaning that Judges are the problem on a local rag comments site will not change anything.
Tim Newroman
says...
8:12pm Mon 4 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:Entirely the opposite - I merely pointed out how wrong you are, and the nature of the erroneous 'argument' you use to try and deflect attention from how wrong you are.
Tim Newroman wrote:So you got it wrong and are not man enough to admit it so you resort to drivel.
itsamess3 wrote:'Obviously'.
Lordash
What a really poor attempt
As stated--the only ways to know all the facts of a case are 1) to attend the trial or b) get the original transcript and judgement.
I would advise you not to believe all that is in the papers as very rarely is full coverage given.
Obviously there were facts in that case for such a decision--which neither you or i are aware of--or an appeal by the CPS would have been entered.
This is the usual attempt used to hide the reality.
It's never a really, really poor sentencing decision or undue leniency... oh, no.
There's always an 'obviously reason why the decision seems so bad, it's just that, rather mysteriously, nobody actually knows what it is.
It's like a religious, circular argument: 'The bad sentence isn't bad because it can't be bad because sentencing is never bad'.
Tim Newroman
says...
8:17pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Easy to blame the judges but they have to follow sentencing guidance set by the Government.
Oh, if only they did follow their own sentencing guidelines (which, incidentally, are not set by the government - not directly, anyway, depending on how cynical you wish to be).
The judiciary are, I'm afraid, to blame for their 'interesting' interpretation of both sentencing guidelines and also their readiness to accept the so-called 'mitigating' factors that are predictably trotted out by defence lawyers as a matter of course.
Why? Because they know a quick lie and embellishment of the truth quickly and easily secures months and years off their clients' sentences.
The utter nonsense of their previously hopelessly addicted clients suddenly managing to become free from drugs during the short period between being charged and appearing in court being the most ridiculous of them all.
Tim Newroman
says...
8:19pm Mon 4 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:Again, a circular - and errouneous - argument.
Lordash
The fact of the matter being the papers report the juicy bits rather than the full case.
Clearly the lawyers for the CPC had better infomation than you or the article if they believed the judge was wrong they would have challenged the verdict via appeal.
Guess they had better information than you then.
Do try harder. Although, I think we all realise you're fighting something of a losing battle.
itsamess3
says...
8:24pm Mon 4 Mar 13
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:As the CPS did not pursue an appeal on grounds the sentence was unduly lenient that suggests there was no prospect of an appeal succeeding.
Please back up YOUR claim?
Quote "Clearly the lawyers for the CPC had better infomation than you or the article if they believed the judge was wrong they would have challenged the verdict via appeal"......
Perhaps it is more evidence of a fundamentally broken criminal justice system.
They would have studied the full transcript-rather than what the papers said.
Surely you have the intelligence to understand that?
anotherimigrant
says...
8:39pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Same old drivel day after day--the problem being you have no proof of what you say to be true. If you have i feel sure you would have sent that proof to the correct body--complete with a full transcript of the full proceedings and legal submissions as to how the particular judge was so manifestly wrong.
Why would anyone want to waste their time complaining about a stupid judge?
what a stupid idea.
You cant even get proper redress if you complain about crooked lawyers, try it some time.
Better still look on the great "solicitors from hell" check out Swindon. tell me and others what you think after.
The police are a waste of space, the solicitors are no better, the judiciary have brought our country to be the laughing stock of the whole world.
And the McPherson person think that saying "I will reduce crime" will fix all the problems.... dream on.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
8:45pm Mon 4 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:What rubbish.
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:As the CPS did not pursue an appeal on grounds the sentence was unduly lenient that suggests there was no prospect of an appeal succeeding.
Please back up YOUR claim?
Quote "Clearly the lawyers for the CPC had better infomation than you or the article if they believed the judge was wrong they would have challenged the verdict via appeal"......
Perhaps it is more evidence of a fundamentally broken criminal justice system.
They would have studied the full transcript-rather than what the papers said.
Surely you have the intelligence to understand that?
Since you think this happens can you find any evidence where the CPS has challenged the sentencing of a convicted person?
It doesn't happen because the criminal justice system is broken and doesn't work.
Surely even YOU can understand that?
Once again you fail to back up your statements with fact.
anotherimigrant
says...
9:08pm Mon 4 Mar 13
This despicable turd wriggled and wriggled but no one wanted him. Not like the other ahole who thinks it,s great to beat up women and smash their faces in, and then complains that he,s been wrongfully dismissed.
CPS statement on dismissal of Ali Dizaei's appeal against conviction
14/02/2013
Gaon Hart, Senior Crown Advocate for the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: "We welcome today's decision and the clarification it provides of the legal position. Mr Dizaei has been convicted by two separate juries for his conduct on that night and we hope that this concludes the matter.
"At the heart of this case was the mistreatment of a member of the public by a very senior police officer and Dizaei's attempt to abuse his position of trust to cover up his actions. However, no-one is above the law and those who abuse their position and betray the trust the public place in them should expect to be brought to justice."
Now according to this statement we can sue the McPherson person if he abuses the trust we put in him.
Now I don't trust him so I cant sue him, but if you think he,s capable of anything other than, wrongfully being over paid, you may have a case.
Localboy86
says...
9:40pm Mon 4 Mar 13
itsamess3
says...
10:40pm Mon 4 Mar 13
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:Well i can only conclude you know nothing.
itsamess3 wrote:What rubbish.
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:As the CPS did not pursue an appeal on grounds the sentence was unduly lenient that suggests there was no prospect of an appeal succeeding.
Please back up YOUR claim?
Quote "Clearly the lawyers for the CPC had better infomation than you or the article if they believed the judge was wrong they would have challenged the verdict via appeal"......
Perhaps it is more evidence of a fundamentally broken criminal justice system.
They would have studied the full transcript-rather than what the papers said.
Surely you have the intelligence to understand that?
Since you think this happens can you find any evidence where the CPS has challenged the sentencing of a convicted person?
It doesn't happen because the criminal justice system is broken and doesn't work.
Surely even YOU can understand that?
Once again you fail to back up your statements with fact.
Look on the CCA site for appeals against sentence.
You have the facts.
The criminal justice system works well--thats why the prisons are full.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
10:48pm Mon 4 Mar 13
That is why criminals are let out early. Many never serve the full sentence that is passed down. Many more never receive adequate punishments in the first place.
The system is clearly broken; yet your in complete denial.
You conclude that I know nothing; which is funny, as you are routinely demonstrating that the same can be said of you.
roberto5
says...
11:22pm Mon 4 Mar 13
FreeBornJohn
says...
11:31pm Mon 4 Mar 13
itsamess3
says...
11:54pm Mon 4 Mar 13
Wow--full marks--so where can the judges send convicted persons then?
That is why criminals are let out early. Many never serve the full sentence that is passed down. Many more never receive adequate punishments in the first place.
Criminals are let out early due to remission rules-they can lose that time for breaking prison rules.
There are far too many fallacies as to our legal system by folk like yourself who believe they have all the answers-usually the wrong answers.
Still About
says...
11:58pm Mon 4 Mar 13
The prosecution has the right to appeal an unduly lenient sentence. Perhaps, Tim, you should join Oliver, Mr Blackwell, 20Eyes, I 2 Could Do That etc (as they all have very similar views to you on this issue) and lobby the CPS to appeal every time you believe a judge has failed to sentence correctly.
I believe you are confusing the login of "I 2 Could B" with the login of "I Could Do That"
" I Could Do That" is a pleasant, easy going chap who does a lot of work for charity and is a fine citizen. He joins discussions on Talk Swindon very occasionally.
"I 2 Could B" was a somewhat less pleasant fellow who tried to impersonate ICDT and despises Talk Swindon
itsamess3
says...
12:02am Tue 5 Mar 13
Wow--full marks--so where can the judges send convicted persons then?
That is why criminals are let out early. Many never serve the full sentence that is passed down. Many more never receive adequate punishments in the first place.
Criminals are let out early due to remission rules-they can lose that time for breaking prison rules.
There are far too many fallacies as to our legal system by folk like yourself who believe they have all the answers-usually the wrong answers.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
7:42am Tue 5 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:So you agree that prisons are full to capacity and that we have to let criminals out early.... Therefore it is reasonable to conclude the system is broken!
Prisons maybe full, but there are other reasons for that; lack of capacity being the obvious one.
Wow--full marks--so where can the judges send convicted persons then?
That is why criminals are let out early. Many never serve the full sentence that is passed down. Many more never receive adequate punishments in the first place.
Criminals are let out early due to remission rules-they can lose that time for breaking prison rules.
There are far too many fallacies as to our legal system by folk like yourself who believe they have all the answers-usually the wrong answers.
If someone is sentenced to a set term, why the hell should they be let back into society early?
The fallacies seem to be coming from the deniers like yourself that the system works. The re-offending rates are another piece of evidence to suggest that it doesn't.
The number of crimes that the police, CPS etc, don't even follow up on is another indicator is the system is broken.
Why not just admit it?
Maybe your one of those of the criminal justice system gravy train and don't want to upset the status quo.
Localboy86
says...
7:52am Tue 5 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:I find it very difficult to read any of your posts on here knowing you once alleged to have set up hidden cameras to spy on a certain pub landlord
Prisons maybe full, but there are other reasons for that; lack of capacity being the obvious one.
Wow--full marks--so where can the judges send convicted persons then?
That is why criminals are let out early. Many never serve the full sentence that is passed down. Many more never receive adequate punishments in the first place.
Criminals are let out early due to remission rules-they can lose that time for breaking prison rules.
There are far too many fallacies as to our legal system by folk like yourself who believe they have all the answers-usually the wrong answers.
Chowmai
says...
8:26am Tue 5 Mar 13
Tim Newroman
says...
8:28am Tue 5 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:No, the prisons are full because more people are committing crimes that command a custodial sentence.
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:Well i can only conclude you know nothing.
itsamess3 wrote:What rubbish.
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:As the CPS did not pursue an appeal on grounds the sentence was unduly lenient that suggests there was no prospect of an appeal succeeding.
Please back up YOUR claim?
Quote "Clearly the lawyers for the CPC had better infomation than you or the article if they believed the judge was wrong they would have challenged the verdict via appeal"......
Perhaps it is more evidence of a fundamentally broken criminal justice system.
They would have studied the full transcript-rather than what the papers said.
Surely you have the intelligence to understand that?
Since you think this happens can you find any evidence where the CPS has challenged the sentencing of a convicted person?
It doesn't happen because the criminal justice system is broken and doesn't work.
Surely even YOU can understand that?
Once again you fail to back up your statements with fact.
Look on the CCA site for appeals against sentence.
You have the facts.
The criminal justice system works well--thats why the prisons are full.
The sad reality is that the criminal justice system does NOT work.
There should be at least another 50,000 people in prison today, but they are not.
This is due to a combination of a lack of prison building and the judiciary's persistence in attempting to keep those who have brought custodial sentences upon themselves from going to prison.
The CPS, as you well know, rarely appeals unduly lenient sentences because, frankly, the only thing that concerns them is ticking a box that shows they secured a conviction - the actual sentence is largely an irrelevance to them. The prosecution lawyer gets paid regardless.
It's really only defence lawyers who appeal sentences, mainly because it means more money for them and because they have absolutely nothing to lose by doing so. It's essentially a no-lose gamble that allows them to generate an additional invoice (usually to the legal aid people, ie, us).
Tim Newroman
says...
8:30am Tue 5 Mar 13
Still About wrote:Ah, another login, Jase?
Bobfm
The prosecution has the right to appeal an unduly lenient sentence. Perhaps, Tim, you should join Oliver, Mr Blackwell, 20Eyes, I 2 Could Do That etc (as they all have very similar views to you on this issue) and lobby the CPS to appeal every time you believe a judge has failed to sentence correctly.
I believe you are confusing the login of "I 2 Could B" with the login of "I Could Do That"
" I Could Do That" is a pleasant, easy going chap who does a lot of work for charity and is a fine citizen. He joins discussions on Talk Swindon very occasionally.
"I 2 Could B" was a somewhat less pleasant fellow who tried to impersonate ICDT and despises Talk Swindon
Localboy86
says...
8:37am Tue 5 Mar 13
Chowmai wrote:I bet he couldn't give a stuff, you generally only get nimbys, moany old men or the occasional crazy barman on this site.
Th PCC must be rubbing his hands in glee knowing that the comments section on the article discussing him has moved totally away from Wilthire CC's reaction to his 'draft-plan'.
Tim Newroman
says...
9:09am Tue 5 Mar 13
Chowmai wrote:Doesn't really make any difference. His 'plan' won't change anything and whatever he's come up with will all be forgotten within a week in any case.
Th PCC must be rubbing his hands in glee knowing that the comments section on the article discussing him has moved totally away from Wilthire CC's reaction to his 'draft-plan'.
He can't change anything anyway.
itsamess3
says...
10:52am Tue 5 Mar 13
Chowmai wrote:The PCC has a distinct role in trying to budget and produce an efficient police force in tackling crime.
Th PCC must be rubbing his hands in glee knowing that the comments section on the article discussing him has moved totally away from Wilthire CC's reaction to his 'draft-plan'.
Councils generally make too many demands on the service--particularl
y with ticket-book policing.
All police should be more pro-active in dealing with real crime by patrolling our streets.
I suggest anyone with sensible views on how to improve policing writes to the PCC--he may listen as it is a new role.
Always Grumpy
says...
10:59am Tue 5 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:"I suggest anyone with sensible views on how to improve policing writes to the PCC--he may listen as it is a new role."
Chowmai wrote:The PCC has a distinct role in trying to budget and produce an efficient police force in tackling crime.
Th PCC must be rubbing his hands in glee knowing that the comments section on the article discussing him has moved totally away from Wilthire CC's reaction to his 'draft-plan'.
Councils generally make too many demands on the service--particularl
y with ticket-book policing.
All police should be more pro-active in dealing with real crime by patrolling our streets.
I suggest anyone with sensible views on how to improve policing writes to the PCC--he may listen as it is a new role.
Sound advice indeed. Obviously you won't be writing to the PCC then!
itsamess3
says...
12:13pm Tue 5 Mar 13
You are a long way from the truth as to how the justice system works. You must realise your obsessive comments are no more than opinion rather than fact based.
Lawyers of all categories are wholly aware the judge has the power to reduce their costs for a variety of reasons down to a very basic level.
All appeals are first read by a single judge who either passes it to a full appeal--or deems it worthy to hear-or indeed if deemed frivolous penalties apply.
All convicted persons are advised of appeal rights and those appealing the severity of sentence are warned that the court have the right to increase the sentence if the appeal fails. Likewise if the CPS fail to prove the sentence was unduly lenient--then penalties also apply.
Do you realise how many prisons would be needed to house you pie in the sky estimate of waiting criminals.
Swindon has plenty of land--lets have one here eh.
Let us all hope the new PCC can instil some pride in our police to present quality evidence that warrants prison sentences as up to now they leave gaping holes for crims to slip through.
itsamess3
says...
12:57pm Tue 5 Mar 13
No need--know him very well.
Always Grumpy
says...
1:53pm Tue 5 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:You should choose your friends more carefully then. I wouldn't dream of moving in such low circles, but I suppose it's par for the course for you!
A.G.
No need--know him very well.
Tim Newroman
says...
3:10pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Yes, I know how many prisons are needed - both the minimum and the ideal amount.
The 50,000 figure is not 'pie in the sky' at all, far from it.
Do speak with your good friend and ask him to confirm what the police, nationally, have already made quite public and very clear.
The irony here is that you are the one obsessively attempting to defend the criminal justice system, even though you've previously told us you have a vested interest.
Comments on this thread make it clear that nobody is accepting your take on the situation, do understand that.
itsamess3
says...
4:26pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Never accepted your perception of the criminal justice system as you fall at every hurdle as you are too busy levelling false accusations at judges and lawyers of lies and deceit--great from a person who has had so many different logins here spouting the same old rubbish time and again.
Facts beat opinion every time--and you could not even give a true account as to the woman recently jailed-- no doubt you dispute the IPCC report that shows had the police ran basic checks--no-one would have been murdered or injured. You couldn't even get her previous case right--.the truth is best.
Tim Newroman
says...
4:46pm Tue 5 Mar 13
How did I get her previous case wrong?
Everything I have posted in this thread is entirely factual.
itsamess3
says...
5:34pm Tue 5 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:I think you should read back as i have pointed out ALL your errors.
@itsamess3: the Metropolitan Police themselves have, today, publically stated that they DIDN'T run a PNC check - so that makes your statement above seem a little strange, to say the least.
How did I get her previous case wrong?
Everything I have posted in this thread is entirely factual.
The Met had no choice to admit that as i had already pointed out the IPCC report--i also pointed out her original offence details--not murder.
I am told the conviction and sentence are to be appealled
Tim Newroman
says...
6:17pm Tue 5 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:None of the above makes any sense. Do try again.
Tim Newroman wrote:I think you should read back as i have pointed out ALL your errors.
@itsamess3: the Metropolitan Police themselves have, today, publically stated that they DIDN'T run a PNC check - so that makes your statement above seem a little strange, to say the least.
How did I get her previous case wrong?
Everything I have posted in this thread is entirely factual.
The Met had no choice to admit that as i had already pointed out the IPCC report--i also pointed out her original offence details--not murder.
I am told the conviction and sentence are to be appealled
Of course the sentence will be appealled, just as I have been pointing out all along, that was inevitable.
The sentence will, of course, be reduced, away from the public intensity of the media some weeks from now. It would also not be at all surprising if the conviction itself were amended to allow a much more unduly lenient sentence.
As soon as every saw the headline sentence of 37 years it was obvious the defence would appeal. It'd never be left at that, even for a double murderer.
jezercalne
says...
9:10pm Tue 5 Mar 13
itsamess3
says...
9:37pm Tue 5 Mar 13
There you go again--there was no double murder.
"Of course the sentence will be appealled, just as I have been pointing out all along, that was inevitable"
You did not say that either.
What you have done is make some serious allegations and claims and i of course asked someone to take a close look.
jezercalne
says...
12:37am Wed 6 Mar 13
itsamess3
says...
9:29am Wed 6 Mar 13
The PCC has the remit to budget to generally improve policing in wilts. As this is a new post as you say at considerable cost--how or if it will work we will have to wait and see. The PCC does say he welcomes ideas on policing and how to improve the service.
However with cuts to the budget it does appear to be a difficult task and could not happen overnight.
Tim Newroman
says...
12:04pm Wed 6 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:'Double murder'? I don't recall mentioning a 'double murder'.
Tim
There you go again--there was no double murder.
"Of course the sentence will be appealled, just as I have been pointing out all along, that was inevitable"
You did not say that either.
What you have done is make some serious allegations and claims and i of course asked someone to take a close look.
Do re-read the thread, I had previously pointed out that defence lawyers will usually appeal any sentence, especially lengthy ones, because they have nothing to lose in doing so and stand to make more money.
Still About
says...
12:51pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:Please don't keep on.
@itsamess3: the Metropolitan Police themselves have, today, publically stated that they DIDN'T run a PNC check - so that makes your statement above seem a little strange, to say the least.
How did I get her previous case wrong?
Everything I have posted in this thread is entirely factual.
It's very boring and the grown ups would like to have an adult, non offensive discussion, without your childish bickering and antagonising.
That's why your former login was barred
itsamess3
says...
6:43pm Wed 6 Mar 13
"As soon as every saw the headline sentence of 37 years it was obvious the defence would appeal. It'd never be left at that, even for a double murderer.”
Really--you never said that?
How would you feel if Wilts Police took 4 999 calls 1 at least by the woman stating the voices were telling her to kill and failed to PNC check her out.
Would you at the very least write to the PCC asking him to ensure that this could not happen here?
You claimed she murdered before when she was convicted of manslaughter with diminished responsibility.
Her cry for help to prevent her killing again was not listened to--the result one death and an attempt on a second life.
So yes it is very important for folk to write to the PCC highlighting that case to prevent something like that happening here--with the correct facts which you totally ignore.
itsamess3
says...
7:18pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Yes--there was absolutely no need to make post after post as to the claimed failings of the legal system.
The failings of the police to secure convictions through poor quality evidence and claimed unduly lenient sentences could be due to poor quality police evidence against the defendant are issues which should be raised with the PCC.
A good example was the tyre slashing that shows that in a fairly small area few if any police officers had been patrolling the area. The times reported being consistent with pubs and clubs closing--and you can guarantee there were plenty of officers collecting fines from the boisterous drinkers.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
7:40pm Wed 6 Mar 13
The criminal justice system is failing. You clearly don't accept that and that is your right, but many more people do think that and the reports in newspapers and on the television back it up day in day out. I previously gave you references and all you could do was hide behind "well the criminal justice system knows best and has information not in the public domain"......
The tyre slashing example is a red herring unless your proposing to put a policemen of every street corner....!
Your keen on your references, so a reference to police officers collecting fines please.....? Or are you simply making that up.
itsamess3
says...
8:29pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Really? Perhaps you should write to the PCC stating the facts you rely on and no doubt he would tell you quite honestly that he has no powers to interfere with the courts decisions.
What he can do is make sure that his officers present a full backgound as to gravity of the crime and counteract spurious mitigating circumstances.
The only way you can know the full details of everything said in court is to be there throughout ot obtain a full transcript as well you know papers only print what they choose to.
The tyre slashing--you mean having either car patrols or foot patrols would reap no rewards?
Are not the fixed penalty notices simply fines that if they were charged with the offence the courts would levy.
Or as they are not listed as crimes that keeps the crime figures lower.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
7:46am Thu 7 Mar 13
Just because the PCC has no powers no intervene, that doesn't mean the criminal justice system isn't failing?
I guess its okay for 3 blokes to hide in ambush to attack other people if there are mitigating circumstances.....
What has fixed penalty notices got to do with it...? That is simply a fudge to reduce crime statistics so that politicians and police leaders can claim they are winning against crime.
I noticed that you didn't actually provide any references again to your claims...... Funny that!
notscot
says...
9:31am Thu 7 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:What a ridiculous comment!!
Still About
Yes--there was absolutely no need to make post after post as to the claimed failings of the legal system.
The failings of the police to secure convictions through poor quality evidence and claimed unduly lenient sentences could be due to poor quality police evidence against the defendant are issues which should be raised with the PCC.
A good example was the tyre slashing that shows that in a fairly small area few if any police officers had been patrolling the area. The times reported being consistent with pubs and clubs closing--and you can guarantee there were plenty of officers collecting fines from the boisterous drinkers.
So - we'll simply employ you - crime levels will drop through the floor overnight!
Do us all a favour - explain how YOU would have known EXACTLY where to patrol because some fool is going to cause so much damage in such a RANDOM act?
On balance - there are police on patrol in the background, supporting those looking after the town centres (where generally most of the problems will surface) unfortunately we don't have officer numbers sufficient to stand at all junctions, covering all points.
Tell us - how many people (other than the random berk responsible)realised what whas going on WHILE it was happening? No-one.
If crime and ASB were THAT simple to police - there wouldn't be any.
Tim Newroman
says...
9:55am Thu 7 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:Do me a favour. The woman's first killing was murder. Sure, the CPS decided, as they so often do, to go for the easy conviction and dropped it to manslaughter. Do not that I made it very clear to you that the first killing was downgraded due to her 'mental health problems' and so-called 'diminished responsibility.'
6-17 tues 5 mar 13- and other posts.
"As soon as every saw the headline sentence of 37 years it was obvious the defence would appeal. It'd never be left at that, even for a double murderer.”
Really--you never said that?
How would you feel if Wilts Police took 4 999 calls 1 at least by the woman stating the voices were telling her to kill and failed to PNC check her out.
Would you at the very least write to the PCC asking him to ensure that this could not happen here?
You claimed she murdered before when she was convicted of manslaughter with diminished responsibility.
Her cry for help to prevent her killing again was not listened to--the result one death and an attempt on a second life.
So yes it is very important for folk to write to the PCC highlighting that case to prevent something like that happening here--with the correct facts which you totally ignore.
Now, that was just six years ago and she was 'mad', according to the experts. She then butchered another lady to death in the street in broad daylight and also attempted to hack another woman to death very shortly after... and yet the courts and experts now dismiss suggestions that she's mental and make no mention of 'diminished responsibilty'.
It must be obvious, even to the likes of you, that the first killing charge was a fudge. A mistake. A typical 'easy option' by the CPS.
Deny it all you wish, but do realise the criminal concerned has murdered twice. Just because she got away with the first one does not change the reality.
And, no, I would not write to the PCC 'asking him to ensure that this could not happen here?' because he cannot possibly control or be responsible for every single decision call that every officer makes. He would reply, 'No, I can assure you that can't happen here' and then, at some point, it would. We would then be told, 'Lessons will be learnt'.
It's all so predictable, and so routine, that we can know what will happen before it even does.
One question - why on earth do you suppose that it needs people to write to the PCC to highlight the case? Do you seriously think such a person in such a role would be oblivious to it?
itsamess3
says...
10:55am Thu 7 Mar 13
Did i say there should be a policeman on every corner?
How do you arrive at your claim it was a random act? Or are you suggesting everyone walks around at night with a strong and sharp enough implement to cut into a tyre?
Regular foot and car patrols throughout the town are a thing of the past--but were vital for intelligence gathering as generally the beat bobbies knew who and what was going on in their patch and less crime.
itsamess3
says...
1:08pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Do not make claims to have stated something you have not.
The fact being you are making malicious claims against the woman which are untrue.
In the recent case under normal circumstances i would agree the sentence was appropriate--however several reports strongly support the fact that the murder and attempted murder were completely avoidable.
It certainly would be of concern to most folk to know a murder could have been avoided through a simple check- much the same as in the local case when a basic error ruled out a confession to another murder.
Your obsession with claimed failings of the legal system consumes you to the point you never produce provable facts.
I do know that the original lawyers for that woman and the recent team are aware of your wild claims
"One question - why on earth do you suppose that it needs people to write to the PCC to highlight the case? Do you seriously think such a person in such a role would be oblivious to it?”
Quite simply because he is the PCC for wilts police and has the power to tighten up procedures within wilts police as he may or may not know the case as it did not happen in wilts.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
1:37pm Thu 7 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:Actually given the number of people that are alleged to carry knives its quite possible it was a random act.
notscot
Did i say there should be a policeman on every corner?
How do you arrive at your claim it was a random act? Or are you suggesting everyone walks around at night with a strong and sharp enough implement to cut into a tyre?
Regular foot and car patrols throughout the town are a thing of the past--but were vital for intelligence gathering as generally the beat bobbies knew who and what was going on in their patch and less crime.
itsamess3
says...
2:12pm Thu 7 Mar 13
"Actually given the number of people that are alleged to carry knives its quite possible it was a random act.”
Perhaps that's why police have powers to stop and search then-do go ask a tyre firm how difficult it is to slash a tyre that is fully inflated.
Police foot and car patrols could result in less crime and better intelligence.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
5:22pm Thu 7 Mar 13
To say that adding patrols could result is less crime is a meaningless comment; unless you really mean WOULD result in less crime.
There are lots of things that could result in less crime; depending on opinion. Whether they WOULD result in less crime is another matter.
Allowing the police to be armed could result in less crime. Whether it would or not is debatable and what the changes in dynamics to that crime would be are also debatable.
itsamess3
says...
5:50pm Thu 7 Mar 13
I guess you should write to the PCC and tell him to sell off the armed response vehicles and put the officers on the beat.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
6:00pm Thu 7 Mar 13
You cannot draw a conclusion between having officers on the street and their being less crime given that there are so many society changes over the same time period.
There you go again. More twisting and turning rather than addressing the points raised.....!
I guess you don't know the difference between COULD and WOULD; or as usual your just skirting around.
itsamess3
says...
6:30pm Thu 7 Mar 13
I addressed all your very stupid questions and points and the fact is there are no guarantees that any changes to policing would work.
Always Grumpy
says...
6:37pm Thu 7 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:No, you didn't answer anything, all you did was make yourself out to be an even bigger prat than usual. LOL
Lord
I addressed all your very stupid questions and points and the fact is there are no guarantees that any changes to policing would work.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
6:38pm Thu 7 Mar 13
But interestingly you use the statement "no guarantees that any changes to policing would work"....
Interesting because you believe the criminal justice systems is not broken and therefore surely it cannot possibly need any changes.
itsamess3
says...
7:53pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Always Grumpy wrote:Very much like you then.
itsamess3 wrote:No, you didn't answer anything, all you did was make yourself out to be an even bigger prat than usual. LOL
Lord
I addressed all your very stupid questions and points and the fact is there are no guarantees that any changes to policing would work.
itsamess3
says...
8:44pm Thu 7 Mar 13
I have pointed out areas that could improve crime detection and intelligence as local patrols give the public a chance to chat to real officers who quickly learn what is going on in the area. Crime has risen and detection decreasing-that needs improving. The simple rule in a court being who presents the strongest case with aggravating features for the judge to pass the correct sentence--of the defence gives a compelling reason why the defendent should not be imprisoned.
As i have alwatsvsaid if you are not at the trial you cannot know why the sentence is made.
Much like reading a write up on a book and judging without reading it fully.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
10:22pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Unless it can be proved to be "unduly" lenient it cannot be appealed.
You can argue that sentencing guidelines set the punishment; however all too often they are used at the minimum.
There was a case not so long ago; where a man on a suspended sentence for violence against the person; got drunk and beat up a stranger. He was given another suspended sentence. That is absolutely wrong.
There is clear evidence pointing to the fact that sentences are towards the lenient side of the scale simply because we do not have enough prison capacity to deal with it.
If someone is given 6 years; there should be no expectancy to be out in 3 years because they behaved inside. They misbehaved on the outside. The sentence was given and the system says "never mind you've been a good boy in here so off you go".
The criminal justice system is broken. Its not just about the detection, the evidence gathering, the court, conviction and sentencing. Much of the problem is political and politicians neither have the will nor the backbone to implement measures to get it under control. Even if they did the lobby groups would ensure it was delayed and never implemented.
itsamess3
says...
12:02am Fri 8 Mar 13
You also cannot show any evidence to support any claim any sentence was duly lenient as that decision to challenge is by the lawyers in the case on the evidence at the trial. You have no legal qualifications and very likely have never sat through a full trial which is usually in 3 stages at different dates.
The sentencing guidelines are regularly reviewed by our most senior judges-not politicians.
If as you say a prisoner gets 6 years they can be released after 3 provided they have behaved--if not they could end up completing the full term--or more if the commit a criminal offence inside. Further under certain sentences they could be released in as little as a 3rd of the sentence.
Politicians cannot effect the release of any prisoner--they can only make representations on behalf of a prisoner to ensure they are treated fairly.
There are so many cases of miscarriages of justice brought to light by peers and politicians committed to justice.
Tim Newroman
says...
9:45am Fri 8 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:I simply cannot take you at all seriously.
Tim
Do not make claims to have stated something you have not.
The fact being you are making malicious claims against the woman which are untrue.
In the recent case under normal circumstances i would agree the sentence was appropriate--however several reports strongly support the fact that the murder and attempted murder were completely avoidable.
It certainly would be of concern to most folk to know a murder could have been avoided through a simple check- much the same as in the local case when a basic error ruled out a confession to another murder.
Your obsession with claimed failings of the legal system consumes you to the point you never produce provable facts.
I do know that the original lawyers for that woman and the recent team are aware of your wild claims
"One question - why on earth do you suppose that it needs people to write to the PCC to highlight the case? Do you seriously think such a person in such a role would be oblivious to it?”
Quite simply because he is the PCC for wilts police and has the power to tighten up procedures within wilts police as he may or may not know the case as it did not happen in wilts.
Your last sentence is beyond parody and is so surreal as to be on another planet entirely.
itsamess3
says...
10:14am Fri 8 Mar 13
Is that your newly found legal training and experience coming out?
Do refer yourself back to some of your posts when you were Mr Blackwell.
If you really want to see improvements to policing or legal system you need to take it up with them rather than parroting the same old bilge post after post as you are achieving nothing.
notscot
says...
7:58am Sat 9 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:Seems we only need to replace the waste of space & money PCC with itsamess - and crime wouls almost disappear over night.
Lord
I addressed all your very stupid questions and points and the fact is there are no guarantees that any changes to policing would work.
So in a town of many thousands - several hundred of whom are out on foot. - YOU would be able to identify "those most likely to be responsible" for some random act of criminal damage - or worse - PRIOR to the event - just by looking??
Or you'd have the police stop & search everyone they see?
You require a valid reason for stop & search.
"Just in case" doesn't cut it.
Some pratts are easily identifiable.
Most aren't - which is why we have a criminal justice system.
notscot
says...
8:05am Sat 9 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:Have you NO idea how easy ot would be to find yourself a tool sharp enough to cut tyres? Really!!?
notscot
Did i say there should be a policeman on every corner?
How do you arrive at your claim it was a random act? Or are you suggesting everyone walks around at night with a strong and sharp enough implement to cut into a tyre?
Regular foot and car patrols throughout the town are a thing of the past--but were vital for intelligence gathering as generally the beat bobbies knew who and what was going on in their patch and less crime.
Regular foot patrols are a thing of the past??? Since when? You don't have ANY knowledge of current policing, do you?
You think the Police no longer gather intelligence - that they have no knowledge of their local communities?
Go comment on something YOU have knowledge of.
itsamess3
says...
8:19am Sat 9 Mar 13
Have a nice day--hope your manners and information improve.
notscot
says...
9:09am Sat 9 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:MY manners - is that the reason you talk nonsense about current policing practises? You have short term memory loss?
notscot
Have a nice day--hope your manners and information improve.
My information is a lot more up to date than yours.
Have a look into what REALLY happens when an individual with MH issues calls the police. Find out just how tied the hands of the police really are.
Then talk to the MH services that look after your area.
THEN make a QUALIFIED comment on the matter.
The same goes for the rest of your inept comments.
Try not to restrict your research to newspaper articles.
Tim Newroman
says...
11:25am Sun 10 Mar 13
notscot
says...
2:45pm Sun 10 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:itsamess has a lot in common with the new commissioner. A wooley-minded duffer with a head full of out-dated platitudes.
@notscot: good to see you've rapidly got the measure of dear old itsamess3.
Talks a lot, but says nothing.
(And a likely Daily Mail reader to boot.)
itsamess3
says...
9:14pm Sun 10 Mar 13
Perhaps you have not been reading what i have said and have turned to abuse.
I would never rely on newspaper reports as they rarely report ad verbatum on all the facts.
Do note i pointed your new found friend in the direction of the IPCC report into the investigation. The brief findings are online--the full version is available on a sign in site where certain details must be verified.
"Have a look into what REALLY happens when an individual with MH issues calls the police. Find out just how tied the hands of the police really are".Your words.
The facts in that womans case that your new friend calls a double murderer are that she was convicted and sentenced on manslaughter with diminished responsibility due to evidence of 2 noted psychiatrists who fully agreed her condition and thus she was committed to a secure mental facility.
The facts on the recent case are that the police were called by a taxi driver stating she was acting strangely and the police took her to a hospital and left her there. She from there phoned the police on numerous occasions asking to be sectioned as the voices in her head were telling her to kill. The police then took her to a pshychiatrist and left her.
A threat to kill is a serious offence and the police most certainly failed to do a PNC check.
That news came out after she was sentenced.
As i stated our new PCC should ensure this could not happen in wilts as had a PNC check been made a death could have been avoided.
notscot
says...
10:26pm Sun 10 Mar 13
The same sort of nonsense that some of the national rags want the public to believe is the truth.
You're information is woefully out of date.
A person rings the police and tells them that voices are telling her to kill - the police then call the mental health services and get no support - on the grounds that a doctor hasn't made a referral - so they can't intervene. They will state that "that is the law" (They will encourage the police to ask the individual to go to their own doctor - but that's about all they'll do.)
For the person to be arrested they have to repeat the same statement to an officer OUTSIDE OF THEIR HOME - (and just be careful how that's done - because if it isn't done in a lawful manner a police officer will be in hot water.) they can then be arrested for their own safety or that of others. (they CAN'T be arrested for saying that voices want them to kill while they are inside their own homes. Ridiculous, but true.)
They must then be transported to a MH facility - if there is one with space available - or taken to a custody suite and ensure that a doctor attends asap to examine the patient and hopefully underpin a request for a place in a MH facility. (And if the custody Sgt does NOT do this - HE/SHE may then find THEMSELVES in the dock.)
Once the patient is within the confines of the hospital the police HAVE NO FURTHER SAY in what happens to that individual.
The police have NO POWERS to section anyone.
Unless the MH staff deem a patient requires sectioning there is nothing further anyone else can do - if the hospital will not section the patient they are free to go.
This woman had a mental illness and she was talking about "voices wanting her to kill" - you may believe that was enough to have her arrested and put before the courts - it wasn't.
The woman had previously been diagnosed with a mental health illness- and THAT is what tied the hands of the police.
And if TWO sets of medically trained staff had failed to section her - what on earth do you think the police could have done?
They failed to do a PNC check?
She was KNOWN to the local MH services and THEY failed to section her. Had they done the job THEY were paid to do - would she have killed? Perhaps not. Perhaps not until after her eventual release.
The PCC can request that a PNC check is made in every instance in which the police have to deal with a MH patient.
It won't change the way in which the police have to deal with them.
It won't change the way the MH services deal with them, either.
Your PCC won't protect anyone.
The risks in supporting the "care in the community" ideals are all those of Joe Public.
There have been a number of deaths already this year in much the same circumstances. The police weren't to blame for any of them.
And none of our new PCC's will be able stop it happening again, and it will happen again - and again.
Tim Newroman
says...
10:10am Mon 11 Mar 13
Tim Newroman says...
11:11am Mon 4 Mar 13
Crime, and reoffending, rates could quite easily be reduced very quickly and very easily... but it won't be done by the police, Angus Macpherson or various councillors.
The people who hold the key to all of this our magistrates and judges. In fact, they are the ONLY people who can really improve things.
As long as they continue to be allowed to get away with not doing so, nothing will change.
Everything else is just wasted time, resources and money. You can arrest as many repeat criminals as you like, but when the courts insist on letting them stroll free from court - or hand down insultingly lenient sentences - after their convictions, it's all entirely pointlesss.