PC Andrew Harper's

[Mottie]

Seeing those two smirking and laughing makes my blood boil, I can’t even begin to imagine how Andrew Harpers family, friends and colleagues feel. If I was in charge I’d say no remorse = no early release.

How could this be classed as remorse?

 

[noseall]

Seeing those two smirking and laughing makes my blood boil, I can’t even begin to imagine how Andrew Harpers family, friends and colleagues feel. If I was in charge I’d say no remorse = no early release.

How could this be classed as remorse?

View attachment 420236

I believe they were just as mocking in court. They give scum a bad name.

 

[motorbiking]

Semantics and deflective waffle as per. Their release date is set. It can't be changed. Unfortunate as that is, its the same for all the scumbags.

Are they being released in accordance with the sentencing report? yes or no.

Hint: the answer is no.

The release date was set in the sentencing report. It has been changed to an earlier date under Labour's new policy, defined in the Sentencing Act 2026. Thus this:

The machinations that allow the realease of the scumbags were in place and set long ago. Andy can't do anything in that respect.

Is incorrect.

 

[motorbiking]

Seeing those two pie keys smirking and laughing makes my blood boil, I can’t even begin to imagine how Andrew Harpers family, friends and colleagues feel. If I was in charge I’d say no remorse = no early release.

How could this be classed as remorse?

View attachment 420236

It would have been so easy to build that in to the proposed law, Labour couldn't be bothered.

 

[James Carmichael]

Back to the substantive thread about PC Harper's killers ...

I'll admit that I remain uneasy about Harper's Law - the idea that the severity of the crime depends on the identity of the victim strikes me as difficult. Don't get me wrong, I feel all the outrage for what happened but the idea that any other person getting killed while trying to prevent these scum getting away would now be - effectively - a lesser offence cannot be right.

Anyway, much has been made about the fact that the government can't exclude these two from the ERS because, if they do, they'd have to exclude all of the 500 or so on manslaughter offences and that would mean not enough prison space is cleared.

Why?

I am not saying it is good law, or even a good idea, but as a technical thought process what is to prevent the government putting forward a law explicitly excluding these individuals from the ERS?

Or, even a new law that says "the ERS will not apply to any individual guilty of having committed the following offences against an emergency services worker"?

Yes, that would get challenged but by the time the courts got round to it, we're years and years away ... It where remaining in the ECHR is a good idea as the case backlog there would take these two vermin into their dotage anyway.

As I started by writing, I have difficulties with Harper's Law so I am not sure how I feel about further interventions to make one type of manslaugtherer different to another. I'm asking not about the morality of it (one way or the other), more the technical possibility of it.

 

[noseall]

this:

Is incorrect.

Nonsense.

Their release date is set in law. They are fixed term sentences. Andy would need to change the law (again), somehow retropspectively and uniquely apply it to those two scrotes and pizz off a lot of people and have lawyers jumping at their screens, in order to keep these two scumbags in prison.

I expect they'll be released on their alotted date.

 

[noseall]

It would have been so easy to build that in to the proposed law, Labour couldn't be bothered.

Easy?

How do you quantify it? How do you decide where the cut off is in assesing their remorse?

 

[noseall]

and want to check if there are people who should be excluded based on their criminal conduct.

Do you have an example?

 

[motorbiking]

Nonsense.

There release date is set in law. They are fixed term sentences. Andy would need to change the law (again), somehow retropspectively and uniquely apply it to those two scrotes and pizz off a lot of people and have lawyers jumping at their screens, in order to keep these two scumbags in prison.

The date according to their sentencing or the new early date based on Labour's new policy? You seem genuinely not to understand.

I expect they'll be released on their alotted date.

Burnhams says otherwise, he could be fibbing. I suspect he has taken advice rather than asking boyo the builder for his uneducated wisdom.

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-andy-burnham-labour-kemi-badenoch-tories-nigel-farage-reform-12593360

Easy?

How do you quantify it? How do you decide where the cut off is in assesing their remorse?

You look at the sentencing remarks. These are carefully written by Judges to show their thinking on sentencing and also take account of any reports commissioned for sentencing. They are not a whimsical speech put together to give the judge something interesting to say. I do appreciate you have no clue about how AIs learn and process data.

Do you have an example?

I think the Mods have deleted it.

Here is an example of an AI assessing them:

"analyse https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...RS-COLE-AND-KING-sentencing-remarks-FINAL.pdf and determine if the convicted should be released early based on their history of crime, cooperation with the investigation and trial and any remorse shown."

the judge found no genuine cooperation and no remorse from Long, Bowers, or Cole — he says so in explicit terms — and found an established pattern of serious offending that led to an actual dangerousness finding against Long. Nothing in this document supports early release on those three criteria; if anything, the sentencing remarks read as a case for the opposite.

This process could have been applied to all eligible under the extended early release and every case analysed in about 5 seconds. Each case would then be flagged if the AI found comments (as above) suggesting they should not be eligible. In effect, seeding authority back to the original judge and requiring a human to make a decision. No ECHR/HRA lawyer need get excited provided its based on the original un-appealed remarks and subject to human oversight.

 

[noseall]

The date according to their sentencing or the new early date based on Labour's new policy? You seem genuinely not to understand.

The date according to LAW.

Burnhams says otherwise

He is a politician, first and foremost.

You look at the sentencing remarks. These are carefully written by Judges to show their thinking on sentencing and also take account of any reports commissioned for sentencing. They are not a whimsical speech put together to give the judge something interesting to say. I do appreciate you have no clue about how AIs learn and process data.

Sentencing. Yes. Something that occurred long ago. And now they have served their sentence according to the LAW.

I think the Mods have deleted it.

Makes sense.

irrelevant waffle

and want to check if there are people who should be excluded based on their criminal conduct.

Do you have an example?

EDITED: I'm asking for an example of a fix term sentence release date being changed based upon this.....excluded based upon their criminal conduct.
You asked me to find it. Seems you are struggling yourself.

 

[motorbiking]

The date according to LAW.

didn't think you had a clue

He is a politician, first and foremost.

make the mess, then clear up the mess

Sentencing. Yes. Something that occurred long ago.

31st July 2020

And now they have served their sentence according to the LAW.

they haven't.

I'm out, I'll happily correct you, but I'm done educating you.

 

[noseall]

Sentencing. Yes. Something that occurred long ago.

31st July 2020
Well spotted. It certainly wasn't last Friday was it.

I'm out

What and miss this...

and want to check if there are people who should be excluded based on their criminal conduct.

Do you have an example?

EDITED: I'm asking for an example of a fix term sentence release date being changed based upon this.....excluded based upon their criminal conduct.
You asked me to find it. Seems you are struggling yourself.

 

[noseall]

Seeing those two smirking and laughing makes my blood boil,

We can only hope that their time out of nick won't be a pleasant one. The sooner they are back inside the better.

 

[motorbiking]

We could run a poll on how long before they are recalled.

I'd give them a month

 

[noseall]

I'm out, I'll happily correct you, but I'm done educating you.

Q. Have their sentences changed or has the law changed?

A. Their sentences have stayed the same, but the law hasn't.


Don't ever become a teacher, especially where law is concerned.