Barrister with, er, "interesting" opinions to stand trial
Discussion
I agree that suspension should have followed the conviction in February, and as it is the BSB waited for almost a month since the appeal failed. Shrimpton would need insight into his mental illness to run a medical defence, but he appears from his net persona to be secure in his delusional self image as some sort of intelligence big wig.
Breadvan72 said:
Bonkers, yes, but I do a lot of work under the MHA and this guy lacks the element of danger to justify coercive action thereunder. He is a sad delusional Mitty type, but also a nasty perv.
How would capacity be assessed pre-trial if accused would not voluntarily be assessed? Ian keeps missing the point that you cannot order an assessment unless you first have a medical opinion suggesting a mental problem. Moreover, it is rare to detain someone otherwise eligible for bail for an assessment. Liberty is not lightly to be curtailed.
Forensic psychiatrists are used to non cooperating patients and do the best they can if the patient declines to talk.
Forensic psychiatrists are used to non cooperating patients and do the best they can if the patient declines to talk.
To detain someone for a shrink report is a drastic step. The law is rightly cautious about enforced medical interventions. In the present case, the CPS asked Shrimpton to undergo an assessment several months ago, but he just pooh poohed the suggestion, as it appears that he regards himself as perfectly sane, and possesses no insight into what to the rest of us looks (in our amateur opinions) like a delusional state of mind. It would have been quite a step for the Judge to force the issue at that stage.
If Shrimpton had any sense, and had been defended by someone else, he would have said that he was plainly off on one when he made the calls. I suspect that he may instead have antagonised the jury as his personal manner is intensely smug ad pompous (check out some youtubes of him giving talks to loonbat conspiracy wonks). The jury should not have convicted him, in my opinion, unless they thought he was deliberately trolling, but they may, being human, have been exasperated by his courtroom antics.
If Shrimpton had any sense, and had been defended by someone else, he would have said that he was plainly off on one when he made the calls. I suspect that he may instead have antagonised the jury as his personal manner is intensely smug ad pompous (check out some youtubes of him giving talks to loonbat conspiracy wonks). The jury should not have convicted him, in my opinion, unless they thought he was deliberately trolling, but they may, being human, have been exasperated by his courtroom antics.
Some more details here
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/barrister-jailed-f...
Prison seems harsh and pointless in this instance.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/barrister-jailed-f...
Prison seems harsh and pointless in this instance.
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!
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.
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:
Allergictocheese raises the possibility that Shrimpton's constructed fantasy world in which he is a well connected intelligence insider is part of a Walter Mitty complex which Shrimpton does in fact, at his core, know to be false. On that basis the conviction could be sound, although the sentence still looks harsh. Surely no one was really inconvenienced by his wild claims about a nuke on a U Boat.
Vaud said:
carinaman said:
Shrimpton does Constitutional Law.
Isn't some of the unaccountable Brexit procrastination that May and the Civil Servants are indulging in against some Constitutional Conventions?
Can we have one thread without Brexit, please?Isn't some of the unaccountable Brexit procrastination that May and the Civil Servants are indulging in against some Constitutional Conventions?
In other news, normality restored: pissed up bazzer fined for groping. Standard!
https://www-thesun-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/ww...
https://www-thesun-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/ww...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff