This is why people are losing respect for the police...

[Tony Edwards]

Minimum, maximum, life, whatever. He should never breathe free air again.

Don't know why but after reading this post i just get Schwarzenegger's voice in my head shouting 'give these people air!'

While I got.

 

[jpaul]

While I got.

Is that this Tate ****** you're inflicting on us ? - think he is lower down the human sewage scale than Carrick.

 

[Dis86]

He's been sentenced to 36 life terms, that 30 years is the absolute minimum he will serve, even if he's the best behaved prisoner in the world, finds god and shows all the remorse possible.
Realistically he's not getting out until he's well into his 80's if ever.

People need to remember a Judge normally has to give a "minimum" which is what tends to get latched onto when people are going on about the courts being soft, but there is also the maximum and the recommended terms and what someone will serve is usually somewhere between the recommended time and the maximum (all of which are legally required by the judge, along with the reasons).

Does that mean he won't be amongst the public in that time? There are open prisons. Supervised release. Tagging. All count as being 'in prison' these days.

 

[Alice In Wonderland]

30 years minimum in prison for Carrick - doubt he'll last anything close to that.

He knows he's in for a really tough time and serves him right to be honest.

I heard on the news that he's already tried to kill himself so I imagine he'll have to be watched carefully.

 

[StriderX]

Watched by people whose life is increasingly miserable because of people like him destroying the police's reputation?

Yeah...

 

[Alice In Wonderland]

Watched by people whose life is increasingly miserable because of people like him destroying the police's reputation?

Yeah...

I mean watched by the prison guards on suicide watch.

 

[Werewolf]

Does that mean he won't be amongst the public in that time? There are open prisons. Supervised release. Tagging. All count as being 'in prison' these days.

IIRC you don't normally get put into an "open" prison until you're about to be released, it's one of the last steps for long time prisoners before they're released.

So if he's got a 30 year minimum he's very unlikely to be in an open prison until maybe the last few months, if that given the severity and manner of his crimes.
Also tagging isn't IIRC classed as "in prison", it's a punishment that is meant to be instead of taking up an expensive prison place for someone who is generally considered low risk or whose offences were of a specific type.

 

[Dis86]

IIRC you don't normally get put into an "open" prison until you're about to be released, it's one of the last steps for long time prisoners before they're released.

So if he's got a 30 year minimum he's very unlikely to be in an open prison until maybe the last few months, if that given the severity and manner of his crimes.
Also tagging isn't IIRC classed as "in prison", it's a punishment that is meant to be instead of taking up an expensive prison place for someone who is generally considered low risk or whose offences were of a specific type.

Those rules were massively relaxed a few years ago. People with over 5 years to go are in open prisons, including those who are classed as 'high risk'.

"Inside Time revealed earlier this year that three open prisons in England – Leyhill, North Sea Camp and Haverigg – together hold almost 500 men convicted of sexual offences who are assessed as posing a “high risk of serious harm”."

Reading around I found the following;

"Prisoners who are sentenced to two years or more will serve half their sentence in prison and serve the rest of the sentence in the community on licence. While on licence an prisoner will be subject to supervision and the licence will include conditions. If a prisoner breaches their conditions, they may be recalled to prison. "

It might be different for those issued a life sentence though.

 

[hurfdurf]

They aren't coming to someones home or place of work. They aren't there to see the staff.

The PSPO was in place to stop people causing a disturbance, either for or against abortion.

The charges were dropped.

The point you're making failed the legal test.

It was obvious it would fail. That's why it was a waste of time.



You seem to be advocating for the police to make erroneous arrests just to get people out of the way?

They might not be there to see staff, but bother and upset patients, but it’s affecting the staff and the complaints are vast from the public. On both fronts, the PSPO was put in place which allows the arrest of someone for breaching it. The offender breached it.

You are aware that de-arrests are very very common in policing? As is deciding not to prosecute someone once they have been arrested. The police will use the powers granted by the existence of the PSPO. It was hardly a waste of time, it worked exactly as intended.

And again I ask, for claiming she was arrested for praying, you should apologise for being such a snakey little liar.

 

[Freakbro]

Those rules were massively relaxed a few years ago. People with over 5 years to go are in open prisons, including those who are classed as 'high risk'.

"Inside Time revealed earlier this year that three open prisons in England – Leyhill, North Sea Camp and Haverigg – together hold almost 500 men convicted of sexual offences who are assessed as posing a “high risk of serious harm”."

Reading around I found the following;

"Prisoners who are sentenced to two years or more will serve half their sentence in prison and serve the rest of the sentence in the community on licence. While on licence an prisoner will be subject to supervision and the licence will include conditions. If a prisoner breaches their conditions, they may be recalled to prison. "

It might be different for those issued a life sentence though.

I might be wrong but I'd be surprised if someone given 36 life sentences is going to in an open prison or let out on licence early. Hence why the judge said he must serve a minimum of 30 yrs?

I mentioned earlier about Charles Bronson, he's been in around 50 yrs now.

In other news, people have complained about the sentence bring too lenient, lol, and I think the news said its under review already.

 

[GGizmo]

And again I ask, for claiming she was arrested for praying, you should apologise for being such a snakey little liar.

Why are you being an idiot?

That's literally why she was arrested. Have you seen the arrest video?

The cop asked her if she was praying, and she said she might be praying in her head.

So are you going to apologise?

I'll post the video so you can see for yourself.

 

[StriderX]

Although she obviously should not have been hassled for a clearly non-intimidatory protest, this is not America and their increasingly exported BS makes me almost not want to care about this particular instance.

 

[Richie]

Let’s not lie about why she was arrested. Don’t be dishonest.

You should apologise for being so disingenuous.

And again I ask, for claiming she was arrested for praying, you should apologise for being such a snakey little liar.

You really need to have a hard look at the methods you use to discuss topics on this board.

Sometimes you have generally good points but they are lost in the sly and sneaky way you hurl personal insults.

Now, I am not entirely sure if you do it to illicit an emotional response from the person you are directing them to, or if you are just terrible at putting a coherent and convincing argument across so you lower yourself to personal sleights as a crutch.

Either way - it looks desperate. Be better...

 

[Werewolf]

Although she obviously should not have been hassled for a clearly non-intimidatory protest, this is not America and their increasingly exported BS makes me almost not want to care about this particular instance.

If there is a court order saying she can't have any protest there/can't hang around that area due to her past behaviour then breaching the court order is basically enough to be at the ver minimum moved on by the police.

 

[hurfdurf]

You really need to have a hard look at the methods you use to discuss topics on this board.

Sometimes you have generally good points but they are lost in the sly and sneaky way you hurl personal insults.

Now, I am not entirely sure if you do it to illicit an emotional response from the person you are directing them to, or if you are just terrible at putting a coherent and convincing argument across so you lower yourself to personal sleights as a crutch.

Either way - it looks desperate. Be better...

Liberalism, never mind full blown lying does not warrant being polite. People who openly lie about things need addressing and called out.

I’m not sly or sneaky about anything, I’m open with my disdain. I’m not putting effort into getting an argument across in GD, I point out a wrong and mock the person.

Other forums I’m on don’t allow such drivel to be posted, it’s not tolerated in SC anywhere near as much, it shouldn’t be here and more people should do it, it’s unacceptable.

 

[hurfdurf]

Why are you being an idiot?

That's literally why she was arrested. Have you seen the arrest video?

The cop asked her if she was praying, and she said she might be praying in her head.

So are you going to apologise?

I'll post the video so you can see for yourself.

If a cop pulls you over for speeding and says “in a rush to get home are you?” are you under the impression that when you get the speeding fine it’s because you broke the law allowing you to be in a rush to get home and when you go to court you are being sentenced for “being in a rush to get home”.

Just because he asked her if she was praying or not, doesn’t mean that’s why she was arrested.

He even says in the video that you yourself have posted “you are under arrest for suspicion of failing to comply to the PSPO”….

So no, it’s not literally why she was arrested at all was it, the cop explains it.

I think it’s fairly clear I’m not being an idiot, if you can’t even watch your own video, or understand what is said in the video, and the very very basics of how the police work and make arrests, then you have no business commenting on arrests or anything in general it would seem.

 

[Uther]

In other news, people have complained about the sentence bring too lenient, lol, and I think the news said its under review already.

Tbh for someone like this scumbag it should be a whole life term.

 

[GGizmo]

If a cop pulls you over for speeding and says “in a rush to get home are you?” are you under the impression that when you get the speeding fine it’s because you broke the law allowing you to be in a rush to get home and when you go to court you are being sentenced for “being in a rush to get home”.

Just because he asked her if she was praying or not, doesn’t mean that’s why she was arrested.

He even says in the video that you yourself have posted “you are under arrest for suspicion of failing to comply to the PSPO”….

So no, it’s not literally why she was arrested at all was it, the cop explains it.

I think it’s fairly clear I’m not being an idiot, if you can’t even watch your own video, or understand what is said in the video, and the very very basics of how the police work and make arrests, then you have no business commenting on arrests or anything in general it would seem.

I think you have to remember a person can stand in those areas as long as they aren't exercising either support or condemnation of the abortion clinic. That's the law.

The cop asked her if she was praying because that could be seen as a breach of the law.

When she said she might have been silently praying he arrested her.

I don't know why they eventually dropped the charges. But just from observation of the interaction she said "might". So the cop had to prove she was. Which he couldn't do.

 

[Will]

Police officers in this country arrest people on suspicion of committing an offence, they do not have to *prove* the person has committed the offence prior to making an arrest, they simply need reasonable grounds to suspect the person whom they are there to arrest.

An arrest is often what precedes an investigation (the arrest almost always allows officers to secure and preserve evidence by way of questioning, as well as serving other purposes under PACE Code G).

Just because an investigation following an arrest does not subsequently result in any charges, does not automatically make the arrest unlawful or illegitimate in the eyes of the law.

 

[Tony Edwards]

I think you have to remember a person can stand in those areas as long as they aren't exercising either support or condemnation of the abortion clinic. That's the law.

The cop asked her if she was praying because that could be seen as a breach of the law.

When she said she might have been silently praying he arrested her.

I don't know why they eventually dropped the charges. But just from observation of the interaction she said "might". So the cop had to prove she was. Which he couldn't do.

He asked her if she was praying because she was more than likely known to them. You dont just go up to unknown people and ask them that sort of question.

She was intentionally trying to push the bounderies of the order but i dont expect you to understand that to be honest as you are probably getting your irritation from one of your alt right wing sites like most of your illogical grievances seem to come from.

These are the type of crazy people that try to push freeman nonsense.

She was asked why she was standing there and she actually said. 'Because this is an abortion centre'.

How you get away with calling people idiots is beyond me.