Two men walk into a scrapyard weighed down with lead, clearly taken from a roof.
Mr Plod duly arrests them and determines that the lead is an exact match for that stolen from a house in Wakefield, West Yorkshire.
Now at the very least they are guilty of handling stolen property but the police go the whole hog and charge the men with theft.
When the men appear in court the Criminal Protection Society, who prefer to be known as the Crown Prosecution Service, offer no evidence, the charges are duly dismissed and the men walk away.
In a letter to the victim of the theft the CPS say the men should not have been charged by the police as they denied the theft, well they would wouldn’t they?
Not surprisingly, when this matter hit the newspapers, the CPS somewhat sniffly deny their decision to discontinue the charges had anything to do with the men pleading ‘not guilty’ and related instead to ‘evidential issues’.
Obviously being caught red-handed is not enough for the organisation that ‘Couldn’t Prosecute Satan’.
It’s a wonder the Police don’t just give up in despair.
Tuesday 24 May 2011
Thursday 12 May 2011
Road Safety
The government’s recently published Strategic Framework for Road Safety
read here
seems to have got the press and television reporters into something of a lather.
Their concerns seem to be centred on the proposals to introduce a ‘new’ law of careless driving, no such thing!
That law already exists but what is proposed is to empower the police to issue a fixed penalty notice for ‘careless driving’.
I see nothing fundamentally wrong in this approach, very few such cases come to court as it is, I suspect because in most cases, the relativity minor ones, the police see such offences as not worth the bother of mounting a prosecution. If a fixed penalty is available, with a penalty points endorsement, it will, if nothing else, be a more robust approach that the current verbal warning.
As to the rest of the Strategic Framework there are some very sensible proposals and ideas.
The stated ‘Key Themes’ are to make it easier for road users to ‘do the right thing’, with better education and training for children and learner and inexperienced drivers. It proposes remedial education for low level offences and for those who make mistakes, (which may be far more effective in the long term than a fine and a licence endorsement), alongside tougher enforcement for the small minority of motorists who deliberately chose to drive dangerously; extending this approach to cover all dangerous and careless offences, not just focusing upon speeding.
It’s long been advocated by numerous road interest bodies that the police currently put far too much emphasis on speeding, through the over-reliance on speed cameras, and not enough on the generally appalling standard of driving exhibited by a majority of road users.
The idea to increase the range and use of educational courses that can be offered in place of fixed penalty notices to develop safer and more responsible driving behaviour, and the development of courses that courts can offer in the place of imposing a disqualification, is a progressive step towards improving the standard of driving in this country and should, if carried through, lead to safer roads through better driving.
The proposals to make it mandatory for disqualified drivers to be re-tested before regaining their licence, and developing special tests linked to remedial training, similar to those currently in place for drink-drivers, and for making that course mandatory rather than optional as it is now, are also positive steps towards safer roads.
One other welcome consideration is to increase the fixed penalty notice charge for uninsured driving, which is currently set far too low at £200 and has no relation to the actual cost of obtaining insurance for a great many drivers.
It’s a fact that less than 20% of road accidents are attributable to speeding and if these measures signify a change from the persecution of motorists through the hated Gatso and its ilk and towards a system which addresses the 80% of accidents caused by bad driving then I for one am all in favour.
read here
seems to have got the press and television reporters into something of a lather.
Their concerns seem to be centred on the proposals to introduce a ‘new’ law of careless driving, no such thing!
That law already exists but what is proposed is to empower the police to issue a fixed penalty notice for ‘careless driving’.
I see nothing fundamentally wrong in this approach, very few such cases come to court as it is, I suspect because in most cases, the relativity minor ones, the police see such offences as not worth the bother of mounting a prosecution. If a fixed penalty is available, with a penalty points endorsement, it will, if nothing else, be a more robust approach that the current verbal warning.
As to the rest of the Strategic Framework there are some very sensible proposals and ideas.
The stated ‘Key Themes’ are to make it easier for road users to ‘do the right thing’, with better education and training for children and learner and inexperienced drivers. It proposes remedial education for low level offences and for those who make mistakes, (which may be far more effective in the long term than a fine and a licence endorsement), alongside tougher enforcement for the small minority of motorists who deliberately chose to drive dangerously; extending this approach to cover all dangerous and careless offences, not just focusing upon speeding.
It’s long been advocated by numerous road interest bodies that the police currently put far too much emphasis on speeding, through the over-reliance on speed cameras, and not enough on the generally appalling standard of driving exhibited by a majority of road users.
The idea to increase the range and use of educational courses that can be offered in place of fixed penalty notices to develop safer and more responsible driving behaviour, and the development of courses that courts can offer in the place of imposing a disqualification, is a progressive step towards improving the standard of driving in this country and should, if carried through, lead to safer roads through better driving.
The proposals to make it mandatory for disqualified drivers to be re-tested before regaining their licence, and developing special tests linked to remedial training, similar to those currently in place for drink-drivers, and for making that course mandatory rather than optional as it is now, are also positive steps towards safer roads.
One other welcome consideration is to increase the fixed penalty notice charge for uninsured driving, which is currently set far too low at £200 and has no relation to the actual cost of obtaining insurance for a great many drivers.
It’s a fact that less than 20% of road accidents are attributable to speeding and if these measures signify a change from the persecution of motorists through the hated Gatso and its ilk and towards a system which addresses the 80% of accidents caused by bad driving then I for one am all in favour.
The Law of Unintended Consequences
The making, by judges, of the so-called ‘super injunctions’ has had some unintended consequences; at least I hope they were unintended.
Whereas, without such injunctions the press and other media would be free to report the truth, or at least the allegations, the muzzling of the UK media has led to widespread ‘revelations’ on the Internet, on Twitter and the like.
Such ‘reporting’ whilst technically subject to the courts jurisdiction is, especially when originating from outside the UK, impossible for the courts to enforce, leading to, amongst others, Gabby Logan and Jemima Khan being forced to deny their involvement with notable celebrities.
These injunctions have presented those who peddle gossip and innuendo with a golden opportunity to make mischief and illustrate the problems inherent with making up the law ‘on the fly’ rather than after reasoned discussions in Parliament and elsewhere, which is how the law should be made, not in the way the judges are currently doing.
The Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt is reported as saying that Twitter was ‘making a mockery’ of privacy laws – well Mr Hunt you ought really to know that there are no ‘privacy laws’ in the UK at present – that’s just the problem, the judges are making such laws up as they go along!
Whereas, without such injunctions the press and other media would be free to report the truth, or at least the allegations, the muzzling of the UK media has led to widespread ‘revelations’ on the Internet, on Twitter and the like.
Such ‘reporting’ whilst technically subject to the courts jurisdiction is, especially when originating from outside the UK, impossible for the courts to enforce, leading to, amongst others, Gabby Logan and Jemima Khan being forced to deny their involvement with notable celebrities.
These injunctions have presented those who peddle gossip and innuendo with a golden opportunity to make mischief and illustrate the problems inherent with making up the law ‘on the fly’ rather than after reasoned discussions in Parliament and elsewhere, which is how the law should be made, not in the way the judges are currently doing.
The Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt is reported as saying that Twitter was ‘making a mockery’ of privacy laws – well Mr Hunt you ought really to know that there are no ‘privacy laws’ in the UK at present – that’s just the problem, the judges are making such laws up as they go along!
Legal Aid
The word is that the government, in their never-ending quest to save money, is now targeting the provision of Legal Aid, specifically the reduction, or in some cases the removal, of aid in a wide range of Civil and Family Law cases; for example, divorce; employment tribunals; school exclusion appeals; clinical negligence; and personal injury.
Not only does the government wish to cut the Legal Aid bill, it hopes, by restricting that aid, to reduce the number of cases that come to court, effectively denying to all but the rich the redress for wrong that the court system provides.
Whilst it cannot be denied that the bill for Legal Aid has reached record heights, around two thousand million pounds a year, the idea that access to the courts will be denied to large sections of the community has met with some strong opposition.
The Bar Council says that such a move will ‘compromise the very rights and freedoms which underpin our society’. The Law Society calls the proposals ‘short sighted’ and ‘a false economy’ while the Children’s Commissioner for England calls them ‘potentially devastating’.
It seems to me that a judicial system which side-lines those on low incomes, who are likely to be most at risk from unfair persecution and at the same time least able to defend themselves, is no justice at all.
‘Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoer’ is the noble sentiment engraved over the doors of the Central Criminal Court, a sentiment that appears to be lacking within the Ministry of Justice.
Not only does the government wish to cut the Legal Aid bill, it hopes, by restricting that aid, to reduce the number of cases that come to court, effectively denying to all but the rich the redress for wrong that the court system provides.
Whilst it cannot be denied that the bill for Legal Aid has reached record heights, around two thousand million pounds a year, the idea that access to the courts will be denied to large sections of the community has met with some strong opposition.
The Bar Council says that such a move will ‘compromise the very rights and freedoms which underpin our society’. The Law Society calls the proposals ‘short sighted’ and ‘a false economy’ while the Children’s Commissioner for England calls them ‘potentially devastating’.
It seems to me that a judicial system which side-lines those on low incomes, who are likely to be most at risk from unfair persecution and at the same time least able to defend themselves, is no justice at all.
‘Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoer’ is the noble sentiment engraved over the doors of the Central Criminal Court, a sentiment that appears to be lacking within the Ministry of Justice.
Sunday 8 May 2011
A National Scandal
Mark Townsend in ‘The Observer’, Sunday 8 May 2011,
read here
reported that the National Association of Probation Officers (Napo) has condemned as "scandalous" the fact that hundreds of dangerous offenders, including those assessed as likely killers, are routinely released after serving half their sentence, despite most of them having failed to carry out any rehabilitation work or showing any remorse for their crimes.
According to the Napo report, during a two-week period last month more than 30 prisoners considered to pose a high or very high risk to the public were released, or about to be released, which must surely bring into question the 2005 law that stipulates all offenders sentenced to a fixed prison term are automatically released once half of their sentence is completed, regardless of their circumstances.
As Harry Fletcher, Napo's assistant general secretary, said: "It is scandalous that hundreds of prisoners are being released from custody automatically when they have completed half their sentence, despite assessments that they are of high risk of harm to the public. Case histories published by Napo show clearly that there is no incentive for certain prisoners to comply with rehabilitation plans in prison because they will be released when they have done half their time anyway”.
Whilst I entirely agree that this law is nothing short of a national disgrace, with the government putting the cost savings derived from cutting prison numbers before public safety, it’s a bit late now to decide one’s chickens have come home to roost. Where was Napo when this proposal was first mooted, and the proposal was that prisoners released early would be subject to supervision by the Probation Service? Now, when it’s been predictably shown that such a system does little or nothing to protect the public and prevent further crime, is a little late for a Damascene Conversion.
Last night a Ministry of Justice spokesman predictably said: "Reducing reoffending and protecting the public lies at the heart of our work”.
Tell that to the victim of a 40-year-old man, a convicted stalker from the Thames Valley area, who within two days of his release had turned up at his victim's house and conducted extensive Internet searches on her, even though he had previously been assessed as likely to kill her.
I wonder which parts of "reducing reoffending and protecting the public” does the Ministry of Justice not understand
read here
reported that the National Association of Probation Officers (Napo) has condemned as "scandalous" the fact that hundreds of dangerous offenders, including those assessed as likely killers, are routinely released after serving half their sentence, despite most of them having failed to carry out any rehabilitation work or showing any remorse for their crimes.
According to the Napo report, during a two-week period last month more than 30 prisoners considered to pose a high or very high risk to the public were released, or about to be released, which must surely bring into question the 2005 law that stipulates all offenders sentenced to a fixed prison term are automatically released once half of their sentence is completed, regardless of their circumstances.
As Harry Fletcher, Napo's assistant general secretary, said: "It is scandalous that hundreds of prisoners are being released from custody automatically when they have completed half their sentence, despite assessments that they are of high risk of harm to the public. Case histories published by Napo show clearly that there is no incentive for certain prisoners to comply with rehabilitation plans in prison because they will be released when they have done half their time anyway”.
Whilst I entirely agree that this law is nothing short of a national disgrace, with the government putting the cost savings derived from cutting prison numbers before public safety, it’s a bit late now to decide one’s chickens have come home to roost. Where was Napo when this proposal was first mooted, and the proposal was that prisoners released early would be subject to supervision by the Probation Service? Now, when it’s been predictably shown that such a system does little or nothing to protect the public and prevent further crime, is a little late for a Damascene Conversion.
Last night a Ministry of Justice spokesman predictably said: "Reducing reoffending and protecting the public lies at the heart of our work”.
Tell that to the victim of a 40-year-old man, a convicted stalker from the Thames Valley area, who within two days of his release had turned up at his victim's house and conducted extensive Internet searches on her, even though he had previously been assessed as likely to kill her.
I wonder which parts of "reducing reoffending and protecting the public” does the Ministry of Justice not understand
Monday 2 May 2011
"Our 'Enery"
In memory of Sir Henry Cooper KB,OBE, (3 May 1934/1 May 2011) – past British, Commonwealth and European Heavyweight Champion and a true gentleman of the ring, we shall not see his like again.
My Blood Boils......
We’ve heard so many times the police saying, in response to squatters taking over someone’s home, “It’s a civil matter, there’s nothing we can do”, not it seems if the particular squat is anywhere near the route of a Royal Wedding!
On the 28th April police raided squats in Camberwell, Hackney and Sipson and arrested and removed twenty illegal occupants.
The police’s justification was that they suspected the crime of the theft of electricity had been committed.
Those arrested were later bailed with conditions preventing them returning to the squats.
It seems to me that two criminal elements must exist in all cases of illegal occupation; breaking in causes criminal damage and the use of the connected services is theft.
Why then do the police consistently refuse to use the powers they’ve demonstrated they have? Is it just laziness or is it a complete disregard for upholding the law that prevents them from arresting and removing squatters and giving them bail conditions to stop them returning to the premises?
Whatever it is it makes my blood boil. Come on coppers, get off your behinds and do what you’re supposed to do, protect and defend the law-abiding citizens plagued by this modern-day curse.
On the 28th April police raided squats in Camberwell, Hackney and Sipson and arrested and removed twenty illegal occupants.
The police’s justification was that they suspected the crime of the theft of electricity had been committed.
Those arrested were later bailed with conditions preventing them returning to the squats.
It seems to me that two criminal elements must exist in all cases of illegal occupation; breaking in causes criminal damage and the use of the connected services is theft.
Why then do the police consistently refuse to use the powers they’ve demonstrated they have? Is it just laziness or is it a complete disregard for upholding the law that prevents them from arresting and removing squatters and giving them bail conditions to stop them returning to the premises?
Whatever it is it makes my blood boil. Come on coppers, get off your behinds and do what you’re supposed to do, protect and defend the law-abiding citizens plagued by this modern-day curse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)