Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
secret santa

24 Hours in Police Custody

Recommended Posts

Did anyone watch this programme last Monday ?

It featured a man who chased 2 burglars from his house in his car before colliding with them on their stolen motorbike causing them injuries. They were career criminals who were merely given suspended sentences (because it would be difficult for them in jail) whilst he was given a 22 month prison sentence. That caused his wife to terminate her pregnancy and they've had to move away. His defence costs were over £50K but a GoFundMe page has now raised almost £150K.

Oh yes, and the scumbags are now sueing him for damages.

It certainly pays to be a criminal in Britain these days.

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/24-hours-police-custody-outraged-184428067.html

https://www.gofundme.com/f/give-adam-white-justice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, secret santa said:

Did anyone watch this programme last Monday ?

It featured a man who chased 2 burglars from his house in his car before colliding with them on their stolen motorbike causing them injuries. They were career criminals who were merely given suspended sentences (because it would be difficult for them in jail) whilst he was given a 22 month prison sentence. That caused his wife to terminate her pregnancy and they've had to move away. His defence costs were over £50K but a GoFundMe page has now raised almost £150K.

Oh yes, and the scumbags are now suing him for damages.

It certainly pays to be a criminal in Britain these days.

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/24-hours-police-custody-outraged-184428067.html

https://www.gofundme.com/f/give-adam-white-justice

I suppose it all hinges on if the homeowner used reasonable force to apprehend or defend  his property from the criminals.  Chances are pursuing using a car becomes a tool (much like a gun) to cause physical harm to the criminals.  Sadly I think the law will find in favour of the criminals because a car is a potentially lethal weapon and whilst he was acting under duress he continued to pursue (with intent to cause harm)   so can no longer justify a continued chase over a certain distance.  In rage and in fear both parties are likely to cause harm to others  innocent bystanders in their actions.  Adrenaline fuelled reactions are always dangerous.  It is sad it may have been a mitigating circumstance in the loss of the unborn child.  

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, secret santa said:

Did anyone watch this programme last Monday ?

It featured a man who chased 2 burglars from his house in his car before colliding with them on their stolen motorbike causing them injuries. They were career criminals who were merely given suspended sentences (because it would be difficult for them in jail) whilst he was given a 22 month prison sentence. That caused his wife to terminate her pregnancy and they've had to move away. His defence costs were over £50K but a GoFundMe page has now raised almost £150K.

Oh yes, and the scumbags are now sueing him for damages.

It certainly pays to be a criminal in Britain these days.

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/24-hours-police-custody-outraged-184428067.html

https://www.gofundme.com/f/give-adam-white-justice

Missed it, but it was raised by Michelle Dewberry on GB News, who felt much as you do Richard.

I appreciate it's a fine balance between self defence and overkill (forgive the unintended pun), but generally the law should be more on the side of the homeowner in my opinion. Probably the homeowner was over enthusiastic in his pursuit of the criminals, but the way he's been subsequently humiliated by the law is in my view, unforgivable and will outrage the public sense of fair play.

Personally speaking I think I'd have the presence of mind not to go after the criminals if I'd succeeded in driving them out of the property. But inside, for me, they are fair game.

The problems for the householder are four fold:

a) They have absolutely no idea what the intentions of the intruder are. 

b) They have milliseconds to determine their response, not the months and years those in the legal profession have to pass judgement.

c) They will most likely have been woken in bed, not able too think straight for a minute or two, as well as undressed and completely unprepared.

d) It's dark.   

If someone, or more than one, broke into my house, then, as single guy living alone, I'd logically assume they'd come to burgle, and I wouldn't put my life at risk by interfering - BUT: if I was married with a young family, my immediate thought would be for their protection, and I would take action. Most probably I'd come off worst, but I would use any weapon at my disposal and not hesitate to use lethal force. Although if the intruder was some weak druggie, or whatever, then once subdued, I'd tie him up and call the police.  

I think there are also degrees of force which may be acceptable in different cases. For example a frail 85 year old woman shooting dead some lowlife POS in her house, is going to be treated with far more consideration (ie: there is no way on God's green Earth that any judge would dare pass any sentence on her, given the pubic and media storm which would follow), than if it were a 6' 5" bloke built like a brick outhouse breaking the intruder's neck.   

Of course an opportunist criminal is far more likely to target the former than the latter.  

ETA: Read the link. Personally I wouldn't bother getting physically involved if I noticed someone breaking into my separate garage. Just call the police, and hope that doorbell cam caught an image of them. The outside light should come on anyway. It's now sophisticated enough not to be triggered by a cat passing by.   

    

 

Edited by 1949threepence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the most enraging aspect is that the culprits suffered no legal punishment and even worse, that they may make financial gain from the episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the sentence passed on the homeowner that's the awful thing here (after all, there are laws governing "causing serious injury by dangerous driving" and the police cannot ignore that). No, it's the lenient treatment handed out to the perps, who were not only burgling but had also stolen the bike they got away on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a growing feeling that justice is not being seen to be done in many cases in this country, and that we are soft on serial offenders. The fact that prison sentences, even if they are actually given, are only ever half-served annoys the hell out of me. It would be satisfying if this case generates enough momentum to cause change, but I'm not holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our prisons are overcrowded. Perhaps there's a case for non violent offenders such as serial shoplifters, benefit fraudsters and tax evaders, for example, to serve any penalty outside prison, maybe using tags and curfews, as well as community service. We might even consider "house arrest" or "house sentence" as a potential way forward, where practicable.

I'd consider any housebreaker as a violent offender, even if nobody was hurt. Moreover, rather than letting them off on parole if they appear to be "rehabilitated", the criteria should surely be how much of a threat they remain to the public. The likelihood is that they do still represent a threat in many cases. The recent case of Colin Pitchfork, who was sentenced to life in 1987 after raping and strangling two young girls when he was in his 20's, then released on parole in 2020 aged 60, is notable. He was again soon pestering young girls !!! - so found himself back inside very quickly for breaching the terms of his parole. 

Conversely, Harry Roberts who shot dead a poilice officer in 1966, was released on parole in 2014, aged 78. In his case, despite the dreadful nature of his crime, I'd say it's highly unlikely he's going to be a threat to anybody in future - except, perhaps ironically, someone who breaks into his property.          

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, secret santa said:

I think there's a growing feeling that justice is not being seen to be done in many cases in this country, and that we are soft on serial offenders. The fact that prison sentences, even if they are actually given, are only ever half-served annoys the hell out of me. It would be satisfying if this case generates enough momentum to cause change, but I'm not holding my breath.

I also did not watch it , and I am assuming the laws that were broken are  laws that could not be changed because there is a sense of injustice in them.  As mentioned the brain might not be thinking too well if just woken up angry and threatened but sadly the law can consider these circumstances but cannot alter too greatly from the reasoning behind that law even in a legal system based on precedent .  I really am not sure if for the sake of property or pride it is worth pursuing someone  and again it's that aspect of law that says if a person is fleeing from the place of crime they are also doing all they can to remove themselves as a threat to the homeowner.   Perhaps these kind of events result from the inactivity of the police to attempt to solve crimes which results from political under funding in the last 10 years and pre-occupation of police to spend months going through millions of phone accounts as part of seeking new tech evidence for crimes .  When people see no outcomes their frustrations float towards vigilantism, but it takes years for police high speed drivers  to learn the skills to take up these pursuits. 

The law would say if he set out with intent to harm no matter what the reason he set out to cause harm .  Both are wrong you would think some of it would cancel out.  But damage to body is a more dangerous crime than burglary  with no intent to harm.  

 

you must tell us if our views do not match the circumstances 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, secret santa said:

I think there's a growing feeling that justice is not being seen to be done in many cases in this country, and that we are soft on serial offenders. The fact that prison sentences, even if they are actually given, are only ever half-served annoys the hell out of me. It would be satisfying if this case generates enough momentum to cause change, but I'm not holding my breath.

isn't a large part of this due to the long long wait periods on remand  before the CPS even have enough court space to hear the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, secret santa said:

The fact that prison sentences, even if they are actually given, are only ever half-served annoys the hell out of me. It would be satisfying if this case generates enough momentum to cause change, but I'm not holding my breath.

That's not  a complete picture. The "half term" does not apply

  • to prisoners serving life, for which judges hand down minimum tariffs
  • to prisoners considered a danger to the public, e.g. some sex offenders, terrorists, etc
  • to prisoners who haven't exhibited 'good behaviour' while inside
  • to prisoners (whether guilty or innocent) who assert their innocence while in jail

Also, prisons are full of individuals with mental health problems. And they're overcrowded. Mike's suggestion that some kinds of offence could be treated effectively outside prison has a lot of merit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He should have phoned the police first not being a policeman himself it does not even cost anything , easy to say now but the only course of action really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

That's not  a complete picture. The "half term" does not apply

  • to prisoners serving life, for which judges hand down minimum tariffs
  • to prisoners considered a danger to the public, e.g. some sex offenders, terrorists, etc
  • to prisoners who haven't exhibited 'good behaviour' while inside
  • to prisoners (whether guilty or innocent) who assert their innocence while in jail

Also, prisons are full of individuals with mental health problems. And they're overcrowded. Mike's suggestion that some kinds of offence could be treated effectively outside prison has a lot of merit.

I should have added: any prisoner released halfway isn't truly 'free' - they're on licence, and one single blot on their behaviour (anything) and they're back inside to serve out the full term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

That's not  a complete picture. The "half term" does not apply

  • to prisoners serving life, for which judges hand down minimum tariffs
  • to prisoners considered a danger to the public, e.g. some sex offenders, terrorists, etc
  • to prisoners who haven't exhibited 'good behaviour' while inside
  • to prisoners (whether guilty or innocent) who assert their innocence while in jail

Also, prisons are full of individuals with mental health problems. And they're overcrowded. Mike's suggestion that some kinds of offence could be treated effectively outside prison has a lot of merit.

yes I am afraid my experience of prisons is that they are full of people with prior mental health issues.  I know many see the mental health angle as a gift to anyone and everybody but I am afraid to say the reason why anyone and everybody says it sadly is that it is a realism rather than a gift.  I live in a very deprived area and experience the impact on the lives of young people around me from parents who are themselves victims of their own histories.  The North East , like so many has had long term underfunding and removal of almost every piece of funding that might have offered a help line.  Budget cuts just see a saving and ignore at their peril the long term impact of community breakdown. It is a shame that people cannot go fund youth services locally with Go Fund Me pages.  I am not a great lover of humans but I do think you have to give young people opportunities or else the crime becomes an easy option.   Effective treatment of offenders requires a lot more people with a lot more patience in well run community services and true the victims too need support.  

I have a horrible feeling at the moment that systems play on division as a distraction one group fights another....It feels like the 70's again at the moment which was an ugly bleak miserable time.  I have both Durham Prison and Franklin prison down the road so always aware of how miserable life is behind bars.  I do feel something for the home owner but it is very easy to go beyond self protection.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, copper123 said:

He should have phoned the police first not being a policeman himself it does not even cost anything , easy to say now but the only course of action really

agreed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2022 at 6:51 PM, Peckris 2 said:

No, it's the lenient treatment handed out to the perps, who were not only burgling but had also stolen the bike they got away on.

Precisely !!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another aspect of this issue which should be considered is the "heat of the moment" one of normal human reaction to attack - and an invasion of one's property is an attack. We are not automatons able to switch on and switch off at a second's notice. As I've alluded to earlier, it's great for those in the legal profession who have quite literally, all the time in the world to think up what should and shouldn't be done in such situations. But the one overarching point is that they weren't the ones in that real life situation.

I remember from years ago, the police, when criticised for their actions, saying "we are only human". Well, just so, we are only human and expecting the average bod trying to protect his property to think and behave in the middle of the night in such a traumatic event, with the cold detachment of a lawyer, is incredibly stupid.

So yes, in theory, Mr. White shouldn't have chased after the intruders in his car. But we don't all think the same, and the main fact we should bear in mind is that if they hadn't tried to break in, it would never have happened. So in modern parlance, going after him and not the criminals, is a form of "victim blaming".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

So yes, in theory, Mr. White shouldn't have chased after the intruders in his car. But we don't all think the same, and the main fact we should bear in mind is that if they hadn't tried to break in, it would never have happened. So in modern parlance, going after him and not the criminals, is a form of "victim blaming".  

They should have gone after both. (I'm not sure I see the point of the "victim blaming" remark).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

They should have gone after both. (I'm not sure I see the point of the "victim blaming" remark).

As far as I'm concerned he's the victim, and he's been jailed and got a criminal record for a completely human and understandable reaction - there's the blame. While the two thieving toerags who started the entire incident get away with a slap on the wrist, and are now able to sue him - further blame.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

As far as I'm concerned he's the victim, and he's been jailed and got a criminal record for a completely human and understandable reaction - there's the blame. While the two thieving toerags who started the entire incident get away with a slap on the wrist, and are now able to sue him - further blame.

 

 

but you're advocating anarchy, the freedom of the individual to respond outside the law.  We don't live in a theocracy an eye for an eye and even in those systems there still has to be due process (no matter how skewed).  if each person is allowed to take such action for things that rightly or wrongly they feel the right to pass judgement on then no one would be able to live with a sense of freedom.  In this case there is , of course, condemnation of the thieves but what of the next case perhaps someone doesn't like someones lifestyle, or race, or philosophy.  The Law stamps on such cases in order to keep a check on behaviours that can easily spill in to general life.  I dont think it is a case that the thieves deserve any less harsh a treatment under the law.  But the home owner is also a criminal in his actions.  Property is just not valued and neither should it be beyond a defense in the house to protect.  To think where' s  my keys? where's my car? let's run them down..... is three thinking steps forethought with malicious intent.  sadly or otherwise to prevent anarchy that is how law works.  

 

I know I personally would not feel very safe in a system that works allowing someone that freedom. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

but you're advocating anarchy, the freedom of the individual to respond outside the law.  We don't live in a theocracy an eye for an eye and even in those systems there still has to be due process (no matter how skewed).  if each person is allowed to take such action for things that rightly or wrongly they feel the right to pass judgement on then no one would be able to live with a sense of freedom.  In this case there is , of course, condemnation of the thieves but what of the next case perhaps someone doesn't like someones lifestyle, or race, or philosophy.  The Law stamps on such cases in order to keep a check on behaviours that can easily spill in to general life.  I dont think it is a case that the thieves deserve any less harsh a treatment under the law.  But the home owner is also a criminal in his actions.  Property is just not valued and neither should it be beyond a defense in the house to protect.  To think where' s  my keys? where's my car? let's run them down..... is three thinking steps forethought with malicious intent.  sadly or otherwise to prevent anarchy that is how law works.  

 

I know I personally would not feel very safe in a system that works allowing someone that freedom. 

definition of anarchy: 

"1. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems."

No, I'm not advocating that, and you seem to have arrived at such a conclusion without properly reading what I've written.

There has to be legal sanction if an individual deliberately goes too far in the defence of their property. But currently - and certainly in this case - we have a situation where the householder has been sucked into a very nasty situation, which in every sense was not of his making. We should always have uppermost in our minds the fact that if Benford and Paul had not committed a crime in the first place, there would have been absolutely no incident. 

We then surely have to realise that White is a human being with normal emotions, that everybody reacts differently under threat and that there is no useful little handbook for householders on what to do in such situations. He was jailed for 22 months and now faces being sued by the criminals, whilst they got off very lightly. Sorry, but the balance is not right.

Also, you're jumping to unproven conclusions by assuming that he went after them to deliberately knock them down, as opposed to just giving chase and maybe trapping them, or following them to wherever they were going. This is what he actually said:  "Mr White, who told police at the accident scene that he had lost control of the vehicle when going around a bend, was arrested on the spot on suspicion of GBH." SOURCE.

When you say this:  "but what of the next case perhaps someone doesn't like someones lifestyle, or race, or philosophy.", I think you're falsely conflating two totally separate issues. The two are so wide apart that I doubt you can truly be serious. The incident in question is totally unprovoked by the victim, whereas attacks based on lifestyle, race or philosophy have an aggressor and a victim. Both White and your hypothetical target of racism etc, are BOTH victims. 

The overriding principle in cases such as White's should have at their core, the fact that the incidents are not of the householder's making, and reaction is often based on fear, emotion, panic and sheer survival instinct. 

In White's case, the fact that he's suffered a far worse life punishment than the criminals who targeted him is utterly appalling, which is why he's attracted so much sympathy from the general public.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

d

The overriding principle in cases such as White's should have at their core, the fact that the incidents are not of the householder's making, and reaction is often based on fear, emotion, panic and sheer survival instinct. 

In White's case, the fact that he's suffered a far worse life punishment than the criminals who targeted him is utterly appalling, which is why he's attracted so much sympathy from the general public.

Ahhh but did it get him a lenient sentence?

The answer is no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, copper123 said:

Ahhh but did it get him a lenient sentence?

The answer is no

thank goodness for crowdfunding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

thank goodness for crowdfunding.

It's reached over £168K now and the comments of the donors reflect the views of so many people regarding the leniency shown to the career criminals. No doubt they had a difficult childhood and are beautiful boys at heart. In fact, one of them when being arrested and asked if there was anyone who should be informed of his arrest, nominated his pregnant girlfriend and, when asked her date of birth, replied that he had no idea. Compulsory sterilisation crosses my mind.

Edited by secret santa
addition
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

definition of anarchy: 

"1. a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems."

No, I'm not advocating that, and you seem to have arrived at such a conclusion without properly reading what I've written.

There has to be legal sanction if an individual deliberately goes too far in the defence of their property. But currently - and certainly in this case - we have a situation where the householder has been sucked into a very nasty situation, which in every sense was not of his making. We should always have uppermost in our minds the fact that if Benford and Paul had not committed a crime in the first place, there would have been absolutely no incident. 

We then surely have to realise that White is a human being with normal emotions, that everybody reacts differently under threat and that there is no useful little handbook for householders on what to do in such situations. He was jailed for 22 months and now faces being sued by the criminals, whilst they got off very lightly. Sorry, but the balance is not right.

Also, you're jumping to unproven conclusions by assuming that he went after them to deliberately knock them down, as opposed to just giving chase and maybe trapping them, or following them to wherever they were going. This is what he actually said:  "Mr White, who told police at the accident scene that he had lost control of the vehicle when going around a bend, was arrested on the spot on suspicion of GBH." SOURCE.

When you say this:  "but what of the next case perhaps someone doesn't like someones lifestyle, or race, or philosophy.", I think you're falsely conflating two totally separate issues. The two are so wide apart that I doubt you can truly be serious. The incident in question is totally unprovoked by the victim, whereas attacks based on lifestyle, race or philosophy have an aggressor and a victim. Both White and your hypothetical target of racism etc, are BOTH victims. 

The overriding principle in cases such as White's should have at their core, the fact that the incidents are not of the householder's making, and reaction is often based on fear, emotion, panic and sheer survival instinct. 

In White's case, the fact that he's suffered a far worse life punishment than the criminals who targeted him is utterly appalling, which is why he's attracted so much sympathy from the general public.

but in the end we still have to rely upon the servants of the law to seek redress.  As instinctive as it is, so are many crimes, he made the choice and he has been charged with an attempt to cause bodily harm.  If I were the magistrate I would have to direct the case up to the crown prosecution service.  Of course both are wrong scenarios and hence they must be looked at as two criminal actions.  We do have a right to protect property but the right has its limitations.  The handbook is that we all know that protecting oneself or family is to put up defence to hinder the assailants progress.  I am quite serious tiny incursions progress towards larger and more serious incursions until there is limited order.  I am sorry if you do not agree there is little I can do about that, hopefully if you feel strong enough you will contribute to is legal costs.  

Edited by DrLarry
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is most unlikely that those on one side of this argument are likely to to agree with the counterargument.  Whilst I disagree with the actions of the burglars I also agree that the law had not other choice than to charge him with intent.  I assume it was a 30 minute show and hence difficult to know all the legal discourse , it was I assume made into a TV show for entertainment purposes edited in such a way to give part of a story.  

 

All those that believe so do have the final opportunity to add to the go fund me page.  Because £167, 000 doesn't buy much legally 

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×