Merseyside policeman struck and killed by stolen vehicle.
Discussion
Most problems are the result of a lack of democracy.
Yes, everyone is conned into thinking they have a democracy.
Voting for a new king and earls every 5 years is not a democracy.
Direct democracy would be the people voting on sentencing guidelines not someone faraway and out of touch.
You would get a vote on everything and anything.
There is more democracy in a tv talent contest than our society.
I have a website on this which is a bit ranty and graphically s
t, so better googling a good one, there are hundreds.
In the old days the village leaders would call the village and the villagers would vote on proposals raised by the committee, that is democracy.
Anything else is bullst, as illustrated by sentencing policy.
Yes, everyone is conned into thinking they have a democracy.
Voting for a new king and earls every 5 years is not a democracy.
Direct democracy would be the people voting on sentencing guidelines not someone faraway and out of touch.
You would get a vote on everything and anything.
There is more democracy in a tv talent contest than our society.
I have a website on this which is a bit ranty and graphically s
t, so better googling a good one, there are hundreds.In the old days the village leaders would call the village and the villagers would vote on proposals raised by the committee, that is democracy.
Anything else is bulls
t, as illustrated by sentencing policy.Remember the CSEW doesn't count for example drugs offences, offences against business / commercial victims,a number of public order offences, certain fraud offences, child porn possession and distribution offences and many more. Its a snapshot of personal crime experienced by the public but no means a more accurate picture of whats going on out there
Bigends said:
Remember the CSEW doesn't count for example drugs offences, offences against business / commercial victims,a number of public order offences, certain fraud offences, child porn possession and distribution offences and many more. Its a snapshot of personal crime experienced by the public but no means a more accurate picture of whats going on out there
It doesn't capture all the nuances and both data sets should be taken and interpreted together, but it is good to see how overall crime has changed since the 1980s. It's relevant for the crime-types discussed in this thread and how "the system" isn't broken in relation to those.
Scuffers said:
What I am saying is it's about time our legal profession, police, Cps, etc took responsibility for doing their jobs properly.
They are there to serve and protect the public, not make excuses.
You appear to be confusing the role of each organisation.They are there to serve and protect the public, not make excuses.
With regard to your argument about sentencing it is not the police's job to punish.
bencollins said:
Direct democracy would be the people voting on sentencing guidelines not someone faraway and out of touch.
.
In the old days the village leaders would call the village and the villagers would vote on proposals raised by the committee, that is democracy.
Anything else is bullst, as illustrated by sentencing policy.
Doesn't work. How are you voting on financial policy? Electrical safety regs? Food safety regs? Pharma regs? Euro 6 emission standards for cars? You don't know anything about these things, so you can't make an informed decision. You don't have time to employ people in the Civil Service to inform you, so you have to employ people to vote on your behalf, people who ARE employed to have it explained to them by the industry experts..
In the old days the village leaders would call the village and the villagers would vote on proposals raised by the committee, that is democracy.
Anything else is bulls
t, as illustrated by sentencing policy.You want to devolve policy down to the people in the village, that's fine, but you can only do it for stuff that people in the village understand, and all the implications.
battered said:
bencollins said:
Direct democracy would be the people voting on sentencing guidelines not someone faraway and out of touch.
.
In the old days the village leaders would call the village and the villagers would vote on proposals raised by the committee, that is democracy.
Anything else is bullst, as illustrated by sentencing policy.
Doesn't work. How are you voting on financial policy? Electrical safety regs? Food safety regs? Pharma regs? Euro 6 emission standards for cars? You don't know anything about these things, so you can't make an informed decision. You don't have time to employ people in the Civil Service to inform you, so you have to employ people to vote on your behalf, people who ARE employed to have it explained to them by the industry experts..
In the old days the village leaders would call the village and the villagers would vote on proposals raised by the committee, that is democracy.
Anything else is bulls
t, as illustrated by sentencing policy.You want to devolve policy down to the people in the village, that's fine, but you can only do it for stuff that people in the village understand, and all the implications.
In complicated issues you would get recommendations on how to vote from people you trust, for examples a party, independent figure, union or society. You could block vote issues.
You could just go with a party for five years if you were truly lazy, but at least you have the choice on how, when and if to vote. At the moment you vaguely vote like that. Well probably not actually as the winning party that rules generally wins with about 38% of the vote. We dont live in a democracy, the only thing we have today is the roman thumb option every 4-5 years, to change kings and earls or let them stay.
So are there any successful countries where your model, described above, works on a national level? What you are describing is a Parish Council, which is great when it comes to building a car park or not next door to the pub, but not so good on (say) national strategies around those unable to work and at risk of falling into crime because of mental health issues. Do you honestly think that the bloke down the pub wants to or even has the time to consider each and every change in legislation? How are you going to harvest and count 30 million votes on every bill, bearing in mind there are a few go through every day in parliament?
We currently employ people to do this thinking for us. We call them MPs. I didn't vote for mine but plenty of people did so he's doing, on the whole, what people around here want. On the whole, he is better informed than the bloke down the pub, because it's his job, and he's more capable of making complex decisions, because again it's his job and he's a good deal cleverer than the bloke down the pub.
But enough of that, where does your system work, in a successful country?
We currently employ people to do this thinking for us. We call them MPs. I didn't vote for mine but plenty of people did so he's doing, on the whole, what people around here want. On the whole, he is better informed than the bloke down the pub, because it's his job, and he's more capable of making complex decisions, because again it's his job and he's a good deal cleverer than the bloke down the pub.
But enough of that, where does your system work, in a successful country?
Red 4 said:
Scuffers said:
What I am saying is it's about time our legal profession, police, Cps, etc took responsibility for doing their jobs properly.
They are there to serve and protect the public, not make excuses.
You appear to be confusing the role of each organisation.They are there to serve and protect the public, not make excuses.
With regard to your argument about sentencing it is not the police's job to punish.
Look, read what I said, where have I blamed the Police 100% for this situation?
It's all well and good each part of the CJS to point fingers and blame each other or blame the laws parliament makes, but how about a bit of introspection on their own part in all this?
have you any idea what it costs in terms of lost man-hours/insurance payouts/Police-court-CPS time/etc etc to deal with the small minority of scum that precipitate 99.9% of crime like this?
Now, I personally think paying for more prison spaces would be money well spent, along with MASSIVELY harsher sentences for repeat scum offenders like this one.
Start putting them away for LIFE (and I mean life or at least till they are 70+) will have a dramatic effect on both crime on the streets and the likelihood of others following their path.
Yes, in the short term this will cost, however, the long term savings will be obvious and huge, as well and the general benefits to society.
And before somebody goes on about the death penalty in the US not having the deterrent effect, consider this, they actually NEVER USE IT, it takes years of appeals, pleading, politics, etc for the handful that actually do get to it, so no wonder it's not a deterrent any more.
Lets' look at other countries, like UAE, do you see car thefts or burglaries there? no? why is that do you think?
Answer, people only have 2 hands.
bencollins said:
When people say "it wouldnt work" what they are expressing is "i cant think of a way to make it work". Not the same thing.
No, what people are saying is that 'it won't work'. Getting a majority vote on every policy would never work, just like getting a majority vote on general elections doesn't always work either.Regardless and back on topic, I have some sympathy with Scuffers view, in that we don't seam to have any policy for dealing with these repeat offenders, they are processed by the system over and over again, arrested, convicted, released, arrested, convicted, released, arrested.... it doesn't matter to these people who they rob, who they hurt, or very sadly in this case who they kill.
For these lost-causes, there needs to be a more robust sentencing in place to take them away from society until they have grown up.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...
One day he's smirking on his way to court, the next he's 'profoundly remorseful' - I wonder at which point he took guidance from his legal representative?
One day he's smirking on his way to court, the next he's 'profoundly remorseful' - I wonder at which point he took guidance from his legal representative?
AB said:
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...
One day he's smirking on his way to court, the next he's 'profoundly remorseful' - I wonder at which point he took guidance from his legal representative?
I doubt the miscreant even knows the meaning of the words 'profound' or 'remorseful'.One day he's smirking on his way to court, the next he's 'profoundly remorseful' - I wonder at which point he took guidance from his legal representative?
AB said:
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...
One day he's smirking on his way to court, the next he's 'profoundly remorseful' - I wonder at which point he took guidance from his legal representative?
I do hope Andrew Egerton, of DDE Law is proud of himself....One day he's smirking on his way to court, the next he's 'profoundly remorseful' - I wonder at which point he took guidance from his legal representative?
I wonder if he would be suggesting such a defence if it was his spouse that had got flattened?
its this kind of thing I was getting at earlier.
Scuffers said:
I do hope Andrew Egerton, of DDE Law is proud of himself....
I wonder if he would be suggesting such a defence if it was his spouse that had got flattened?
its this kind of thing I was getting at earlier.
would you prefer any subsequent conviction to be unsafe? should lawyers only represent people they like?I wonder if he would be suggesting such a defence if it was his spouse that had got flattened?
its this kind of thing I was getting at earlier.
anyone with half a brain (as well as the police and cps) would have suspected right from the off that such a Defence might well be made and might succeed on some count
also, the media (similar to some posters here, as always) risked prejudicing the trial, them with their reports of what they said was going on in the guys head, which they clearly couldn't have known but hey they mustn't have felt the circumstances alone were horrific enough
pork911 said:
would you prefer any subsequent conviction to be unsafe? should lawyers only represent people they like?
anyone with half a brain (as well as the police and cps) would have suspected right from the off that such a Defence might well be made and might succeed on some count
also, the media (similar to some posters here, as always) risked prejudicing the trial, them with their reports of what they said was going on in the guys head, which they clearly couldn't have known but hey they mustn't have felt the circumstances alone were horrific enough
sorry, I have not explained my point well enough.anyone with half a brain (as well as the police and cps) would have suspected right from the off that such a Defence might well be made and might succeed on some count
also, the media (similar to some posters here, as always) risked prejudicing the trial, them with their reports of what they said was going on in the guys head, which they clearly couldn't have known but hey they mustn't have felt the circumstances alone were horrific enough
Yes, everybody has the right to a proper decent defence, no question.
Where I have a problem is when said defence is basically knowingly lying their arse off to defend their client.
since when is it OK for a solicitor/Barrister to lie?
By all means paint your client in the best light possible, to to blatantly lie should simply not happen.
Specifically in this case, to even pretend that this scrote has any remorse is simple laughable, and then to suggest we pass on his sorrow to the family quite frankly makes me was to puke.
BBC said:
Mr Williams' solicitor Andrew Egerton issued a statement which said:
"Mr Williams has accepted that his actions and his driving caused the death of PC Phillips. He is adamant that he did not drive at the officer and that he did not intend to injure, let alone kill, him.
"He extended his apologies through the police to PC Phillips' young family. It is now time for the judicial process to take over, and we would ask that all bear in mind Mr Williams' right to a fair trial."
"Mr Williams has accepted that his actions and his driving caused the death of PC Phillips. He is adamant that he did not drive at the officer and that he did not intend to injure, let alone kill, him.
"He extended his apologies through the police to PC Phillips' young family. It is now time for the judicial process to take over, and we would ask that all bear in mind Mr Williams' right to a fair trial."
Edited by Scuffers on Friday 9th October 18:26
What exactly do you think the solicitor lied about, as it's far from obvious from your post? The solicitor is recounting what the SUSPECT said in interview to the POLICE. Do keep up at the back. Suspects / defendants lie all the time. Are you suggesting that solicitors should only represent honest defendants?
agtlaw said:
What exactly do you think the solicitor lied about, as it's far from obvious from your post? The solicitor is recounting what the SUSPECT said in interview to the POLICE. Do keep up at the back. Suspects / defendants lie all the time. Are you suggesting that solicitors should only represent honest defendants?
and you honestly believe his client came up with those words?No, get real.
first court appearance, scrote is giving it the thumbs up like the big man, now square that with his solicitors statement.
Please, don't insult all of our intelligence and try and claim he was just relaying his clients words/thoughts.
Does integrity mean nothing these days?
Scuffers said:
Where I have a problem is when said defence is basically knowingly lying their arse off to defend their client.
since when is it OK for a solicitor/Barrister to lie?
Williams is no stranger to police, courts or the legal system - as has been reported in the press.since when is it OK for a solicitor/Barrister to lie?
I suspect he will know his way around what he should/ should not say even at the tender age of 18.
Someone will represent him. That does not mean they will provide a script for him.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff