PDA

View Full Version : Yet another sick joke from the Judiciary


vulcanised
28th Apr 2014, 15:09
Or are they just a sick joke themselves?

BBC News - Kevan Thakrar: Killer compensated for damaged nose clippers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-27185544)

goudie
28th Apr 2014, 15:41
I read that in total dis-belief. What it does for prison staff moral must be devastating
How these idiots get their jobs in the Judiciary is beyond me.

Sop_Monkey
28th Apr 2014, 15:51
The law is an ass most of the time. How the hell are we to trust the law when morons like that make judgments of that sought.

Lon More
28th Apr 2014, 15:55
How these idiots get their jobs in the Judiciary is beyond me.

unbelievable. A case of who you know, not what you know?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
28th Apr 2014, 15:59
His stuff was lost by the Prison Service during a prison transfer. He is therefore entitled to replacement cost compensation like anyone else whose stuff is in custody.
What I want to know is how this came to court. The Prison Service clearly offered him a derisory amount in compensation, as did the Prison ombudsman. This is where the fault lies.
If it is felt that prisoners should not be compensated for lost items, or that compensation amounts should be inversely proportional to length of sentence (which is implied by the article and most commentators), then Parliament needs to pass these laws. Ask yourself why it doesn't.
Until then, the Prison Service needs to do its job properly, and compensate individuals when it fails to do so.
Personally, I think the Government is trying to run the Prison Service on the cheap, so I don't blame the individual officers who lost the stuff.
I am pleased by this judgement, and would wish to see every case pursued this vigorously. Only by doing this will it be proven to the Government, and the public, that cutting staff and penny-pinching is a false economy. This has applicability to a wide range of Public Services.

Lon More
28th Apr 2014, 16:03
He is therefore entitled to replacement cost compensation

OK but the amount awarded seems ridiculously high for nose clippers and an alarm clock especially as he was also awarded £90 after items including a carton of cranberry juice, protein powder and toiletries were lost, which he claimed left him "stressed".

lomapaseo
28th Apr 2014, 16:06
I'm with Fox3



The law is the law, If you want summary justice than find a way under the law or at least hide your deed from the law an brag about it later in JetBoast

Fox3WheresMyBanana
28th Apr 2014, 16:15
and personal possessions and photographs, and damage to other items.

The point is, if he had been offered a sensible amount - pick a number, but £10 clearly wasn't fair. - then this would never have come to court; and how much has the court case cost the taxpayer also?
We don't have a detailed list of items, but perhaps £100 - 200 would have been reasonable.

The point is both the Prison Service spokesman and the Ombudsman clearly believe he is only entitled to a derisory amount because (a) he's a guilty bastard and (b) the transfer was down to further nasty lawbreaking. He clearly is a nasty piece of work, but that is not a factor in the Law regarding compensation.

I repeat my question. Why does Parliament not make it a part of the law? If the Government de facto ignores the aspects of the Law it does not like (the Laws they wrote, I remind you), then one does not have a Justice system. It is exactly the same disregard for Law which means MPs who fiddle their expenses get a slap on the wrist whilst you and I would get done for Fraud and jailed.

That said, who doesn't ignore laws they don't like? :E

vulcanised
28th Apr 2014, 17:43
If scum like him were dealt with properly under the law then situations like this could not arise.

gunbus
28th Apr 2014, 18:05
GOUDIE; Are you sure you have no idea?http://www.sabotagetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/free-masons.jpg

barry lloyd
28th Apr 2014, 18:21
Why does he need an alarm clock when he's in prison?

Answers on a postcard please...

Toadstool
28th Apr 2014, 18:31
Vulcanised

Not sure if you understand the Law, but three life sentences for his crimes constitute being properly dealt with by the law. That is unless you happen to know any other punishment he could have got.

A killer off the streets for life is good enough for me.

Capetonian
28th Apr 2014, 19:09
People who behave as he did abrogate their rights to be treated as per the normal laws of society. He deserves nothing.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
28th Apr 2014, 19:17
Under the Law, no they don't abrogate such rights.
If you think they should, vote for a candidate who agrees with you.

There is quite enough historical evidence that, whilst you may feel this individual deserves a lot worse than he got (or is getting), a system which operates outside the Law also ends up stitching up a whole load of innocents also. Check out the USA thread, where a number of recent incidents of what look to most like Police executions of clearly unarmed, unthreatening suspects are causing concern.

Thus I am a strong supporter of fixing the Law, not ignoring when it suits.

Blacksheep
28th Apr 2014, 19:23
He has a Facebook page.

He is not out of reach of those who may wish to annoy him.

That is unless you happen to know any other punishment he could have got. Properly dealt with, such people would be working, and working very hard for long hours, in order to pay for their food and lodgings. Not sitting around drinking cranberry juice and trimming their nose hairs while sitting at their computers, posting on Facebook.

Capetonian
28th Apr 2014, 19:24
I have lost all faith in the political and judicial systems which allow scum like that to have 'human rights' which make a laughing stock of the word justice.

Mac the Knife
28th Apr 2014, 19:38
I'm with Fox3 too

Prisoners have human rights too (no matter how repellent their crimes).

Once we start to lose that then we're going in a bad direction.

Personally I think the making big rocks into little rocks is more appropriate than trimming their nose-hairs while browsing the net, but what do I know?

Mac

:oh:

cavortingcheetah
28th Apr 2014, 19:41
Sharia law?

Fantome
28th Apr 2014, 19:46
. .. . . you have lynch law . . . AKA the law of the jungle .. . . . then you have the voice of sane reasoned dispassionate consideration . .. . under the law . . . . . .. such as that of Fox3. Ask those hounds to stop baying, please.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
28th Apr 2014, 19:59
With the best will in the world, allowing the strong to make up their own "interpretation" on the Law is a bad idea. You may get one or two benevolent dictators, but sooner or later you'll end up with monsters.
In discussions with teenage students about anarchy (they're always keen on anarchy when you just punished them under a rule they don't like), I used to point out that you don't get to do what you want for long, you get to do what the strongest meanest killer (and his cronies) is prepared to let you do. I also pointed out, light-heartedly, that the most ruthless killer they knew (being an ex-fighter pilot) was me, so whatever their political leanings it would still be me dishing out retribution. Thus they were better off taking the punishment restricted by the rules, rather than whatever I felt like. They took the point quite well I found.

Solid Rust Twotter
28th Apr 2014, 20:09
Fighter pilot? Blancmange in the trousers and a sound thrashing with a bladder on a stick, one assumes....:}

Fox3WheresMyBanana
28th Apr 2014, 20:27
violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, as the saying goes.

In my experience, violence is the first refuge of the incompetent. I never, ever even consider violence.
I found the most effective punishments were those that were socially useful and boring, deeply, deeply boring; especially if their friends were doing something interesting at the same time.

vulcanised
28th Apr 2014, 20:42
constitute being properly dealt with by the law


That is perzackly my point, Mr Toadstool. Excrescences like him may be dealt with by the law, but they are not properly dealt with by any stretch of the imagination.

Sallyann1234
28th Apr 2014, 20:48
Actually I quite like the fact that the law should be applied equally to all. Otherwise you will need another set of laws to decide who they apply to and who they don't.
This murderer has been awarded just £800. Much good may it do him when locked up for life.

Dushan
28th Apr 2014, 22:18
If scum like him were dealt with properly under the law then situations like this could not arise.

I am with vulcanized. Why is he allowed to have "personal items" in jail? An aluminum cup on a chain so he can drink some water, and a Bible is all he gets.

500N
28th Apr 2014, 22:20
Dushan

He must have a table in his room otherwise nothing for him to
push against when the others come visiting ;)

Bronx
28th Apr 2014, 23:16
We don't have a detailed list of items.
Google is your friend –

According to the court judgment, detailed on Thakrar's Facebook page, he was awarded

£224.97 for damage to his stereo, alarm clock and nasal clippers

+ £90 for a carton of cranberry juice, protein powder and toiletries lost during his transfer from one prison to another which he claimed left him “stressed”.

+ a further £500 to compensate him for lost photographs and personal items. They had no money value but the judge awarded him £500 because the Ministry failed to “promptly and sincerely" tell him they "deeply regretted the loss of his personal items and understood his distress."


The judge said he "he may not be a particularly attractive individual."
He's serving Life (minimum 35 years) for 3 gangland executions and 2 attempted murders. He and his brother went to a house after a dispute about a drugs deal, shot the family dog, lined up three men and shot them dead, shot and stabbed one woman, and stabbed another woman as she tried to shield her three-year-old daughter. I guess that counts as not a particularly attractive individual.

As far as I can tell a District Judge is the lowest level judge in England.
Maybe the Ministry will appeal?
Or maybe they'll just write it off instead of risking taxpayers money appealing.


Fox
I am pleased by this judgement, and would wish to see every case pursued this vigorously. Only by doing this will it be proven to the Government, and the public, that cutting staff and penny-pinching is a false economy. I don't know where you get that idea from but the Prison Officers union don't claim it had anything to do with staff shortages or penny-pinching as you call it.

Prison Officers Association chairman Peter McParlin said the “ridiculous, disproportionate” award defied common sense and would damage staff morale.
“This is a high-security prisoner. As a bare minimum he will be costing the taxpayer £50,000 a year to be kept incarcerated, he is the architect of his own situation and we are in despair,” he told BBC Radio 4's Today.
“It does nothing for the morale and motivation of staff.”

Doors to Automatic
28th Apr 2014, 23:24
Vote for Millipede and his Muppet Show and this is exactly what you get.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
29th Apr 2014, 00:04
Bronx
My point was primarily about the physical damage/loss value - the judge assessed that damage at about £300. The Prison Ombudsman offered him £10. Why the proportionately large discrepancy?
The Prison Service has a legal obligation to refund damage and loss caused by their negligence. What are we to assume? That they don't know their responsibilities or don't care about them?
If they had apologised for the photos and given him, say £200, then I expect this wouldn't have gone to court. In which case the judge wouldn't have had the opportunity to award the £500 extra.
At no point have we been told why he was offered a derisory amount and no sincere apology. If a reason was given in court, it certainly didn't satisfy the judge.

The secondary point is about the fact of the loss itself. I suspect that losses are more common due to undermanning / funding cuts (because that's what I've seen in other public services), and the Ombudsman is offering derisory amounts because he has 'targets' to meet. Were fair amounts awarded in all cases, then the false economy of the likely cuts in possessions transfer would likely be exposed.*


Now my personal opinion is that UK prisoners do have it far too soft, and the Laws governing recovery of funds from criminals are nowhere near strong enough - I would make all assets worldwide liable for seizure, and if that chucks the criminal's spouse and children onto the street then they can apply for welfare like anyone else. But my opinion isn't the Law, and my overall wish is for the Law to be upheld, and changed by democratic means, not the whim of some prison warder or ombudsman. And I think that's the Judge's opinion also.

*on a larger scale, it's the avoidance of proper accounting which has led to the PFI fiascos nationwide, and is partly why the UK is up financial sh!t creek sans paddle.

Bronx
29th Apr 2014, 00:50
Fox

This triple murderer was transferred from one prison to another because he injured 3 prison officers with a broken bottle. One lost eight pints of blood when the jagged glass severed a major artery. He stabbed a second, a woman, in the back. When a third tackled him, Thakrar slashed his face. During the move, some of his property was 'lost' or 'damaged'. I doubt if it was anything to do with staff shortage.

At no point have we been told why he was offered a derisory amount and no sincere apology.
It's all in the reports.
The Ombudsman didn't accept the property was worth the amount Thakrar claimed.
He awarded a nominal £10 which he thought was a fair amount.
I don't think he should receive any apology, especially a 'sincere' one.

the Ombudsman is offering derisory amounts because he has 'targets' to meet. Omdudsmen don't have targets.

IMHO the whole amount should be confiscated and used as a tiny contribution towards the 'bare minimum of £50,000 a year' it costs to keep dangerous killers in high security prisons.

ExSp33db1rd
29th Apr 2014, 01:48
Slightly off thread re-compensation, but NZ is no better, just about to release a guy who has 200 indictments to his name, and has previously been sentenced to 42 jail terms, because - quote " he is no longer regarded as a threat to society" Yeah ! Right !

But then what do I know, but he is a known threat to women and Mrs. ExS might well be walking home alone one night.

A recent mongrel was jailed for murder again, this time committed whilst he was out on Parole.

Just where do these Huggy Fluffy Tree Huggers get it from ?

500N
29th Apr 2014, 02:01
Ex

"A recent mongrel was jailed for murder again, this time committed whilst he was out on Parole."

I read about that one.

It is a hot topic over here in Aus and that story was linked
because you obviously suffer from the same things.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
29th Apr 2014, 02:02
Bronx,
I had read in detail what he did. The Law currently takes no account of any of that. The difference in the judge's valuation of physical damage/loss (i.e. the £300) suggests the Ombudsman made no serious consideration of the value. It is this which gave the murderer a case to bring to court - and the court expenses will be more than the amount awarded anyway.
The lesson is clear - don't effectively ignore valid prisoner requests for compensation.

Why does this depress prison officer morale? Because the prison officers do not believe the prisoner is entitled to justice and the judge knows he is? I suspect so if your implication(if I've read that right) that they destroyed his stuff is true.
I think the POA's angst is caused by the Law's treatment of nasty individuals, not the Judge who applies the Law.

I return to my original point. The problem is the Law, not the application of it. This is displaced anger. The POA should be having a go, arguably, at the electorate, since they elect the MPs who make the Law.

Let's face it, the problem is that the do-gooders will never have to live next door to this apology for a human being, which I think we could agree would change their minds pretty sharpish. Beats me why the Government doesn't stick a few halfway houses in the leafy suburbs.

But the solution is never to make up your own punishments, which is what the prison service did in this case.

acbus1
29th Apr 2014, 08:58
Since some of you insist that compensation rights apply to all, please advise what compensation is due to his victims.

When/if ever he is released from jail, he should be forced to pay said compensation.

There ya go - your principles applied. Nice and fair. Happy now?



In the meantime, perhaps they should yet again transfer him to another prison.

...and 'inexplicably lose' him in the process (painfully and slowly is my suggestion).

radeng
29th Apr 2014, 15:47
I find it regrettable that the three life sentences of 35 years minimum are NOT all consecutive.......I wonder if the injured prison officers could sue him, although he might just be a 'man of straw'.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
29th Apr 2014, 16:19
Now that's one good thing about North America - it is usual to make multiple sentences consecutive - t'is round here anyways.