Lee Rigby's killer wants compo
Discussion
There are currently 15 active petitions for the death penalty on the uk govt petition site, not one has over a 1000 votes. The most supported petition in the history of the site got 26,351 supporters in 6 months. The one to ban Trump has got 535,865 supporters at the time of posting this since Tuesday. This would suggest that few people really want the return of capital punishment.
Collectingbrass said:
WinstonWolf said:
So in this case you would also use restraint as that's what prison officers are trained to do?
Of course I would use the restraints I had been trained and authorised to use, why wouldn’t I?WinstonWolf said:
You have a responsibility for the safety of the other prisoners and your colleagues. The prisoner is getting free, what do *you* do to protect your colleagues and the other inmates?
Everything I am legally entitled and trained to do, including calling for armed police support and cleaning up after they've shot him if necessary. Again, why wouldn’t I?Like you I don't have an issue with the use of proper restraint techniques or more forceful legal control responses; where I have the issue is in the improper use of that force, denying the injured person their due as a result of that improper use of force because they committed a heinous crime and trying to engender a public outcry to protect those who *may* have been negligent because the injured person is “scum”.
TheTrash said:
Collectingbrass said:
WinstonWolf said:
So in this case you would also use restraint as that's what prison officers are trained to do?
Of course I would use the restraints I had been trained and authorised to use, why wouldn’t I?WinstonWolf said:
You have a responsibility for the safety of the other prisoners and your colleagues. The prisoner is getting free, what do *you* do to protect your colleagues and the other inmates?
Everything I am legally entitled and trained to do, including calling for armed police support and cleaning up after they've shot him if necessary. Again, why wouldn’t I?Like you I don't have an issue with the use of proper restraint techniques or more forceful legal control responses; where I have the issue is in the improper use of that force, denying the injured person their due as a result of that improper use of force because they committed a heinous crime and trying to engender a public outcry to protect those who *may* have been negligent because the injured person is “scum”.
Chop chop, what's *your* solution?
V6Pushfit said:
La Liga said:
I don't think he has been in this instance, but you've got to be pretty simple to see the inconsistency and implications of approving such actions.
or just leave him to the other inmates I'm sure there will be several lifers happy to have a go at his neck with a rusty nail Generally speaking, the protections and safeguards we have in the system are there to ensure as best as possible a civilised and accountable manner in which the state treats people.
When we have extreme examples of extreme people trying to rely on these protections and safeguards it's very easy to want to disregard them and forget the bigger picture.
I don't care that he's had his teeth knocked out. I wouldn't have cared had the outcome of shooting them on the street been fatal (although I'd prefer the officers not to have to life with it). I do care about the bigger picture and why we have to have consistency in the application of the protections and safeguards that are there for all.
Digga said:
IMHO there is a very big difference and the sentences should reflect this which, at present, they do not.
He has the maximum possible sentence under UK law. It can't reflect it any more unless we start talking about death sentences, which will never occur again. madcowman said:
From what I've been told my friends in that kind of industry, its a lot easier to restrain someone without hurting them as much when there are 5 of you , if there are are only a few of you then you have to use considerably more force.
This is exactly correct. WinstonWolf said:
Officers have split second to make a judgement call. I've been out on the beer, had a curry and yet we're still waiting to hear your solution...
Chop chop, what's *your* solution?
What argument are you actually proposing? I don't see anyone who is suggesting the prisoner officers aren't allowed to defend themselves and use force which will cause injuries when faced with a violent prisoner. Chop chop, what's *your* solution?
It's the idea that because he's a very bad person it's OK to do whatever to him that people are objecting to.
La Liga said:
V6Pushfit said:
La Liga said:
I don't think he has been in this instance, but you've got to be pretty simple to see the inconsistency and implications of approving such actions.
or just leave him to the other inmates I'm sure there will be several lifers happy to have a go at his neck with a rusty nail Generally speaking, the protections and safeguards we have in the system are there to ensure as best as possible a civilised and accountable manner in which the state treats people.
When we have extreme examples of extreme people trying to rely on these protections and safeguards it's very easy to want to disregard them and forget the bigger picture.
I don't care that he's had his teeth knocked out. I wouldn't have cared had the outcome of shooting them on the street been fatal (although I'd prefer the officers not to have to life with it). I do care about the bigger picture and why we have to have consistency in the application of the protections and safeguards that are there for all.
Digga said:
IMHO there is a very big difference and the sentences should reflect this which, at present, they do not.
He has the maximum possible sentence under UK law. It can't reflect it any more unless we start talking about death sentences, which will never occur again. madcowman said:
From what I've been told my friends in that kind of industry, its a lot easier to restrain someone without hurting them as much when there are 5 of you , if there are are only a few of you then you have to use considerably more force.
This is exactly correct. WinstonWolf said:
Officers have split second to make a judgement call. I've been out on the beer, had a curry and yet we're still waiting to hear your solution...
Chop chop, what's *your* solution?
What argument are you actually proposing? I don't see anyone who is suggesting the prisoner officers aren't allowed to defend themselves and use force which will cause injuries when faced with a violent prisoner. Chop chop, what's *your* solution?
It's the idea that because he's a very bad person it's OK to do whatever to him that people are objecting to.
Collectingbrass said:
La Liga said:
V6Pushfit said:
La Liga said:
I don't think he has been in this instance, but you've got to be pretty simple to see the inconsistency and implications of approving such actions.
or just leave him to the other inmates I'm sure there will be several lifers happy to have a go at his neck with a rusty nail Generally speaking, the protections and safeguards we have in the system are there to ensure as best as possible a civilised and accountable manner in which the state treats people.
When we have extreme examples of extreme people trying to rely on these protections and safeguards it's very easy to want to disregard them and forget the bigger picture.
I don't care that he's had his teeth knocked out. I wouldn't have cared had the outcome of shooting them on the street been fatal (although I'd prefer the officers not to have to life with it). I do care about the bigger picture and why we have to have consistency in the application of the protections and safeguards that are there for all.
Digga said:
IMHO there is a very big difference and the sentences should reflect this which, at present, they do not.
He has the maximum possible sentence under UK law. It can't reflect it any more unless we start talking about death sentences, which will never occur again. madcowman said:
From what I've been told my friends in that kind of industry, its a lot easier to restrain someone without hurting them as much when there are 5 of you , if there are are only a few of you then you have to use considerably more force.
This is exactly correct. WinstonWolf said:
Officers have split second to make a judgement call. I've been out on the beer, had a curry and yet we're still waiting to hear your solution...
Chop chop, what's *your* solution?
What argument are you actually proposing? I don't see anyone who is suggesting the prisoner officers aren't allowed to defend themselves and use force which will cause injuries when faced with a violent prisoner. Chop chop, what's *your* solution?
It's the idea that because he's a very bad person it's OK to do whatever to him that people are objecting to.
We're all waiting for your solution, what do you propose when a violent prisoner refuses to comply?
Remember, you are responsibility for the safety of your fellow officers and the other inmates...
WinstonWolf said:
Nope, it's entirely his own fault. This wasn't a punishment, it was as a result of his behaviour.
We're all waiting for your solution, what do you propose when a violent prisoner refuses to comply?
Remember, you are responsibility for the safety of your fellow officers and the other inmates...
I think it might be something to do with giving him a nice cup of tea to calm down and a biscuit and getting counsellers in?We're all waiting for your solution, what do you propose when a violent prisoner refuses to comply?
Remember, you are responsibility for the safety of your fellow officers and the other inmates...
Because he won't do the same again then now will he.
WinstonWolf said:
Nope, it's entirely his own fault. This wasn't a punishment, it was as a result of his behaviour.
We're all waiting for your solution, what do you propose when a violent prisoner refuses to comply?
Remember, you are responsibility for the safety of your fellow officers and the other inmates...
I've already answered this - I would use the training I have been given and the force I am authorised to use to protect my fellow officers and the other inmates. We're all waiting for your solution, what do you propose when a violent prisoner refuses to comply?
Remember, you are responsibility for the safety of your fellow officers and the other inmates...
If that force results in injury to the offender, my fellow officers or others I will await the outcome of both the criminal and civil cases. I will not expect those outcomes to be swayed by the previous acts or character of the injured person.
If you still don't think I've answered your question then please explain what it is about your question that I have missed.
Collectingbrass said:
I've already answered this - I would use the training I have been given and the force I am authorised to use to protect my fellow officers and the other inmates.
If that force results in injury to the offender, my fellow officers or others I will await the outcome of both the criminal and civil cases. I will not expect those outcomes to be swayed by the previous acts or character of the injured person.
If you still don't think I've answered your question then please explain what it is about your question that I have missed.
You seem to be under the impression that there is a way to restrain violent people without the possibility of anyone getting injured. We'd like you to describe to technique.If that force results in injury to the offender, my fellow officers or others I will await the outcome of both the criminal and civil cases. I will not expect those outcomes to be swayed by the previous acts or character of the injured person.
If you still don't think I've answered your question then please explain what it is about your question that I have missed.
Collectingbrass said:
I've already answered this - I would use the training I have been given and the force I am authorised to use to protect my fellow officers and the other inmates.
If that force results in injury to the offender, my fellow officers or others I will await the outcome of both the criminal and civil cases. I will not expect those outcomes to be swayed by the previous acts or character of the injured person.
If you still don't think I've answered your question then please explain what it is about your question that I have missed.
Go on then, show us how its done?If that force results in injury to the offender, my fellow officers or others I will await the outcome of both the criminal and civil cases. I will not expect those outcomes to be swayed by the previous acts or character of the injured person.
If you still don't think I've answered your question then please explain what it is about your question that I have missed.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, your answer is just a formula for the continuance of the 'uman rights" gravy train enjoyed by the opportunistic reptiles of the legal profession.
TheTrash said:
Collectingbrass said:
I've already answered this - I would use the training I have been given and the force I am authorised to use to protect my fellow officers and the other inmates.
If that force results in injury to the offender, my fellow officers or others I will await the outcome of both the criminal and civil cases. I will not expect those outcomes to be swayed by the previous acts or character of the injured person.
If you still don't think I've answered your question then please explain what it is about your question that I have missed.
You seem to be under the impression that there is a way to restrain violent people without the possibility of anyone getting injured. We'd like you to describe to technique.If that force results in injury to the offender, my fellow officers or others I will await the outcome of both the criminal and civil cases. I will not expect those outcomes to be swayed by the previous acts or character of the injured person.
If you still don't think I've answered your question then please explain what it is about your question that I have missed.
I repeat my position, your attitude is part of the problem with modern 'justice'.
What of Lee Rigby's family? How will this affect them?
TheTrash said:
Collectingbrass said:
I've already answered this - I would use the training I have been given and the force I am authorised to use to protect my fellow officers and the other inmates.
If that force results in injury to the offender, my fellow officers or others I will await the outcome of both the criminal and civil cases. I will not expect those outcomes to be swayed by the previous acts or character of the injured person.
If you still don't think I've answered your question then please explain what it is about your question that I have missed.
You seem to be under the impression that there is a way to restrain violent people without the possibility of anyone getting injured. We'd like you to describe to technique.If that force results in injury to the offender, my fellow officers or others I will await the outcome of both the criminal and civil cases. I will not expect those outcomes to be swayed by the previous acts or character of the injured person.
If you still don't think I've answered your question then please explain what it is about your question that I have missed.
Collectingbrass said:
If that force results in injury to the offender
If the current approved techniques, including escalation of force and numbers, have been properly used and injury to the offender results there is no civil case to answer by the officers involved. If the Prison Service has properly trained their officers in the current best practice techniques and provided the necessary equipment there is no corporate case to answer either. My line of arguement here isn't about how you restrain a violent offender, it's about *if* there has been negilgence then the offender's previous crimes and character should not be taken into account when assessing how that negligence is corrected.
Put it like this, if a car is on the motorway and a lorry pulls into the car's lane hitting that car we would all agree it is fair to expect the lorry's insurance to pay for the write off. How many points on the car driver's license are they allowed before that car driver gets no payment from the lorry's insurers?
WinstonWolf said:
TheTrash said:
Collectingbrass said:
I've already answered this - I would use the training I have been given and the force I am authorised to use to protect my fellow officers and the other inmates.
If that force results in injury to the offender, my fellow officers or others I will await the outcome of both the criminal and civil cases. I will not expect those outcomes to be swayed by the previous acts or character of the injured person.
If you still don't think I've answered your question then please explain what it is about your question that I have missed.
You seem to be under the impression that there is a way to restrain violent people without the possibility of anyone getting injured. We'd like you to describe to technique.If that force results in injury to the offender, my fellow officers or others I will await the outcome of both the criminal and civil cases. I will not expect those outcomes to be swayed by the previous acts or character of the injured person.
If you still don't think I've answered your question then please explain what it is about your question that I have missed.
I repeat my position, your attitude is part of the problem with modern 'justice'.
WinstonWolf said:
What of Lee Rigby's family? How will this affect them?
Why should it affect them and why should it be taken into account?If we accept for the sake of arguement that it should, then where do you draw the line?
worsy said:
wiggy001 said:
Can someone please tell me what use the compo will be to him when he is serving a whole life tariff at her majesty's pleasure?
Purchase prison luxuries (chocolate, magazines) without having to perform a job?Collectingbrass said:
WinstonWolf said:
TheTrash said:
Collectingbrass said:
I've already answered this - I would use the training I have been given and the force I am authorised to use to protect my fellow officers and the other inmates.
If that force results in injury to the offender, my fellow officers or others I will await the outcome of both the criminal and civil cases. I will not expect those outcomes to be swayed by the previous acts or character of the injured person.
If you still don't think I've answered your question then please explain what it is about your question that I have missed.
You seem to be under the impression that there is a way to restrain violent people without the possibility of anyone getting injured. We'd like you to describe to technique.If that force results in injury to the offender, my fellow officers or others I will await the outcome of both the criminal and civil cases. I will not expect those outcomes to be swayed by the previous acts or character of the injured person.
If you still don't think I've answered your question then please explain what it is about your question that I have missed.
I repeat my position, your attitude is part of the problem with modern 'justice'.
WinstonWolf said:
What of Lee Rigby's family? How will this affect them?
Why should it affect them and why should it be taken into account?If we accept for the sake of arguement that it should, then where do you draw the line?
You seriously don't know how it will affect them? Clippety clop my little troll...
Collectingbrass said:
And how far should a householder go? How is shooting someone in the back when they’ve been after a few quid reasonable? There is already law on reasonable force, and the guff from Cameron in 2010 / 11 / 12 on that topic did not result in a change in the law.
I think it's worth knowing that the law did change when it came to burglaries in dwellings, so in very specific circumstances. It changed from 'reasonable force in the circumstances' to being able to use force as long as it isn't 'grossly disproportionate'. I don't think the law needed changing but it's no bad thing. https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/ho...
WinstonWolf said:
No laws have been broken
Where did I say that?WinstonWolf said:
You seriously don't know how it will affect them? Clippety clop my little troll...
I have no doubt it will massivly affect them, I asked why that should be taken into account in a negligence claim?I also asked you where you would stop taking previous crimes & character into account. I'll clop off as you put it when you answer my question.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff