I have received a Court Warning for a date in May. I haven’t been to the Magistrates Court this year. I’m looking forward to it. This trip will bring back fond memories of many hours in the witness room as a Constable.
Oh, the colourful shiny meaningless images in the endless copies of Hello and OK magazines. The seemingly inexhaustable supply of cheap, powdered instant coffee in white plastic cups which burn your fingers. The silent moving pictures on the TV in the corner; stuck on ITV because someone has nicked the remote control.
Watching the lives of the underclass being played out in a studio. Go Ricky. Go Jerry.
Sitting, looking out of the window for hours, dreaming. I am the son and heir, of nothing in particular.
The CPS prosecutor jolts me back to reality. I won’t be needed after all. Something about the case being adjourned/ plea bargained away/ the defendant not turning up/ my original written statement being accepted, whatever.
I will look forward to my day out in May. After all, I haven’t had a dream in a long time.
P.S. Gadget fans – Bystander posts about your comments this week! (my original wording was a little strong!).
But I’ve already waiting to long….. and all my hope is gone?
Chin up
On the various induction courses magistrates undergo, of which diversity training plays a major role, there is a constant stream of questioning, often denigratory, of everything the police stand for, their actions and their attitudes.
No other agency gets anything like the same exposure.
Seems like Bystander has learn’t his lessons well.
Gadget, you will probably by now have gauged my stance upon the quality of British justice. I speak as a civvie. But I have just read the musings on Bystander’s blog and felt compelled to comment on the views expressed therein. Copied here for ease of reference
‘Once again, the vacillating rays of the spotlight of inadequacy within the British legal system focuses upon an enervated and craven ruling. I can well remember when, to simply appear in a British court without wearing a necktie would be seen as an act of contempt. But, of course, this country was once a land fit for heroes (”What is our task? To make Britain a fit country for heroes to live in.” – David Lloyd George (Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor) 1863-1945. Speech at Wolverhampton, Nov. 23, 1918). I say it is now a land fit for mongrels who prowl and laugh at society. I am thankful my Parents and Grandparents are no longer alive to see what has become of the country they loved and fought for in two world wars.’
Dear Mr G. I had just started to work through your previous post ‘Shoot The Messenger’ – I’d read the ‘Bystander’ link and by the time I returned it had gone. Don’t blame you, my head was boiling (as usual) from reading that smug, holier than thou drivel, delivered from on high from Mount Moral high ground. More still by the comment from the ‘anon’ ‘new’ policeman who’s not worried about his police officer wife being single crewed out on patrol in Manchester? Well good for him! I suppose the others were from the ghastly conspracy theorists claiming the whole thing was made up. Still, it takes all sorts. Enjoy your day at the Zoo, as I call magistrates courts, especially the youith courts or the Chimps (with ADHD) Tea Party. Rest assured that’s not how things are done in Bystander’s courts. Still can’t sit here blathering to you, I’ve the Times Law Reports to catch up on, Mmmm, and the latest proposals from the Attorney general re Jury Trials. Thin end of the wedge I say, but there you go, what do I know being a ghastly reactionary dinosaur of a police officer? Liked the Camberwick Green beginning to ‘Life on Mars ‘last night though. Oh and I must catch up with the latest ‘We;come To Wales’ handbook which reminds the new citizens from overseas amongst other things such as it would be a good idea to learn Welsh (presumably before English) and that rape and incest are against the law! Now where’s my diversity handbook?
Sorry Ranter – I binned ‘Shoot the Messenger’ in favour of the above. I do not intend to defend ‘Those That Can Should’ any more. Bottom Line – a nice lad got a serious kicking which crippled him for life and the original Court which did do a good job was overturned. The public don’t like it, the Media don’t like it and the Police don’t like it. Nor do Dan’s family. If I have done anything to highlight the case to a few thousand more people then I’m proud. I know that those pesky old members of the public in a democracy will vent their personal views on the Blog, damn that old Magna Carta eh?
Wiv you one hunner per cent innit!
Yes, that pesky old free speech again, tsk tsk!
Mags are often far too removed from the reality of society, despite both bobbies and mags being MOP’s and dealing with the same customers. But as we all know, the difference is in the circumstances, and the regularity! The sorry young man sitting in front of the Magistrate is very different to the earlier angry young man spitting, screaming obscenities and assaulting 2 police officers (Not their first customer that night either).
As for the comments that posts/responses on this blog are “disturbing”- they come from frustrated, and overworked coppers, anonymously blowing off steam (because s/he can’t do publicly). Bystander’s come from a magistrate sitting back and delivering his moral judgment in the comfort of his/her chair, far from the stress and pressure of actual policing.
Of course members of the police service will stand together in “tribal loyalty”, and support each other-WHO ELSE WILL?
Doesn’t mean we agree blindly to anything our colleagues say or do, but Inspector Gadget tells it like it is, from his point of view, and I personally agree with him. Though I do have respect for Bystander however, his blog reminds me why I volunteer for the job, instead of the bench.
Oops, Missed first part of my post off-
I read your first post Inspector, before it was replaced-Good comparison, Bystanders post and yours!
I think Bystander is demonstrating being just that- a bystander commenting from a (great) distance.
I don’t think Bystander is hating you this week (or any other come to that) – seemed only to be showing the view from the ‘other side’ of the fence.
I must say that I do understand and agree with his sentiment that posts purportedly frm officers talking about ‘chav scum’ and other inflammatory comments do nothing to help things and only help to alienate people that might otherwise be sympathetic – some of your commenting readers would do well to remember that.
I have to agree with rosco. Bystander really doesn’t hate you. And, it seems to me, he shows a certain respectful understanding of both your blog post and the reactions. You don’t have to agree with a point of view to respect it.
But there were a couple of good questions: why a picture of only one bench member? What were the original sentences and what were they reduced to?
You may feel none of this information will alter the dreadfulness of what was done to PC Coffill and you’re right. But what was the right sentence for them in law and how far away from it was what they received?
I read a quote once that said, “We can’t have Justice. We’ve only got the Law” or similar. Sow lie fizz.
Rich
I am human and I need to be loved, just like everybody else does……. If only the courts took that into consideration when issuing sentences.
It became blatantly obvious to me a few years ago when I sat through my very first court case that the scale of bias against victims is phenomenally outweighed after a few decades of high profile corruption cases that significantly damaged the view of the criminal justice system in the eyes of people who generally have nothing to do with it. It was a child molestation where a 70 odd year old grandfather was abusing his 5/6 year old grand daughter.
During her evidence by video the defendant was standing in the box, smirking, licking his lips and rubbing his hands, the defence solicitor tried – and unfortunately succeeded – in tripping up the little girl with dubious questions like “was it a king size bed?, you said earlier it was a double bed, and the curtains were not red were they? you said earlier they were pinky coloured”
I could not believe that this was allowed to happen, one of the jurors obviously felt the same as she sat there in tears as this young innocent was callously ripped to shreds.
The defendant was found not guilty by majority verdict after a two week trial, despite medical evidence of penetration to the young victim and unexplained gaps in the defendants version of events. Then when the jury heard afterwards that he was a previously registered sex offender with several precons for offences against young children from 40 odd years ago the same juror I saw crying ran out of the court.
I have been to Mags and Crown many times since and it is honestly nothing but a game, you play out your part (if you’re not released because they don’t need you or there was a guilty plea 10 months ago) and then try to mentally distance yourself as much as possible from what will inevitably a sham sentencing – if indeed there is one.
It seems to me that if the public actually took into consideration the level of checks in place to prevent innocent people actually getting to court in the first place then there would be more outcry over collapsed trials, inappropriate sentencing and criminals with significant previous convictions being found not guilty because the full facts would have biased the jury against the defendant.
We don’t deliberately arrest innocent people, the custody Sgt will tell you to do one if they felt there was insufficient evidence and as for the CPS…. I have only ever knowingly charged someone with an offence when I believed them to be the innocent party, and that was only because he admitted affray along with the other party. As soon as he got to court and the magistrates heard the evidence of bad character versus the no trace PNC, the charges were dismissed with agreement by the CPS, the other bloke was found guilty of affray and was required to hug a tree or some other pathetic sh*t.
Most people have the good fortune to live in a world that is a sugar coated topping of the one that we live and work in everyday and it only really dawns on them when that world and all of its bureaucracy and bias against victims smacks them square in the face. Bystander says that we stick together with a fierce, almost tribal loyalty, could it be because we seem to be the only ones who truly see how this country is being sent down a path of self destruction from which there is virtually no escape??
I make the same point as Rosco and Rich.
You wouldn’t be exaggerating to get a reaction, would you?
Best wishes
William
In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_trol
Oh God! The bloody TV in the bloody waiting room!!!!!!
What you need is one of these gadgets, Inspector Gadget:-
http://www.gadgets.co.uk/item/TVBGONE/TV-B-Gone—New-European-Model-II.html
They don’t work on the new flat screen TV’s, but then how many waiting rooms have them? They’d probly be nicked if they did.
Getting back to the blog in question….. I remember the days of traffic court, as we all sidled in to the bench waiting for our case to be called. I used to love the defendants who represented themselves… they would strut around court clearly having been watching too much Petrocelli… using phrases such as ” I put it to you officer” and “is not the case officer that you were infact not wearing your hat and your notes clearly state you were in full uniform?”
ha ha…
“indeed sir, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that you had four bald tyres and your exhaust was missing from the vehicle does it sir?
“answer my question officer… why won’t you admit you weren’t wearing your hat?”
” no sir I wasn’t nor you a seatbelt or a tax disc…”
“Your worship, i can’t be found guilty of these offences as the officer was not wearing his hat”
Once the chuckling had subsided, well… you know the rest… I miss those days.
Essex Boy says – “On the various induction courses magistrates undergo, of which diversity training plays a major role, there is a constant stream of questioning, often denigratory, of everything the police stand for, their actions and their attitudes.”
I suggest he checks his facts of which he is clearly ill informed!
As a retd. Inspector I am disappointed in the “shoot from the hip” reaction by colleagues. Where is the impartial investigative midnset or do we now investigate crime with this attitude. Could this account for the lack of public respect?
Rich – as Bystander knows because we exchanged email over the issue; the appeal court judge I mentioned was selected by me because she was the one who commented in Police Review about the case. The others did not, and I couldn’t find out their names. With regards to how much the sentences were reduced by, who cares? they were reduced, and that’s the point. Let’s not shoot the messenger over this issue (i.e ME). As for the language; Tony Blair allowed that commedian girl (can’t remember her name) to say ‘Pikey’ twice infront of him on TV during Red Nose day WITHOUT challenging her. If he had done that as a Police Officer he would have been disciplined. What’s good for the goose etc etc
Sir, has the blog in the case of PC Coffill resulted in something positive? If so, that’s good because there has been an injustice.
Ranter, Bystander is a human being, why do you mock people so much. There are no sides in this. There is right and wrong.
Probably Bystander has done some good. The others don’t even comment, the Judges and all. They are happy just making poor decisions.
They don’t particularly care about the aftermath, and picking up the pieces.
“On the various induction courses magistrates undergo, of which diversity training plays a major role, there is a constant stream of questioning, often denigratory, of everything the police stand for, their actions and their attitudes.”
Evidence please. I did my training over 20 years ago – your remarks are nonsense now and would have been nonsense then.
“…your remarks are nonsense now and would have been nonsense then.”
Much like your own sweeping comments on the officers who comment here.
Easy to criticise, isn’t it?
Come on then, SPC, just show me one verifiable example of the rubbish that was posted about magistrates’ training.
Do you have any idea what is meant by judicial independence?
Well it doesn’t matter how long you bang on about how and why the decision to reduce these two scumbag’s respective sentences was made, it was still a disgraceful decision. The law here is – as ever – an ass. A contributor earlier mentioned how in effect they had killed the victim, he may alive biologically, but he isn’t really alive is he? Mind you, had he died, i.e. when all life sustaining functions had ceased so to do, then they probably wouldn’t have got much more. It is a sad state of affairs, it really is. I think we have argued it all to the very death (no pun intended) really and we’ll all go round in circles if we carry on. If you want to, send a cheque, we can and will all forget about it eventually, but Dan’s family never can, their lives being affected forever. There’ll be plenty more examples of poor justice but arguing on these blogs will never solve anything. In fact I don’t think I can be arsed anymore, and therein lies the root of the malaise in this society of ours as I’m not the only one am I. Good luck Mr G, and the rest of you – be safe. I’ve enjoyed your blogs (unlike it seems all the retired inspectors that seemed to have popped up over on the majj’s blog), I also enjoyed BIB/Twinings discombobulated wibblings – keep banging against your particular brick wall BIB! I also enjoyed DC Blog – but again for how long can he keep it going – it’s almost a form of masochism. So keep going to your Health & Safety Training, your diversity training, your competency Framework based assessments and keep populating those templates with data – there’s surely more to come. As I retire myself, I just hope I live long enough to see the first Iranian born Chief Constable or even Commisioner. (a) I’ll know I lived long enough to have really ripped the arse out of the PPS and (b) that it really is time to shuffle off this mortal coil – or emigrate, whichever is allowed carbon footprint -wise of course. Ta Ta!
One poster on Bystander’s blog suggests that a large, drunken man who showed no police ID got out of his car, and was perceived by the defendants to be intent on physical assault (and given their earlier offensive chavvy behaviour to him, they had good reason to expect him to deservedly kick their butts).
*If* that’s the case (and without a transcript, we can’t tell), then this isn’t a simple story of some chavscum beating up an innocent hardworking copper: it’s just another drunken brawl, like you go to every day. Nothing unusual here, move along.
Far too much litigation is written because of kneejerk campaigns. Only campaign for harsher sentences, if you think that ANYONE who injures an aggressive drunk should get longer sentences. An interesting counterpoint is the recent news item, about a policeman repeatedly striking a drunken woman “as hard as I was physically able” and “using brute force”. If she were now in the same state, how many years should the policeman get? Should he get less if he is respectful to the judge?
I appreciate Gadget’s linking to alternate views: to me, that shows an evenhandedness on his part that’s all too often missing in opinion pieces. So does toning down the original link.
I’ll watch with interest to see if Bystander similarly amends his own post, now that Gadget’s explained his choice of picture.
Comments on Bystander’s blog, and repeated here by Dewi, attempt to muddy the water by casting much of the blame for the incident back on PC Coffill:
“One poster on Bystander’s blog suggests that a large, drunken man who showed no police ID got out of his car, and was perceived by the defendants to be intent on physical assault (and given their earlier offensive chavvy behaviour to him, they had good reason to expect him to deservedly kick their butts).
*If* that’s the case (and without a transcript, we can’t tell), then this isn’t a simple story of some chavscum beating up an innocent hardworking copper: it’s just another drunken brawl, like you go to every day. Nothing unusual here, move along.”
Reading the judgment provided, I can understand how someone might come to this conclusion. I think it hideously wrong-headed though.
But let’s — in the interests of blinkered impartiality — imagine that Mr Coffill and his two assailants are equally to blame for the ruckus beginning. Let’s even continue that impartiality past the punches and fast-forward to the point where Mr Coffill is lying on the floor.
The judgment clearly states that: “…at least two further blows to the head were required to cause the head injuries in addition to those caused by the initial punch and the falling to the ground. Both of these blows would have been whilst Mr Coffill was on the ground. They were consistent with hard or forceful kicks at least one, more likely two.”
How do you explain this away? How do you continue to approach this case from the position of moral equivalence, when the two people who did this disgusting act then bragged about it in public minutes later?
And Dewi, how do you manage to compare multiple kicks to the head of a prone man, that resulted in permanent brain damage, with a Home Office approved technique for arresting a suspect — that didn’t even leave a visible mark on the body?
I think you and Bystander try WAY TOO HARD to be fair-minded.
“I also enjoyed BIB’s discombobulated wimblings – keep banging on your particular brick wall BIB” – Oh Ranter, I do wish you a happy retirement, and a migration, perhaps sooner rather than later. You must be a Liberal Civil Servant. I wonder why a brick wall needs knocking down. Did you and people like you build this wall? Let me continue with my wimblings because yours is clearly articulated argument, isn’t it?, not a rant or a widget or wimbling even? Look closely and you will see that this is not civilised at all.
As a JP of relative youth (37), having sat for the last 8years and being a London Fireman (yes FireMAN), I feel compelled to counter some of the feeling against Mags. I am not posh or wealthy. I was brought up on a council estate and on some occasions have to retire from a case because I know the defendant from school, the estate or the pub. So I know the reality of life. The notion that Mags are a bunch of muppets who regularly sympathise with defendants is ludicrous. Sometimes Police Officers and the CPS should look to themselves for the collapse of trials, not guilty findings etc. I sat yesterday on a commital where the Police, despite numerous requests had failed to provide the CPS with CCTV, statements etc and had actually “lost” some of the central evidence to the case. This is not an isolated incident. So what are the bench to do? Find them guilty anyway? I do not exonerate my colleagues from all blame and I understand the difficulties faced by officers on the street, but for God sake give us some credit because quite often we are just as frustrated at the system as you are.
I think boys and girls, rather than tarring magistrates/coppers with the same brush, maybe we should recognise that the criminal justice system itself is a bag of pig poo and needs overhauling/modernising/simplifying/victim focus call it what you will.
I know bottom feeding scum have gotten off scot free for something they have most definitely done (as I’ve witnessed them doing it) and I know wholly innocent people have been charged against the face of all reason ( I was one of them)
The system sucks, the law frequently flies in the face of common sense and some, if not all lawyers, make a fortune from a system so broken and unjust it’s a standing joke.
and no I dont have any ideas on what should replace it unfortunately.
My experiance as a witness was not fun! I got a letter almost a year after the incident, had to travel to a different city as i had moved home, got there on time sat in the witness room for ages. Eventually after waiting 5 hours, got told that there was a mix up and they didn’t know that i had arrived, so would have to come back at a later court date(even though id been searched on entry signed that sheet and signed in at the front desk too!).