Barrister with, er, "interesting" opinions to stand trial
Discussion
photosnob said:
IanA2 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Some more details here
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/barrister-jailed-f...
Prison seems harsh and pointless in this instance.
Agreed, and a further drain on the public purse.http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/barrister-jailed-f...
Prison seems harsh and pointless in this instance.
Everyone who is pro prisons has never been to one - or has never known anyone locked up inside them. Nothing good comes from prison. Nothing. When people are subjected to it for stupidity, mistakes or because of mental illness we should be ashamed.
In fact I agree with most of what you have just written.
IanA2 said:
If that was directed at me, I should like to point out that I don't think I was saying anything of the kind, nether was I saying it was solely about the money.
In fact I agree with most of what you have just written.
No not you. It was directed at some of the idiots on this site who have never even visited a prison and don't know anyone who has, but who continue to say how lovely they are and call for everyone to be locked up. In fact I agree with most of what you have just written.
The typical PH view as spouted in NPE is that prisons are like Travel Lodges, which, of course they aren't. Those who call for prison to be harsher than it already is (asserting that if prisons were tougher there would be less crime) also fail to notice that in places with very harsh prisons, such as the USA, crime rates do not fall in consequence.
The general efficacy of prison is of course an issue wider than the issue (also important) of locking up those who are mentally ill, as Shrimpton appears from his writings online and from the whole bomb warning farce to be. The sentencing guidelines here seem all over the place anyway, as the non custodial sentence for child porn was within the guidelines, as is this custodial sentence for the bomb hoax (as to which the conviction looks dodgy, as Shrimpton appears to have lost his grip on reality to the point where he believes that his bomb warning was real).
The general efficacy of prison is of course an issue wider than the issue (also important) of locking up those who are mentally ill, as Shrimpton appears from his writings online and from the whole bomb warning farce to be. The sentencing guidelines here seem all over the place anyway, as the non custodial sentence for child porn was within the guidelines, as is this custodial sentence for the bomb hoax (as to which the conviction looks dodgy, as Shrimpton appears to have lost his grip on reality to the point where he believes that his bomb warning was real).
The reference by the Judge to the warning about the McCann case seems very odd. Shrimpton claims that Madeleine McCann was stolen to order by his made up German spy agency (the DVD), to be taken on a U Boat to be sexually abused by the EU Commissioner Barroso (Shrimpton really, really hates the EU, also Mooosleeems, Obama - who is of course Kenyan - and stuff).
Anyway, Shrimpton was apparently warned by Plod to STFU, but I cannot see what legal status such a warning would have, or how it could be relevant to sentencing. If anything, it merely confirmed that this man is a hopeless fantasist who is no real threat to anyone.
Shrimpton has quite a presence in internet loon world - he pops up on David Icke sites, birther sites, the sort of anti EU sites that make UKIP appear moderate, McCann sites, you name it, and he has hung out with arch loon Alex Jones. The general impression that many of the loons appear to have is that Shrimpton is a terribly important top lawyer with connections to the levers of power, rather than a rather sad bloke who lives in a flat in Wendover (when not in the slammer). I have wasted far too much time looking this stuff up! Wibble!
Anyway, Shrimpton was apparently warned by Plod to STFU, but I cannot see what legal status such a warning would have, or how it could be relevant to sentencing. If anything, it merely confirmed that this man is a hopeless fantasist who is no real threat to anyone.
Shrimpton has quite a presence in internet loon world - he pops up on David Icke sites, birther sites, the sort of anti EU sites that make UKIP appear moderate, McCann sites, you name it, and he has hung out with arch loon Alex Jones. The general impression that many of the loons appear to have is that Shrimpton is a terribly important top lawyer with connections to the levers of power, rather than a rather sad bloke who lives in a flat in Wendover (when not in the slammer). I have wasted far too much time looking this stuff up! Wibble!
Breadvan72 said:
...the conviction looks dodgy, as Shrimpton appears to have lost his grip on reality to the point where he believes that his bomb warning was real).
That was my gut reaction too.However, the Judge seemed to think he knew the claims were false. What could that be based upon?
That had to be the basis for the jury's verdict, which the Judge has to accept. The jury may have found Shrimpton to be very annoying - he is rambling, pompous, and ridiculous in his speech, and it appears that he mentioned many of his wild theories about the world during the trial. You might have thought that the jury would thus have realised that Shrimpton was merely a self aggrandising loony, but maybe they thought that he knew he was talking cobblers. Thinking him a really irritating nutcase who is a bit of a nuisance would not be a valid basis for the verdict, but we can't know what the jury thought.
Breadvan72 said:
That had to be the basis for the jury's verdict, which the Judge has to accept. The jury may have found Shrimpton to be very annoying - he is rambling, pompous, and ridiculous in his speech, and it appears that he mentioned many of his wild theories about the world during the trial. You might have thought that the jury would thus have realised that Shrimpton was merely a self aggrandising loony, but maybe they thought that he knew he was talking cobblers. Thinking him a really irritating nutcase who is a bit of a nuisance would not be a valid basis for the verdict, but we can't know what the jury thought.
Spot on.Another nail in the coffin of the idea that jury trials are just and appropriate for cases involving any kind of (remotely) sophisticated analysis of fact or law, in my view.
A substantial custodial sentence is absurdly cruel and OTT, but I can just about see why the Judge felt it appropriate in light of the (bonkers) verdict.
I can only guess that the jury failed to capture the point that someone can be articulate, coherent, (superficially) lucid and yet utterly delusional.
Substantial jail time for being a tit.
I'm struggling to find a proper transcript of the sentencing remarks. Shrimpton was sent for a psychiatry report prior to sentencing, though whether any such report was done and used in evidence I don't know? I imagine, if he really is nuts, it'd be self-defeating. The last thing he wants is to be declared nuts and admit the many tonnes of s
t he's been shovelling must have been false. Yet the same report might have provided a way of avoiding the conviction...
I haven't read all of his defence statement (it's online, and bonkers), but at first glance it appears his defence was not only the he believed his nonsense was true, but that it actually was true.
Anyway.
He'll now be in prison, probably seeming incredibly lucid and no doubt likely to spend the next 3 months helping prisoners with their 'legal' problems. Considering the cuts to Legal Aid and Grayling's ability to tread roughshod over everything sacred and proper, I think Shrimpton will be providing a valuable service to the lags.
t he's been shovelling must have been false. Yet the same report might have provided a way of avoiding the conviction...I haven't read all of his defence statement (it's online, and bonkers), but at first glance it appears his defence was not only the he believed his nonsense was true, but that it actually was true.
Anyway.
He'll now be in prison, probably seeming incredibly lucid and no doubt likely to spend the next 3 months helping prisoners with their 'legal' problems. Considering the cuts to Legal Aid and Grayling's ability to tread roughshod over everything sacred and proper, I think Shrimpton will be providing a valuable service to the lags.
ORD said:
Spot on.
Another nail in the coffin of the idea that jury trials are just and appropriate for cases involving any kind of (remotely) sophisticated analysis of fact or law, in my view.
A substantial custodial sentence is absurdly cruel and OTT, but I can just about see why the Judge felt it appropriate in light of the (bonkers) verdict.
I can only guess that the jury failed to capture the point that someone can be articulate, coherent, (superficially) lucid and yet utterly delusional.
Substantial jail time for being a tit.
Was any evidence of the chap's mental state adduced? If it is obvious to us that the chap's mad then it must have been obvious to the judge, so why did he not ask for reports?Another nail in the coffin of the idea that jury trials are just and appropriate for cases involving any kind of (remotely) sophisticated analysis of fact or law, in my view.
A substantial custodial sentence is absurdly cruel and OTT, but I can just about see why the Judge felt it appropriate in light of the (bonkers) verdict.
I can only guess that the jury failed to capture the point that someone can be articulate, coherent, (superficially) lucid and yet utterly delusional.
Substantial jail time for being a tit.
photosnob said:
IanA2 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Some more details here
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/barrister-jailed-f...
Prison seems harsh and pointless in this instance.
Agreed, and a further drain on the public purse.http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/barrister-jailed-f...
Prison seems harsh and pointless in this instance.
Everyone who is pro prisons has never been to one - or has never known anyone locked up inside them. Nothing good comes from prison. Nothing. When people are subjected to it for stupidity, mistakes or because of mental illness we should be ashamed.
There are those who are fundamentally psychotic and will never reform. They will continue to offend no matter what. But there are those who know no better, those who are mentally ill and those who are unable to cope with life, and these provide the majority of inmates.
There was research which showed that sending someone to prison is a tried and tested way of increasing recidivism.
There are times where only prison is appropriate even when the person is unlikely to reoffend, but these are few and far between.
We've got it wrong in this country. It is easy to blame the reactionary newspapers for their hysterical response to any offence that they see as demanding the maximum a court can give, and that's because they are, to an extent, to blame.
But nothing will change. The research is overwhelming, the statistics paint a consistent picture, yet we continue with what we have always done and what always fails.
If the defendant doesn't want to run a psychiatric defence it's not for the judge to run one irrespective. I would imagine Shrimpton thinks he's pretty rational, in which case, how can he rely on a psychiatric disorder he doesn't think he has?
However, playing Devil's Advocate, I can well imagine he's obsessive and living in his own world of espionage and intelligence. That's not to say, however real he gives the impression it is in his mind, that he doesn't really know, underneath the facade, that's it's all a load of old bks. If that were to be the case, he would also be able to understand the danger/nuisance by his behaviour and some sort of criminal sanction becomes appropriate, to my mind at least. If he's being reckless by allowing his fantasy to encroach on the real lives of other people, yet his mental condition means he's not so ill that he doesn't realise he's doing it, then why shouldn't he face sanction for his behaviour?
However, playing Devil's Advocate, I can well imagine he's obsessive and living in his own world of espionage and intelligence. That's not to say, however real he gives the impression it is in his mind, that he doesn't really know, underneath the facade, that's it's all a load of old b
ks. If that were to be the case, he would also be able to understand the danger/nuisance by his behaviour and some sort of criminal sanction becomes appropriate, to my mind at least. If he's being reckless by allowing his fantasy to encroach on the real lives of other people, yet his mental condition means he's not so ill that he doesn't realise he's doing it, then why shouldn't he face sanction for his behaviour?Derek Smith said:
Most, and it is a substantial majority, of those initiatives that try to divert and reform work. I take your point that it should not be about the money, but I remember one report suggesting that for every £1 devoted to reforming saved £4.2. That is tremendous.
There are those who are fundamentally psychotic and will never reform. They will continue to offend no matter what. But there are those who know no better, those who are mentally ill and those who are unable to cope with life, and these provide the majority of inmates.
There was research which showed that sending someone to prison is a tried and tested way of increasing recidivism.
There are times where only prison is appropriate even when the person is unlikely to reoffend, but these are few and far between.
We've got it wrong in this country. It is easy to blame the reactionary newspapers for their hysterical response to any offence that they see as demanding the maximum a court can give, and that's because they are, to an extent, to blame.
But nothing will change. The research is overwhelming, the statistics paint a consistent picture, yet we continue with what we have always done and what always fails.
We (we as in the UK, and probably most of the world) do seem to have lost sight of the idea that prison is about reforming/helping/developing the individual so that they can rejoin society as a productive member, rather than simply being removed from circulation for a couple of years.There are those who are fundamentally psychotic and will never reform. They will continue to offend no matter what. But there are those who know no better, those who are mentally ill and those who are unable to cope with life, and these provide the majority of inmates.
There was research which showed that sending someone to prison is a tried and tested way of increasing recidivism.
There are times where only prison is appropriate even when the person is unlikely to reoffend, but these are few and far between.
We've got it wrong in this country. It is easy to blame the reactionary newspapers for their hysterical response to any offence that they see as demanding the maximum a court can give, and that's because they are, to an extent, to blame.
But nothing will change. The research is overwhelming, the statistics paint a consistent picture, yet we continue with what we have always done and what always fails.
Prison should not be punishment, not as it's primary raison d'etre.
The chap that this thread is about is clearly a bit of a loon, should he be imprisoned for that? No.
It's not going to de-loon him, if anything it'll exacerbate his problems I would think (although I am in no way qualified to make that judgement that said).
What would have been available to the judge in these circumstances when it came to sentencing?
turbobloke said:
That's patently not going to be accurate.
Find me someone (who isn't being paid by a silly newspaper, or trying to make a name for him/herself) who comes out of prison and says "well that was rather lovely". It's not really the point though - in my dream world prisons would be lovely. They would be world class places where people truly learnt to become members of society again. You would leave prison with the confidence and the ambition to fulfil your potential.
All governments preach about education being the foundation upon on how the disadvantaged better themselves. Have a look into how much time and energy is spent on educating prisoners. People should be leaving with GCSEs, a levels and degrees, post graduate degrees if their sentence was long enough. And we should have a rehabilitation act which allows people to be rehabilitated. So walking into a job without any stigma after demonstrating that you have earnt the right to be rehabilitated - be that teaching, doctoring or lawyering. We live in a world where we just want to judge people on their past mistakes and stupidity rather than their potential. We all break the law, some more seriously and some get caught. Previous criminal actions should not be a barrier to any future potential if you can demonstrate you have taken steps to change. Sadly at present those who wish to move on usually find themselves having to change their names and leave the country,
photosnob said:
turbobloke said:
That's patently not going to be accurate.
Find me someone (who isn't being paid by a silly newspaper, or trying to make a name for him/herself) who comes out of prison and says "well that was rather lovely". It's not really the point though - in my dream world prisons would be lovely. They would be world class places where people truly learnt to become members of society again. You would leave prison with the confidence and the ambition to fulfil your potential.
All governments preach about education being the foundation upon on how the disadvantaged better themselves. Have a look into how much time and energy is spent on educating prisoners. People should be leaving with GCSEs, a levels and degrees, post graduate degrees if their sentence was long enough. And we should have a rehabilitation act which allows people to be rehabilitated. So walking into a job without any stigma after demonstrating that you have earnt the right to be rehabilitated - be that teaching, doctoring or lawyering. We live in a world where we just want to judge people on their past mistakes and stupidity rather than their potential. We all break the law, some more seriously and some get caught. Previous criminal actions should not be a barrier to any future potential if you can demonstrate you have taken steps to change. Sadly at present those who wish to move on usually find themselves having to change their names and leave the country,
[nah-eev]
adjective
1.
having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.
2.
having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:
photosnob said:
turbobloke said:
That's patently not going to be accurate.
Find me someone (who isn't being paid by a silly newspaper, or trying to make a name for him/herself) who comes out of prison and says "well that was rather lovely". photosnob said:
Everyone who is pro prisons has never been to one - or has never known anyone locked up inside them.
Which is still absurd and not accurate.photosnob said:
It's not really the point though - in my dream world prisons would be lovely. They would be world class places where people truly learnt to become members of society again.
Spain has jails similar to that certainly in the south. The last time I looked it wasn't helping to reduce reoffending. Spain has dabbled with something called the 'circles model' for released rapists which has apparently been a success in terms of reintegration but it's a programme almost wholly outside prison. Denmark has had better results than the UK in the past with half the reoffending rates we have. We could do better but that's another matter and there are plenty of people who have been to prisons for one reason or another who are not anti.IanA2 said:
If I recall correctly the Scandinavians have a "week-end" prison. Offenders carry on with their life/work, are restrained by curfew, and have to report to the prison after work on a Friday.
Last I heard it was effective.
For criminals who also maintain solid 9-5 jobs, I'm sure it is. Last I heard it was effective.
JustinP1 said:
IanA2 said:
If I recall correctly the Scandinavians have a "week-end" prison. Offenders carry on with their life/work, are restrained by curfew, and have to report to the prison after work on a Friday.
Last I heard it was effective.
For criminals who also maintain solid 9-5 jobs, I'm sure it is. Last I heard it was effective.
Italy also has a less harsh regime than the UK. They also have "home-prison" which allows offenders to live at home. I came across a "bank-robber" in Italy who was serving his sentence at home. He tried to rob a bank but his getaway car wouldn't start.
The bank manager gave evidence on his behalf saying that he was the most polite robber he had ever met. Perhaps it was that, and his "defence" that he needed the money to get married that swayed the Judge towards leniency.
Solo in Italia!
http://www.prisonobservatory.org/index.php?option=...
Scandinavia:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/...
http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No74/No74_0...
http://theconversation.com/nordic-prisons-less-cro...
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/10/28/norway-pri...
https://www.academic-projects.eu/menuforjustice/me...
Edited by IanA2 on Tuesday 10th February 12:04
Edited by IanA2 on Tuesday 10th February 12:05
Edited by IanA2 on Tuesday 10th February 12:05
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff