Armed gang violence. What's going on in Liverpool?

dowie said:
Ohh could be the incident in Brum - Burger bar boys vs the Johnson crew, it was a hair salon but I guess the gang name is takeaway related, two girls who weren't the targets were sadly killed, one of them 17.

Murder of Charlene Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Ah that's a different one, the one I was thinking of was the murder of Agnes Sina-Inakoju https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/apr/12/gang-members-teenage-girls-murder

Although it does go to show that these cases do result in very long sentences.
 
VincentHanna said:
Pretty easy to do.

Portugal, a similar nation to us, decriminalised drugs in 2001 and drug use actually fell compared with other EU countries.

transformdrugs.org

Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight. | Transform

transformdrugs.org transformdrugs.org
Click to expand...

That is only decriminalising drugs, so drug users are treated as addicts and in need of healthcare/treatment rather than treated as criminals. I'm not sure any country has legalised all drugs. Portugal is a step in the right direction. Drug use will never go away though, the goal should be to take the industry out of the grip of organised crime/gangs, use the money raised through taxation to fund treatment, make the drugs as safe as possible, most opioid deaths are through overdose because what they just purchased is stronger than what they are used to, if the quality is always the same it makes it safer. Sadly the Daily Mail brigade will never allow this to happen, they won't even allow weed to be legalised ffs.
 
www.bbc.co.uk

Olivia Pratt-Korbel: Reward of £50k offered in hunt for girl's killer

The money has been put up for information leading to the conviction of Olivia Pratt-Korbel's killer.
www.bbc.co.uk

Sorry but how is offering £50k to criminals to shop their mates going to solve the issue here? It may catch the one that did it but the people who shop this guy are going to be criminals themselves or their scum families.

I would hope that once the required information is received that they don't honour the reward payment.
 
danlightbulb said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Olivia Pratt-Korbel: Reward of £50k offered in hunt for girl's killer

The money has been put up for information leading to the conviction of Olivia Pratt-Korbel's killer.
www.bbc.co.uk

Sorry but how is offering £50k to criminals to shop their mates going to solve the issue here? It may catch the one that did it but the people who shop this guy are going to be criminals themselves or their scum families.

I would hope that once the required information is received that they don't honour the reward payment.
Click to expand...

That would just mean future crimes went unsolved.
 
I'd hazard a guess the police have a damned good idea who did it, but proving it.... Hmmm.

IMHO if the police on the ground stopped pussy footing around, were fully supported by their bosses and then the CPS and in turn the courts, it's not too late to bring back some sense of control over the streets. Soon it probably will be. The firearms officers are totally justifiably (I was going to say up in arms, but perhaps, "terribly frustrated" is better), about the way they're treated when they shoot someone. That needs addressing with a matter of urgency, they should feel they get every possible support from above, within reason, for deciding a firearms discharge is their safest bet. There'll be none willing to do the job if not, and it's a job that needs more recruits, not less.
 
Chris Wilson said:
I'd hazard a guess the police have a damned good idea who did it, but proving it.... Hmmm.

IMHO if the police on the ground stopped pussy footing around, were fully supported by their bosses and then the CPS and in turn the courts, it's not too late to bring back some sense of control over the streets. Soon it probably will be. The firearms officers are totally justifiably (I was going to say up in arms, but perhaps, "terribly frustrated" is better), about the way they're treated when they shoot someone. That needs addressing with a matter of urgency, they should feel they get every possible support from above, within reason, for deciding a firearms discharge is their safest bet. There'll be none willing to do the job if not, and it's a job that needs more recruits, not less.
Click to expand...

That is mostly nonsense. They know why they have to go through hoops after shooting someone, if not they could be shooting people left right and centre.

Im fairly sure there are more than enough people wanting to be firearms officers.
 
Robbo said:
From what I can gather, the police know exactly who did it, but don't have the evidence.
Click to expand...
That's somewhat of a paradox though isn't it? If they know who did it, there must be a reason that they know. And if the police's confidence in that is high, then that should be good enough for prosecution.
 
danlightbulb said:
That's somewhat of a paradox though isn't it? If they know who did it, there must be a reason that they know. And if the police's confidence in that is high, then that should be good enough for prosecution.
Click to expand...
It's not the police who decide to charge though it's the CPS and it has to be a pretty large amount of concrete evidence to convince them to pursue the case, this is what is frustrating the police as they're the ones who get the blame for not locking people up.
 
danlightbulb said:
That's somewhat of a paradox though isn't it? If they know who did it, there must be a reason that they know. And if the police's confidence in that is high, then that should be good enough for prosecution.
Click to expand...
Really?

So you want the police to go to court (and lose) a prosecution because they "know" that someone was involved in a crime, but don't actually have any evidence to back it up, thus meaning that person can never be charged again for that crime.
Or do you want to go back to the "good old days" when the police would "know" someone committed a crime, find the evidence that fits, and get a prosecution of some local "weirdo" or "bad boy" who 25 years later it turns out couldn't have done it, and they'd ignored the actual evidence that pointed to the real criminal? It took something like 25 years of effort for the police to start to clear their reputation for fitting people up after a whole string of "wrongful convictions" where it turned out they'd let actual murderers and rapists go free because they'd fixated on an easy target like the local man who had the mental capacity of a child, or some other disability.

The police can know someone most likely did something based on word of mouth, past behaviour, being in the right general area at the time, but that's not evidence, and it shouldn't be enough for a conviction unless you're willing to allow an awful ot of innocent people get locked up. The thing is, when they think they know someone did something, and it's something as big as this, they can and will work at it and are very likely to end up with it going to court with solid evidence, it just might take months/years to get a conviction that holds, as opposed to days/weeks to get a case that will get thrown out of court, or overtunred when the defence gets hold of the evidence the police may have missed/ignored (and going back to the 70's the police ignored a lot of evidence if it didn't fit their suspect).
 
^ So the police don't know, they think they know, there is a difference.

Robbo said "the police know exactly who did it". That suggests certainty, and if there is certainty there must be evidence for that.
 
danlightbulb said:
^ So the police don't know, they think they know, there is a difference.

Robbo said "the police know exactly who did it". That suggests certainty, and if there is certainty there must be evidence for that.
Click to expand...

As Werewolf already covered, they can be extremely confident who the perpetrator is, but lack absolute hard evidence when it comes to a trial.
 
danlightbulb said:
^ So the police don't know, they think they know, there is a difference.

Robbo said "the police know exactly who did it". That suggests certainty, and if there is certainty there must be evidence for that.
Click to expand...
You can "know" something, but not have the proof needed to stand up in court.

It's a fairly simple concept, the court requires hard proof, preferably with enough physical evidence to convince a jury of 12 normal people and meet the standards for a safe conviction. And the CPS won't start a prosecution until they've got some hard proof because except in extremely limited circumstances if they fail to get a conviction in court, they'll never get the guilty person back in court for the same charges even if they then have all the hard evidence they could ever need.

The police and CPS would love a fast arrest and charge, but more than that they want any charge to stick, so they'll take a slow process that builds the evidence up (even whilst they're getting complaints about "not doing anything), over a quick charge that fails and permanently lets the criminal off.
I think I've said it before, but the murderers and everyone connected to this are probably very nervous because the police will come down hard on them, and will be waiting for any mistake or any scrap of evidence that can provide a good link to anyone no matter how long it takes. When you commit this kind of crime it's going to hang over your head for the rest of your life, as the police will always keep it open and look at it again from time to time to re-examine old evidence with new methods, or see how potentially new evidence fits in.
 
Thread bump: Someone has been charged with the murder: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-62663145

A man has been charged with the murder of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, who was shot in her home in Liverpool.​
The nine-year-old was fatally wounded as her mother tried to stop a gunman chasing another man into their house.​
Thomas Cashman, 34, of West Derby, Liverpool, has also been charged with the attempted murder of Olivia's mother Cheryl Korbel and Joseph Nee.​
Olivia was shot in the chest and her mother injured as Mr Nee, a convicted burglar, was chased into their home.​
Mr Cashman has also been charged with two counts of possession of a firearm to endanger life.​
Paul Russell, 40, of Snowberry Road, West Derby, has been charged with assisting an offender.​
Both men are due to appear at Liverpool Magistrates' Court on Monday.​
 
I'll bang the saucepans once the CPS have created a workable case and presented it correctly and irrefutably.

Then of course we need a judge that isn't going to find extenuating circumstances for the man's actions.

A way to go yet I am afraid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom