Wednesday, 21 December 2011

And To Think Inspector Gadget Blames Only The Judiciary For This…

Sophie Russell, 16, was attacked by the teenage yobs who left her seriously injured with a broken nose and shattered face at her school in February.

But the gang of four girls and five boys were let off after police only handed one of the mob with a caution.
/facepalm
Mrs Russell, 45, said: 'I am absolutely devastated. If they are doing that at the age of 15 what are they going to be doing at the age of 25?

'There is no justice...'
This didn’t even get as far as ‘justice’ as we know it, the police deciding not to bother risking it, so might as well cut out the middleman…
A Lincolnshire Police spokesman said the case was passed to the Youth Offending Team who decided not to press charges but to give a caution for common assault.

She said: 'Age is a factor in the decision but everything would have been taken into account. Her (Sophie) injuries would form part of the evidence.

'The case would have been handed over the the Youth Offending Team and various other agencies.

'Evidence would have been looked at to come to the decision that a caution was the necessary action to take in this case.'
Yes, yes, we know all that. We just can’t figure out the mindset of people who would think a caution was appropriate for this sort of assault….

14 comments:

Tattyfalarr said...

"Youth Offending Team and various other agencies.
...
Therein lies part of the problem. So many extra people are employed and paid to do absolutely fuck all.

Woman on a Raft said...

Oh...I hadn't read this one before commenting last time....perhaps this is what happens when the police learn that the bench won't take these things seriously.

Molly Coddle said...

Perhaps one of the gang was from a disadvantaged home, or an ethnic minority.

Or even the offspring of an illegal immigrant who must be mollycoddled lest anyone at a dinner party thinks we are brutes who care nought for scum which creeps into this country.

So may things to consider before one gets upset. Thank heavens we have trained professionals to make these decisions for us little people.

DerekP said...

From the story: "her father, who rushed to help her and took her to hospital"

If her father had used physical force to defend his daughter what do we think the police would have done?

Right, from past form, we think the police would have arrested and charged him, locked him in a cell and taken his DNA for their database.

The police have willingly become politicised - screw them. When they decide not to charge violent offenders then the same violence should be performed on the coppers making that decision - should be harmless enough, right, just like for the victim?

Anonymous said...

It's an odd thing, but if I search bbc.co.uk for stories about the attack on Sophie Russell I can't find anything.

ranter said...

Don't the police have to refer to the duty CPS rep at the nick before they decide on a disposal option. I'd hate to think a caution was given without such authority! Surely not?

A salt and battered said...

Any procedure is ok these days, Ranter. I love the smell of laissez-faire policing in the morning.

Care for a Quality Street? Just watch out for those really hard centres.

Anonymous said...

Without knowing the whole story i'm not defending my chums here.
This does seem a strange decision.I can only think that the victim is a bit vulnerable and perhaps she didn't want to give evidence?
Once again I ask the question as to who sets the police guidelines for cautions and charges? It's the govt and we work within that framework.
Jaded

Able said...

I'm disgusted - yet again.

Perhaps someone can explain to me (Jaded?) how it is that they were cautioned for common assault? As far as I was aware that is for an assault in which no injury was sustained. The injuries this poor girl sustained were massively traumatic (and as a nurse I can tell you that people have died as a consequence of lesser, let alone similar injuries).

This was GBH with intent (not just one, but up to twenty punches apparently), and as such punishable with up to life imprisonment.

Like I said, disgusted with the judicial system that reacts this way (and yes, in this instance it was the police rather than the judiciary who are acting as a***holes).

Intentional? I'm beginning to fear it is.

JuliaM said...

"Therein lies part of the problem. So many extra people are employed and paid to do absolutely fuck all."

Spot on! And it's in their interests to ensure as many youths keep offending as possible, isn't it?

"Oh...I hadn't read this one before commenting last time....perhaps this is what happens when the police learn that the bench won't take these things seriously."

Like Able, I'm beginning to think it's intentional.

"If her father had used physical force to defend his daughter what do we think the police would have done?"

We know exactly what they would have done, don't we?

"It's an odd thing, but if I search bbc.co.uk for stories about the attack on Sophie Russell I can't find anything."

The Beeb is a little selective about the stories it chooses to carry.

JuliaM said...

"I'd hate to think a caution was given without such authority! Surely not?"

Who knows? It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they just couldn't be arsed, though, is it?

"Without knowing the whole story i'm not defending my chums here."

*gasp*

You'll no longer be welcome at Gadget's blog either, if you carry on like that... ;)

"Perhaps someone can explain to me (Jaded?) how it is that they were cautioned for common assault? As far as I was aware that is for an assault in which no injury was sustained."

Good point!

DerekP said...

I was more than a bit zonked on cold medicine when I wrote my post, so with that and bearing in mind Jaded's post, I'd like to modify my last paragraph to more accurately direct my anger.

We see stories showing many of the police have become more interested in enforcing politically correct words and actions from the general populace (e.g. Emma West), rather than preventing or responding to violent crime, which goes some way to explaining:
- why people protecting themselves can now expect to be arrested,
- why it has taken so long for any action on 'honour violence' from a favoured group,
- why coloured-on-white violence is classed as non-racist (e.g. Danny O'Shea, Rhea Page),
- why looters (not protesters) could run riot unhindered.
The police are the frontline so their behaviour is what most people see of the justice system, but the whole of our justice system, from MPs on down through judges and CPS lawyers push the same message; currently that message includes "we don't care much about violent crime against white people, even murder, especially if it is from some favoured group". I think those pushing and supporting such a message should get a taste of being on the receiving end of real life violence which they put us in danger of, yet they are sheltered from. That may happen as more and more people see the unfairness of the legal system and begin to think street justice cannot be worse; the facts that during the riots police were quicker to stop white people patrolling their neighbourhoods than act against looters, and actually supported favoured groups setting up their armed neighbourhood protection speaks volumes.

Anonymous said...

@DerekP....
"The police have willingly become politicised - screw them. When they decide not to charge violent offenders then the same violence should be performed on the coppers making that decision - should be harmless enough, right, just like for the victim?"

It's been that way for police for years Derek. I'm a front line officer and have been on the end of gang assaults....CPS and courts just regard it as part of my job and i should expect it. I have had broken limbs, concussion scars etc. The offender/s in both main cases of assault on me never got charged as it was my word as an officer against theirs with all their convictions.

I appreciate your stated malice towards the police, can i direct my malice towards the public who are happy for officers to get a kicking and nothing be done? Personally i don't see it as a police/public conflict, it is good against bad.

Although the injuries were ABH, CPS charging guidelines would have been common assault. I didn't set the guidelines and the policy to keep juveniles out of the court system unless it was 'serious' crime. That 'serious' is open to interpretation for you.

Put them before a court and what do you think they would have got? I cannot remember the last time i ever got a juvenile put away. The 'caution' for the juvenile would hopefully incorporate lengthy intervention with the youth offending team to address their behaviour. It is probably only what a court would have ordered.

On a number of occasions i have reported juveniles for offences when they have run out of cautions, only for the file to come back to say give them another Final Warning. It is a bureaucracy that frustrates many front-line officers....but why should we get the kicking for it when it is not our system??

So as a police officer, i can assure you i get violence meted out to me with no justice at the end. No need to wish more on us, we will get it anyway. And i haven't willingly become politicised, the public are just as much to blame for voting in governments who choose to politicise us.

Have a nice day anyway.

Anonymous said...

@DerekP...

Looks like you were typing and posting just ahead of me. I take your points and share a lot of your views. I'm just about to start work so will be unable to reply to the issues you raise at the moment.

Regards,
Frontline.