|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Derek Bentley, Chris Craig and the killing of PC Miles (1952)
Casebook Message Boards: Beyond Whitechapel - Other Crimes: Derek Bentley, Chris Craig and the killing of PC Miles (1952)
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 23 May 2002 - 09:05 am |        | | Opening thread. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 23 May 2002 - 09:44 am | | Hi All,
Hi Peter,
Martin wrote about Bentley's mental age that, like it or not, it could only be a mitigating circumstance. And that there are vicious and violent indiviudals thus afflicted, as well as the virtuous and lovable ones.
Unfortunately, whatever Bentley 'may well have been turning into' when they hanged him will never be known for certain.
But surely, Peter, you can't believe it was right, even in those days, to hang someone with a mental age of eleven, in case they were destined for a life of violent crime, forever influenced by the Craigs of this world. Can you?
Of course the tragedy suffered by Tony Miles and his family should never be pushed aside as though it didn't matter, when we are discussing Bentley and his family. I don't think anyone would ever dream of suggesting that Bentley's was the greater tragedy. But whatever could be done for Miles's family after the shooting was done. If only there were fewer Craigs in our society, he might not have been killed. We don't know that the Bentleys of this world would operate on their own without the Craigs.
We could lay the blame for Bentley's wrongdoing and subsequent hanging squarely at Craig's door for being a bad and powerful influence over a vulnerable man with the brain of a child. But even the law said Craig was too young to hang for what he did.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 23 May 2002 - 02:09 pm | | Did Peter say he approved of the hanging? In these difficult cases it's important to be clear whether we are calling the conviction or the sentence unjust. This was clearly recognized in the recent Texas case of the depressed mother of five who drowned them all. While the prosecution technically asked for the death penalty, they really didn't push at all hard for it, well aware that they'd gone quite as far as majority public opinion would accept in getting a conviction for first degree homicide. A jury which had found her gulty very rapidly, found against teh death sentence with equal rapidity. To kill the poor woman as well as convicting her would have produced an uproar, even in legally bloodthirsty Texas.
(Oh dear, Guy! I'm a menace to the tidy-minded. You start a thread to get Bentley and Craig our of Hanratty's hair, and I immediately plunge into yet another case for comparison!)
All th best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 23 May 2002 - 06:21 pm | | Caz, Martin
Yes, I do support the death penalty and especially so in the case of Derek Bentley.
So Bentley had a mental age of eleven? My children wouldn't even be allowed out of the garden at that age, let alone walking the streets with nomarks like Craig and his associates. So again I ask the question: What did his parents think he was doing?
Simon, the reason I go for the interpretation of 'Let him have it' that I have, is because the police officers who were present at the time would have heard a) The tone of voice it was said in ... and b) The context it was said in.
To accuse the police of lying is as old as the hills, but sooner or later we have to trust the police to tell the truth.
And Simon, Martin makes some very valid points about Craig's apparent indifference to where the bullets went. Whatever type of gun it was, it was most definitely a 'weapon of offence' and designed to kill. And the guy who arrested Bentley "only" got shot in the shoulder! Oh, that's alright then! So Craig was such an expert shot with his unreliable weapon that he could aim at the copper's shoulder? Hmmm.
"Let him have it" is a phrase that I have heard numerous times in my life, it means "Give him a good kicking" or, in this case, "Shoot him".
If Bentley had said "Let him have it" in response to a police officer saying "Give me the gun" then your reading of the text would be viable, but no more. Wouldn't he more likely have said "Give him the bloody gun, Chris!"?
I'm sorry for those of you who weep tears for someone who is guilty of killing a police officer. It doesn't surprise me that we now waste money on people who were not only convicted forty years ago, but who have been dead too long for us to worry about.
Ivor, as touching as your story is I can't condone your behaviour. But, having said that, I have many friends who "went wrong" in their youth and have grown up into respectable members of society. I know from previous posts of yours that you despise the way the youths of today give no respect to their elders.
Anyway, that's enough for now.
Cheers
Peter.
P.S. Rehabilitation is a very faddy New Labour type idea. Bring back Maggie Thatcher, bring back caning in schools, bring back capital punishment. Bring back National Service. Ahh, the good old days! |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 23 May 2002 - 07:09 pm | | This is the point though Peter. Derek Bentley didn't kill PC Miles , he didn't kill anyone.
Christopher Craig killed PC Miles.
This is why the case is such a miscarriage of justice : Bentley had been under arrest for 15 minutes when Craig killed PC Miles. Surely this defeats the accusation of ' common purpose ' , burglary yes but not murder ?
For instance , in Ivor's case in the Hanratty post , they got him on common purpose for the breaking and entering. But - if Ivor when told by the policeman to fetch assistance , had burgled another house instead , would his accomplice have been guilty for that crime if he had been arrested already ? I'm not sure.
Bentley had committed a crime yes , but it wasn't murder.
Whatever the view on capitol punishment that you have , it wasn't deserved in this case surely. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 24 May 2002 - 05:38 am | | Hi Peter,
Bentley was found guilty of killing a police officer because, as the law stood then, he shared the guilt with his accomplice in crime who actually fired the gun.
Thankfully, and I believe this case may have been instrumental, the law has since changed on that score.
But I would find it absolutely astonishing if you would be happy to see Bentley hang today if it happened all over again yesterday. (Tamworth Road looks completely different now though - I live quite close and my daughter goes to Old Palace School, which is just round the corner.)
You say you have many friends who "went wrong" in their youth and have grown up into respectable members of society. But if you had your way, and one of these friends had been up to no good one night with the wrong kind of mate who took a weapon with him and used it, this friend wouldn't have grown up at all!
Your comment about Bentley's parents is quite ridiculous. Do you seriously think that a man with a mental age of eleven deserves to hang because his parents were wrong to allow him out of the house? If you know exactly where your own kids will be, who they will hang out with and what they will be getting up to when they are teenagers, I predict you will also win millions playing Lotto! 
You should be thankful they will never ever bring back capital punishment in this country - kids rarely act according to their parents' rule book.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 24 May 2002 - 09:17 am | | If you play with fire, you get burned.
If you lie with dogs, you catch fleas.
One doesn't have to be the holder of the "weapon of offence" to be the murderer. The cry of "Let him have it" was enough to convict Bentley of murder, because he coerced Craig into the cowardly act. It was quite obvious that Bentley wanted Craig to shoot their way out of trouble.
Let's not go one further? Why don't we pardon Hindley and Brady as well?
But let's wait until they're dead.
And Caz, if my mates had been executed when they were young they wouldn't be mates of mine, so your argument is logically flawed.
When I say they "went wrong" they were just football hooligans, that kind of thing. They didn't murder people, they didn't rob old people, they didn't break into each other's houses. It was just two bunches of lads drinking too much and fighting too much.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 24 May 2002 - 11:20 am | | Peter,
Hanging is too good for 'em. They should be flogged within an inch of their lives, be made to watch Neighbours for a month non-stop and be publicly executed by drowning in a vat of hair gell. And for serious crimes we'd substitute Big Brother for Neighbours. Only one small thing though, Bentley made determined efforts to get Craig to give himself up, at one point, I seem to recall, being threatened by Craig. And even when he had opportunity to join Craig, he remained in police custody. And it was never established whether 'let him have it, Chris' was an inciement to shoot or a plea to give up the gun.
So, rip out their innards with a bicycle pump and invite people to bring sandwiches and watch, but I think some small effort, a token gesture if you like, should have been made in this case to make sure the sob was guilty as charged. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 24 May 2002 - 12:51 pm | | 'Just' football hooligans....drinking too much and fighting too much?
Flogging's too good for 'em.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 24 May 2002 - 10:01 pm | | Peter,
In considering your desire for a return to the
"good old days", why not re-expand the use
capital punishment too. Not only for murder
(Bentley, Ellis, Mrs. Thompson), or treason
(especially the Irish - Casement), but for
military bungling (remember Admiral Byng), or
suspicion of attempted poisoning (Eliza Fenning).
Remember what Voltaire said about Byng's execution - it was needed to "encourage" the others.
Jeff |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 26 May 2002 - 10:07 am | | Well, what would you lot have done with Bentley? Slapped him on the wrist and sent him on a two week safari?
It doesn't matter what went on after Bentley had been arrested, what is important is what went on before the arrest. Bentley went in company with Craig to commit a serious felony. It doesn't matter which one was carrying the gun.
Paul: As I pointed out before, 'Let him have it' means 'shoot him', not 'I say old chap, give him the gun and do the decent thing'.
It's all very well and good crying after you've been caught. Bentley should have thought of the consequences before he went.
Peter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 26 May 2002 - 02:48 pm | | Peter,
Craig, who pulled the trigger, wasn't executed because he was too young. Bentley had a mental age below that of Craig. Whatever the reasons are that prevent someone below a certain age from being executed, surely they should also apply to a person with a mental age below it, especially when that person didn't fire the fatal shot (or, indeed, fire any shot at all).
But the question is whether or not – and at what time – you can disassociate yourself from or otherwise not be associated with the actions of another. For example, two people go out to commit a crime, one is arrested and taken to the police station and the other escapes, being cornered a year later and shooting a policeman before being arrested. Would the first man still be responsible for the shooting? How about six months earlier? What if the first man was in custody a week earlier, a day earlier? How about if he'd been arrested an hour earlier? Half an hour earlier? Fifteen minutes earlier? When does his mutual responsibility stop?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but as memory serves, DC Fairfax grabbed Bentley, who pulled away and allegedly said ‘let him have it, Chris’. There was a gunshot. Fairfax was hit in the shoulder. He got hold of Bentley and dragged him behind a roof light. Bentley made no attempt to resist. The wounded policeman then attempted to reach the doorway down from the roof and used Bantley as a shield. Bentley again made no effort to resist. Fairfax left Bentley to assist another policeman, PC McDonald, who had scaled a drainpipe. Bentley made no effort to join Craig. Joined by the two policemen, Bentley volunteered information about Craig’s gun and said, “I told the silly b… not to use it.”
About 15 minutes had now passed, then PC Sidney Miles came onto the roof and Craig shot him dead. Fairfax used Bentley as a shield to make his way to the staircase, Bentley warned Craig not to shoot, and they got from the roof.
The question is: (a) did shouting ‘let him have it, Chris’ incite Craig to begin the sequence of events that led fifteen minutes later to the fatal shooting of PC Miles, and (b) does there come a recognisable point at which one criminal ceases to be responsible for the actions of another and did Bentley by word or action sever his partnership with Craig and from that point onwards cease to be mutually responsible for Craig’s actions?
It is by no means certain that Bentley ever said ‘let him have it, Chris’, although it is likely that he did, nor is it certain what he meant by the words. And Craig denied he’d heard the words spoken, so whether Bentley ever said them and whatever he meant by them if he did, it is arguable whether they incited Craig to do anything at all. The central question therefore seems to be whether or not Bentley could at any time have severed his relationship with Craig and abrogated his shared responsibility for Craig’s actions.
Fifteen minutes passed between Bentley allegedly saying ‘let him have it’ and Craig actually firing a fatal shot. During those fifteen minutes Bentley took no active part in what Craig was doing or in encouraging Craig in any way. He was held in police custody, volunteered information and allowed himself to be used as a shield, arguably saving DC Fairfax’s life by doing so. It is arguable that Bentley was under arrest and in police custody, as effectively removed from what Craig was doing as if he'd been having a cuppa ten miles away in the nick, or if Bentley had escaped the roof and shot PC Miles six weeks later.
So, we have a mentally subnormal man, who was not armed, never fired a gun and didn't shoot anyone, who may never have uttered words inciting anyone to kill, and who appears not to have been heard even if he did say them, and who had been in police custody for fifteen minutes before the fatal shot was fired and who had during that time assisted the police in any way he could and without complaint. Was it wrong the send this young man to the gallows? |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 27 May 2002 - 05:51 am | | Hi Peter,
Following on from Paul's excellent and informative post, could someone with a mental age of eleven be held criminally responsible for a murder that a more mentally mature person committed of his own free will (with or without being offered, or being aware of, any encouragement), to the extent that he should hang for it?
The answer is yes, apparently, and only around fifty years ago. (Not such a golden jubilee there.) It takes a case like this for laws to change for good. Don't you realise you'd have had a better chance of retaining your precious death penalty today, for cop killers at least, had the law not played so fast and loose with the rope round Bentley's neck? They dropped a fatal clanger when they dropped him and there's no going back now.
Come out of the dark age, Peter. It's much brighter out here.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 27 May 2002 - 05:09 pm | | So now I'm accused of living in the dark ages for wanting to execute cop killers? Well, pardon me ...
I'm sure that if Bentley had one of the hot shot lawyers that flood our system today, he would have been found not guilty, received an apology and had his dry cleaning bill paid.
Aren't you missing something here? Bentley went with Craig. Bentley knew that Craig was armed. Remind me again, what are guns for? For show? No, they are made to kill people. And what was that gun used for on that night? Yes, it was used to kill someone.
Paul's question is valid. When could Bentley have been judged to have ended his 'partnership' with Craig? I think the answers to the more extreme arguments that Paul uses, ie. 6 months, 1 year etc are so obvious that I shan't embarass myself by reiteraing them here. But, fifteen minutes?
Bentley was in company with Craig, that much is fact. Bentley knew that Craig was armed and still went in company with him to burgle the premises they were at when the police arrived. In the eyes of the law they share equally the blame, regardless of who pulled the trigger. And whether or not the words 'Let him have it Chris' were ever spoken, or what they meant, is fairly immaterial, because the material facts have been made plain and it was the material facts that decided Derek Bentley's fate.
Regarding Bentley's alleged mental age, do you have proof positive of this? Or was Bentley just a bit slow? A bit backwards at reading?
And I would ask you all - how many of you would allow your eleven year old son to go out on a dark night in company with a known criminal carrying a gun?
That is, in effect, what Derek Bentley's parents did, if indeed Bentley's mental age was 11.
Once again we spend too much time weeping for the perpetrators of crime and not for the victims.
To finally answer Paul's question on when Bentley and Craig's relationship/partnership could have been considered to be severed - the burglary upon which they went together was still in progress when the police arrived. The confrontation with the police was a consequence of that burglary, therefore everything that Bentley said and did with Craig leading up to his "arrest" had a direct impact upon what followed.
Look at it like this, if you will. The ball had already been set in motion. Craig was moving in an almost preordained manner to the conclusion of the confrontation. Once you have pushed a ball off the edge of a cliff it is impossible to stop it falling, no matter how much you want to. And if that ball takes fifteen minutes to hit the ground you can scream all you want to and wish you really hadn't tipped it over the edge, but that is never going to alter what you did at the beginning.
And so it is with Derek Bentley. He was with Craig when the inexorable chain of events was set in motion. Whether or not Bentley had been arrested, the confrontation was only going to have one conclusion - and Bentley had already played his part in the chain of events leading up to that conclusion.
Guilty.
Does coming out of the dark ages involve going soft on cannabis? Giving condoms to gay men who cottage openly near children's playgrounds? Setting up focus groups for disaffected minority groups?
Or how about just applying the letter of the law and taking responsibility for your own actions?
Big Brother IV: Paul Begg, Caz and Peter in the house. Who would get evicted first? Who would win the cash?
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 27 May 2002 - 05:50 pm | | Hi Peter,
If PC Fairfax had taken Bentley from the roof before any shooting had begun, would Bentley still have been considered mutually responsible for what Craig did? How far away and how long before the shooting began would Bentley have had to have been before he ceased to be mutually responsible? At what point was that ‘inexorable chain of events’ set in motion? When Craig and Bentley met up to do a bit of thieving? When they entered the factory? When the police arrived? It may be ludicrous to suggest that Bentley would be guilty if Craig had shot PC Miles a year after the robbery, but is it equally lubricous if he’d shot him two hours after the robbery? Where is the defining line that separates responsibility from non-responsibility? It is obvious that there comes a point when one is not or when one ceases to be mutually responsible for what someone else does, but when does that time come? |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 28 May 2002 - 05:05 am | | Hi Peter,
'So now I'm accused of living in the dark ages for wanting to execute cop killers?'
That's not what I said at all. I was simply trying to point out that hanging Bentley for what he did that night caused a public outcry, and whether you like it or not, cases like this one were major contributors to changes in the law, such as the one where a killer's accomplice automatically shared equal guilt regardless, and ultimately the scrapping of the death penalty which, had it not been so dreadfully abused by those with the power to impose it, may have been around long enough to deal with bastards like Brady and Hindley in the way you'd have wished.
One of the consequences of hanging the likes of Bentley was to leave you with that evil pair to worry about instead. You see, extreme cries of "hang 'em all regardless" don't work. They can even have the opposite of the desired effect in the long run.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 28 May 2002 - 09:10 am | | Zero Tolerance. My two favourite words in the English language.
Paul, you are asking me to define the moment that the camel's back was broken and also pinpoint the straw that broke it.
In your most extreme example, if Craig had shot the police officer a year later, it would have been a different crime. Even a day later, it would have been a different crime.
But at the time of the shooting, Craig was still committing the crime that he and Bentley had set out upon jointly. My own viewpoint is that everything Bentley and Craig did and said jointly contributed to the outcome of that crime.
Yours is the most difficult question to answer, Paul, but ultimately I don't think Bentley would have had to have been at the scene to be found guilty of murder.
It's not the best comparison in the world, but if I hire you to shoot a business rival and I am 200 miles away when you are carrying out that shooting, then I am still as culpable as you are.
Bentley and Craig set out on the burglary together. They each knew that Craig had a gun. They knew what guns are for. They each knew what Craig would do with that gun if confronted or cornered.
And that is what happened.
Caz, I know I have a rather backward approach to stuff like that but wouldn't everything be perfect if we followed the guidlines set down by Ray Mallon's policy, as set out above in my two favourite words in the English language?
Cheers
Peter - 5 days to go. Watch out Sweden! |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 28 May 2002 - 09:42 am | | But Peter, as perfection isn't attainable, because you'll never get enough people to agree with your idea of zero tolerance, I'll settle for the tolerance bit. I don't want to be stuck with zero.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 28 May 2002 - 04:16 pm | | Peter,
It is an extreme example, I admit, but I don’t know whether a killing six months after the robbery would have been a separate crime or not. B & C commit a crime and B is caught, but C escapes, is pursued by the police and six months later he shoots dead a policeman. Had B & C not gone out to commit the crime together, C would never have been pursued and would never have killed the policeman. The shooting was therefore the end of a sequence of events that began when B or C first broached the idea of the crime. Thus, whether the sequence ended after six months or fifteen minutes surely makes no real difference. The argument is that a sequence of events began with the conception of a crime and ended with the murder of a policeman, and that all those involved at the conception were equally responsible for the conclusion. The distance between start and finish is therefore irrelevant.
So what would happen if a third person, Mr. A, had been at the conception of the crime and knew B & C were going out to commit that crime and knew that C was tooled up, but withdrew his support and refused to participate. Would he, too, be mutually responsible for the murder? Or does not being there discount him?
It seems to me that when the police came onto the roof, if Bentley had by word or deed supported Craig’s resistance then there would be no question that he was mutually responsible for what that resistance led to – and that’s why the words ‘let him have it, Chris’ assumed such paramount importance. But if Bentley did not by word or deed support Craig’s resistance, then he was not mutually responsible for what that resistance led to. |
Author: Jack Traisson
Wednesday, 29 May 2002 - 04:41 am | | Hi All,
Peter, you have repeatedly stated that the phrase 'Let him have it' means 'shoot him.' I'm sorry but it's not that clear cut as Paul and others have pointed out.
Take, for example, the phrase 'Let him dangle.' To most people it means 'Hang him.' Yet Elvis Costello turned this in to an anti-capital punishment song, showing that words and phrases contain more than the literal meaning. You, of all people, should know this: you have spent years twisting the phrases of the diary -- sometimes persuasively.
Let Him Dangle (Elvis Costello - 1989)
Bentley said to Craig "Let him have it, Chris"
They still don't know today just what he meant by this
Craig fired the pistol, but was too young to swing
So the police took Bentley and the very next thing
Let him dangle
Let him dangle
Bentley had surrendered, he was under arrest,
when he gave Chris Craig that fatal request
Craig shot Sidney Miles, he took Bentley's word
The prosecution claimed as they charged them with murder
Let him dangle
Let him dangle
They say Derek Bentley was easily led
Well what's that to the woman that Sidney Miles wed
Though guilty was the verdict, and Craig had shot him dead
The gallows were for Bentley and still she never said
Let him dangle
Let him dangle
Well it's hard to imagine it's the times that have changed
When there's a murder in the kitchen that is brutal and strange
If killing anybody is a terrible crime
Why does this bloodthirsty chorus come round from time to time
Let him dangle
Not many people thought that Bentley would hang
But the word never came, the phone never rang
Outside Wandsworth Prison there was horror and hate
As the hangman shook Bentley's hand to calculate his weight
Let him dangle
From a welfare state to society murder
Bring "back the noose" is always heard
Whenever those swine are under attack
But it won't make you even
It won't bring him back
Let him dangle
Let him dangle (String him up)
Derek Bentley website:
http://web1.pipemedia.net/~sar/bentley/db_main.html
Cheers,
John |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 29 May 2002 - 05:30 pm | | Thanks for that Jack/John. I never was Elvis Costello's biggest fan but he did write one song which I loved the words to:
"Sometimes I don't like what you say
Sometimes I don't like what you do
Sometimes I don't agree when we are going out
But I love you when you sleep".
Ain't life sweet sometimes?
Peter. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 29 May 2002 - 06:46 pm | | Dear Everyone,
Paul raises an interesting point about mutual responsibility for a crime, and when and where does that responsibility end. I believe the phrase is 'acting in concert'.
I think I am right in stating that two or more people committing a crime are said to be acting in concert when they can each have some influence over the others. In this particular case although Bentley was under arrest when the fatal shot was fired he was still in a position to exert an influence over his accomplice which he did vocally, by shouting. What he shouted is largely irrelevant, what is important is that he was able to, with the expected result that his accomplice could hear him.
If he had been taken away from the scene, and was unable to exert any influence over Craig, either vocally or visually, he would no longer be deemed to be acting in concert.
A few points. Craig was a vicious criminal who came from a family of criminals, I believe his brother was serving time for an armed robbery. Secondly he sawed the barrel off the pistol to make it more concealable - he used to take pistols to school. He filed ancient Italian ammunition to make them fit the pistol - he wanted it to fire not merely to act as a deterrant.
Someone mentioned that his subsequent good behaviour shows the power of rehabilitation over the rope - perhaps it was seeing his accomplice hang that persuaded him he too could end up on the scaffold.
Much has been made about the level of intelligence of Bentley. He apparently was aware enough to take part in a break in, aware enough to go armed. Its strange that only when it all goes wrong do people suddenly decide that the criminal didn't really know what he was doing.
His families devotion to his memory is moving - but I can't help but think that if they had spent as much time worrying about him before he got in to trouble he might still be alive - and so might PC Miles!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 29 May 2002 - 09:22 pm | | | It has been stated that peter Wood has spent years twisting the phrases of the diary. No doubt he has also spent years twisting the words of those he has arrested.He does not sleep he spends his time twisting the night away!!! |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 30 May 2002 - 05:03 am | | Hi Bob,
You wrote: If he had been taken away from the scene, and was unable to exert any influence over Craig, either vocally or visually, he would no longer be deemed to be acting in concert.
But how long after he could no longer be seen or heard by Craig would this apply?
The argument seems to be that the words ‘Let him have it, Chris’ incited the sequence of events that led to the murder of PC Miles. Being removed from the scene does not alter Bentley’s responsibility for the consequences of the sequence he began. But, of course, if the words were never spoken or never heard, they weren’t an incitement anyway.
Being removed from the scene would mean that the person could not through word or deed influence the actions of the other, but does not mean that he had ceased to support the actions of the other, whereas one could remain at the scene and through word and deed actively withdraw support for the other and be an influence for good rather than evil. Should one therefore be hanged because (a) the authorities for whatever reason couldn’t remove you from the scene and (b) even though one said and did nothing to encourage or otherwise support the other person and in fact aided and assisted the authorities without complaint and even at risk of one’s own life?
To begin with, Bentley denied ever having said ‘Let him have it, Chris’ and therefore he could not be questioned about what he meant by those words, so the meaning and intent is ambiguous. But the words were spoken – if they were spoken at all – fifteen minutes before the fatal shot was fired. During those fifteen minutes Bentley did nothing to encourage Craig, made no attempt to join him even when he had the opportunity to do so, and assisted the police in every way he was asked to. And according to Craig, at the instigation of the police Bentley even confronted him and tried to persuade him to give up the gun, only returning to the police when Craig threatened to shoot him. Insofar as Bentley was on the roof then he was in a position to exert influence over Craig, but there seems to be no evidence that he so much as tried to do so, except, perhaps, to encourage Craig to give up the gun. His otherwise assisted the police and allowed himself to be used as a shield by PC Fairfax.
It’s actually difficult to determine when – or if - one ceases through will or through the force of others to be responsible for the actions of another person, even if one was responsible for inciting those actions in the first place.
If two people set out to commit a crime then they are mutually responsible for the consequences of that crime, therefore Bentley would have been as responsible for the shooting whether he was on the roof or having a cuppa down the station, and would be responsible no matter how long afterwards the fatal shots were fired. He was guilty by the mere fact that he had embarked on the crime. Thus the law allowed no opportunity for one of the partners to withdraw his support for the other. Arguably, therefore, if he had nipped off to the pub instead of continuing with the planned crime, he would still be responsible for the consequences of the crime he was instrumental in beginning. And if this is not the case then the law clearly allows for one of the partners to withdraw and thereafter cease to have responsibility for whatever happened. And if the law allows for this, the question arises about when a withdrawal is legitimate. Was it legitimate within the fifteen minutes between the alleged words being spoken and the fatal shot being fired, and if so had Bentley done enough during those fifteen minutes to demonstrate that he had withdrawn his support for Craig?
Hi Ivor,
No doubt he has also spent years twisting the words of those he has arrested - I hope Peter isn't on his way to see his solicitor! |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 30 May 2002 - 03:42 pm | | | Hi Paul, He can be on his way to see the Pope via his solicitor if he so wishes.In stating that I think the Pope would have a word or two to say about Peter's remarks on hanging innocent people.So might his solictor for that matter. |
Author: Ex PC 623 Peter Anthony Wood
Thursday, 30 May 2002 - 04:04 pm | | Paul Begg
If my reputation were to be slated by anyone of any importance I would be worried, Ivor is sometimes entertaining but never important enough for me to take his comments seriously.
Ivor is just Ivor, I've learnt to live with that.
If I were to run off to a solicitor then I would be acknowledging that Ivor's words have had an effect on me - and that is never going to happen.
And Ivor, when I was a police officer 'contemporaneous notes' had been pretty much done away with owing to the little matter of "tape recorders". I believe they use video these days.
Paul Begg, Caz, Ivor and Peter in the Big Brother house. Who gets canned first? Who gets the cash?
Who runs off with the microwave oven and all the furniture?
Shock! Horror!
Peter. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 30 May 2002 - 07:14 pm | | Ex PC 623 Mary,What reputation ? the only reputation you have is that you are a doughnut.I can imagine you in the big Brother house. You would probably verbal everyone up first,then take them into the toilet one at a time and beat the crap out of them. Then you would charge them with assault and get them to make false statements against each other.
Then after being so nice to everyone concerned that nasty streak would appear at which time you would start to get really mean towards them.Being an ex policeman you may not run off with the TV, or Hi Fi but you would run off with someone elses wife in the house if given half the chance!! |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 30 May 2002 - 07:17 pm | | | Ex PC 623 Mary,What is with this "cop killer" statement.We all know that there are policemen who are worse than any criminal.And those whom protect them are just as bad. I know a girl who was raped by a sheriff in the states and it is a pity no one shot him because he deserved it.Some of the nicest people I have met were in the force while some of the biggest bastards I ever met were also in the force.You get good and bad in all walks of life. But lets not paint a picture that the force is filled with people whom are all akin to nuns and monks.I think it was Simon who made a comment about a persons freedom many innocent people have had their freedom denied them because of crooked policemen. I dont lose any sleep if the latter get what they deserve. That is what I term justice.What goes around comes around. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 31 May 2002 - 03:32 am | | Peter can run off with my wife if he likes. The day I enter the Big Brother house is also the day I marry a woman. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 31 May 2002 - 05:17 am | | Ivor,
Peter running off with the prize.I'd lay a hundred dollars to a cup of horse dung against it,and he could hold the stakes in his mouth.Cheers,Harry. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 31 May 2002 - 06:28 am | | Ivor,
PLEASE!!
I happen to think (like, I presume, you) that capital punishment is inherently a bad thing, and was vilely misused in Bentley's case. I disagree with many many of the points Peter has made on this board. But all of us must accept that this is a very difficult and contentious question. The Catholic church's difficulty in reaching the conclusion that consistency demands that it oppose capital punishment if it continues to oppose abortion shows how hard it is for moral philosophers who believe in absolutes to reach certainty in commenting on it. (I wait for them to see the similar inconsistency in their believing in a just war).
Indignation is one thing; simple abuse of those with whom we disagree never helped even the best of cases.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 31 May 2002 - 04:30 pm | | Caz, Ha Ha.
Harry,The only prize he could ever run off with is the one for being a prize pillock.
Martin, I have just come back from Rome where I learnt that the vatican used to run all of the prostitution rackets.This was one of their finer achievements. I went to the Forum and various other sites of antiquity only to find that all the valuable artifacts had been looted.Where are they all now? I asked, "In one of the 15 museums at the vatican" I was informed. When I got to the Coliseum I asked, "Where is all the marble, and all the building material, and all the statues. "That was all taken to build the vatican" I was informed.They even nicked all the bronze off the roof of the Pantheon to use in St Peters Basilica by the alter.I know of a chap who got 18 months for nicking lead from a roof and the building he took it from was not 2000 years old!!! In short 99% of what the vatican owns was either extorted, nicked, or taken from the poor.So I dont think we should take too much notice of what they have to say.In relation to my comments to Peter I am sure he does not take me seriously in fact he stated he does not.And he does abuse me at times you know which I dont mind at all it is all good clean fun and done in the best possible tast.These exchanges of ours are not to be taken seriously Martin but thank you for showing concern. Best wishes. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Friday, 31 May 2002 - 05:13 pm | | Hey, Ivor,
How's all the gang down at the Orange Order Lodge?
(or was that the K.K.K.?) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 31 May 2002 - 07:09 pm | | | Hi Michael,Talks are now going on to merge the K.K.K. with the Orange Order Lodge, and the Big Banana Lodge but the gang is split over the move.The Knights Templars feel threatened by these talks going on behind closed doors and have passed a motion that the Pope intervenes. This has annoyed the Church of England who state it is radical, and subversive to approach the Catholic church on such internal matters.Something of a power struggle is taking place at the moment. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Friday, 31 May 2002 - 07:45 pm | | Sorry to hear it,
Tell your ol' pal Ian Paisley not to get too worked up over the whole imbroglio - there's enough hatred and bigotry to go around for all you lads! |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 01 June 2002 - 07:21 am | | Hi Ivor,
Sorry to have dropped in like a po-faced Puritan on some merry leg-pulling.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 01 June 2002 - 05:18 pm | | | Hi Martin, Think nothing of it.I feel that I should explain something to you. Peter has my respect for various reasons but for God's sake dont let him know that. It is a pity that you cannot see the look on my face or the laughter in my voice when I post to him, and I laugh just as loud when I view his posts to me.It breaks up the serious topics at hand.It can be put down to that inherent British humour. Some chap I know who was a British soldier during the Second World War spent some time in a German concentration camp in Germany.He wrote a book on his experiences and submitted them to a publisher.The publisher refused to publish them on the grounds of the humour contained in the work.He thought that the topic had no room for humour in adverse conditions and I believe he was wrong not to publish the work.It told a story of the human spirit surviving in hell on earth. To survive the ordeal his sense of humour became paramount thus he became something of a joker.His behaviour in such adverse conditions also had a certain effect on others including his guards. All the time I was locked away I made sure I always kept my sense of humour turning a bad situation into a good one and it always paid off.My sense of humour in various forms sometimes rubs off onto these boards hence the jibes.Stewart remarked that sometimes my behavior on the boards was eccentric. I was going to reply to him that anyone with the ammount of money I had could afford to be eccentric Ha Ha.People are not always as they may appear.As Peter so rightly stated I am who I am and I enjoy having a good laugh either at my own expense or at the expense of others such as Peter. No harm is intended. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 01 June 2002 - 07:54 pm | | Dear folks,
Sorry I have been away for so long from the Board,
and this thread, but I have a pest control problem
regarding my e-mail and a particular creep. Put
it this way: if the creep had been in Bentley's
place on that evil morning sixty years back, I would have no complaint with his hanging.
Peter's point is valid to a degree, but this subject is the hottest of hot potatos. If two
men have gone out to commit a crime together
and a person is killed by one of them in the process of committing the crime, they can be both
considered equally guilty - it is the law in both
the United States and Great Britain. The judge or
justice might get a recommendation of mercy (or
push for one) if there is a matter of doubt (as
there certainly is in Bentley's case) but he might
not (as the justice in that case did not).
The issue of when the criminal conspiracy of the
co-defendants ends is as interesting one, and Paul
was quite correct that the issue of fifteen minutes in Bentley's case certainly is intriguing
to the legal standard involved (especially as
Derek was in police custody at the moment the
crime happened). But there is a case that was
somewhat similar (a police murder thirty years
before Bentley-Craig) which shows an even briefer
time period to link the co-defendants).
In 1927 P.C. Gutteridge was shot very brutally
by Frederick Guy Browne and William Kennedy, on
a lonely country road. Browne and Kennedy were
in the process of stealing a car when Gutteridge
happened to come upon them. Now,unlike Bentley,
Kennedy had an extensive police record (including
indecent exposure), and Browne had one too (including acts of violence). Both men had served
time in prison. So issues of feeble mindedness,
or being a misled youth, were not involved here.
But somehow Kennedy had a degree more sympathy with the public - I'm not sure exactly why. I
think (Martin, Paul, Peter or Ivor may correct
me on this) it is because Browne was captured at
his garage, and the police found an arsenal of
guns there. Browne actually had his good points
(supposedly) - he was a good family man. Kennedy
was captured as he was trying to board an ocean
liner for the U.S. with his newly married wife.
However, again I'm not sure if this is the reason
because Kennedy did threaten one of the police
about to arrest him with a revolver.
Kennedy's defence was that Browne had done the
murder. At the prompting of his wife, he wrote
an extensive (and too carefully written) confession that exonerated himself, but blamed
all on Browne. Naturally Browne's defence was
that he was not at the crime scene, and Kennedy
had borrowed his gun that night. So it was
a classic "Cut-throat" case. Neither man was
believed, and Kennedy's confession was judged to
be used only against his defence, not Browne's.
As such it probably destroyed most jury sympathy
for Kennedy because of one item he mentioned that
took less than fifteen minutes to do, and linked
Browne's shooting Gutteridge to Kennedy for good.
It seems (as I said above) that Kennedy in writing
the confession made every attempt to make himself
look like a junior confederate in the robbery, and
an innocent bystander at the killing. Any event
that both men could have jointly been responsible
for was carefully pushed as Browne's actions only.
Actually there is no doubt that of the two of them
Frederick Guy Browne hated policemen more, and was
willing to injure or kill as many as he could.
But after killing Gutteridge (by shooting the
wounded officer through both eyes), Browne returned to the car. Here Kennedy made his mistake in the confession - he said he reloaded
the used gun immediately after the shooting was
done. Probably took less than two minutes!
Both men were hanged in 1928.
Jeff Bloomfield
P.S.
Isn't Christopher Craig still alive, as a farmer
in the British countryside? I believe he is a
reclusive man, of course. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 01 June 2002 - 11:10 pm | | Hi Jeff,
Just rushing off to bed will e-mail you tomorrow. You are the 2nd person here to have the pest control problem. |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 02 June 2002 - 06:21 am | | Ivor,
As you say we need humour at times,and like you I can take as well as receive.I also respect Peter,and everyone else on these boards.What anyone says about me I take with a grain of salt.No one has to test my credability,I didn't start out with any.
I can in a small way identify with Craig and Bently.At the age of 14,I along with a friend of the same age,were stopped in a country road by a country policeman.We were each in possession of a catapult.Now at a range of a dozen feet,using a steel ball or a round pebble,a catapult can kill,and as we were both excellent marksmen it would have been easy to have hit him in the head and disappeared.We could also have attemted to get away.We did neither,we submitted,gave up our weapon and were charged.Craig could have done exactly as we did, so I have no sympathy for him.Bentley used exactly the same words as we did to each other,'let him have it',in our case meaning give it to the policeman.Bentley could and probably did mean the same thing.
A little postscript to this.The Magistrate who heard the case,fined us both a half a crown.He was the local landowner in the district,and it was harvest time.So one night I stole into his orchard and stole some fruit from the trees.I sold that fruit the next day,and made more than the half a crown I was fined,so in a way the fellow that fined me paid my fine.The time period this happened was the early years of the second world war.
Were we died in the wool villans.My friend was killed in action in one of those small wars that followed the war to end all wars,He was a sergeant in a guards regiment. I was spared to torment Martin,Paul and a few others.
Regards Harry. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 02 June 2002 - 11:00 am | | A case I remember from the 50s that troubled me quite a bit, was the "Red Light Bandit", in the U.S. The bandit was a man named Carryl Chessman. He would drive around parks and quiet places, a red flashing light on top of his car pretending to be a lawman. when he found a car with a courting couple inside, he would part them on the pretense of arresting them, take the girl into his car and rape her. Eventually he was caught, tried and sentenced to death, it was a capital offence in America in those days, (though I never agreed with that).The thing is, that due to the appeal system in the U.S. appealing delayed the execution for fourteen years, then the last appeal failed, and he was taken to the electric chair----after fourteen years imprisonment, --I think that was unfair and barbaric, the man had never taken a life and he had served more than a life sentence.
Rick |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 02 June 2002 - 12:56 pm | | | Frankly, I find the rapes he commited to be unfair and barbaric. So I think his sentence was perfectly just...as long as he was getting shafted by Bruno every morning and evening...then maybe it might come close. Rapists can't be treated, they can't be fixed. Keeping them alive wastes oxygen that the rest of us could be breathing. Personally I think we need to return to the days when rape was a capital offense, and pedophilia too. Of course, that would kill off the majority of the Catholic Church but ..oh well. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 02 June 2002 - 02:22 pm | | Rick,
Regarding Chessman, to be correct the state of
California (where he was tried and convicted)
held that rape was punishable by death (in the
gas chamber). To be fair, the victims of the
"Red Light" Rapist were really brutalized in the
encounters (one actually went insane). Whether
or not Chessman was the villain in these crimes
is a matter I can't discuss, because I never
looked at the evidence very closely. What made
the Chessman case really unique was that instead
of just vegetating on death row, Chessman educated
himself and wrote (and had published) several books while on death row. One became a best seller. The issue slowly changed (at least with
anti-capital punishment people) to not so much
it is wrong to execute people, or that the evidence against Chessman was too weak to merit
execution, but whether or not the man arrested in
the late 1940s, was the same man as the educated,
successful author of a decade later. I won't
even bother to go into that - we had a slightly
similar problem in New York State in the 1980s,
when a violent criminal wrote a successful book
(IN THE BELLY OF THE BEAST) that Norman Mailer
said showed he was a gifted person. He was
parolled (again with Mailer's help), only to
stab a waiter to death in an argument in a
restaurant. The creep, with one new victim to
his credit, was returned to prison (where he died
this year). His name was Jack Abbott.
The Chessman Case gained international stature.
It was the subject of two movies (a television
one starred Alan Alda). There was also, for many
years, a wax statue of Chessman in the gas chamber
that was displayed at Madame Tussaud's in London.
When Charles Higham wrote his controvertial biography of Errol Flynn in the 1980s, he included
a piece of hearsay evidence that Chessman knew
Flynn was a Nazi Agent, and planned (had he won
his appeal) to write an account of the real Flynn.
Whether or not this is true, Chessman never did
write anything that was published suggesting it
was.
Ivor,
Still having problems with the pest. Write back
and I'll tell you.
Jeff |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 02 June 2002 - 03:02 pm | | Ally,Jeff,
I'm certainly not going to get into any arguement with you about Chessman, he was your countryman operating in your country. It struck me as being punished twice, but you should know more facts of the case than me. I hope you don't think I'm soft on rape because I'm not. I believe we should state what we believe and know, not what we think we should say,-- I didn't know enough.
Rick |
Author: Michael Conlon
Sunday, 02 June 2002 - 06:47 pm | | To the moderator and Mr. Ryder:
Earlier in this thread, following what some sensitive souls like myself might take to be , on Ivor's part, a gratuitous swipe at the Catholic Church, Ally, in a similar burst of bigotry stated: "Personally i think we need to retuen to the days when rape was a capital offence and pedophilia too. Of course, that would kill off the majority of the Catholic Church but...oh well."
I have long been aware that Ivor was something of a troglodyte and that Ally never allows ignorance to stand in the way of her making sweeping generalizations. For the record, let me state that statistics have thus far shown that the percentage of pedophilia in the Catholic Church is no greater than any other church or than in the general population as a whole. But then facts have never seemed to deter Ally from speaking her mind in the past.
I have noticed that Ally, in her official capacity as moderator, has periodically threatened people with 'expulsion' when they have said immoderate things about Jews and blacks. This is, I think, quite appropriate. She has not said a thing, however, when people in the past have made such statements as, "The Catholic Church is nothing but a money grubbing conspiracy" etc., etc.
Therefore, I would like some statement of policy from the administrators of the website outlining what does or does not constitute unacceptable language concerning people's ethnicity and religion. If Ally's statements are deemed inappropriate, I expect an apology. If they are not, then consider my participation on these boards at an end.
I would appreciate a statement from Mr, Ryder in this regards.
Thank you,
Michael Conlon |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 02 June 2002 - 07:26 pm | | Well Micky my man, you won't get a response in any official capacity until you do what the rules say you need to do to get an official response from the mods and admin. So you'll just have to put up with my little ole personal response until then. Turned on the TV lately? Seen all the reports pouring out about hundreds of little kids being molested and the Catholic Church going to great lengths to cover it up? No? I'm not surprised.
Want an explanation on the difference between my comments about the Church and jews and blacks? Sure no problem!
The Catholic Church is an organization. Much like the NRA or the KKK. It is not an ethnicity.
People can say whatever they want about organizations here. People can also say whatever they want about religion here. Want to know why? Religion is a choice and people don't have to agree with or like your choice.
Jews are a race. Blacks are a race. Not a choice. Yes, Jews are primarily identified by religion, however there are plenty of people who view them as an inferior race and their comments are about them as people not about a religion or an organization. If people should say that Jews are a lying dirty race..that's racism and not allowed. If people have said that the Catholic Church is a money grubbing organization and it's priests are pedophiles, that is prejudice that can be backed up by several articles on CNN, the Washington Post and other sources of FACT. And once again..comments about the Catholic Church are comments against an organization, not against a people. See the difference? Probably not.
So anyway, if you want an official response from the Admin, I suggest you stop thumping the Bible and read the rules on how to get one.
Ally |
Author: Michael Conlon
Sunday, 02 June 2002 - 07:29 pm | | It's been fun, folks.
-Mike |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 02 June 2002 - 09:52 pm | | Michael,
Yippee bye bye.For the record I was not taking a swipe at the catholic church I was just stating true historical facts and stating the truth.The problem with people like you is that when people tell the truth you see it as a personal threat and the truth hurts people like you.You got your nerve complaining over what Ally stated.I watched the news yesterday and a catholic priest was being interviewed and he stated that child molesters were a problem in the Catholic church in England.For the record the Catholic big wig of Portsmouth, England, was sent to prison the other day for down loading pictures of little boys. He was a sexual pervert who liked sex with small boys.Over here a row is going on in relation to the fact that the Cathlolic Church had known about the problem for some time and it has tried to cover it up. I am not going to be sorry to you or anyone else for telling the truth or for speaking of matters which are placed on the TV news programmes for all to view. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 02 June 2002 - 10:11 pm | | Harry, It would appear that we have to share the same fate in relation to Martin, Paul, and others.
Good story about getting your fine money back thought that was very good. Sorry to learn of your old friend wars are such a waste.Boy am I lucky never having been involved in one. |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 03 June 2002 - 10:10 am | | Martin F;Ivor: .
Harry: I have to agree with Ivor, your story of scrumping from the Judge's orchard is quaint, but I'm still gonna nick you for it next time we meet!
War? Huh, Good God! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
Which reminds me ... does anyone know how many people live in Kashmir? Is it really worth taking "acceptable losses" up to 12 million over a dispute that could be sorted out over a game of chess?
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 03 June 2002 - 10:17 am | | Jeff, Michael etc
I, unfortunately, do not have any knowledge of Chessman or the other case that got mentioned, but I do agree in some small way with a point that someone made, namely that executions should be carried out as soon as possible after the sentencing, not because it would be cruel to keep the condemned alive for an extra 14 years, but because it is pointless. One trial, one appeal, then the rope. Think of all the money we'd save.
And I'm with Ally on the issue of paedophiles and rapists - although I do find it quite appealing to think of all the paedo's in Britain being "Banged by Bruno" in the showers of Wormwood Scrubs whilst reaching for the soap. I wonder if Frank is up for it ...?
Ally: I can't comment on the amount of perverts in the Catholic Church, I just don't have the information to hand. But surely you have won your argument if there is even one person who was supposed to be spreading God's word who was subsequently found to have been using their position to abuse children?
A while ago in Great Britain we had a scandal over children in foster homes being abused as a matter of course. I may be wrong, but I believe it happened in Cleveland. Where are the safeguards for those children?
Feeling sick at the thought of it all ...
Peter. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Monday, 03 June 2002 - 10:32 am | | Mike,
I hope you are not serious. I think you are doing great work on La Bruckman. A thick skin is a valuable asset when posting on a Jack the Ripper moderated Message Board.
Ivor is right about the prostitution rackets, the marble, the bronze and the looting. As for the "money grubbing conspiracy", that may be harsh, although in the June 3, 2002 edition of Time page 50, Miami attorney Ron Weil says "they act no different then Enron".
Last year my nine year old son (pictured in my profile) asked me if he could begin altar boy (server)training. My wife thought that he already had too many after school activities, so it was decided that he should wait another year. In March, the pastor of our church was charged with sexual abuse, an eleven year old altar boy. Mike that is too close to home. I think the Catholic Church, sadly, has a serious priest/child molester problem.
Take care,
Kevin
P.S. Sorry this is so far off subject. |
Author: Ally
Monday, 03 June 2002 - 10:38 am | | Wow Kevin! Thank God your kid was too busy to join! I bet you sent up a few prayers of thanks on his behalf.
Ally |
Author: Ally
Monday, 03 June 2002 - 02:04 pm | | Peter,
Have a child care story that is even worse (though it is hard to imagine that would be possible). Here in the States, a child was taken from her mother and placed in foster care. One day a woman called the foster mother, identified herself as belonging to Child Protection Services and said she would be picking the child up. The foster mother turned the girl over to the woman when she showed up and flashed a badge. The foster mother then proceeded (some months later) to contact CPS to try and find out information about the girls whereabouts. When her real caseworker finally pulled her head out of her arse and went to see the foster mother, only to be told that she had been given to a woman claiming to be a social worker, over a year had passed. Turns out that the real caseworker had been falsifying her reports of monthly vistits and by the time people figured out this girl had been kidnapped it was too late to do anything.
A cheery thought, no?
Ally |
Author: Kevin Braun
Monday, 03 June 2002 - 02:56 pm | | Ally,
I thank my wife. Prayers aside.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 03 June 2002 - 05:44 pm | | | Kevin, What a close run thing that turned out to be!!!! it just goes to show. And your story goes to remind us all about sheep in wolves clothing.It is not only when children are near to water that they need watching. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 03 June 2002 - 05:58 pm | | Peter,You are on a loser if you attemp to nick Harry.
I make the following statement of my own free will:
Harry was in the company of myself and friends in Guildford when the alleged offence took place.
The alleged confession was made not by Harry but by an ex policeman known to us as Peter who gained access to Harry's computer without his knowledge.In short Harry is being stitched up. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 03 June 2002 - 06:31 pm | | Sadly my religious education teacher at school was found guilty of posessing extremely hardcore Dutch child pornography , several years after both he and I had left that school. He had moved to a post in a school in Durham where I believe he helped organise the school choirboys.
Police swooped and he managed to set his house alight by trying to set fire to the pornography. Luckily the fires were put out and the evidence retrieved - it was nasty stuff.
Thankfully , there was no suggestion that he ever molested a child either at my school or at the school in Durham , it seems he was passive , but its horrible to think he may have been lusting after me or my mates when he took us for lessons. Other than that he was an extremely devoted Anglican and a friendly guy in person ; you would never have suspected what he really was.
One of the vicars at my local church was found guilty of abusing a young boy , but some time after he had moved on from that position in my town. He drank heavily and maybe tried to use alcohol to deal with his urges , but sadly his self-control failed him.
It seems that paedophiles are attracted to church and teaching posts because it brings them into contact with young children , and gives them some authority with it. I don't have any children yet , but it is something that worries me deeply. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 03 June 2002 - 08:17 pm | | Simon,
There used to be a misconception among many people that only single men were so inclined and that married men with children were above such things simply because they had children of their own. This attitude could also be found in the crime of rape. Police would centre their investigations towards single men rather than married men simply because they thought married men were far less likely to commit such an act.Of course today we know that such conclusions are incorrect.Both single and married men are capable of such crimes.
WOMEN WHO RAPE MEN.
I remember a case some years ago in the 60's when three serving women soldiers in the WRAC camp at Stoughton Barracks were charged with raping a local man. The defence centred on the grounds that a woman could not rape a man against his will.The case was thrown out.Then we had the case about the rather atractive young woman who paid to have a Mormon chap abducted.She then handcuffed him to a bed and had her wicked way with him.This court case caused quite a stir at the time.When I saw a nude picture of the woman in question in a national paper I thought about rushing down to the Mormon Church and becoming a member myself!!!! Some guys have all the luck and bitch about it afterwards!!! Knowing my bad luck if it was raining women I'd get hit by a bloke, and an ugly one at that just to add insult to injury!!!! |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 03 June 2002 - 11:43 pm | | | withdrawn |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 04 June 2002 - 01:03 am | | | David, Should we call for a Doctor ? You should keep of those drugs!!!! :-) |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 04 June 2002 - 06:36 am | | Ivor,
You just about stitched me up with laughter,and I got no alibi for that.
Peter,
How about your escapades on the other side of the law.I agree about war,unfortunately we do not make the decisions.
Regards,Harry. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 04 June 2002 - 02:59 pm | | Hello all,
It's a shame Michael Conlon is threatening to leave the boards just because of his Catholic bias. I remember he hated me for a while because I made remarks about the Vatican some time back. People act like the recent news of 'Priests as Perverts' is something new. It's been acknowledged for years. I remember reading stats that claimed the HIV virus was 4 times more common among Catholic priests than among the general public. I haven't researched the validity of that, but if it's even HALF true, it's pretty scary.
If someone wants to be Catholic, that's fine, but why on earth would they trust their children to the priests? I doubt Kevin ever will again.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 12:25 pm | | Ally
Thanks for that, something we can agree on.
Ivor and Harry: The Guildford Two?
I don't have any escapades on the other side of the law to report ...apart from one lovely encounter with a nurse down at Watford General on a Saturday night when I should have been patrolling the high street. And that wasn't illegal, just great fun.
Peter.
P.S. It was my meal break, ok? About forty five minutes, that's all. |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 06:40 am | | Peter,
Was the nurse stitching you up for a change.
Is'nt there just one very minor episode that will bring you down to the level of Ivor and myself.Think hard lad,we hate to be out on our own.Jeers,Harry.(only kidding). |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 10:11 pm | | Peter, and Harry,
Peter, If you and your mates spent as much time chasing child molesters as you did sniffing around hospitals like bloodhounds on heat chasing 'skirt' then kids would be living in a safer world. If you blokes were where you should be at any given time the crime level might improve.At the police college at Hendon you are taught that the two main pre-occupations of a police officer are, spending your time in the pub and chasing women.I see on the news this week that two of your mates got sent to prison ( one for 7 years) for committing serious crime while on the payroll of a criminal.What was it the judge said to them, "There is nothing more despicable than a bent policeman". Their life is going to be fun from now on.Jeers from me as well.
Harry. Nice post very amusing had me in stitches!! |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 05:04 pm | | Ivor, Harry,
I agree with EVERYTHING you say about the police training college at Hendon, Ivor.
So it's just as well that I went to the one at Ashford, Kent.
And I wish in Hertfordshire Constabulary, not the Met.
Glad we got that sorted.
Ivor, re: your post above. I once attended a house that had been burgled, the houseowner had been in the back garden with his wife and had left the front door off the latch. They lost a considerable amount of jewellery, valuables etc and were, justifiably, very upset.
When we got there, the houseowner said "I want to know what you guys are going to do about this sort of thing?"
I very nearly said "Teach pricks like you how to lock their front doors".
And therein lies the moral of the story, Ivor.
The police can't be held responsible for everything bad that happens in the world. And the example you cite probably has more to do with poor work in social services than the police force.
Police officers are just like you and me. They eat, they sleep, they go to the bathroom. They have a lunch break and they like looking at pretty girls or boys depending on what bag they are into.
For the record, if any bastard ever touched my children I would kill him, no doubt about it, kill him and give myself up at the nearest police station, to save them the job of looking for me.
What would you do if you were on the jury at my trial?
Harry: Been thinking hard ...I didn't every do anything illegal when in the old bill, but I did do things that were a bit silly.
Things like arresting a bloke for attempted murder then going round to service his girlfriend, that sort of thing. I occasionally turned a blind eye if someone was selling a bit of booty in a pub and I was off duty having a pint, not that I bought anything mind, I just didn't ask where it had come from.
Has that made you feel any better?
Peter. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 09:44 pm | | Peter, Your are getting a sense of humour.In answer to your question I intend to give you a very straight reply.
If I were on the jury at your trial in such a case I would find you not guilty.Furthermore If I had to break the law to sway or intimidate the other jury members I would do so without any hesitation. I would not find you guilty and then pop round to service your wife.
I knew a policeman who I really got on with many years ago his name was Ivan. He would nick someone and when they went down he would be straight round their house to service their wife, or girl friend.Guildford police were bad for that sort of thing. Even the Chief Constable at Surrey Police HQ, Guildford, faced charges of a sexual nature with female co-workers not so long ago. An Inspector I knew at Mount Browne had to leave the service 3 months before he retired for the same reason.Many policeman and professional criminals I knew would screw anything if it was in a skirt and it moved.If I'd have got a gorilla dressed up in a skirt and let it in loose in Guildford nick it would have been sexually assaulted. I never was that way inclined myself. I have never had a relationship with a married woman in my life and I am proud of that fact. Stealing is one thing but to screw another man's wife is not for me I am afraid.Some things are more important to me than others.Crime against property is one thing but to srcew around with peoples lives like that, no way. At Guildford police station in the club they had a fruit machine in an alcove out of view from the main room and someone kept breaking into it and stealing the money. So they called in you know who and a camera was placed in a certain location to try and catch the culprit.What happened next was quite amusing. A female officer was using the fruit machine to get bonked on and every time she got bonked it was on film. It was never with the same bloke though it turned out that she was getting bonked on the fruit machine by loads of different officers.
As you brought the subject of child molesters up it brought something to mind.I have got to write to a guy who has been sent to Broadmoor.I will go up to see him soon. A worker who dealt with him spoke to me and gave me details of his case and asked him if it would be ok if I saw him. He was molested when a boy and not long ago he confronted his molester. The victim wanted his molester to say that he was sorry but he refused to do so. The crime effected the boy very badly. Anyway the confrontation took place at Culver Cliff on the Isle of Wight. In fact I can see the cliffs from my front windows. The victim now a young man threw the perve over Culver Cliff.The body was never found but they found the victim's scarf with traces of his hair down the cliff face. When police searched his home they found a hit list of names whom the victim planned to kill and they were all nonces.The event had affected him so badly that he wanted to kill child molesters.He ended up in Broadmoor for the rest of his natural life because he was concidered such a danger to child offenders.Apparently the victim is alleged to be a very clever person with many good points in his favour. I want to see if I can help him out in any way and I am also interested in his case. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 05:36 am | | Hi Ivor,
If I hadn't read your post just now I'd have been in deep trouble. There was I, in gorilla costume and skirt, just about to depart for a fancy dress party in Guildford Police Station. As a result of your timely advice, I've whipped off the skirt!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 06:15 am | | Peter,
A little information,which might put me offside with Ivor,but I too was in law enforcement.I served in Customs and Excise.Now to put me back onside,I and every other officer I knew,did a little bit of hanky panky at times,as did all the dock police I knew.
I've forgotten the number of times I had the invitation to take a female into a wharf office and show her how a body search was conducted.I however,being of pure in mind and body,always declined.
I agree with Ivor and yourself on the kind of people you indicate,they with drug importers are scum. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 08:21 pm | | | Caroline, Hope you have not left yet, just by taking off the skirt still wont be enough to stop the desk Sgt, nor the duty Inspector. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 13 June 2002 - 08:41 pm | | Harry,
We have a very interesting smuggler's musuem where I live. Being an Isle between the mainland and France quite a lot of smuggling goes on here. Some wealthy business man bought a house near the sea a couple of miles away with his own private beach.He was bringing in hard drugs from abroad and using his private beach to land them.Both he and his gang got busted with a few million pounds worth of hard drugs. They got some heavy sentences and the business man had everything taken away from him including his house which was worth 500,000 pounds.Thats what you get for being greedy but I dont agree with hard drugs anyway.I smoked some grass many years ago and that was my limit and I am against all the rest.I have seen a few people I knew die of a drug overdose. I have known a few who died of booze as well.
My suspect Stephenson alias D'Onston was a customs officer in Hull where he was born. He caught VD from a prostitute and was thrown out of the customs service because of such behaviour in keeping bad company. He was on a boat with a known smuggler by the name of Piles when he was shot in the thigh.They said they were out shooting seabirds and it was an accident but you know what happens somtimes when such people fall out with each other. Sounds like they were at it together to me. |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 05:44 am | | | Ivor,Quite interesting.I once worked with a chap by the name of Frank Evans,who left that employment to return to sea fishing.This was back in the 1960's.Not long afterwards he made front page on the News of the World.Smuggling watches and other goods from France.Was quite a cheerful person too. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 06:06 am | | Thanks Ivor,
I guessed that might be the case, so I gave the party a miss. Imagine what a fool I felt, weeding the front garden instead, in my gorilla outfit. A passerby even threw me a banana!
Have a good weekend on your lovely island.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 02:23 pm | | So D'Onston was on a boat with piles? I wonder if that motivated him to scratch out his misery in Whitechapel.
Ivor: The truth is that I have had a sense of humour all along, it is just that YOU are now getting MY sense of humour.
And I agree with you about bribing the jury to let murderers of paedo's off.
Harry Mann in law enforcement! Who would have believed it?!
Aren't we all getting just a little sterile in here?
Ivor's house sounds like a nice place to visit, I think I'll holiday on the Isle of Wight this year.
Cheers big ears
Peter. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 14 June 2002 - 08:49 pm | | Peter and Harry,One ex copper, one ex customs officer, and one ex con, this could be the basis of a good crime novel.We can all have nick names,
Peter the Parrot,Ivor the Engine, and Harry the Hawk. |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 06:24 am | | Ivor,Peter,
We can all meet on the Isle of White.How about at Parkhurst.Ivor's been there,Peter ought to be there,and I'll come for the view.
If some of our experiencies were put in a book,I doubt people would believe the truth of it.
I think we have all met the Bentley's and Craig's of this world,the pity of it is that we do not have the solution to their kinds of behaviour. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 12:20 pm | | Harry,Many a true word was said in jest.What was ironic was the fact that when aged about 21 I was on the Albany prison working party, from Camp Hill Prison next to Parkhurst.In fact I hurt my back while doing some heavy lifting and I had to go to Parkhurst to see the Doctor.The funny thing was that when I moved here just over two years ago I found out that my next door neighbour was none other than the Governor of Albany Prison!!
We talked about the ripper and he and his wife had a couple of my ripper maps because they found them interesting. |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 02:47 pm | | Ivor, Harry.
Harry, you say that we don't have the solutions to the kinds of problems presented by the Craigs and Bentleys of this world. Would you then support my campaign to reintroduce capital punishment? Or would you side with those who would say that Christopher Craig has been rehabilitated and is now a useful member of society?
Would either of you share a cup of tea and a scone with Craig? Would you have him as a neighbour? Let him babysit your children?
Ivor, Harry - who would you like to meet? Would you like to meet Hindley or Brady to see if you could get inside their perverted, sick and twisted minds? I think I would. Then I'd kill them.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 09:57 pm | | | Peter,I am not against hanging evil people but I am against hanging innocent ones. If the Police had done their job correctly in the first place hanging would not have been abolished.How many times have they charged people with murder who were innocent and then when in court they either gave perjured evidence, or suppressed it to gain a conviction ? Too many times.Hanging was abolished because far too many injustices were taking place. When I hear the police calling to bring back capital punishment I think they must be joking after their track record. The truth of the matter is that they cant be trusted. If they could then we would not have the need to tape suspects being interviewed.That was a measure brought in solely because too many suspects were being stitched up. When the police kill anyone it is always an accident when anyone else does the same thing it is either classed as manslaugter or murder. The police want to take stock of themselves before they go around criticizing others. They have not got the courage of their own convictions!!!! |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 16 June 2002 - 06:32 am | | Peter,
Better people than I have sought an answer to the problems associated with capital punishment.There have been times when I have believed that hanging would be a proper punishment for some brutal crime,but as Ivor points out,is there any guarantee that the correct person has been identified.
Now I have been in situations similar to that posed by Craig.Sure a gun was not pointed at me,but the danger threatened by a drunken mob is not to be taken lightly.On these occasions I did not force my position,but backed off and talked my way around the predicament.
Do people rehabilitate.I believe quite a few do.
I have no particular interest in meeting any notorious killers.I have known some in the past.In their everyday activities they are not any different from you or I.
Remember Emmet Dunne.Killed a fellow sergeant.He was my training N.C.O. on one particular course,and a finer soldier would be hard to find.I would drink with him today if the situation arose.That was a brutal killing,but I never thought of him as a brutal person.His reason was an old one.He wanted the others wife.
Regards,Harry. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 17 June 2002 - 12:44 am | | | Harry,Try to sort him out for God's sake if not for mine, he is being silly again over on the Hanratty thread.I am sure he does it on purpose. |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 17 June 2002 - 04:51 am | | Ivor,
We will have to wait untill the anaesthetic wears off,bail him out of the funny farm,take his hand off his baton,and put a couple of ounces of lead in his ear at maximum velocity.Then invite him down to the Isle Of White for rehab. |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 17 June 2002 - 07:00 pm | | "How many times have they charged people with murder who were innocent and then when in court they either gave perjured evidence, or suppressed it to gain a conviction ?"
I don't know Ivor, perhaps you'd care to tell me? Or perhaps you can't because what you wrote was nothing more than rhetoric designed to win you points with your friends?
"If they could then we would not have the need to tape suspects being interviewed.That was a measure brought in solely because too many suspects were being stitched up".
Now here, Ivor, you are just being silly. Taped interviews were brought in because technology allowed it. And I rather think the police who used to take contemporaneous notes would be sick and tired of suspects who turned up at court and changed their plea or said "Those are not my words". Taping an interview protects all sides.
Grow up.
"Hanging was abolished because far too many injustices were taking place".
Oh diddums!
Try this for size:
Hanging should be reintroduced because there are far too many injustices taking place. Hindley and Brady? Hang 'em. Thompson and Venables? Hang 'em. Ooh, but no, we can't hang them can we Ivor, because they might be innocent! What absolute b*ll*cks!
I repeat my earlier assertion that everybody is entitled a fair trial. Murderers should get the rope. It's just a sad fact of life that sometimes mistakes may be made.
Deal with it.
Peter. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 17 June 2002 - 10:24 pm | | Peter,
If you want to stick your head in the sand and your bottom up in the air you will end up getting stuffed like the christmas turkey.
You dont know of people who were innocent of a murder they never committed !!!!! I am sure the posters on these boards could enlighten you there.
Never happened has it Peter it is all just a big conspiracy to undermine the police. I am surprised that they dont change the colour of the uniforms to snow white.
Tape recorders were introduced for the reason I stated. It stands to reason that the technology was there. That however was not the reason for their introduction. They had been out for years before the police used them. But it was only at the time when concerns grew about police corruption with suspects and how to combat the situation that they were introduced.And if the police had their way they would not have been used.
All you harp on about is people like Hindley and Brady who we all know were guilty without a doubt. Everyone is indeed entitled to a fair trial but not everyone gets what they are entitled to. The truth of the matter is this, if the police had done their job as it should have been done in the first place we would not have to put up with innocet people being convicted of crimes they never committed. You place the blame at the feet of the innocent instead of where it truly should be placed, at the feet of those who arrest and charge innocent people.
You cant justify what has been done to innocent people so you just put you hands up in the air and state, "Oh its just a sad fact of life." If someone took the life of a loved one belonging to you I doubt very much if you would say. "Oh its just a sad fact of life." You would scream louder than most.The only person you are kidding is yourself because you cant deal with the truth of the matter.You cant bear anyone knocking the police because you were one yourself.So everyone else is wrong and your are right. Just like old Maybrick you are right and everyone else is wrong. Wake up. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 12:24 pm | | Hi Ivor,
And it's not just those who have arrested and charged innocent people over the years who are to blame for the guilty being let off more lightly these days.
There are also many cases where the guilty have benefited from police bungling the case against them, allowing the defence to focus minds on the bungling and away from the crime itself. Where the police have in the past been over-zealous, to the point of using foul means rather than fair in order to strengthen a case and secure a conviction, they have done themselves, the public, and justice in general, no long-term favours. The person they fit up might be as guilty as hell, but that's no excuse for incompetence. In other words, they can throw the book at the guilty, but it helps if the book isn't a fake, and if they stick to throwing it in the right way.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 04:22 pm | | | Caroline, Very good point you have made. You will find with the police that everyone is to blame apart from them.They never seem to learn from their mistakes and they never will admit to their faults or admit to the cockups, or injustices they create.Guildford police will tell you that the Guildford 4 were released on policital grounds!!!! The film about the Guildford four was shown all over the country apart from one town,Yes you guessed it, it was never shown at Guildford. I wonder why ? The police hate constructive criticism and it is about time they learnt to deal with it. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 08:23 am | | Have to agree with you, Ivor, that too many police officers have a decided wish to insist that every 'result' they've ever achieved was justified, even when some manifest miscarriage of justice is finally overturned.
But let us also remember that high profile villains cling equally wrong-deadedly to their and their colleagues' wrongful acquittals, and parade their alleged proven innocence with a sheer mendacity which is different from and less forgivable than a police officer's wilful self-deception.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 03:14 pm | | | Hi Martin, Yes a good point you make there. Just because someone may be aquitted they can be as guilty as hell. Many villains try to convince or "con" themselves that they are innocent when they are in fact guilty.Best Wishes, Ivor |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 04:44 pm | | The Guildford Four were guilty. So were the Broadwater farm lot.
And when you talk about 'The Police' "Bungling prosecutions" do you know exactly who you are talking about? It's not your average copper on the beat who might report for duty at two in the afternoon, stay on till two in the morning and in the course of those twelve hours have to deal with battered wives, abused children, shoplifters who say "Don't come near me, I'm HIV positive", and drunks who just want to fight because, lets face it, everyone hates the police.
No, it's not your average copper on the beat.
It's your non uniformed officers. Worse still, CPS.
I don't hold with planting evidence on people, but if you were convinced someone had abused your nephew and the only way to gain a conviction was to plant evidence, wouldn't you be tempted?
Do you know how many support groups there are in this country for victims of crime? Just one. Counter that against the number of groups set up to help prisoners, their families etc. The number of focus groups set up to rehabilitate offenders, witness the social worker who asked Philip Lawrence's wife to apologise to the boy who stabbed her husband to death because she dared to say that he 'showed no remorse'.
Is that the level of justice we have come to in this country? Has the balance of power shifted that much? Are you really so concerned with the "rights" of those who commit crime that you are willing to neglect the victims?
Ivor, I will mail you something privately, because to print it here would probably see me shot, but you can make your reply public providing you don't name any of the parties involved.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 06:38 am | | Peter,
Although as you state,the policeman on the beat is less likely, if left to his own devices,to engage in untruthful submissions to court,many submit to pressure from senior officers to do so,and if a lower rank should voice dissent on such an occasion,he would not get much sympathy or support from other junior officers.
It is a problem not easily overcome,and it is sometimes easy to justify ones illegal activities,when the evidence,concrete as it may seem,is nevertheless not quite enough to secure a conviction.
You may well sing the praises of the Thatchers of this world,but remember there is a price to be paid in following their dictates,and again it is the innocent who have to bear the burden. |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 07:11 am | | All four of them, Peter? One, I agree - naturally the one who has swanned off to live like a pig in clover rather than having his life ruined! But you really think at least two of the other three were guilty?
And the death of PC Blakelock, following the death of Mrs Cynthia Jarrett (not to mention the parallel maiming of Mrs Cherry Grose) constitutes far too tragic a set of circumstances to be hauled in as part of a sort of tit-for-tat debate on police ethics and ethnic minority violence. Of course I agree with you that at least one of the Broadwater Farm defendants was rightly convicted in the first instance. But I think the residents, in their creation of a memorial park to BOTH PC Blakelock and Mrs Jarrett, point a better way to those of us who are tempted to shout "murderous racist rioters!" vs "Thatcherite killer filth!"
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 07:37 pm | | Harry, I read your comments with interest. Do we agree that, sometimes, the end justifies the means?
Martin, how strange that you should mention PC Blakelock when only today I read that his killer, oops - the man who was convicted of killing him and then had the verdict overturned on appeal - Winston Silcott, is to be allowed to choose his own "open" prison in which to serve the rest of his 'life' sentence for another murder, this being one that he remained guilty of.
Now, Silcott is still a young man - relatively speaking. How long before he is back on the streets? Two years? How long before he is invited onto programmes like Kilroy, Oprah, hell - even Richard and Judy will be issuing invitations? Tea with the prime minister at no. ten, Winston? No problem, just get Max Clifford to arrange it for you.
And not only is he a young man, but he is also a rich man because of all the cash he was given following his appeal.
Aah, the British justice system! Isn't it wonderful?
Maybe Winston Silcott will be out in time to run for the next mayor of London if Red Ken gets the boot following accusations of a scuffle involving a pregnant woman and a set of stairs. Ooh, selective reporting! Poor old Ken, never liked the bloke much, but it looks like someone has got it in for him.
Perhaps he should murder Winston Silcott, then retract his confession in ten years time and walk away with a huge wad of taxpayers cash by way of compensation.
Don't call me cynical. That isn't a chip I'm carrying around on my shoulder, it's the whole quarry.
Best wishes to you all
Peter.
P.S. Harry, let me pre-empt your next question if I may. Did I ever lie in court? No. Was I ever under pressure to do so? Well, put it this way, there was a case where myself and my colleagues arrested a party of rowdy butchers after a christmas binge. Amongst the melee that ensued certain things were seen, those that saw them testified as to the facts. I saw things differently and testified as to how I saw things. The defence asked me, under oath and in front of the magistrates, to change my story to match that of my colleagues. I said "No, I can only testify as to what I saw", my actual words were "I have no notes to that effect" (What do you make of that Martin, Maggie would be proud of me).
The butchers were all found guilty of breaching the peace. Next time we saw them we all shook hands and shared the time of day as each copper who had been in court that day had told the truth as he saw it. The fact is that our versions of events were different, but we all went under oath to give our evidence regardless of the fact that we'd had several weeks in which we could have 'sorted our stories out'. Our stories differed and could not possibly have all been true, but, although the temptation was there to alter the evidence to make it all neat and tidy, we didn't. We were all convinced that we were telling the truth.
Good old days. |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 05:37 am | | Peter,
I will not ask you that question,I will take your word for it.There are many instances,as you are probably aware,in which a law enforcement officer may lie,and unless he does so under oath,he is not guilty of perjury.It would depend on the end as to what means are employed,but peer pressure has always had it's part in determining how some persons may act.
One case of mine involved the finding of some hasish on board a vessel,and before our evening shift had ended,the supervisor and I had traced the possible culprit through a receipt for a tape recorder.This involved going back a couple of years,through various ports,even as far as Singapore,and through various ships documents.
The good work was almost spoiled by the next day's investigators,who taking over the case,lied from the very beginning as to their activities,and it was only that the offender pleaded guilty,that stopped the officers from having to continue their lies in court,which they were prepared to do.In this instance it was junior officers bowing to pressure from senior members.Their reasoning was that the person was guilty anyway,so what did it matter.
Was this an isolated instance.You can bet your life it wasn't. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 08:06 am | | Peter - I am in full agreement that making a hero of Winston Silcott is appalling.
And I am impressed by your story of the rozzers and the butchers, which I have no doubt represents a more frequent type of situation than most people would believe.
I think Britain has become far more uncomfortable to live in since parents have become afraid to say "No!" to children in voices that mean it; since teachers have been put under threat of physical violence or lawsuits if they dare to say a brat is a brat and treat brats as they deserve; since an automatic assumption that all authorities are corrupt or would-be despotic or both has replaced automatic forelock-tugging; since perfectly correct guilt about the overall economic exploitation, about distorted insistence on ethnic and religious superiority, about downright tyranny when faced with strong resistance; have all made recollection of the British Empire a thing of unalloyed shame, whereas at worst it still contributed valuable elements to the rich cultural melting pot of the Indian subcontinent (including a language that can be made national without ceding superiority to any indigenous culture or religion), and at best it could rise through the 'Orde and Tallantyre' ideal of the D.O. to Rattray Taylor's devotion to the Ashanti and preservation (as they recognize) of many of their historical traditions before they could become downgraded and distorted by mission school teaching and the sort of crude Eurocentrism which made Baden-Powell boast of having set fire to the great mausoleum of the Asantahenes, which he dubbed "the fetish village".
But for all this reactionary thinking which leads my children to call me the last of the Victorians, I'm still one of your wishy-washy liberals and instinctively recognise myself as being made of the same stuff as Attila the Hun and Adolf Hitler and Torquemada and Jack the Ripper, and can only say of all of them, "There, but for the grace of God, go I". (I don't need the same prayer in recognizing myself to be the same species as you and Ivor, different though our final expressed opinions may seem).
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 11:10 am | | It's nice to be appreciated Martin, perhaps I can impress you a little further?
There were parking restrictions in certain parts of Watford (where I walked the beat) that required payment by 'pay and display'. One clearly rattled young lady was desperately searching for some money as I approached her unticketed car. One 50p coin out of my own pocket, a quick smile from her, and we were both on our way.
On another occasion a little old lady had fallen over and become quite confused. She was also a penniless little old lady, so I stopped a passing taxi, gave the driver five quid to take her home and off she went.
In neither of those incidents did I receive any praise or acknowledgement other than knowing I had done my best. The tabloids didn't run headlines saying "Copper involved in acts of kindness", but nevertheless I was happy with what I had done.
The final tale with which I shall entertain you is ever so slightly different.
One Saturday night, early Sunday morning, halfway between pubs closing and kicking out from the nightclubs I happened to walk behind a pub off the high street and found a body lying on the floor in front of me! Well, it wasn't the warmest of nights so me initial reaction to finding out that the body had a pulse was "Thank God I haven't got a sudden death on my hands"!
Slowly, the body came round to something approaching consciousness. To put it politely he was nine sheets to the wind and I am to this day convinced that, if I hadn't gone round the back of the pub, he would have slept there all night and, at best, become seriously ill.
Anyway, I picked him up and slung his arms around my shoulders, and started carrying/dragging him down the middle of Watford High Street where we had a conversation along these lines:
ME: "What's your name?"
THE BODY: "I don't want to tell you".
ME: "If you don't tell me your name then I could arrest you for being drunk and incapable".
THE BODY: "Go on then".
ME: "Where do you live?"
THE BODY: "I'm not telling you that either".
As we were walking along, several other people were milling around the streets, mainly courting couples. They started to give me abuse for what they could see was a b*st*rd copper carrying one of their own (a drunkard) off to the cells.
One drunken comment was typical of what was getting shouted at me:
MEMBER OF PUBLIC: "Why don't you leave him alone? What are you arresting him for?"
ME (By now deciding that I didn't want to take MR BODY back to the cells where he would undoubtedly refuse to tell me his name, address or anything of any significance, just so that he could vomit and I would be ordered to clean it up): "I'm not bl**dy well arresting him, I'm taking him to the taxi rank!"
Well, that shut them all up. It did cross my mind that I shouldn't be shoving someone so obviously D & I in a taxi home, but fortunately the walk across the town centre had a sobering effect on him. He was able to show me that he had money in his pocket before a quick handshake saw him get into the back of the cab.
My last words to the taxi driver before he drove away? "Make sure you wait outside his house until he's safely inside the front door".
Again, that is something that didn't get reported in the press.
So for each one of Ivor's stories, myself and my colleagues (ex and present) have probably got a hundred.
Thanks Martin and Harry, this is beginning to feel like a proper conversation.
Take care
Peter. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 03:08 pm | | Peter,
when I was in my teens the policeman was no friend of mine, they always seemed to be dogging me and "looking for trouble", stand talking with your mates on the pavement-- (and blocking it!!) and a copper would come along with a "KEEP MOVING". They would stop us sodding around and making a damn nuisance of ourselves.Now,the policemen, the teachers and the N.C.O.s who made me dance to their tune, I have only admiration and respect for, and until I experience something different (from the police), I have to say I shall always regard them as my friends and I'll do anything I can to help them. When someone comes poking around the house in the dead of night and I ring for the police, we are very happy to see that blue uniform and his alsation, good luck and keep safe coppers.
All The Best Rick |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 06:02 pm | | The trouble is the faults on all sides. I won't name the eminent QC who told me once he was desperately tempted to get out of the business, since most of his work consisted of trying to make socially useful coppers look utterly corrupt and dishonest on behalf of socially useless villains who were wishing packs of lies on him and the court. Of course the socially useful copers were equally lying in their teeth to secure justified convictions; being forced to lie to have any hope of making their case stick and get round the crude lies skilfully presented by the QC who was becoming disgusted with the whole process and himself into the bargain, especially as he had to keep calling coppers corrupt and bent when he knew they weren't, even if they were merrily perjuring themselves in 'noble cause'.
Is it any wondr we laymen are deeply cynical about a law which purports to consider perjury a crime, but only bothers to use it if it can't get someone like Alger Hiss or Jeffrey Archer for the real offence which has sickened the public?
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 06:39 pm | | Martin
What was Jeffrey Archer's real offence?
As for perjury, are you au fait with the recent trial in which Naomi Campbell sued the Daily Mirror for libel?
She won on a technicality, but later admitted to having lied, on oath, in front of the judge.
Why hasn't she been arrested for perjury?
What sickens me is that the popular press is misdirected to look out for people like Jeffrey Archer who, lets face it, has contributed millions silently to charity, whilst being openly supportive of the "causes" represented by the obviously guilty who have discovered a technicality in their case.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 24 June 2002 - 05:28 am | | Peter,
A similar case involving a drunk,but in a different country.
A sunday morning patrol along the waterfront,and it is reported to me that a person had been found clinging to a ships rudder.The ship in question was Japanese,and the person rescued had been taken on board by Japanese crew members,dried out,placed in a warm bed and fed.
I obtained his home address,and directed a junior officer to take him home,a distance of about two miles.
When this incident was notified to higher authority,I was accused of acting without authority,illegal use of a department vehicle,and directing an officer to be absent from his place of duty.It was stressed to me that department charges might be laid.
In my blunt way I requested to be advised of such charges at the earliest possible time,as I would immediately take the story to the media.Of course nothing further was heard.
The rescued person's background.He was an Aborigine.
Another day different person.It was reported to officers that the State Collector of Customs daughter would be disembarking from a cruise liner,and it would be appreciated if all possible help would be afforded her as she passed Immigration and Customs procedures.
As I was on duty that day,and was processing passengers for both,I was hoping that she would front my desk,where a suitable check of her luggage could be instituted.Alas I was out of luck.
Yes Peter,there are many stories that could be told,and the uninitiated wouldn't believe a fraction of them.
What is this to do with Bently and Craig?.Probably nothing,but when it comes to law enforcement,it is wise to be a little sceptical,and accept that lies and deception are part and parcel of everyday activities. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 24 June 2002 - 05:38 am | | Hi Peter,
Jeffrey Archer - technically obstruction of justice - yes? I agree with you, tho', if you're saying that his perjury, insofar as it entailed humiliating the prostitute was his worst moral offence. (I can't really care very deeply about The Star being taken for unjust damages).
As for Archer's contributions to charity - well, they just put him on an even footing with Al Capone, don't they?
Agree with you that Naomi Campbell should be prosecuted. I should welcome a huge round of prosecutions on all sides where perjury has taken place: not this cynical agreement between lawyers, coppers and crooks that the oath is meaningless; perjury is to be taken for granted; and honest citizens who wind up in this den of liars can be taken to the cleaners by any or all of them.
Harry - your life starts to sound like something out of Conrad!
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 24 June 2002 - 06:20 pm | | Jeffrey Archer and Al Capone!
Now, there's a thought ...
I honestly don't know if Archer slept with Monica Coughlan or not, but surely the situation he found himself in was that he was trying to keep the sordid details from his wife?
Let's face it, Mary has stuck with Jeffrey through thick and thin, so I doubt the revelation that he had been unfaithful would have bothered her too much, but Jeffrey would have wanted to spare her the humiliation she has now had to go through.
My own view is that Jeffrey was convicted on nothing more than a technicality purely because of who he was. So he asked someone to lie for him? Big deal! And the award that he won from the Daily Star should still stand for they alleged he had slept with Monica when, in truth, Archer still denies that any such incident took place.
Sadly his lies caught up with him.
A sad end note to the story was the prostitute's death in a car crash, near Leeds if my memory serves me correctly, probably not though.
I read recently of a youth who was caught and sentenced under the "two strikes and you're out" rule (always thought it was three???) - the judge at his trial awarded him a life sentence and then inferred that he could be out on the streets within two years, less time than Jeffrey Archer will have served for asking someone else to tell a white lie.
So what is worse? To ask someone to tell a white lie to spare your wife's feelings? Or to smash someone in the face so hard that you nearly kill them?
Harry: Great story, I would love to have a pint, a couple of cigars and a few hours of conversation with yourself, Martin and even Ivor - should the opportunity ever present itself.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 25 June 2002 - 04:52 am | | Thanks Martin,
I have had my moments.Such as the time I was a member of a firing squad while in the army.The hapless victim a dog.True.There was even a court martial.It bothers my conscience even today.
The Army,the trade union,law enforcement.I have had experience of all three.I have seen the exceptionly good,and I have experienced the other side of human behaviour,the bad.But life is life,and no telling what any person may be.Craig,Bentley,Jack.Maybe they were all unfortunates,as were their victims.
Peter,
With luck I will be in England about this time next year.If you are around the Gloucester area at that time,we can certainly have a drink.Mine's a CIDER.
Regards,Harry. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 25 June 2002 - 05:02 am | | I only hit England around the post-Christmas just-into-New-Year season, otherwise I could thoroughly enjoy being the unregenerate old leftie at the cider-drinking gathering of latter-day hangers and floggers from all sides of the law and the seat of custom.
I think your sense of humour's better than Conrad's, Harry.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 25 June 2002 - 03:31 pm | | Harry: Just let me know when!
Looks like it's a New Year party round at Martin's then!
Peter. |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 05:51 am | | Martin,
You have awakened an interest in Conrad,though I did read Lord Jim many years ago.
A tip on how to make Champagne.Take one bottle of cider,pour out three fingers,top up with brandy and shake well.
Peter,
We will share a piece of Stinking Bishop between us.It is still made at Dymock.Sure cure for flatfeet.
Harry. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 06:34 am | | Harry,
Try "The Secret Sharer" or "The N*gger of the Narcissus". And maybe "Youth".
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Eduardo Zinna
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 06:45 pm | | Martin, Harry,
I've always thought 'Nostromo' was Conrad's best. But I never understood why he believed a country would call itself 'Costaguano.' The Birdsh*t Republic?
Best,
Eduardo |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 06:46 pm | | Harry
I am so tempted to make a joke concerning Stinking Bishops, but it would be much too obvious. Shame!
We're getting a little laid back in here, when is someone going to arrive and put the cat back amongst the pigeons?
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 09:01 pm | | Eduardo - I agree about Nostromo. But Harry's exploits suggest that nautical experiences rather than revolutionary idealism leading to neo-colonialism would be more up his street.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 09:04 pm | | (Oh, and from the staircase, though not wit - I should probably have put "Typhoon" first and foremost).
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 12:56 am | | | Peter, Right now in answer to your question!!!I only popped in to warn Harry to watch out for you. You are a bad influence on him as late and are leading him astray. Next thing we know he will be rabbiting on about Mayrick being the ripper. One such believer on the casebook is quite enough while two are out of the question. |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 05:26 am | | Ivor,I've only been led astray once,and she was a lot better looking than Peter.Not as wealthy though.Stinking Bishop is a cheese.Goes well with Cider.
Martin,Eduardo,
Will try to gather the books mentioned.
True I am more at home with sea going folks,but I was impressed with Alexander Bustamante,perhaps the modern hero of Jamaica.Did much more but is less remembered than Henry Morgan.A revolutinary to be sure,but in a pactical and non violent way. |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 09:12 am | | Harry - An admirer of The Chief! Wow! (No doubt you feel Eddie Seaga an unworthy successor).
From the cousinly end, I could milk a litle kudos in the West Indies from the fact that I come from the same village as Edna Manley, and know inside and out the former Methodist manse where Norman visited her when they became engaged.
(This thread has suddenly become "Old men exchange reminiscences about dead West Indian politicians!)
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Peter Wood
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 05:14 pm | | Ivor
Choose your weapon. Pistols at dawn?
Peter. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 05:55 pm | | | Harry, I hope so if only for your sake!!! |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 04:56 am | | Martin,
The dead men we oldies respect were far better persons than the subject of this thread.Had they perhaps studied the likes of Bustamante and Norman Manly,Craig might have had an appreciation of what class struggle is all about,and that there are ways other than with guns,to achieve a respectfull way of life.
The day I shook hands with Bustamante,late 1948,in Montego Bay,Jamaica,he was in company of that well known singer Paul Robeson.
It was an occasion that could easily have rivalled the incident at Amritsar(not joking).Tell you if ever we meet.History books do not reveal all.
Peter,you mean pistill dawn.
Ivor,bait the mouse with cheese. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 08:13 am | | Agreed, those were great men, Harry.
But the same region had its share of rogues! (Eric Gairy only the most obvious).
Did you ever come across the suggestion that the PNP deliberately encouraged Rastafarianism (in preference to Pocomania - the real indigenous Jamaican cult according to its adherents) - because they were desperate to get some mass support of the kind Buster could summon up with a speech or a Union call?
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 08:15 am | | Agreed, those were great men, Harry.
But the same region had its share of rogues! (Eric Gairy only the most obvious).
Did you ever come across the suggestion that the PNP deliberately encouraged Rastafarianism (in preference to Pocomania - the real indigenous Jamaican cult according to its adherents) - because they were desperate to get some mass support of the kind Buster could summon up with a speech or a Union call?
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 05:30 am | | Martin,
As I was only a young soldier at the time I speak about,Colony politics to us, was a taboo subject.However I was of the opinion that the Rastafarian Society,which I believe had come with the slaves,was in the main,concentrated in the Blue Mountain region,and certainly being of the poorest peasants,their support would have been eagerly sought.It did appear though that the authorities,fearing Bustamantes popularity,were seeking any means to discredit him and weaken his position.It was a very lively time on the Island.
In addition to the many deaths in the transport dispute of that time,there was a character by the name of Rhygin Martin on the loose.He had broken jail,and when cornered had shot and killed four policemen.
Some weeks later he was found at a lonely Key.By the time the police had finished firing,there were 48 bullet wounds in the upper body alone.(That will bring a smile to Peter's Face).
Whether it was political I cannot remember,but he was well known,and a stage play.'The ghost of Rhygin Martin'was produced.
Makes Craig small time,but the amount of killings on the Island in the past few years saddens me much.Eddie Seaga will have to be very good to bring some form of normality back again. |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 08:11 am | | Hi Harry,
Eddie's had opportunities before - after all, he's headed the JLP for more than 20 years now!
Manley and Bustamante were both dead, of course, by the time I started working there, and Michael Manley was on his way to proving that trying to be a greater man than his father in a shorter time was a good way to bring the island's economy to its knees!
The curious and fascinating contradictions of life in the Caribbean could be summed up in my dual perception of Eddie Seaga: on the one hand, svelte Harvard graduate, and absolutely looking the part of former academic in the UWI Extra-Mural Department, when presenting Harvard's congratulations (among all the other universities with representatives at UWI) on the installation of a new Chancellor. Looking even whiter than Sir Alexander, and every inch a respectable middle-class intellectual in the Norman Manley mould.
And on the other hand, the comment of a very able and articulate Kingston working class background student of mine, with passionate links to the JLP and the memory of Bustamante, commenting on the horrendous violence perpetrated by the political gunmen in the late '70s (the "Feathermop" and "Berry Boy" period): "Manley can't control he men, but if Eddie want you dead: you dead!"
All the best,
Martin F
(Wouldn't you like a little Mount Gay or Don Q to vary that cider?) |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 05:04 am | | Martin,
Three Daggers,Applemoney Or Red Stripe,were once favourites.Now in England it's just Cider,and here in Australia it's Marsala though the brewers would now go broke waiting for me to order.
Seaga,Patterson or whoever,it will be hard times ahead.Too much foreign ownership and influence.
Still theres always Jamaica Gold,a bigger earner t
han Bauxite or so it is said.
Regards,Harry. |
|
|
|
|
