1949threepence

Surely - take a look at this link A couple of useful extracts for you:- I'd bet that the 85% are not all Daily Mail readers, in the time honoured fashion. Here's another one which again indicates judiciary bias towards the criminal:-

I'm hoping that my items arrive tomorrow. They were posted yesterday, but are still showing as stuck at Medway Mail Centre.

Absolutely, sounds redolent of the "three strikes and you're out" principle used in parts of the USA. Although it should only apply to violent crimes, not trivial stuff such as shoplifting.

ah, some meeting of minds at last. I too would agree with that. and the intruders, do you agree they should have received harsher punishments?

well read the article and then reply ! You don't need to make an interim statement.

They may well do, but they don't receive much sanction when innocent folk get killed as a result. White got 22 months and no-one was killed.

So you're having difficulty following the article? It's about high speed police chases where innocent people get killed.

But the police believe that the public want criminals to be pursued at high speed, despite the potential dangers to others. From the Guardian article I linked to above:-

Anybody can lose control of their vehicle. It happens with great regularity.

There are numerous cases. Take a read of this link. I'd point you to one paragraph, which sums it up for me:-

Evidence that it was being "misused"?

The facts are the facts. What is in question here is the interpretation of those facts.

I don't agree and I'm sure the CPS would want to avoid what would obviously be public and media mayhem if they took the hypothetical old woman to trial. The public will consider that the dead man, who invaded the old woman's property, lost all rights the moment he did so.

That's an absurd argument as he was not an out of control driver. he merely lost control at one point on the journey.

"Reasonable" is a subjective word open to many degrees of interpretation. What's "unreasonable" in the eyes of what I would consder the majority, is treating the offender with more respect than the victim.

I still argue that. The CPS would deem it not in the public interest for such a case to go to trial.

If you start shooting in public, then I agree that is a step too far as it clearly endangers the lives of innocent passers by. But that is not the same as chasing after someone in a car and losing control on a bend.

Well hopefully it will go to appeal - even the ECHR if necessary - as there is a clear injustice.

I am sure you know as well as I do the extreme furore which would follow such an old lady being sent to trial for killing an intruder. The "reasonable force" argument would be treated as the farce that it would be in such an event. Did the 8 stone, 5' odd 85 year old lady use reasonable force against the 22 year old, hooded 15 stone 6' 2" intruder? I mean c'mon, get real.

Bias towards the criminal and away from the victim. That's self evident from the entire thread topic and posts. Sorry you're still having issues getting your head round it.

It's far from the only case of this type, as you know, and the principle will wrangle on as long as cases like this continue - where the judiciary makes it abundantly clear that it favours the criminal and comes down like a ton of bricks on the guy who hasn't thought like a lawyer in the middle of the night, but has protected his property the best way he knows how. The majority of the public, quite rightly in my view, hold the strong perception that the entire legal system favours the attacker criminal rather than the innocent defender of his or her own property. Incidentally, what makes you believe the programme was produced for "entertainment"? Moreover, defending oneself from direct attack as with a break in, is not "vigilantism". I think you're getting "law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.", confused with self defence.

Again you've missed the point, which is that bias exists in the judiciary. The fact that this report happens to be about race bias is incidental. There are other biases as well.

I think you've completely missed the point with that. It could easily be a knife or an iron bar. Either way, the CPS is not going to send an 85 year old woman to trial for killing an intruder in her own house.

Here's a very recent report on race bias within the judiciary - that's just one aspect of course - link

You must be incredibly naive if you don't believe the judiciary are biased at best. With regard to the crowdfunding I think the public are fed up with seeing the criminals get away with it, and the essentially innocent party get nailed. It's topsy turvey, and I'm astounded that a man of your intelligence can't see that, Chris.