mrmadcap

Don't recal to ever referring to decent working class people.

Dave Hedgehog

iTrader: (1)

1) Suspected does not mean "Know he did it".
If a man stabbed a guy in the street, and a witness said "He was in a liverpool shirt and he ran onto that coach" and you step onto the coach and it's full of liverpool fans, you'd be justified in arresting everyone on the bus - at that time, they are all "suspects". Of course, only one has committed the offence.
2) Two others had already been charged with the murder for which Cregan was on bail.
3) Bail is very tightly managed and subject to rafts of legislation. This was police bail - i.e. released from a police station with a duty to return at a date in the future.
4) Clearly, there was something stopping Cregan from being charged with that (or any other) offence at that time, or else something has gone drastically wrong.

In short, Police bail is managed as follows:

• 24 hours: Maximum time you can be detained normally.
• UP TO an additional 12 hours: can be authorised by a Superintendant. (36 hours total)
• Before that time expires, if a further extension is sought, then then must be brought before a magistrate and only a magistrate can authorise further detention up to a total of 72 hours.

Before the 72 hours is up, the suspect must be either charged or released on bail, or with no further action to be taken.

Evidently, there was not sufficient evidence to charge Cregan with anything and so he was released on bail whilst the investigation progressed. There is sometimes no other option. It's the law, and it must be adhered to. If it isn't then he may be released by the court without ever facing justice.


No, there is a process.
There are two standards of proof by which a charging decision can be made.
The "Threshold test" may be used in cases where there is still evidence outstanding, but it is necessary to obtain a decision before it can be gathered and assessed. This is frequently the case in the first 24/36/72 hours of detention after a suspect has been arrested. As an example in murder cases the post mortem may not even be completed inside of 72 hours, and it would be ridiculous to HAVE to release murderers to ensure that you have a full evidential account of it prior to charging. So, the threshold test can be used to decide that in the light of the evidence available, there is a realistic prospect of successful prosecution. Read more if you want

The "Full Code" test is used in preference, when it is felt that all evidence has been gathered and can be assessed. This is more often the case in protracted investigations where it has been possible to gather everything before a decision is made.

So, in cases where someone is strongly suspected as having committed a serious offence, is in custody, and poses a bail risk, it is possible to use the threshold test to charge them and remand them in custody quite lawfully. Indeed, this is the preferred course of action to minimise the risk of releasing dangerous offenders.

What the exact situation with Cregan was I don't know, but getting all angry about the fact he was out won't bring those two officers back.

David Lock

Thank you DH, very informative.

dl

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

This is annoying me today. Manchester Police asking the crime families to stop their feud and writing to loads of others to warnt hem they might be in danger.

What a waste of time.

Firstly, gangsters killing other gangsters isn't too bad. Live by the sword and all that, plus it's hopefully a problem that will eventually sort itself. Police need to arrest the last man standing.

Secondly, it reminds me of The Untouchables. Sean Connery saying "everyone knows where the booze is" its just actually taking any action.

Rather than asking them to stop, which I'm sure is going to do the trick. What they need to do is put some cash behind it, hit them like they were Osama Bin Laden and arrest the lot. If they know who they are and that they are criminals they should be locked up.

5t.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-19660713

MJW

There was already a reward of £50k for information leading to the arrest of Cregan. The problem in these situations is that people are scared of reprisals and don't come forward. In fact the only reason Cregan turned himself in in the first place was that he feared reprisals from families and associates of the first two guys he'd whacked. He didn't give two hoots about the police, he came to them for protection.
Also your idyllic situation of gangsters just shooting each other has the unfortunate effect of dragging innocent people into the bloodbath, like the young lad in Liverpool who stopped a stray bullet with his neck.

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

If he'd done that he wouldn't have wanted to shoot a couple of them before he handed himself over. There is an element of truth in there but I think there is a lot more to it.

As for people not giving him up. That is not the point. Again, if the police can post letters to their local crimelords they know where they are and they know what they are up to.

I was advoacting putting more resources behind the police being proactive and smashing down their doors at 3am rather than sititng back and waiting for the public to snitch.

It was tongue in cheek. Clearly it isn't presented as a solution and is anything but idyllic.

5t.

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

Cregan just this minute charged with the murders of the WPCs.

And for the murders of the Short family's son and father.

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

And as already guessed at by another poster, the following has, somewhat inevitably , happened:-

Meanwhile, a 22-year-old man has been arrested after a Facebook page was set up lauding Mr Cregan as a "legend".

The man, from Netherley, Merseyside, is being questioned over a "tribute" which went online within hours of the deaths of PC Hughes, 23, and PC Bone, 32.


****ing Neanderthal(s)!

Leslie

Your description of a possible future is pretty horrifying really. Even if moral degradation continues as it has been for some time now,I really hope it does not descend to that sort of level.

As someone else says in another post, it is a bit of a worry when we see the more violent behaviour which occurs now and the sort of weapons which are being carried around.

Les

Leslie

Capital punishment was abolished in the UK in 1969.

You might be interested to see the UK annual murder rates from 1969 onwards!

http://www.murderuk.com/misc_crime_stats.html

Les

joz8968

iTrader: (13)

Les, hopefully - and from a purely selfish POV - I will no longer be around to witness that envisaged version of a living hell...!

Leslie

I can understand how you feel,but it is surprising how quickly attitudes can change!

Les

GlesgaKiss

You have to factor in population growth and, more importantly, the advances in technology which will have inevitably lead to a much higher percentage of murderers being caught and then convicted using evidence of a higher quality.

We can't exactly say, "Well, the murder rate shot up after capital punishment was abolished", because that misses a lot of important factors, the most important of which I've mentioned above.

So from the data, it's really impossible to say that capital punishment affects the murder rate by acting as a deterrent. In fact, all evidence seems to point to the opposite.

It wasn't so long ago I was in favour of the death penalty myself, but I have to say I now see it as pointless. Once a person is locked up and you're safe from them, what is the purpose of then killing them? The old deterrent argument - which doesn't seem to carry any weight when examined properly - is pretty scary really: "We have to kill you to make an example of you so that hopefully we'll lessen the murder rate."

Not a power I want the legal system to have.

Don't get me wrong, I can understand the families of victims taking revenge and feeling like they want to murder a criminal or even going ahead and doing it, but the system itself should not do cold-blooded and calculated killing on their behalf or because some politicians have a hunch that it might deter would-be murderers.

specialx

Put simply money!


It costs over £350 per inmate per day, why should we pay for scum to live?

speedking

There also has to be scope for a proportional punishment. If someone has committed a murder and faces the death penalty if caught, then what have they to lose by further killings?

mamoon2

Who is to say that he has killed anyone? If the police don't have any evidence they still won't be able to get a conviction if he pleads not guilty.

How can he expect a fair trial when the countries media have already stated that he shot dead four people.

I think there are some twists and turns to come and i'll bet anyone here £50 he pleads not guilty at court as he is entitled to more prison visits and money to spend on luxuries while on remand rather than being convicted.

Also, the £50k reward is short change to the people who knew where he was

Leslie

I have to say that is a real political style answer. From modern politicians anyway!

You have not given a credible reason for the increase in the number of murders as far as percentage difference is concerned, or in the reasons for more convictions...I would say the reason for that is that more murders have been committed of course. The murder rate effectively doubled when the death penalty was abolished.

You are also quoting "facts" which are not backed up.

If you are going to go and deliberately murder someone, then I think you deserve capital punishment and I also believe that it really does act as a deterrent as the figures in my link show.

Les

GlesgaKiss

Les, before you criticise my reasoning as being non-existent, take a look at your own.

First, look at what is written above the data you linked: "For some reason the UK government are not very forthcoming on providing these statistics, plus we have the battle of recorded crime versus reported crime and the ambiguity of the British crime Survey. if you find a reliable source we would love to know."

They are themselves admitting it's not even a reliable source.

Secondly, what are you talking about percentages for? You seem to have posted the number of total murder convictions annually.

Right. So the figure for 1969 is 395. The figure for for last year was 550.

What on earth are you talking about when you say, "The murder rate effectively doubled when the death penalty was abolished"? When did it double? Over what time frame?

Do you not think that both population growth and the increase in the quality of evidence gathering and its use in securing convictions may have had a significant effect on the total number of murder convictions? Are you saying that isn't a credible explanation for the increase in percentage terms? Or do you think everything in that regard is exactly as it was in 1969?

It seems you would rather disregard all that and just say, "The abolition of the death penalty dunnit." That was what was the sole reason for a doubling of murder convictions. I think it's you who's stretching credibility just a touch.

So the figures in the link show nothing of the kind, and all you can conclusively take from them is that there has been a general rise in the number of annual murder convictions.

Martin2005

Indeed they have risen since 1969.. the only problem with your analysis is that they were also rising steadily BEFORE 1969

Leslie

Not by that much Martin, nowhere near in the same league as afterwards.

Not my analysis by the way.

Les