2 yrs for killing OAP?


Just another cheery tale of a scrote getting feck all of a sentence. He should have got 2 years for the assault let alone manslaughter. From another bulletin, they were pished and on a shoplifting run to Morrisons. After decking him, they stepped over him to get into the store, nicked the bevvies, and then stepped over his body on the way out as others were administering first aid.

However, what got on my pecs especially about this report (and god knows there are enough stories like these...) was the following comment from an utter feckwit:

Det Insp Andy Lee of Leicestershire Police said people thinking of tackling anti-social behaviour by themselves should assess the situation carefully.

"Each set of circumstances has to be taken on its own merits, members of the public have to assess their capabilities, the circumstances and then make a decision on each individual episode.

"He (Mr Kerr) was a big, burly character and I'm sure that he thought he was doing the right thing. Clearly, in hindsight, his family and members of the community may wish that he had done things a little differently."

Are you taking the p1ss DI Lee? Trying to blame the old chap for inconveniently getting himself fatally injured? Or just trying out a bit of sarcasm for fun?

If you said the above as quoted, then Detective Inspector Lee, you are a TWAT of the first order.
Wrong. He should have got five years for the assault as minimum with more for manslaughter.


Book Reviewer
Perhaps in hindsight Detective Inspector Lee would think before speaking.
Unbloodybelievable, if it wasnt for people like this poor old guy this country would have already gone to the dogs. My condolences to his family, but im afraid we need more like him and less flaming do-gooders, sticking their tuppence worth in.

Now my dander is really up grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!
A sad story and uncommon as he is to public speaking, the Inspector should have perhaps engaged brain first.

And the scumbucket SHOULD rot for longer than a two stretch.


Book Reviewer
"Chapman was given a public protection sentence, which will mean he will have to satisfy a parole board that he is safe to be released into the community after the two years, or remain in prison"

Anybody know where you apply to be on a Parole Board?
scotlass said:
Unbloodybelievable, if it wasnt for people like this poor old guy this country would have already gone to the dogs. My condolences to his family, but im afraid we need more like him and less flaming do-gooders, sticking their tuppence worth in.
My bold in order to pose the question.... If this sort of krap is already going on all too often, isn't the point "this country has already" rather "would already"? Past tense rather than present?

As for the quote from Detective Inspector Lee. If he can't say anything constructive about the bravery of a man who tried to do what he considered his civil duty, don't say f**k all. Obviously people should consider their actions, but if everyone just stood back and let things happen, society is lost.
It's the judge who decides upon the sentence, he should be sacked and hopefully one day he might see the wrong end of a young chavs fists and boots, and as he lays dying perhaps wondering if he should have been so lenient after all!!
I stick to my previous post, i think the majority of the population are honest and trustworthy i think there are a few scumbags that know how to work the system to the max and get away literally with murder.
I'm outraged but not very surprised - and that's a shame. The Judge needs to open up a very large tin of "Wise Up" and drink the lot. And if DI Lee did say as quoted then he needs to shut the fcuk up.

RIP to the old gentleman.
Chapman's sentence is indeterminate (life). The two years is the minimum he can expect to serve before being considered for release. When/If he is released I believe he will be on licence for the rest of his life. That's about 5 years minimum reporting to Probation Officers and he can be recalled to prison if his behaviour gives cause for concern.
When Chapman arrives in prison and his sentence is explained ie a possibility of life inside, his cockiness will soon evaporate.
Oh yeh. The judges are governed by certain rules for discriminatory life sentences which severely restricts the length of tariff they can give. Hence the seemingly mocking 2 years.


War Hero
With this totally useless and corrupt lot in I'm surprised the scrotes weren't hit with an £80 Fixed Penalty Notice to keep it off the PNC
The scrote should get two years....

As a bayonet dummy/moving target on the lydd ranges.
although human rights probably against him being used as a moving target by the TA as death by starvation is considered cruel and unusual :thumbdown:
Commutation then....

2 minutes... in a room. With my goodself and a few choice associates.

After 2 minutes he is free to walk out on to freedom street.

(apart from the fact we have drilled his knees "hostel" stylee in minute one).
Poor old man was just trying to do the job we pay the police to do. The copper with the runaway mouth should have realised this. Civil courage should be recognised, rewarded and encouraged.

Or should we all just capitulate now?
DI Lee would do well to re-read Peel's nine basic tenets for policing - that's if he's ever read them in the first place - especially point 7:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Ergo by standing by and doing fcuk all is technically aiding & abetting a criminal. Point 9 is also worth highlighting.


BuckFelize said:
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
The problem is not with sections 7 & 9, it is 8. It was the Judge who gave the sentence, not the police. Admittedly Inspector Lee seems like a promotion chasing brown nose, who didn't think before he engaged his mouth. At least the police were able to get the case to court, probably with little help from the CPS.

IMHO the powers of the judiciary need to be reviewed. I do not think that they should be given all that much leeway when deciding the sentences they hand down. It should be written in black and white. Any guidance they get should be minimum sentences only, not maximum ones. If that means life means life, then so be it.

New Posts

Latest Threads