Inspector stabbed.....

[Flamingo]

if you wish. I'm just expressing my view, that's all.
I was shocked to hear about this attack on the news and reviewed this thread with rising incredulity. I had hoped to see more support for this guy and was just a bit stunned by the turn of the discussion.

O l leigh

+1

 

[ushawk]

BTP have arrested 2 people - From BBC News -

Two arrested in Essex train stabbing inquiry
Detectives investigating the stabbing of a rail ticket inspector at East Tilbury station, Essex, have arrested two people.

British Transport Police said the arrests were made on Sunday, two days after the incident on a C2C train.

The inspector had asked two men without tickets to leave the 20:20 Southend Central to London Fenchurch Street train at East Tilbury.

The two, aged about 18, got off but one returned and stabbed him in the back.

The inspector, 42, needed three stitches to the wound and was released from hospital late on Saturday.

Police had earlier released CCTV images and asked witnesses to contact them.

 

[martin2345uk]

That's encouraging news. I hope that a) these are the right people and the b) they punish them severely.

Could it be viewed as attempted murder? It wasn't in the heat of the moment...

 

[GB]

The act of carrying a knife adds to the credence for premeditation so I don't see why not.

 

[Old Timer]

The act of carrying a knife adds to the credence for premeditation so I don't see why not.

There is supposed to be a zero tolerance approach to knife carrying but once again a lenient liberal Judiciary seem to be hell-bent on frustrating the intentions of Parliament in making the carrying of a knife too risky for scrotes, by passing non-effective sentences.


I did think that there was a plan to make it a mandatory minimum two-year sentence but I see that the penalty was increased to four-years, a pretty pointless exercise given the proclivity of the Judiciary to pass the most lenient sentences possible.

 

[BestWestern]

[double post - deleted]

 

[BestWestern]

[double post - deleted]

 

[BestWestern]

Nobody has tried to excuse him. I'm merely pointing out that this is for the Court to decide and right wing nonsense about stringing them up or banging them up does not help the process of Law for the defendant or the victim.

In what way is it 'nonsense' to suggest that these people should be banged up?! What would you suggest, a few hours scrubbing pavements? :roll:

Your thinly veiled defence of a person clearly guilty of GBH/attempted murder is rather worrying. Time and again you have reminded us that we should take no view on his vile crime and concern ourselves more with ensuring that he gets a fair trial, which I'm sure you'd remind us is his 'yuman right'.

The problem with people who are so very keen to stick up for the scum of this world is their deep, deep naivety. These animals don't care about you, me or anybody else, and they laugh at our impotent system which lets them walk free time after time. Note how often you will read of some loathsome specimen smirking as they leave the courtroom or joking with their friends on Facebook. It astounds me that the pitiful liberal loadmouths of this country don't ever realise how utterly stupid and humiliated they appear when they continue to spout their support for these people, who clearly don't give a damn about them and view them merely as a meal ticket.

It is unwelcome attitudes such as this which have made our society the mess that it is today, and it's high time those attitudes were ignored.

 

[jon0844]

I totally agree.

(Some) people have far too much faith and can't see that they're walked all over as a result. A lot of the time it is people who are religious and feel that you must seek to forgive people. What a load of nonsense. I don't propose bringing back the death penalty, but you can't always try and find excuses to let people off who do horrid things because, shock horror, they're not nice people.

By all means have a three strikes system for some crimes, but for others it has to be a zero tolerance approach.

 

[O L Leigh]

Taking the necessary actions to secure a conviction is not woolly liberal thinking.

I can sympathise with the wish to prosecute the greater charge of attempted murder, but such a charge has to be PROVED in order that the scrote responsible is convicted, otherwise he walks away scot-free. Whether you like it or not, the British judicial system rests on the principle of innocence unless proven guilty. Therefore it is up to the prosecution to PROVE that a charge is justified in order to secure the conviction desired.

The problem here is that proving that the scrote had actually tried to kill the RPI rather than merely wound him is going to be tricky. Under such circumstances I would rather the offender be prosecuted and convicted of something rather than going unpunished, and this is the same process that the CPS uses when prosecuting cases. While our emotions may scream at us that this is attempted murder, an attempt to prosecute such a charge in this case is highly likely to fail. Therefore the scrote will be charged and prosecuted with a lesser offence that is much more likely to succeed in securing a conviction.

Under the circumstances I would not like to see this person go unpunished. If that means prosecuting a lesser offence then so be it. I would rather he be found guilty of GBH or whatever charge the Police decide to bring against him than see an ambitous prosecution case fail and for the offender to get away unpunished.

O L Leigh

 

[Temple Meads]

Carrying a knife and proceeding to use it in this way is totally unexcusable, even more so with the attack being to the victims back.
Carrying a knife purely for self defence purposes is defendable, but this is just plain nasty, and the culprits should spend a long time at her majesties pleasure IMO...

 

[BestWestern]

Taking the necessary actions to secure a conviction is not woolly liberal thinking.

I can sympathise with the wish to prosecute the greater charge of attempted murder, but such a charge has to be PROVED in order that the scrote responsible is convicted, otherwise he walks away scot-free. Whether you like it or not, the British judicial system rests on the principle of innocence unless proven guilty. Therefore it is up to the prosecution to PROVE that a charge is justified in order to secure the conviction desired.

The problem here is that proving that the scrote had actually tried to kill the RPI rather than merely wound him is going to be tricky. Under such circumstances I would rather the offender be prosecuted and convicted of something rather than going unpunished, and this is the same process that the CPS uses when prosecuting cases. While our emotions may scream at us that this is attempted murder, an attempt to prosecute such a charge in this case is highly likely to fail. Therefore the scrote will be charged and prosecuted with a lesser offence that is much more likely to succeed in securing a conviction.

Under the circumstances I would not like to see this person go unpunished. If that means prosecuting a lesser offence then so be it. I would rather he be found guilty of GBH or whatever charge the Police decide to bring against him than see an ambitous prosecution case fail and for the offender to get away unpunished.

O L Leigh

I fully agree, and GBH etc is obviously likely to be far less difficult to prove than an att. murder charge. I guess we should be thankful it isn't manslaughter/murder we're looking at here

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I hope that when the matter is finally brought before the courts and a decision is reached, this thread will be allowed to be resurrected and the matter looked at again in the light of what was actually decided upon by the courts and the exact legal definition of the charge that the defendant was formally charged with. Who will be the body that will frame the charge that the defendant will be charged with ?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Taking the necessary actions to secure a conviction is not woolly liberal thinking.

Exactly what I was saying (although the hard of understanding have had trouble seeing it). There is a process and a procedure to follow here and frankly speculation and rhetoric will help nobody - especially not the ticket inspector.

I can sympathise with the wish to prosecute the greater charge of attempted murder, but such a charge has to be PROVED in order that the scrote responsible is convicted, otherwise he walks away scot-free. Whether you like it or not, the British judicial system rests on the principle of innocence unless proven guilty. Therefore it is up to the prosecution to PROVE that a charge is justified in order to secure the conviction desired.

Again, spot on. I would only add that they have to prove the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt - otherwise they will remain innocent.



Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Your thinly veiled defence of a person clearly guilty of GBH/attempted murder is rather worrying.

Clearly guilty? I expect you thought Stefan Ksiko was 'clearly' guilty. I expect you thought the same about the Guildford Four. And the Birmingham Six. It is an incredibly dangerous and threatening attitude to assume on the basis of media reports of an arrest that someone is 'clearly guilty'.

Time and again you have reminded us that we should take no view on his vile crime and concern ourselves more with ensuring that he gets a fair trial, which I'm sure you'd remind us is his 'yuman right'.

As anybody sensible can see. If he doesn't get a fair trial then the verdict is worthless for the inspector and everybody else. What's more his lawyers will appeal and he would be let out within the month. That would be shooting yourself in the foot somewhat...

It is unwelcome attitudes such as this which have made our society the mess that it is today, and it's high time those attitudes were ignored.

You would support silencing a large number of people in this country simply because you do not agree with them?! If you like that kind of thing then please feel free to move to North Korea. Over here we have something called a democracy.

It always interests (and amuses me) that in any debate on here you never see insult and jibes about the right - yet right wing posts are full of things like 'loony left','limp wristed liberals' and 'do gooders'. I think that says a lot about the differing attitudes.




Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The ages of the two males involved have been stated as 19 and 17 on the news this morning.

 

[sonorguy]

No, you stated mental illness was not a defence to GBH. That is clearly wrong, as I pointed out.

As someone who works in this field with mentally disordered offenders you're actually incorrect. A mental illness not a DEFENCE against a charge of GBH (or any other serious crime, except in the specific case of murder reduced to manslaughter) and the person would likely still be found against but with grounds of diminished responsibility, as you say. A serious mental illness does however act as a mitigating factor in terms of sentencing. In most cases the person would still be guilty of the offence.

My hospital also has a large number of people found guilty and given Hospital Orders, the diminished responsibility tag is far less common than people realise, most MDOs on MoJ orders sent straight to hospital are convicted in the normal manner (including murder/manslaughter).

All that said, I agree with much of what you've said about some of the views on here.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

As someone who works in this field with mentally disordered offenders you're actually incorrect. A mental illness not a defence against a charge of GBH (or any other serious crime, except in the specific case of murder reduced to manslaughter) and the person would likely still be found against but with grounds of diminished responsibility. A serious mental illness does however act as a mitigating factor in terms of sentencing. The person would still be guilty of the

diminished responsibility is a partial defence to murder. Insanity is a full defence for other crimes. It all comes from the McNaughten rules which I can't typed out at the moment but it can be used for any time when a mental illness would substantially affect the defendants knowledge of the nature and quality of his crime (or words to that effect). It's not often used because whilst you might be acquitted you would spend an indeterminate time in hospital.



Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[sonorguy]

That my dear friend is something your not going to get, more will be made out of our fellow colleague on Scotrail and what he did wrong (in there eyes) then this person who was physically assaulted at work. Me and you are not going to change their view. As i mentioned earlier in the thread if the thing had been viewed on you tube we could see as to whether the member of staff was indeed partially to blame for his stabbing. It appaers it something people dont wish to comment on, but are quite to when the member of staff is percieved to be in the wrong.

Dont hold out for much.

The Scotrail incident and this one are only linked by the alleged fare evasion. To say there's any other link really is stooping to Daily Mail level.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I should also add that the legal definition of insanity differs from the medical definition and thus it has been known for people with diabetes to claim it!


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[ANorthernGuard]

The Scotrail incident and this one are only linked by the alleged fare evasion. To say there's any other link really is stooping to Daily Mail level.

I'm sorry I don't agree, it all goes back to the same thing which is a total lack of respect, Lawlessness and the dangers Train Crew and Railway staff like myself face!

 

[jon0844]

If the person on the Scotrail train had been carrying a knife, it could well have been a similar outcome. The link is indeed a lack of respect.

Fortunately most people don't carry a knife, regardless of what the media might want us to believe.

While I understand how the CPS works, and going for an easier charge may be more suitable than attempted murder - I do find it (personally) hard to understand how stabbing someone doesn't automatically go as attempted murder.

If the person had punched the RPI, there's a plausible defence that you didn't intend to kill them (although, people have died from being punched) - but stabbing them? I hope the CPS won't just go for the easy option if there's any chance of bringing more serious charges that will punish someone who has no care for the law, and the many others who will look on to see that stabbing someone isn't actually that serious.

 

[BestWestern]

I should also add that the legal definition of insanity differs from the medical definition and thus it has been known for people with diabetes to claim it!

Perhaps you could contact the, ahem, 'possibly' guilty party or their solicitor and do your best to help them get away with it :roll:

Regarding your earlier post, I'm intrigued at your thinking that whoever did this should be considered an innocent upstanding member of society by all concerned until a court decides otherwise. They walked up to the guy, as he had his back turned, and stuck a knife in him. That happened, we know this. Going through the courts is a formality, a requirement of the system, but either way the person who carried out the physical act of plunging a knife into an innocent man is very obviously guilty, regardless of what excuses our sloppy legal system allows him to provide to relieve himself of his personal responsibilities.

We are all welcome to our views of course, but I'm happy to stand by mine that it is the softly softly brigade, who are happy to stand by while our society degenerates because it is'fair', who have some serious questions to answer.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Perhaps you could contact the, ahem, 'possibly' guilty party or their solicitor and do your best to help them get away with it :roll:

I'm sure they will have a more than adequate barrister to fight their corner.

Regarding your earlier post, I'm intrigued at your thinking that whoever did this should be considered an innocent upstanding member of society by all concerned until a court decides otherwise.

Because we operate the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty. Unless you would like guilty until proven innocent? In which case you're Jack The Ripper and you should be locked up until you can prove otherwise. I'm sure you would change your opinion then...

They walked up to the guy, as he had his back turned, and stuck a knife in him. That happened, we know this.

How do we know? A blurry CCTV picture of two people you don't know from Adam not actually at the scene of the crime? If you're prepared to find guilt on the basis of that evidence then I sincerely hope that you never get called for jury service.

Going through the courts is a formality, a requirement of the system,

No, going through the courts is the only system that can decide guilts. It is far more than a formality! The USSR considered courts a formality and I bet you wouldn't like to live in that society.

but either way the person who carried out the physical act of plunging a knife into an innocent man is very obviously guilty,

As I said before, Stefan Ksiko et cetera. Perhaps you'd like to read into that.




Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm sure they will have a more than adequate barrister to fight their corner.

Because we operate the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty. Unless you would like guilty until proven innocent? In which case you're Jack The Ripper and you should be locked up until you can prove otherwise. I'm sure you would change your opinion then...

How do we know? A blurry CCTV picture of two people you don't know from Adam not actually at the scene of the crime? If you're prepared to find guilt on the basis of that evidence then I sincerely hope that you never get called for jury service.
No, going through the courts is the only system that can decide guilts. It is far more than a formality! The USSR considered courts a formality and I bet you wouldn't like to live in that society.

As I said before, Stefan Ksiko et cetera. Perhaps you'd like to read into that.

Ralph, I agree entirely.

Courts are there to prove guilt or otherwise assume innocence, based on the evidence submitted by defence and prosecution. I for one am glad we don't live in a society where guilt is presumed!

 

[PFX]

I would wholly agree with the opinion that the courts decide who's guilty and who's not. This case will be based on factual evidence gathered at the scene and from witnesses and which is the foundation for a case which the CPS feel will offer a secure conviction. Unless actually at the incident, opinion can only be based on second hand information, at best.

Sadly, the guilty sometimes get off and the innocent are sometimes convicted as has been mentioned earlier. Either way, if those arrested are found guilty, it's important the sentence is fair. When I see a man given an 18 month suspended sentence for the sexual assault of a young boy and at the same time, people are going to prison for the non-payment of fines, that is a cause for concern.

That point aside, regardless of who was in the wrong, nobody deserves to be stabbed, going about their job and there is no excuse that justifies carrying a knife for any reason.

 

[jon0844]

I am not sure anyone has named anyone specifically as being guilty - and those arrested might not even be the people in the CCTV images. That's for the legal system to clarify in due course and bring charges... so there's no need for people to start arguing on here about anything. It's a general discussion.

However, the fact is that the crime itself did happen. Someone was stabbed. Thus someone is guilty. It's fair to be upset that even though it's so obvious that someone stabbed someone else, there's even the slightest chance that lack of evidence, or some silly technicality, could see the accused walking free. I'd hope that isn't going to be the case, obviously, but there's a chance. Ropey CCTV footage won't help, nor would the lack of witnesses in the case that people might be too scared to make a statement etc.

 

[Oswyntail]

Mark me as another agreeing with Ralph.

.....
Regarding your earlier post, I'm intrigued at your thinking that whoever did this should be considered an innocent upstanding member of society by all concerned until a court decides otherwise. They walked up to the guy, as he had his back turned, and stuck a knife in him. That happened, we know this. Going through the courts is a formality, a requirement of the system, but either way the person who carried out the physical act of plunging a knife into an innocent man is very obviously guilty, regardless of what excuses our sloppy legal system allows him to provide to relieve himself of his personal responsibilities.

There is a difference between "whoever did this" and "whoever is accused of doing this", though it may be eventually proved that they are one and the same. Until that is proved, it is safest for society in general to assume the accused is innocent, and to expect the proof required to be cast iron. At least we have moved beyond capital punishment, but there have been enough incorrect convictions over the years to make anyone think twice.

We are all welcome to our views of course, but I'm happy to stand by mine that it is the softly softly brigade, who are happy to stand by while our society degenerates because it is'fair', who have some serious questions to answer.

But the more serious question is surely "What is the alternative?". I realise there are many in the country - and on this board - who support vigilanteism, and dress it in fine words like "taking responsibility". But let us not forget the poor man who was attacked by the mob for being a paediatrician. I recall (IIRC) a police recruitment campaign which showed a white policeman running after a black man; one was to assume that the black man was a criminal until the picture opened out to reveal both were pursuing a third man, who was the criminal. The point being that you need training to see the wider picture clearly. "Big men" up and down the country would have clobbered the black man and felt they were "taking responsibility". But the harder responsibility comes from all of us taking responsibility for the society we live in, training our children, setting examples for our neighbours, and not letting violence take over as an alternative to civilisation

 

[jon0844]

Trying to change society through better education and being 'nice' is a great aspiration, but successive generations have now created a social underclass that I - sadly - feel is pretty much beyond help.

We need to try and work to restoring respect in the next generation, while being tough on the current generation that have no idea of the concept of responsibility and respect for authority, and other people.

There are loads of factors that play a part that need to be addressed; bad parenting (including those parents bringing up children that have no values either), the media that encourages everyone to 'do what you have to do' to get what you want - and don't let anyone stop you, the desire for material goods that a lot of people don't actually need etc.

The Tories probably created the desire to go out and get what you want (but it was just as much the fact that the late 80s and early 90s also saw mobile phones, computers, game consoles and flat-screen TVs etc coming out - so there had never been so many rather expensive, desirable, gadgets for people to want). Labour then did nothing to stop this, but rather encouraged everyone to borrow and get into debt buying all of the above things.

No one thing, or even one political party, can be blamed for breaking down society, but all of these things play a part in their own small way.

Once the law becomes insufficient to deal with problems, it's inevitable that you'll get people taking the law into their own hands. And this has been happening for ages anyway, with communities often dealing with their own problems and not bringing in the police at all.

The only way to stop people become vigilantes will be to have a legal system that is seen by the majority as being 'fit for purpose'.

 

[BestWestern]

I am not sure anyone has named anyone specifically as being guilty - and those arrested might not even be the people in the CCTV images. That's for the legal system to clarify in due course and bring charges... so there's no need for people to start arguing on here about anything. It's a general discussion.

However, the fact is that the crime itself did happen. Someone was stabbed. Thus someone is guilty. It's fair to be upset that even though it's so obvious that someone stabbed someone else, there's even the slightest chance that lack of evidence, or some silly technicality, could see the accused walking free. I'd hope that isn't going to be the case, obviously, but there's a chance. Ropey CCTV footage won't help, nor would the lack of witnesses in the case that people might be too scared to make a statement etc.

Spot on, thank you! At no time in any of my posts have I said that I have any reason to believe that those pictured in the CCTV images are the guilty individuals. I have merely stated the obvious facts that the crime did happen and the person who did it is guilty. Others appear rather more preoccupied with an array of reasons why we might want to consider letting them off