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

Soldato
Joined
15 Aug 2005
Posts
22,988
Location
Glasgow
2nd point.. It should be illegal for anyone paid from the public purse. politicians .... police etc to turn off replies to social media accounts. They are paid by us the public so therefore they are answerable to us the public if they don't like the replies they are getting then tough luck toughen up do what the public is asking you to do or go find another proffesion.

Disagree, it should in fact be the default and increasingly it is for many forces. Social media is used largely to release information to the public, the same as a press release or article on their website. There's no reason to invite people to troll, harass or otherwise derail whatever that message is at the time, not to mention the huge number of bots and spam. There are times where it's suitable to invite responses for engagement but otherwise it should be one-way communication, and if you still feel the need to be heard there are plenty of other ways to get in touch.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Posts
6,580
Disagree, it should in fact be the default and increasingly it is for many forces. Social media is used largely to release information to the public, the same as a press release or article on their website. There's no reason to invite people to troll, harass or otherwise derail whatever that message is at the time, not to mention the huge number of bots and spam. There are times where it's suitable to invite responses for engagement but otherwise it should be one-way communication, and if you still feel the need to be heard there are plenty of other ways to get in touch.

Exactly. Can you imagine the state of the replies to the Met Police account? It'd be a cess pit of uneducated whining and abuse that would benefit nobody.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,757

Not nearly long enough.

Report by the BBC, just in case anyone wants to start frothing (again) about GBNews stirring up trouble.
The BBC are also stirring up pro-establishment trouble constantly with their garbage headlines.

He was given a MINIMUM of 13 years and whilst there's a valid argument that it should just be life without appeal (or whatever it's called here) the judge has to follow guidelines for sentencing.
 
Last edited:
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
33,039
Location
Panting like a fiend
The BBC are also stirring up pro-establishment trouble constantly with their garbage headlines.

He was given a MINIMUM of 13 years and whilst there's a valid argument that it should just be life without appeal (or whatever it's called here) the judge has to follow guidelines for sentencing.
Erm "Police officer has received a minimum jail sentence of more than 13 years"

I'm not sure what is wrong with what the BBC said, they've stated the minimum he'll serve is 13 years.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,757
Erm "Police officer has received a minimum jail sentence of more than 13 years"

I'm not sure what is wrong with what the BBC said, they've stated the minimum he'll serve is 13 years.
I think the addition of minimum (who reads articles?) is rather important context and the lack thereof is prime 'he'll be out in half the time' material.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,369
Not nearly long enough.
our countries too soft on crime, especially the judges...

Beeing a druggie or dependent on alcohol is now a defence that excuses your bhevaiour.
I'm not even joking, real some of the judges statements in your local papers crime section...
It's proper tap on the wrist even for fairly serious crime.

we need life sentences


What was once attempted murder isn ow maybe 2-4 years.... if that... you can be a woman and glass someone in the face and not even see a prison cell...
Smashed a glass in another womans face so hard the glass shattered

Judge Stephen Earl said the case was too serious for anything less than a suspended sentence and imposed six months suspended for 12 months with 100 hours of unpaid work an £500 compensation to Miss Rickerby and £200 to Miss Quinn.
Too serious for anything less then a suspended sentence :cry:

It's like a parody sketch show...

Left another womans face scarred for life


Recorder Jason Pitter KC told her: "You ought to be ashamed of yourself. The circumstances seem to be you were unable to control your feelings, emotions, passions, centering around a man and you dealt with that by lashing out with a glass.

"That is a really serious offence. Not just the fact it's a weapon in the context of a drinking environment where other people could have been hurt but you were fortunate, just as fortunate as the complainant in this case, that the injuries were not more serious.

"You only need to look in the newspapers to see how this can result in loss of sight and other serious injuries. You were too wrapped up in your own emotions to see that."

Recorder Pitter sentenced Orrock, who has no previous convictions or history of violence and is a mum, to 18 months, suspended for 18 months with rehabilitation requirements, 90 days alcohol abstinence monitoring, 130 hours unpaid work and an order to pay £1,000 compensation.

Another Suspended Sentence....... literally left someone scarred for life and with permanent nerve damage....

32months for attempting to sell ONE KILO of cocaine
so out in what 14months or so?


Stab a woman in the chest 57 and 37 months
grievous bodily harm with intent.....

surely attempted murder? they also followed her into a park after some dispute, so they obviously planned to stab her

There was a time not all that long ago that people like this were deemed to dangerous to be in society.



another person glassed.... suspended sentence


Why is the UK so violent now? if it because there's almost no detterent anymore


Ironically punching someone a few times is worse than glassing them in the face it seems

I bet if you do the same to someone well known or wealthy the sentences are different.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
16,826
Location
Here and There...
our countries too soft on crime, especially the judges...

Beeing a druggie or dependent on alcohol is now a defence that excuses your bhevaiour.
I'm not even joking, real some of the judges statements in your local papers crime section...
It's proper tap on the wrist even for fairly serious crime.

we need life sentences


What was once attempted murder isn ow maybe 2-4 years.... if that... you can be a woman and glass someone in the face and not even see a prison cell...
Smashed a glass in another womans face so hard the glass shattered


Too serious for anything less then a suspended sentence :cry:

It's like a parody sketch show...

Left another womans face scarred for life




Another Suspended Sentence....... literally left someone scarred for life and with permanent nerve damage....

32months for attempting to sell ONE KILO of cocaine
so out in what 14months or so?


Stab a woman in the chest 57 and 37 months
grievous bodily harm with intent.....

surely attempted murder? they also followed her into a park after some dispute, so they obviously planned to stab her

There was a time not all that long ago that people like this were deemed to dangerous to be in society.



another person glassed.... suspended sentence


Why is the UK so violent now? if it because there's almost no detterent anymore


Ironically punching someone a few times is worse than glassing them in the face it seems

I bet if you do the same to someone well known or wealthy the sentences are different.
Just for context the level of reported violent crime in the UK is at an all time low and falling


I agree some of those sentences seem ridiculously light but to paint the UK as some hotbed of extreme violence is just not right.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
33,039
Location
Panting like a fiend
our countries too soft on crime, especially the judges...

Beeing a druggie or dependent on alcohol is now a defence that excuses your bhevaiour.
I'm not even joking, real some of the judges statements in your local papers crime section...
It's proper tap on the wrist even for fairly serious crime.

we need life sentences


What was once attempted murder isn ow maybe 2-4 years.... if that... you can be a woman and glass someone in the face and not even see a prison cell...
Smashed a glass in another womans face so hard the glass shattered


Too serious for anything less then a suspended sentence :cry:

It's like a parody sketch show...

Left another womans face scarred for life




Another Suspended Sentence....... literally left someone scarred for life and with permanent nerve damage....

32months for attempting to sell ONE KILO of cocaine
so out in what 14months or so?


Stab a woman in the chest 57 and 37 months
grievous bodily harm with intent.....

surely attempted murder? they also followed her into a park after some dispute, so they obviously planned to stab her

There was a time not all that long ago that people like this were deemed to dangerous to be in society.



another person glassed.... suspended sentence


Why is the UK so violent now? if it because there's almost no detterent anymore


Ironically punching someone a few times is worse than glassing them in the face it seems

I bet if you do the same to someone well known or wealthy the sentences are different.
Have you got legal training?
Have you heard everything about the cases?
Have yo0 got any idea of the guidence for sentencing that these "soft" judges have to follow or have their sentencing overturned?

The news never gives much detail about the court cases, and Judges actually have to follow the law laid own by the government and the guidelines, they also have to bear in mind things like the government telling them "we've not got enough jail cells" or "we're going to run out of jail cells soon, please try and avoid sending people to jail unless you have no other option".


Also you're starting from a false premise, the UK is less violent today than it has been at many times in the past (IIRC the stats suggest it's lower than 20 years ago), you're just getting what would once have been a page 4 item in the local paper delivered to you on the other side of the country, and getting it multiple times per day.
Much the same way a few years back there was the hysteria about "stranger kidnappings" of children after a couple of cases in about 6 months, when the statistics showed that the numbers were basically at their lowest rate for decades, the only thing that had changed was we'd got 24 hour news with space to fill, and a bunch of papers that loved a lurid headline.
I swear people have no idea how limited a reach a lot of news had just 30-40 years ago (local papers, limited space for articles, usually only a few times a week and you were normally hearing about things days after they happened), when half the time you didn't learn about a serious crime 5 miles away, but now you hear of stuff that's happening 200 miles away as easily as you do stuff that's happening a couple of streets away.


I can't remember if it was a forum or a blog, but I used to follow one where a couple of magistrates would create "composite" cases giving the details and ask the people reading to post what the sentence should be (they included links to the sentencing guidelines), taking into account any mitigating or aggravating factors.
It was always interesting seeing the range that people came up with, and how few spotted even the most important factors a judge or magistrate has to take into account (for example was someone coerced into taking part in a crime or was it spur of the moment loss of anger that was unusual and had a much worse consequence than might have been expected, or was it carefully planned and what showed that).
There were instances where people massively underestimated the punishment, and cases where they massively overestimated it and often it hinged on something that didn't stand out unless you were paying attention.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
21,004
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Erm "Police officer has received a minimum jail sentence of more than 13 years"

I'm not sure what is wrong with what the BBC said, they've stated the minimum he'll serve is 13 years.

They didn't say what the sentence was. So it was probably life.

It's possible to be misleading without lying, and that's what they did. It's common to misrepresent sentencing in reporting nowadays. It stirs up the wannabee vigilantes and spreads fear, so it's good for getting views and ranting (aka "engagement").
 
Back
Top Bottom