British justice at its finest

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
41

Scanner:

coreysboys:

Moose:

coreysboys:

OllieNotts:
So they steal from him and he gives one a pasting, how is that over reacting? Ffs the police wouldn’t of done [zb] all if bed rang them and they caught them red handed the police in this country is a joke!
What I find hilarious is these scum bags must of rang the filth to complain of assault and admit at the same time they’d nicked his disel because they knew he’d get in more trouble then they would. What a [zb] sad state this country is when the criminal becomes the victim. And this isn’t isolated either been plenty of story’s similar over recent years.

That’s because there is quite a big difference between reasonable force to defend yourself/property and beating the [zb] out of someone who is running away.

what would you call reasonable? £75 fine seems poor to me
i think the victim should be commended for is actions, the criminal should loose all rights once they enter your property end of!

£75 clearly doesn’t sound reasonable to someone earning £500 per week but if your only earning £75 per week its quite a lot.
The courts have tariffs for deciding the level of a fine. It is based on a percentage of weekly or monthly income. If the thieves had been on £500 per week, the fine would have been considerably higher. People get too fixated on the actual number of pounds without considering the impact that level of fine might have on the convicted persons personal circumstances. I couldn’t care less if it hurts the criminal one iota but, if he has 3 kids to feed, clothe, house, keep warm, how will that impact on them? Kids should not be punished for the actions of criminal parents.

So where does it stop? How many factors do you want to take into account before punishing them for the crime they have been convicted of? You could argue ad infinitum for and against a higher or lower level of punishment if you added enough non-sequiters (for that is what they ultimately are) and still as seems to have happened here - discount the impact on the victim.

The victim has, whether wittingly or unwittingly, made them victims as well by assaulting them. Im not going to trawl back through the original article but I believe the impact on the original victim has been taken account of within the fine ‘package’ sentenced to the diesel thieves. The impact of their crime being around £50 of diesel. Now his disproportionate actions has made them victims of a more serious crime and that impact on them will be considered also.

Neither parties actions were acceptable but the guy has put himself in a totally avoidable position whereby he could get sent down for the sake of £50 of diesel. You may not agree with the laws but ‘thems the rules’ and we all know them.

42

martyh:

coreysboys:

Moose:
thats the thing how do you calculate what a persons income is if they are out on the rob taking other peoples belongings?
they came unstuck this time but how many times have they got away with it in the past?
having been a victim of this type in the recent past i can without doubt say the police are a waste of time!

and my experience is completely the opposite. It would be very interesting if you could quantify the proportion of times they got away with it as a direct result of peoples apathy.

Instead ,ask how many times they threatened victims when confronted ,it’s not apathy at all, it’s fear and knowing the police will not or cannot do much unless it is an absolute slam dunk of case that only requires the briefest of head scratches from the CPS

I’m sorry but community apathy has been evidenced and you saying it doesn’t exist does not change the evidence.

43

what we should do i think is reserve final judgement until the case has been to crown court ,then we will know how many times this bloke has had his diesel nicked,how many times he reported it to the police like a good citizen and how many times the police have placated him by giving advice on security .

I have a sneaky suspicion that he has been the victim many times and was possibly lying in wait

44

martyh:
what we should do i think is reserve final judgement until the case has been to crown court ,then we will know how many times this bloke has had his diesel nicked,how many times he reported it to the police like a good citizen and how many times the police have placated him by giving advice on security .

I have a sneaky suspicion that he has been the victim many times and was possibly lying in wait

In which case he will be ■■■■■■. Premeditated ABH? Oh dear :open_mouth: Hope not for his sake!

45

coreysboys:

Scanner:

coreysboys:

Moose:

coreysboys:

OllieNotts:
So they steal from him and he gives one a pasting, how is that over reacting? Ffs the police wouldn’t of done [zb] all if bed rang them and they caught them red handed the police in this country is a joke!
What I find hilarious is these scum bags must of rang the filth to complain of assault and admit at the same time they’d nicked his disel because they knew he’d get in more trouble then they would. What a [zb] sad state this country is when the criminal becomes the victim. And this isn’t isolated either been plenty of story’s similar over recent years.

That’s because there is quite a big difference between reasonable force to defend yourself/property and beating the [zb] out of someone who is running away.

what would you call reasonable? £75 fine seems poor to me
i think the victim should be commended for is actions, the criminal should loose all rights once they enter your property end of!

£75 clearly doesn’t sound reasonable to someone earning £500 per week but if your only earning £75 per week its quite a lot.
The courts have tariffs for deciding the level of a fine. It is based on a percentage of weekly or monthly income. If the thieves had been on £500 per week, the fine would have been considerably higher. People get too fixated on the actual number of pounds without considering the impact that level of fine might have on the convicted persons personal circumstances. I couldn’t care less if it hurts the criminal one iota but, if he has 3 kids to feed, clothe, house, keep warm, how will that impact on them? Kids should not be punished for the actions of criminal parents.

So where does it stop? How many factors do you want to take into account before punishing them for the crime they have been convicted of? You could argue ad infinitum for and against a higher or lower level of punishment if you added enough non-sequiters (for that is what they ultimately are) and still as seems to have happened here - discount the impact on the victim.

The victim has, whether wittingly or unwittingly, made them victims as well by assaulting them. Im not going to trawl back through the original article but I believe the impact on the original victim has been taken account of within the fine ‘package’ sentenced to the diesel thieves. The impact of their crime being around £50 of diesel. Now his disproportionate actions has made them victims of a more serious crime and that impact on them will be considered also.

Neither parties actions were acceptable but the guy has put himself in a totally avoidable position whereby he could get sent down for the sake of £50 of diesel. You may not agree with the laws but ‘thems the rules’ and we all know them.

True, but there should be a heavier tariff for the original instigator, that is natural justice. The Police will always pursue the agressor in a pub brawl - on the “who threw the first punch” basis.

I know a guy who has 14 (yes fourteen) children and got jailed over something quite minor.

46

coreysboys:
I’m sorry but community apathy has been evidenced and you saying it doesn’t exist does not change the evidence.

who by ? i daresay there are people who don’t care but you ask any one in the street if they would jump in front of a mugger to stop him and they will tell you no because they are scared of getting stabbed or beaten themselves .

47

martyh:

coreysboys:
I’m sorry but community apathy has been evidenced and you saying it doesn’t exist does not change the evidence.

who by ? i daresay there are people who don’t care but you ask any one in the street if they would jump in front of a mugger to stop him and they will tell you no because they are scared of getting stabbed or beaten themselves .

Evidenced by the Police and local residents association who went around locally to me a few weeks ago trying car doors and finding them apathetically left open with valuables on display.
As evidenced by the same people knocking on doors and finding out key information that was apathetically not passed on to the Police which directly resulted in the conviction of the thieves stealing from these apathetically unlocked cars with their valuables apathetically left on display.
People only give a shizzle when it has hurt them. Until that point its apathy, apathy, apathy, all the Polices fault, CPS are useless, sentences aren’t long enough.

Sentences are a darn sight bigger for a 5th offence than they are for a first. Communities need to be presenting the evidence to get the criminals in front of the courts more often instead of thinking ‘■■■■ it there’s no point’

48

coreysboys:
who by ? i daresay there are people who don’t care but you ask any one in the street if they would jump in front of a mugger to stop him and they will tell you no because they are scared of getting stabbed or beaten themselves .
Evidenced by the Police and local residents association who went around locally to me a few weeks ago trying car doors and finding them apathetically left open with valuables on display.
As evidenced by the same people knocking on doors and finding out key information that was apathetically not passed on to the Police which directly resulted in the conviction of the thieves stealing from these apathetically unlocked cars with their valuables apathetically left on display.
People only give a shizzle when it has hurt them. Until that point its apathy, apathy, apathy, all the Polices fault, CPS are useless, sentences aren’t long enough.

Sentences are a darn sight bigger for a 5th offence than they are for a first. Communities need to be presenting the evidence to get the criminals in front of the courts more often instead of thinking ‘[zb] it there’s no point’

I leave my car doors unlocked when its parked outside my house. The reason for this is because the average cost to repair forced locks runs into the £100’s.

Incidentally, I live in a rural area with at least 500’ from my nearest neighbour.

I’m not daft, I do this consciously, I know that they cannot steal the car without the keys. My keys are not where 99% of car owners leave them.

As I’m not daft, I don’t leave anything of value inside my car, at least nothing that I’d miss were it stolen.

Toerags, scrotes, scumbags, ■■■■■■ etc are all welcome to rummage around inside my car whilst I blissfully snuggle up to the missus. In fact I’m quite sure that they do, although I cannot prove it 'cos there is no lock damage.

Actually, I know that they do, I have dogs who are fanatical about intruders onto their territory & possesses hearing capabilities infinitely better than any so called alarm system. I’m up in the middle of night approx 3x a year to wander the property with my 12 bore until the dogs are satisfied. Not unusual for rural areas, I’m usually joined by my neighbour after 5-10mins.

Believe it or not, our local residents association tends to stick to drinking mugs of tea & talking the big talk in the comfort of their living rooms rather than wandering about at night getting ravaged by gun dogs & shot by half asleep homeowners.

Where is it you live, that your imaginary policeman is wandering around with a bunch of sanctimonious vigilantes in the middle of the night trying car doors?

49

coreysboys:
… but if your only earning £75 per week its quite a lot.

Scum like this don’t earn £75 a week. In the past they would have taken their beating and gone ops got caught. They would still probably do it again because thieves are thieves.

Now they send a message out by going to the law for their beating, owner of said property then gets a bigger fine or even prison, they come back for more, owner can’t/won’t do anything.

You can’t clean dirt with dirt, but you can turn dirt into mud and make it easier to control, if you get my meaning of that analogy.

If giving them a pasting takes me down to their level so what, if that’s what I’ve got to do, so be it.

I would prefer it if the law/justice system worked.

50

Strong views here.

Let’s lob my own holy hand grenade of Anitoch in the mix then.

(a) If you’ve been a victim of crime, and seen how the system treats you, That is
No one goes to jail, the fine is paltry, the compensation order is not met/made, you are out of pocket even after the culprit has been busted

(b) Now let’s say you’re a Tory voter living in a nice quiet part of town who’s never so much had their car pranged by boy racers, their wall knocked down, or their wife’s bag nicked just after you dropped her off at the cashpoint.

It’s easy to be high and might about “civilized society” if you live in a part of town that has it. If you don’t, and you can only rely on the system letting you down, then sure - it’s quite easy to over-react when you’ve finally caught some bugger red handed at last.

I say “Where’s the American-Style property protection laws” that Cameron promised us?

Knock over a burglar still on your property, and it’s still assault/murder or whatever. :angry:

Get us out of the human rights charter, and give everyone the right to kick over any trespassers, and watch the crime rates drop like a stone! :wink:

A Jury is still made up of ordinary random folk - fortunately.

A defendant can claim “righteous indignation” and plead not guilty to charges, and the same Jury can quite legally find that person “not guilty” on the grounds the court has not proven that they got up from bed that morning, bent on harming someone.
Jury members don’t realise just how much power they wield. They really are free to bring in any verdict they want, except when the judge directs them - which isn’t often. It’s even illegal for anyone else in the court to try and tamper with the Jury deliberations…

In real life however, what you normally see in court is a bunch of bewildered public who don’t really want to be there (self employed no doubt) who are quite happy to go with the strongest speaker rather than the strongest argument which they’re not really listening to anyway. :frowning: