• Further New Features Are Available - Click To Update
  • Join OxVox

    The forum would encourage all members to consider joining OxVox during this important moment in our history. See here for more information.

National News PC Andrew Harper

Different jury, different day.

On 20 July, a juror was discharged after a prison officer reported that she had mouthed "bye boys" to the defendants in the courtroom.
So she had not influenced the jury during the trial?

On 24 July, the three defendants were cleared of murder by that very same jury of 11.
Long had pleaded guilty, and Bowers and Cole were found guilty of, manslaughter.

We`ll see what happens with the UDL sentence & Appeals.

Hopefully they will remain in prison for a longer period......... and the public purse will be a lot lighter and several lawyers wealthier.

Should we have sharia law or a kangaroo court like Greece and that Man United player ? Would save “the taxpayer” a lot of money.... because that’s what’s important?
 
Should we have sharia law or a kangaroo court like Greece and that Man United player ? Would save “the taxpayer” a lot of money.... because that’s what’s important?

Sharia law isn`t that bad if you look into it, it is adaptable, moves with the times and has a higher standard of proof than most Western law but fewer "downgrades" like from murder to manslaughter. They tend to go for the right charge from the start.
Muhammad even said "Ward off the hudud from the Muslims as much as you all can, and if you find a way out for the person, then let them go. For it is better for the authority to err in mercy than to err in punishment.” However if you do break the hudud then it gets brutal, them`s the rules.

Greece is in the EU so its all done properly, Harry was just a drunk, rich Brit on holiday. ;)

No issue with taxpayers supporting those who need legal advice...... if they are taxpaying contributors to society too. :)
 
It's been heartening to see some people on here try to avoid racism. Criticising these 3, or the residents of redbridge hollow, doesn't need to be reduced to "well that's just travellers then isn't it". It's a bit like judging Oxfordshire by the worst part of Blackbird Leys.

It's a tragic and deeply unfortunate incident that's led to this and my heart goes out to the family of Andrew Harper. I don't know, however, that we ought to have laws that enshrine policemen as having lives more important than others.
 
I fundamentally disagree that a law should position the life of policemen as more important than that of civilians. Feels really horrendous, to be honest and i can't believe a government is giving it the time of day

Emergency service workers - those folk who go towards danger while the rest of us are, generally, going the other way.
 
This should be reflected in pay and rewards.

I resent the implication that their lives are intrinsically more valuable than anyone else's.
I think most life sentences without a tariff used to be 15 years minimum ( I’m sure scotchers will enlighten us on that one ) but as we know people who commit murder you hear the judge recommend a minimum tariff say 20 years minimum which is fare enough, but obviously relatives of the victim will call for a life for a life, however with emergency services you have a police officer going to m wards danger or to investigate a burglary and in the process gets killed by the perpetrator then yes life for life. A doctor or a nurse is tending to the infirm is killed by someone whist they are doing there job, they are trying to save life but to be killed in the line of duty should mean the perpetrator gets a whole life term same as a fire person.
All they are doing is trying to prevent or help other persons so to be killed in doing so should mean a whole life term.
If a civilian goes to help someone in distress and gets killed for doing so then the perpetrator should also get a whole life sentence
There is no right from wrong in murder but mitigating circumstances will always be taken into account by a judge before he hands down the sentence.
 
This should be reflected in pay and rewards.

I resent the implication that their lives are intrinsically more valuable than anyone else's.

If they are murdered while doing their job then they are receiving "pay and reward".

You can`t put a price on life in any circumstance, but you can put a starting point on a sentencing code.

An "aggravating factor" is the phrase IIRC.
 
If they are murdered while doing their job then they are receiving "pay and reward".

You can`t put a price on life in any circumstance, but you can put a starting point on a sentencing code.

An "aggravating factor" is the phrase IIRC.

To be clearer then, let the pay and reward amply reflect the risk.

Why value the job and life more only once it's been taken?
 
I think the traditional basis for giving more severe sentences to people who kill police is that respect for the law underpins society, and disregarding that makes the crime of murder worse. But this government probably just thought it would appeal to thick people
 
It`s a tool in a toolbox to help better protect those who choose to protect us.

An ineffective one I'd say. Do we really believe that someone who is going to kill an emergency worker will stop to consider whether it's worth a few extra years in prison?

If it was about punishment then I could at least accept the logic of the argument.
 
To be clearer then, let the pay and reward amply reflect the risk.

Why value the job and life more only once it's been taken?

You are quite right. I think we can all agree that the sentences dished out by the judge were appallingly lenient. The fact these pieces of sh*t are going are going to be free men when they are in their early 30s with their whole lives ahead of them is a disgrace.

But you have to ask yourself if the owner of the quad bike had come out instead to defend his property and got dragged along by a car to his or her death, is that any less of a crime? Of course it isn't. An innocent person has been killed trying to prevent a crime from happening.
 
Before jumping solely on the police because their lives might be ‘worth more’ than anyone else, the new offence covers amongst others, fire, ambulance and police, the very people who are there to protect us and respond to our emergencies, often life threatening or life changing. These are people we turn to when all else has probably failed, they are often our last resort and deserve this extra ‘protection’.
By the way, the new offence also covers prison officers..
 
An ineffective one I'd say. Do we really believe that someone who is going to kill an emergency worker will stop to consider whether it's worth a few extra years in prison?

If it was about punishment then I could at least accept the logic of the argument.

I`m surmising most right-minded people don`t go about the course of their day looking to kill someone.

In the case of PC Harper, despite one of them allegedly asking to turn the radio up to drown out his screams, they probably didn`t go out to kill either but a chain of events, however unlikely, led to his death.

However, that doesn`t exonerate them from the fact they continued the chain of events beyond the point of "doing the right thing" and stopping for the police.

If it was about punishment then my "socio-conservative-Taliban" kicks in and they would be confined in a wooden box about 6ft down.
 
I`m surmising most right-minded people don`t go about the course of their day looking to kill someone.

In the case of PC Harper, despite one of them allegedly asking to turn the radio up to drown out his screams, they probably didn`t go out to kill either but a chain of events, however unlikely, led to his death.

However, that doesn`t exonerate them from the fact they continued the chain of events beyond the point of "doing the right thing" and stopping for the police.

If it was about punishment then my "socio-conservative-Taliban" kicks in and they would be confined in a wooden box about 6ft down.

I'm not really sure what point you're making here.
 
I fundamentally disagree that a law should position the life of policemen as more important than that of civilians. Feels really horrendous, to be honest and i can't believe a government is giving it the time of day

The laws regarding murder haven't changed. Murder carries a mandatory life sentence whether an emergency worker or Joe Bloggs is killed. No one life is seen as any more important than another.

This ruling is about taking manslaughter off the table so that if you are unable to claim that you that killed without malice, forethought or intent. Basically, if you knowingly attack an emergency working in the line of their duty, you are doing so knowing that you are responsible for what happens to them.

As others have said, these are people who run towards danger when others are running away. They put the safety of others before themselves and deserve the greatest protection the law can offer them.
 
The laws regarding murder haven't changed. Murder carries a mandatory life sentence whether an emergency worker or Joe Bloggs is killed. No one life is seen as any more important than another.

This ruling is about taking manslaughter off the table so that if you are unable to claim that you that killed without malice, forethought or intent. Basically, if you knowingly attack an emergency working in the line of their duty, you are doing so knowing that you are responsible for what happens to them.

As others have said, these are people who run towards danger when others are running away. They put the safety of others before themselves and deserve the greatest protection the law can offer them.
I may have misunderstood the new Harpers law ( its likely i have ) ....iam i correct in presuming that Harpers law means that its a mandatory life sentence if an emergency worker is killed by someone while said someone is commiting a crime? ....if that is correct, driving at say 29mph in a 20 mile an hour zone is committing a crime, and if due to whatever circumstances an emergency worked is sadly run over & killed by the aforementioned someone while exceeding the speed limit, that someone is facing a mandatory life sentence? ...or have i understood it wrongly?
 
I may have misunderstood the new Harpers law ( its likely i have ) ....iam i correct in presuming that Harpers law means that its a mandatory life sentence if an emergency worker is killed by someone while said someone is commiting a crime? ....if that is correct, driving at say 29mph in a 20 mile an hour zone is committing a crime, and if due to whatever circumstances an emergency worked is sadly run over & killed by the aforementioned someone while exceeding the speed limit, that someone is facing a mandatory life sentence? ...or have i understood it wrongly?

We will have to wait to see the exact wording on the statute book. However, it seems that manslaughter of an emergency worker will now carry a mandatory life sentence as opposed to a determinate sentence. This means that someone does not have a conditional release date but will serve a minimum tariff before being considered for release.

I can't see a way in which this would apply to a "standard" road traffic accident where the speed limit was broken in the example given. However, if (as has happened) a police officer deploying a stinger to stop a fleeing vehicle is deliberately struck by that vehicle and killed, then we would see manslaughter charges (and life sentence) rather than death by dangerous/reckless driving.
 
We will have to wait to see the exact wording on the statute book. However, it seems that manslaughter of an emergency worker will now carry a mandatory life sentence as opposed to a determinate sentence. This means that someone does not have a conditional release date but will serve a minimum tariff before being considered for release.

I can't see a way in which this would apply to a "standard" road traffic accident where the speed limit was broken in the example given. However, if (as has happened) a police officer deploying a stinger to stop a fleeing vehicle is deliberately struck by that vehicle and killed, then we would see manslaughter charges (and life sentence) rather than death by dangerous/reckless driving.

There is an “exceptional circumstances” let out.
I don’t know what this might be but for instance an emergency worker in the wrong place and unconnected to the criminal act.
 
I`m not one for petitions but....................


Was it to difficult to add where the victim is/was an Emergency Services worker to the list of folk who should not get out early?

My personal view hasn`t changed on the people guilty in this case.
 
I`m not one for petitions but....................


Was it to difficult to add where the victim is/was an Emergency Services worker to the list of folk who should not get out early?

My personal view hasn`t changed on the people guilty in this case.
I absolutely agree with the sentiment, and anyone who intentionally kills a service worker should be treated differently, however of the 3 convicted only 1 was convicted of murder and will not eligible for early release

The two passengers who were convicted of manslaughter will be as they did not kill PC Harper (or did not knowingly do so)

Even if we changed the law to anyone that intentionally kills a service worker they would still be eligible - in this instance i do think it will and should be parole that make the decision and hopefully that wont grant early release
 
I've never understood why killing someone in service is worse than killing someone who isn't.

Not that I've any sympathy for these scumbags, that couldn't be further from my point.
killing anyone is reprehensible but to ensure those carrying out the most dangerous of jobs you have to ensure they are protected - this ensures they know they have full weight of law behind them
 
Back
Top Bottom