Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Croydon shooting

Anyone in the know able to explain why the hospitalised scumbag has yet to be identified?

From the College of Policing (and repeated online in several locations):

Police will not name those arrested, or suspected of a crime, save in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so. This position is in accordance with recommendations and findings of the Leveson Inquiry (part 1), the Information Commissioner and the Home Affairs Select Committee.​
A legitimate policing purpose may include circumstances such as a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime, or where police have made a public warning about a wanted individual. See also key themes. In certain circumstances, this may include people who have failed to answer bail.​
When someone is arrested, police can proactively release the person’s gender, age, where they live (ie, the town or city), the nature, date and general location of the alleged offence, the date of the arrest, whether they are in custody or have been bailed, and the subsequent bail date, or if they were released without bail or with no further action being taken. This should not apply in cases where, although not directly naming an arrested person, this information would nevertheless have the effect of confirming their identity. In circumstances where the release of such information, particularly details relating to age or location, is likely to confirm the identity of a person arrested consideration should be given to providing less specific details. For example: ‘a man in his 30’s’ or ‘at an address in Sussex’.​
The rationale for naming an arrested person before they are charged should be authorised by a chief officer and logged either by them or by the CCD. The authorising officer should also ensure the CPS is consulted about the release of the name.​
This approach recognises that, in cases where the police name those who are arrested, there is a risk of unfair damage to the reputations of those persons, particularly if they are never charged. It cannot and does not seek to prevent the media relying on information from sources outside the police in order to confirm identities.​

It suggests that the media haven't yet worked out who the bloke is, or - more probably - there are reasons why they've chosen not to reveal his ID (which, in the case of the Mail and Express is unlikely to be because of the chap's ethnicity/religious affiliation).
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
That's the bars tard. Involved in that bullion gold job, Brink's-Mat. Died in prison I believe. Good.
Actually I think he’s up for release soon. Hopefully he’ll catch COVID upon release and have a painful end.
 
Yep. That's why I hope the ****** dies: if he survives, he'll get sectioned; will spend the next x years in relative comfort, with people trying to 'find the goodness' in him; having mental health assessments, receiving underserved sympathy from the do gooders, etc.
Assume 'he will find The Lord' ?
 
A Maori. So, unless the gunman was also a Maori, this qualifies as a hate crime, therefore extra time on the sentence.

Really?, isn't it more likely he was murdered for being in the police
 
Wouldn't the CPS have to prove that the suspect was motivate by hatred of Maoris? It's more likely the suspect simply wanted to kill a copper and it was just Sgt Ratana's bad luck he was in the room with him.
Moreover, it is most unlikely that the murderer knew that Sgt Matiu Ratana would be duty and therefore the killing could not have been premeditated on the basis of skin colour.
 
From the College of Policing (and repeated online in several locations):

Police will not name those arrested, or suspected of a crime, save in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so. This position is in accordance with recommendations and findings of the Leveson Inquiry (part 1), the Information Commissioner and the Home Affairs Select Committee.​
A legitimate policing purpose may include circumstances such as a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime, or where police have made a public warning about a wanted individual. See also key themes. In certain circumstances, this may include people who have failed to answer bail.​
When someone is arrested, police can proactively release the person’s gender, age, where they live (ie, the town or city), the nature, date and general location of the alleged offence, the date of the arrest, whether they are in custody or have been bailed, and the subsequent bail date, or if they were released without bail or with no further action being taken. This should not apply in cases where, although not directly naming an arrested person, this information would nevertheless have the effect of confirming their identity. In circumstances where the release of such information, particularly details relating to age or location, is likely to confirm the identity of a person arrested consideration should be given to providing less specific details. For example: ‘a man in his 30’s’ or ‘at an address in Sussex’.​
The rationale for naming an arrested person before they are charged should be authorised by a chief officer and logged either by them or by the CCD. The authorising officer should also ensure the CPS is consulted about the release of the name.​
This approach recognises that, in cases where the police name those who are arrested, there is a risk of unfair damage to the reputations of those persons, particularly if they are never charged. It cannot and does not seek to prevent the media relying on information from sources outside the police in order to confirm identities.​

It suggests that the media haven't yet worked out who the bloke is, or - more probably - there are reasons why they've chosen not to reveal his ID (which, in the case of the Mail and Express is unlikely to be because of the chap's ethnicity/religious affiliation).
Yeah, but, the libtard woke communists from the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation should have put this killing on the top of the World News, naming the killer and said he was black from the outset...oh, hang on...
 
A Maori. So, unless the gunman was also a Maori, this qualifies as a hate crime, therefore extra time on the sentence.

Race is just an aggravating factor, it does not attract a higher starting point in sentencing. Murder aggravated on the grounds of disability or transgender identity has a starting point of 30 years.

Personally I feel murder of any member of the emergency services on duty should be a whole life tariff. Any other attack should be a minimum 1 year imprisonment.

By differentiating emergency services this way it demonstrates they are valued and would better serve as a deterrent.
 
Courtesy of @Whey_Aye_Banzai on the 'What happened to the BBC bias thread' - someone decided to spoil Owen Jones' / Leftwaffe's evening. The thought that he'll be upset is some minor comfort given his earlier tweet.


That's almost too good to be true
 
This may be of interest to some:

The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.

 
Courtesy of @Whey_Aye_Banzai on the 'What happened to the BBC bias thread' - someone decided to spoil Owen Jones' / Leftwaffe's evening. The thought that he'll be upset is some minor comfort given his earlier tweet.


That'll be fun.

I have to say that I suspect Dacre won't be a success. He'll be aghast when complaints that a nipple was shown after the watershed are dismissed and will start to interfere in a bid to return TV to the sort of moral standards of circa 1966. Within about six months tales of dictatorial behaviour will emerge. After about a year, Murdoch will observe that Dacre is a disaster for modern broadcasting in the UK and only a government of the most spectacular incompetence could possibly believe that Dacre's position remains tenable- certainly not a government which could possibly enjoy the support of any serious newspaper or broadcaster, and that Starmer chap, despite some obvious faults (such as not locking Dawn Butler in a cupboard), is looking a very credible option...

Moore, if he can avoid his Blimp-ish tendencies, might actually get the BBC back on a reasonably even keel.
 
Is the thin blue line flag really considered XR in the U.K.? Or is that just this Owen Jones character being a bit of an overly sensitive bi*ch?
1601150887611.png
 
Would posting #BlueLivesMatter count as a hate crime?
 
Tweet it to him.

Jones seems the sort that would report anything no matter how spurious as a hate crime, so I'd rather not

Although it would be ironic to have plod turn up to your house about it
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top