Wednesday 5 September 2012

Because, You See, They Are The Real Victims…

A teenager who shook a baby so hard it suffered a brain injury and permanent disability has been locked up.
Curtis Taylor, now aged 20, was sentenced alongside 18-year-old Danielle Moss at Oxford Crown Court yesterday.
The baby is unnamed, so we can only assume that it’s the poor benighted offspring of these two wastes of oxygen…

They have the usual records:
The court heard Taylor had 21 previous offences against his name, though only one for violence.
So, no reason to worry about them having a kid, eh?
Peter Du Feu, defending Taylor, said his client’s upbringing was far from stable.
He said Taylor’s mother was “something of a character who had perhaps other priorities in her life than the care of her children.”
He added: “He grew up really looking after himself to a large extent.
“He would go to school in unwashed, out-sized uniform, shoes that weren’t his and didn’t fit, and he would be laughed at.”
Oh, stop, I’m overcome with emotion here!
Graham Bennett, defending Moss, said his client, who has a previous conviction for battery, also had an unhappy upbringing.
He said: “The jury’s verdict was the end of a really tragic story for Danielle Moss, dealing with several traumas in a very young life – her background, fostering, a residence at the children’s home.”
Actually, you insensitive cretin, it was a really tragic story for the baby, wasn’t it?
Recounting the facts, Judge Patrick Eccles told Taylor: “You lost control of yourself.
“You shook with such force as to cause a subdural haemorrhage, a brain injury and significant visual impairment. These were life-changing injuries sustained by a defenceless child.”
And the punishment?
Judge Eccles sentenced Taylor to three years in a young offender institute and gave Moss a community order with six months’ supervision.


Farenheit211 said...

For doing this to a baby, they got this? These are NOT appropriate sentences.

Furor Teutonicus said...

The "appropriate" sentence, unfourtunately, no longer exists in British, or indeed any other E.U countrys laws.

Anonymous said...

Judge Eccles, how appropriate; has he given up his day job starring in the Goon show?

In fact I think the whole of the UK 'justice' system has been built by Neddy Seagoon, Bluebottle and friends from an original design by 'Woy of the Valleys' Jenkins.

Dr. Cromarty said...

Appropriate sentence? To be shaken while held incapacitated by a very large person, until brain haemorrhage and injury occur, hopefully with a bit of visual impairment. Can't take it? Don't dish it out.

James Higham said...

They have the usual records

Don't they always, Julia - don't they always?

Umbongo said...

In my understanding of the way our system of "justice" is organised, barristers are technically officers of the Court. As such they owe a duty of ethical practice not only to their clients but to the Courts in particular and the administration of justice in general.
The vast majority of the pleas in mitigation on behalf of the low-lifes JuliaM exposes on this site are not only a load of crap but are obviously out and out lies. Although a barrister has to do his/her best by the defendant, s/he is not obliged to lie on the defendant's behalf. Indeed, as an officer of the Court, it is a disbarring offence for a barrister to do so. Accordingly, I fail to understand why the judges/magistrates concerned don't give the barristers, at worst, a telling off or, at best, refer them to the relevant Inn for disbarment for lying to the Court.

Inspector R Soul said...

You won't believe it! Mr and Mrs Andy Ferrie have been bailed against my wishes. Lawrence English (CPS idiot) has visited their home and looked at the false statements given by this dangerous pair.

"Looking at the evidence, it is clear to me that Mr and Mrs Ferrie did what they believed was necessary to protect themselves, and their home, from intruders." said Mr English. "I am satisfied that this is a case where householders, faced with intruders in frightening circumstances, acted in reasonable self-defence. The law is clear that anyone who acts in good faith, using reasonable force, doing what they honestly feel is necessary to protect themselves, their families or their property, will not be prosecuted for such action."

Well, they can say goodbye to that shotgun and forget a lot of job prospects....and that trip to Florida. Snork!

Anonymous said...

With respect to Umbongo's comment he or she is quite right in their comment that the duty of a barrister is to the Court and not to the client, and the barrister no longer has immunity from suit. Perhaps it was time this power of the court was used, negligence anyone?

jaded said...

Sorry to burst your collective bubbles but the couple burgled a few days ago have already been told that they wont be charged.I thought the "process was part of the punishment"?
Perhaps the investigation was done by the book which helped them in the long run?

Ancient + Tattered Airman said...

I'm with Umbongo. I read barristers statements with disbelief. They are the ones who need shaking up, not a defenceless child.

Jeff Wood said...

My Dear, you probably have this in hand, but just in case:

JuliaM said...

"For doing this to a baby, they got this? "

Oh, there's worse. There's ALWAYS worse... :/

"Don't they always, Julia - don't they always?"

Increasingly so.

"...I fail to understand why the judges/magistrates concerned don't give the barristers, at worst, a telling off or, at best, refer them to the relevant Inn for disbarment for lying to the Court."

Because it's a cozy old boys club and no-one wants to rock the boat?

"I thought the "process was part of the punishment"?"

And did you understand what I meant by that? Clearly not.

Inspector R Soul outlines it above, and I'll have another post on it later today.

" probably have this in hand..."

Oh, yes... ;/

MTG said...

"Inspector R Soul outlines it above, and I'll have another post on it later today."

effectus sequitur causam: Firm evidence is unlikely to emerge which supports a reasonable theory that corrupt police were involved in the burglary as early as the planning stage. Yet the intensely malodourous properties of this case are sufficient to establish that suspicion.

Noggin the Nog said...


So they'll be having their DNA removed from the national database then?

Thought not.

They'll probably get the couple of days back they spent in cells, too. Plus the money they were forced to spend on Lawyers.


What a surprise.

jaded said...

NTN-the government (the one you elected) decided to change the rules on DNA.Previously we collected it after charge and if they got not guilty at court it would be destroyed.Now we do it at arrest.Not my choice or my fault.Write to your MP.
They would have got a free solicitor.
Can't do much about the two days in the cells but they aren't dungeons.You probably know that though.
MTG-please publish evidence that corrupt police were involved.Have you got the guts? I doubt it very much as you never answer any point directly.

Noggin the Nog said...


I didn't elect the fuckers.

Why don't you lobby your CC, or MP to change the law? It would carry farm more weight coming from plod than from the masses, whom you appear to think of as universally criminal.

Free solicitors? Yep, that,s just what you need when facing firearms chargess, so duty solicitor with as much interest in justice as you.

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX MTG-please publish evidence that corrupt police were involved.XX

Na. He is just upset because he thinks the police black balled him from joining the lodge.

Well, SOMEONE did. No one gets so upset about something "that did not happen," as HE does.

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX It would carry farm more weight coming from plod than from the masses,
Anonymous Noggin the Nog said...
6 September 2012 14:22 XX

Aye right.

Go ask Gadget.

Furor Teutonicus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jaded said...

NTN-firstly i'm not allowed to get involved in politics,one of the many restrictions on my private life.Secondly I think you will find that most CC's and MP's support the DNA database increasing.I am on the fence,I can see both sides of the argument.Thirdly I do not see the public as universally criminal.Most people I meet (in the real world not on blogs) are decent and law-abiding.You have to realise that you just cant shoot someone without there being an investigation,no matter how nice you are.

As for the free solicitors-they are free to the suspect,they still get paid by us.In my experience they are normally very efficient especially in a high profile case like this one.

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX jaded said...

NTN-firstly i'm not allowed to get involved in politics,one of the many restrictions on my private life. XX

BOLLOX! You are not "allowed to get involved in politics" means joining a political party, or campaigning for such. It does NOT mean you can not ".... lobby your CC, or MP to change the law?"

You are ABSOLUTELY allowed to do that in private, and so long as you do not sign yourself "Constable". I.e, as a PRIVATE person.

And if you wish to "go the political route," you have the Federation.

So, don't come the fucking bull shit.

jaded said...

Calm down Mr Angry.Perhaps I don't want to get involved?I'm afraid I have my own views on matters and don't get bullied by anonymous bloggers with an axe to grind.

I presume you agree with the rest of what I posted as you only picked up on one sentence?

Furor Teutonicus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Furor Teutonicus said...

Angry? Tell you what, you don't know the MEANING of the word.

Try Bremen docks on a Saturday night.

And as to anonymous, not tried very hard, have we?

Noggin the Nog said...


If you don't think most 'mops' are criminals, why keep insinuating that I am?

You are wrong about the timing of the law change, BTW, regarding DNA retention. It was 2001. Yet another crime comitted by Blair. And no, I didn't vote for that fucker either.

Since then we have had a High Court ruling and ECHR ruling, both declaring the harvesting and retention of the DNA of innocent people as illegal. Yet you still do it.

SO who's the criminal now?

PS It is possible to have an investigation into a shooting without an arrest. cf. Jean Charles de Menezes, and he died and was not merely wounded. Probably due to the 7 warning shots fired into his face. No officers arrested, or even disciplined. In fact the utter twat in charge got promoted.

Harwood wasn't arrested for unlawfully killing someone on camera, so don't bullshit me about the need to arrest the victims of burglary in order to investigate.

You can deny it all you like, but facts are facts: there is one rule for the crims, another for the victims and yet another for plod.

jaded said...

Let's answer each point you make in turn,I think that's polite as opposed to what you do which is just answer the bits you want.
I don't think most MOP's are criminals.You however are just one person,not most.
I didn't mention which government changed the DNA rules,I was aware it was Labour.They made the rules not me.(I didn't vote for them either)
As for the High Ct/European ruling-I wasn't aware of it.Please feel free to pop down to my station and arrest me and my 1000's of colleagues who have taken DNA since.When i'm ordered to stop I will.
As for J Demenezes and Harwood-they've been debated to death on here and other blogs.I've never said they were our finest work.What is annoying when they are bought up to use as an insult.
When using the phrase "facts are facts" it's probably best not to give an opinion straight after that can't be proved conclusively either way.

MTG said...

Good evening.

Has somebody extended Happy Hour for the riff-raff?

jaded said...

Been allowed out of your straight-jacket for dinner time Melvin?Keep away from sharp objects (like your wit).

Noggin the Nog said...


'When I'm ordered to stop I will'.

That's the problem, right there. You will do,something you know to,be illegal, just because no one senior to you has not old you not to, and you will face no consequences for this whatsoever.

It is a fact that you claim that burglary victims should be arrested and held for days to enable investigation. It is also a fact that when Police shoot people in the face, they are neither arrested, disciplined nor dismissed. Therefore it is not an opinion that there is one rule for crims, one for victims and another for Police.

Is the reason you think I am a criminal because I disagree with you, or were you lying when you said you thought most other mops were OK?

Noggin the Nog said...


I can spell and punctuate correctly. I'm using an ipad and my fat fingers jab more than one button at once, plus the poxy spell checker ocassionally 'corrects' stuff that was correct in the first place.

Wouldn't want you to think I was a bit thick, you might try to recruit me.

jaded said...

Firstly I don't recall reading anywhere that Parliament has repealed the law on DNA collection.Would you think every police force in Britain would deliberately break this law?

Getting boring now about JCD.There was an inquest and the police were cleared.You obviously don't agree and there's not much I can do about that.

Most MOPs are OK.Fact.I've never met you so I don't know if you are OK are not.

I don't criticise other peoples grammar, as MTG would leap on me.

Please don't try and join the police,you seem like a person who would question every lawful order.The system would grind to a halt.

Noggin the Nog said...


I mentioned JCM to highlight the fact that the Police can shoot dead someone, totally incorrectly, and not be arrested. I was not making a comment about the case, except to highlight the difference in procedures when the shooter is a cop/s who cause a fatality (no arrest) and the shooter is a civilian (arrested, imprisoned for 3 days, bailed pending possible charges).m

I don't know how to link, else I would. Just Google 'DNA retention policy' and click the top link, from the Guardian.

18 May 2011. UK Supreme Court declares current policy 'unlawful' and states that CC's are acting illegally when retaining samples from innocent persons. ECHR said the same thing years earlier.

Legislation is due in parliament this Autumn to try to force plod to comply with law.

What is the point of passing a law to get people who won't obey the law (ie you) to obey the law?

BTW Please don't flame me for quoting the Guardian. They can't be completely wrong all the time.

jaded said...

Once that act is passed I will gladly comply with it.As I mentioned earlier I can see both sides of the argument regarding the DNA database.In this case i'm sure you wont mind if I do as i'm told....

WPC Jilted said...

so their noggin.i wurked in custams til i was court.evry job as it's purks butt wen i'm been whatched I do as i'm told two.

Noggin the Nog said...


Just doin' me job guv'nor, eh?

Like a prostitute?