Still a Major Fraud???

[Rotate]

:confused:
Just laughed (and coughed) my way through the report about the Army Major who 'tried' to cheat his way to a fortune!

I guess dishonesty doesn't pay then does it?

Do any of our military colleagues over in the army know if this particularly fine example of a senior officer is still in the service? Bringing it into disrepute and all that fine stuff?
:ooh:

He obviously never hung around with the right guys...coughing is so eighties!!

PS: This is in no way intended to stereotype senior officers...the moderators would never allow that! :ok:

[Rock Outboard]

You said that ...coughing is so eighties!!

Give the guy a break .... £1,000,000 is hardly to be sneezed at!!!


:p

[Jackonicko]

How on earth did such a shifty spiv ever get to Sandhurst, let alone out the other end?

And his general knowledge was pants, too.

But major a senior officer? Isn't it the last rank you get to through time alone, like Flight Lieutenant? What is the definition of a Senior Officer?

In the RAF I'd have guessed AVM and above, or perhaps Air Rank, or is it anyone with scrambled egg on their hat?

[Tigs2]

Chaps
I am not judgemental on anyone, and I believe that the evidence on the Major is circumstantional. It is known, via certain news programmes and the web that the programme showing the Majors prize winning show was Digitally enhanced in respect of sound for the so called collaberators microphone. What we saw tonight was disgarcful. If I was a Jurer(sp?) watching this video I would say guilty. However this is NOT what the audience heard. If it was really as loud as we heard tonight then why where there only four audience participants in the prosecution? What did the other 200 hear?? (answer- just like Chris Tarrant said in court - NOTHING!). All the other participants in the side line were wearing mikes that were apparently all being individually recorded. Nobody but the producers could hear what they were saying> Except for the mike on the 'acomplice'! you could even hear him breath, had the other 8 stopped breathing for the duration of the programme?? I spoke on a live chat show tonight on this subject and asked if he could digitally enhance and 'shift' any sound from any contestant and he said ' it would be a piece of P@@s' Do not jump down the majors throat to soon guys, I do not belong to the fraternity of conspiracy theorists, but i do smell a rat here on the part of the TV station. Good luck with the appeal Major!

[spekesoftly]

Jacko,

More than 25 years have passed since I left the military, but as I recall, Squadron Leaders/ Majors/Lt. Commanders and above, were 'senior' Officers. Air Commodores and above = 'Air' rank.

[G.Khan]

Saw the 'documentary' here in Australia last night, how can they show it if there is an appeal in process?

It was obviously a very heavily editied version of events and left me unconvinced.

[Matoman]

Watched the programme. All three were 'at it', particularly his wife. Guilty as hell. No doubt he will get the boot from the Army and it serves him right. I doubt many of his colleagues will mourne his departure.

[Wycombe]

Guilty as charged IMHO - the 'missus was a complete give-away.

Never once did he show any sign of taking what he'd won, even when he clearly didn't have a "scooby" of the answer to the next question.

The way he talked himself around to the correct answer indicated by the coughs, when he'd already said he didn't have a clue (as in the case of Craig David, whom he'd already admitted he'd never heard of!!) was laughable.

All the time I was watching him I couldn't help thinking "how did such a bumbling f**kwit ever get past Sandhurst, let alone make it to the rank he holds"

Think Tarrant had it about right when he said Ingram reminded him of "Tim, nice but dim" of Harry Enfield fame.

Has he been dismissed in disgrace from the service yet - if not, then why? The man has brought shame upon the Queens Commission and, aside from that, seems a complete waste of rations in any case

[Pilgrim101]

Don't know what you all mean, I thought he gave a fine example of good old British phlegm :D :D

[Training Risky]

The English legal system is a complete farce in this day and age, perhaps always too.

Look at Lee Clegg in Ulster, Tony Martin in Norfolk..... there are countless cases of crap decisions made by courts who are swayed by judges' directions and the circumstantial evidence presented to them.

This should never have gone to court. Who actually lost out here? A load of rich sponsors who could have got stung; boo hoo!

Since when has it been illegal to cheat in a competition? Morally dishonest maybe, but ILLEGAL???

And the Major has been accused of Greed? What are the thousands, maybe millions who call into that tawdry show: doing it for charity??:mad:

What a waste of taxpayers money. You couldn't make it up!

[Jackonicko]

While we the TV audience needed the coughs enhancing from the overall soundtrack, he probably didn't. The cougher was less than 10 ft away from him.

[adrian mole]

Jacko,

Officers when travelling are given the following catagories:

A Officers (Plt Off/Fg Off/Flt Lt)
S Senior Officers (Sqn Ldr/Wg Cdr)
X Group Captain's
Y One Star and above

[Grob Driver]

The evidence couldn’t be more convincing! And then, just to top it off, there was that phone call at the end when the guy from the TV company phoned the Major to tell him that the cheque had been stopped because of ‘abnormalities’ (I forget the exact phrase used). The Majors reply was ridiculous. Something along the lines of “Well obviously I’m innocent, but thanks for letting me know” Come on. You’ve gone on TV, legitimately won 1 MILLION pounds, and someone phones you to tell you that the cheque has been stopped because of abnormalities. I think you’d be saying something more along the lines of WHAT THE FCUK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT… Not Thanks for letting me know!

Just my oppinion!

[sprucemoose]

What are you talking about, Training Risky? The Tony Martin jurors were certainly not "swayed by judges' directions and the circumstantial evidence presented to them"; he was guilty as charged. Tony Martin has been wrongly portrayed in certain parts of the media as a champion for the average white englishman by defending his home and castle, when he is in fact a few sandwiches short and is not the sort of person you want to have firearms; even on his own property. He is also going to be an enormous burden on the taxpayer when he returns to his hovel in a few months, demanding round-the-clock police protection. Maj Ingram and his cohorts might be idiots (and they should have gone to prison IMHO), but they are not killers, like Tony Martin.

[G.Khan]

Interesting. Here on PPRuNe we have dozens of threads slating the media for the way they misrepresent facts and mis quote people thus changing their story etc. etc. particularly on this forum.

How come so many of you are lining up to hang him? "Guilty as Hell", "Totally convinced", and the real classic, "The evidence couldn't be more convincing"!!! What bollocks! The TV company have put together a heavily edited version of events to support their side of the story and so many of you have swallowed it hook line and sinker, exactly as they intended you should, unbelievable!

What you saw was their version of events, nothing more, produced with all the editing talent that they have available to them, surely if you accept it then it should only be with considerable reservation?

[wub]

Training Risky

Major Scumbucket clearly didn't have the brains or knowledge to win £1 million on his own so he cheated. It's the equivalent of not having the cash to pay for something so you and a mate nick it.

It wasn't 'rich sponsors' who were defrauded but the millions of people who try to get on the show, the prize money comes from the charges for the initial phone call they make.

[Wycombe]

GK,

I don't consider I've been "taken in"....background info posted by DouglasDigby must indicate that the man is far from honest (ok, we've all fiddled insurance claims and expenses a bit at some point in our lives, but most of us not on this scale I would
suggest).

Surely they couldn't have edited in the guy in the FFF line-up who refused to clap as the £1m was won.

To pick up on Wub's point, I read that Ingram had spent £2k (:eek: ) on the phone line trying to get on the Programme.

[G.Khan]

Yes, if the other stories of dishonesty are true then he is definitely a crook. My only point really is that the whole programme was intended to reinforce the claim of cheating, yet we all know how much we complain about the way the media can change things through editing and thus change and influence a story when it suits them.

I wasn't convinced by the programme simply because it had been edited and wasn't an untouched, unabridged original version so, in my opinion, the outcome was inevitable.

[Jackonicko]

Well said Sprucey!

Using Tony Martin as an example of British justice is bizarre. He shot a defenceless boy in the back, and was jailed.

What an injustice.....

[sprucemoose]

Crikey Jacko - we agree on something at last!

wub makes a good point - the major was clearly not the sharpest, so either he's the luckiest man alive, or he cheated.

G.Khan: however much Celador used clever editing to make them look as guilty as possible, they were clearly up to something; and the "[cough] NOOOOOOO" recording was a wee bit damning!

And if there was any doubt at all, as Grob Driver says - when they rang to say there were "irregularities" and that the cheque was being witheld, Ingram says "I refute that", even though there's been no direct accusation that he has cheated.

Bang to rites, guv!:p

[Dunhovrin]

Whilst I do think they are guilty I don't really think the 'documentary' proved anything. In fact it re-inforced my view that Celador must be loving this and the interest / money it's bringing in. Let's face it anything with Martin Bashir in it is not journalism it's sensationalism. Any balanced programme would have given the Ingrams airtime as well.

Ghengis raises a good point about how we're the first to slag off the media with their ability to pontificate using zero info yet you are hanging him whilst only having seen Celador's side of the deal.

But my big q. is...

Does anyone have any good gossip on what the bloke was like at his job? Seems to me he was the classic sterotypical dim officer whichIi found suprising few and far between in my dealings with the pongos. (Apart from the AAC of course.;) And he obviously never served in the Province if he doesn't know the Foyle.

And that's my final diatribe.

[ZH875]

I'll bet if Major Thickt*at was a Corporal, he would have been banged up for 5 years, instead it looks like the old boys handshake has worked again. One law for the Officers and one for the scumbags. Do the Crime, Pay the Time.

[Rotate]

Well what have I started here then...a bit of a to and fro on the moralitys and so on of cheating!

Even the media has been brought to book now! I do however agree that anything with/by martin Bashir is probably over-sensationalised (sp)!!

However the full unedited version of millionaire was shown on itv2 after the docu-drama on itv1. Coughs could clearly be heard during the show, both at the crucial times (as highlighted) and also at other random moments!

However, for this tape recording to be admitted as 'evidence' (loosely) in court, they must have been validated as being that of the wee welshman, the wife, and of course the major! correct?

Obviously the media are going to use these tapes in their view on the whole scenario. If nothing else to try and prove that their actions were justified. And no, I am not a journo and am not trying to justify their actions, however you must agree that you don't get smoke without fire?! TRUE? :suspect:

[Wycombe]

Concur completely with what you're saying (we've all seen cases where the media can edit to suit their own ends), but as sprucemoose already implied, the heavy editting probably wasn't necessary....many of the crew and some fellow contestants had clearly realised something was up....Ingram's pathetic performance in the chair was probably evidence enough on it's own!!

[Arkroyal]

I was a little disappointed that the TV company had enhanced all the evidence in the documentary, and haven't seen the full programme yet.

Even without the enhancement, the major made the greatest comeback since Lazarus.

He is obviously of well below average general knowledge, and too daft to even cheat convincingly. His U-turns were breathtaking and damning. His reaction when phoned after the show was not that of an honest contestant.

IMHO he's bang to rights.

ZH875 has a point, too. The judge didn't jail the galloping eejit and wife because he didn't want to deprive their kids of their parents!

Would that argument keep the average burglar out of chokey? No.

Training Risky, I'm astounded by your reaction to this.

The major's commission carries the following words from the Queen:

'We reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage and good Conduct, do by these Presents Constitute and Appoint you you to be an Officer.....'

His actions are hardly in keeping with these expectations, and he must be sacked, if he has not been already.

[PCMM]

.

Private Eye's view... (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/innews.htm)

.

[Training Risky]

Hang on Arkroyal, did I not state that cheating is especially morally dishonest? As an officer, he has definately conducted himself poorly and should have his commission and his appointment in the RE very closely examined.

My point was that this should never have gone to court. Celador should simply have stopped the cheque, told all three to p*ss off and that could have been the end of it. If the three decided to sue Celador for the million, well that's up to them. But why waste the courts' time with such a relatively trivial matter when the 'real crime' rate in this country is worse than it should be!!!:rolleyes:

Sprucemoose and Jackonicko: Words fail me. I suppose you even support the decision to give the 2nd drug-dealing burgler legal aid to sue for injuries sustained while committing said burglary?:yuk: :yuk:
Some gypo who breaks into a man's house with the possible intention of theft or assault deserves all they get.

Lee Clegg got his job back eventually, and I hope Tony Martin gets his life back too. The life that was stolen from him by our courts.


But back to the millionaire trial: Guilty or not, this should have been treated as a minor disagreement between contestant and company, NOTHING MORE!

[BoeingMEL]

Lots of diverse opinion... and very healthy too! However... let's be brutally honest here.... these three n'erdowells were found guilty of attempting to cheat A MILLION POUNDS! This was neither a schoolboy prank nor a victimless crime! Who remembers the half-wit in the very earliest days of the lottery who sellotaped the sections of 3 different lottery tickets together and tried to claim a few grand? HE GOT 9 MONTHS! Clsoing thought: The defendants (still pleading innocence) have declared their inclination to appeal. Mmmmm wonder where the £50,000+ might come from? Unlikely to be taken up on a no-win no-fee basis by any Barrister who saw Monday night's documentary methinks!
You are the weakest link major...goodbye!

[Training Risky]

Exactly, theft involving money stolen from big companies attract custodial sentences.

While there are a lot of crap drivers out there (for instance) who knock people over, maim and kill them, and receive suspended sentences and fines.

Why? Because to some people, money has a greater value than human life.

[Big Tudor]

G.Khan

I was sceptical about the TV evidence that was provided however it was the answering that, IMHO, gave me the evidence that Major I was not dealing with the questions on his own.
When asked which city Baron Hausmann played a major part in designing, the major was categoric with his answer of Berlin (based on the fact that Hausmann sounded a bit German). He offered no reason as to why he suddenly changed to Paris. Other contestants who have reached the higher amounts have always used rational thoughts to eliminate other answers before deciding on their final answer (or have been sure as soon as the question came up).
Likewise his dealings for the 'Big One'. How many people in their right mind would offer an answer to a 1 million quid question based on the fact they had never heard of the word (a Googel)?

[sprucemoose]

No Risky, I don't think the other burglar should have been able to sue for damages; that's a failing of the legal aid system. Nor, however, do I believe that "some gypo who breaks into a man's house with the possible intention of theft or assault deserves all they get" if that means murdering them.
Perhaps you can argue that the Ingrams should never have ended up in court, possibly Lee Clegg also (he was a soldier, after all), but Tony Martin killed someone with an illegally-acquired and modified firearm, having previously been judged unfit to keep one.
I despise burglars, but I don't want to live in a country where any loon can fatally wound someone with a shotgun, fail to report the incident and then get away with it. In that light, Ingram's case bears no comparison.

[Zoom]

Guilty - but worth neither a court case nor an extra TV programme. Nor 2 extra programmes because I gather that Mrs I has her say soon. Nor 3 extra programmes because I saw the Welshman on Richard & Judy the other day. Nor X extra programmes because this will run and run until no more 'viewers' can be squeezed out of it.

I feel sorry for the Army for unwittingly harbouring such a twonk and thereby getting such crud exposure, although all of the Services have done it at some time or other. I wonder how his previous couple of confidential reports read - any suggestions?

[chippy63]

Zoom,
X has developed a strange mechanism for issuing orders to troops under his command. His 2 i/c barks out a series of orders, apparently at random. The CSM coughs when the correct order is heard. X then repeats this. X is unable to provide any explanation for this.

[sprucemoose]

It just stuck me - whatever happened to the Hamiltons? Are we sure these aren't just the same Ruperts post-plastic surgery? Just as posh, just as dim, just as guilty!

[chippy63]

If so, I think that they should apply for a refund.

[steamchicken]

Training Risky, "people who value money above human life"? Does that include people who think it's right to kill someone because they might have stolen your £40 stereo? Some mistake? After all, the victim certainly won't get his life back. It would be a very wild decision in any court that someone running away from you could have the "possible intention" of assaulting you - Barras was running off the property, empty handed, when he was slotted with several rounds to the back, from an illegal military firearm, FROM COVER! Mr. Martin took the so brave decision, being armed to the teeth, not to confront the burglars or to give them a chance to surrender to Citizen's Arrest or to leave his property, but to conceal himself near the front door so as to ambush them on the way out. That is not defending yourself with the minimum reasonable force. That is taking the offensive with the maximum force available! But they were, after all, only gypos and therefore not proper human beings - so that's all right then! Unfortunately, the Right believe that only their constituency are human beings - if you're a weak, uneducated 16 year old boy with no chance ever, a rail worker killed through your fatcat employer's incompetence, a homeless ex-squaddie - that's your fault, (this is called "freedom" or "personal responsibility" or these days "the social responsibilities we all have to face up to"), because you are an Unperson.

Do yer worst, I'm too angry to care at the moment.

[Yeller_Gait]

If the major, wife and co-defendant are as innocent as they claim, surely there has never been a better case than this for using a polygraph/lie detector machine?

If all 3 of them pass the test and show themselves to be telling the truth, they will win back an awful lot of credibility, and possibly even some money.

Personal opinion suggests that they will not volunteer for the tests though, which would be a shame.

[Training Risky]

Thanks for your well-balanced contribution Steamchicken, I'm glad you came to the party.

You neglected to mention that said farmer had had his house broken into many times before and (in my opinion) was justified in the using the methods he did, in doing what the Police had failed to do many times before: protect himself. I don't give a toss that he happened to be running away; he might have been going to summon more criminal help, who knows?

I take it you live in the country? Far away from a part-time police station that only operates 9-5?

These gypos might have been armed. The fact that they were not is no defence to them. The householder didn't know they were unarmed, he was in fear of his life. If this had been Texas, he would have had a round bought for him down the pub.

You are right about one thing though. They were gypos. That means as they don't pay tax or contribute to our society in any shape or form, they automatically forfeit any rights they might have by not facing up to their responsibilities as citizens. (I think I'm in the majority here...)

What are you so angry about!

[ORAC]

I am just puzzled on several points.

How did the Ingrams arrange for Mr Whittock to be placed as a contestant on the same episode of the show?

How did Ingram arrange to be selected prior to Mr Whittock so that he was still present during his round?

How did they arrange how for Mr Whittock to be seated in a suitable position to be able to be heard?

How believable is it that Mr Whittock knew all the correct answers, something almost mathmatically impossible?

If Mr Whittock is so well read, why did he fail so lamentably during his own round?

[snafu]

ORAC

Ingram's appearance straddled two shows. In the first, he got up to £4000 (I think) using up all his lifelines and struggling to get that far. They then discovered that Mr Whittock was on the next show, where Ingram would be starting in the seat. Apparently Mrs I already knew Mr Whittock because he was another one obsessive about the show and they had already met previously. (According to the Bashir documentary and, I think, part of the prosecution case, denied by the Ingrams) The allegation from the trial was that the Ingrams contacted Mr Whittock during the period between shows and devised their 'communication' system.

Presumably, positioning would have been the luck of the draw, but I don't know how it's arranged.

Ingram ought to be grateful he wasn't serving earlier last century, when I think someone bringing this sort of disrepute onto his Service would probably have found a pistol waiting for him on his desk!!

[Jackonicko]

Training Risky

In this country, we don't have the death penalty. That may be controversial, and it may be undemocratic. From surveys it appears that opposition to the death penalty is more common in those with higher IQs, but that it may be a minority view.

It would, however, be likely that the death penalty would not enjoy majority support if imposed for petty burglary or house-breaking. Only the extreme right wing (and the terminally stupid) would support that.

In a civilised society, we let the criminal justice system determine guilt, decide on an appropriate punishment, and then administer that punishment. Anything else is vigilanteeism, and is (again) the province of the extreme right wing (or the terminally stupid).

You state that Tony Martin had been burgled before. That deserves sympathy, and entitled him to complain about the policing his rates were paying for, but did not entitle him to take the law into his own hands. Legally, it didn't entitle him to use even minimum force. It certainly didn't entitle him to make such a disproportionate response. The fact that the terrified youngster was clearly running away empty handed makes it clear that Mr Martin had no reasonable grounds to be 'in fear of his life' (nor even in fear of losing any property).

Steamchicken's point that "Barras was running off the property, empty handed, when he was slotted with several rounds to the back, from an illegal military firearm, FROM COVER!" is a good one. Martin was a pathetic, cowardly, dangerous loser who murdered an innocent child. And you think that's OK because the child was a thief?

"Why? Because to some people, money has a greater value than human life." Presumably.

Your comparison of this deranged immoral criminal with Lee Clegg is nonsensical. Clegg was doing a difficult and dangerous job. At the very, very worst, Clegg was a man under extreme stress whose judgement was arguably suspect. If he reads your post, I hope he comes around and explains his position to you personally, and I hope he lives up to every possible stereotype we civvies have of Para NCOs.

Your offensive, ignorant, arrogant and prejudiced comments about 'Gyppos' leads me to assume that you are an unintelligent, poorly-educated, bigoted, far right wing fool, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond to you. If you were 'in the majority' in this, we'd have a National Front/British Movement Government.

Orac,

I'll bet you knew all the answers, except the pop music and soap opera qs. I know that I did.

Whittock was only selected as a helper for Ingram's second appearance, when it was clear who else would be in the studio. Whittock wasn't there to win it for the Galloping Major, just to assist him where he could. Moreover all of the FFF contenders were 'within coughing distance' of the Major, though as it happened, Whittock was one of the closest.

Though no charges were laid, it is apparent that there was a concern that during the first part of the show, a relative was ringing outside the studio for answers, which were then being sent to pagers secreted on the Major's person. ALLEGEDLY.

[Ozzy]

A few years back, wouldn't have the good Major been given a weapon with a single round chambered and been left alone in his study for a few minutes?

Ozzy

[scran]

Well said Big Tudor...I'm with you.......

Most other people (and I must admit I have not watched the Aust version here a lot) use quite sensible deductive reasoning to come up with an answer..........something that this twit did not do!!!!



If I did this, I'd expect my service to give me the flick.........


(27 years military service to date - WGCDR Air Force)

[Training Risky]

I think your assertion that I'm uneducated, ignorant and arrogant is a bit rich coming from a tired old hack like yourself, (You obviously haven't read my profile). Journalism is not exactly the most noble of professions is it.
Arrogance? - "People with higher IQs oppose the death penalty" (hypocrite!)


How dare you state that the people in this country who want to protect them and theirs are 'right-wing' and 'terminally-stupid' for even attempting to do so. You probably have never been touched by crime so have no idea what I'm talking about. Vigilanteeism is the only option left when the police don't bother turning up to help these days.

Do you work for a red-top per chance? How can the comparison between the two cases be nonsensical? Not the same in all respects I grant you, but both were imprisoned for excessive use of force once the 'victim' had passed by, supposedly posed no further threat, and was heading away.
In my view, lethal force was justified because of the threat posed if in either case, the criminal had turned around, produced a weapon/rammed the VCP and injured/killed the defending party.

You like to dwell on the presumption that because he was 16 he was a child; I think you are out of touch with reality. Legally, he could live away from home, get married, smoke and ride a moped. Physically, he posed no less of a threat to a householder than someone older.

You don't seem to understand the political motives that the Crown had, to impose jail sentences on the two. In Ulster; making a symbolic gesture to the provos that we are willing to atone for Army shootings. (Conspiracy theory?)
And over here; sending a message to householders everywhere: "The police don't give a toss that you're being burgled right now. We may not have the manpower or time to come out to your farmhouse for another hour or so, so just sit tight and don't take the law into your own hands. But if you choose to defend yourself and the criminal's Human Rights happen to be infringed, we'll throw the book at you."....

... that's the kind of world you would like eh?

And what have these ravings got to do with the Millionaire trial?
I think the judgement says: "Rob old ladies/houses/cars: fair enough, have a fine, some community service and some counselling for having a bad childhood...."
".... Cheat a large company out of a bit of cash: jail for you (suspended in this case), and public humiliation on a scale never seen before in this absurd, reality-TV obssessed culture.:yuk:

Incidentally, doesn't the documentary prejudice their right to a fair unbiased appeal? A legal right?

PS: Shouldn't this thread be in the Question Time forum???

[Yeller_Gait]

ORAC,

Just to try and answer some of your questions, and I am only going on what was on the Bashir documentary and the screening on ITV2 of the "unedited" program.

Whittock did not know all the answers, he was asking a fellow contestant what the answers were. This could be heard on another soundtrack.
Although he failed on his own attempt in the hot seat, perhaps the thought that he had a major share of £1M was distracting him slightly?
It was also interesting to hear the coughing during the "unedited" version of the program; yes there were other coughs, but nothing that would have confused the majors situation with regard to the correct answers.

Ingram might have succeeded with the scam if he had quit at say £125k, but it really was laughably incompetant that some of the questions he needed 3-4 confirmation coughs, never mind the outrageous last minute changes of mind.

[Big Tudor]

How the hell did this thread degenirate from discussing a fraud on a UK quiz show to slagging each other off about Tony Martin, Lee Clegg and the death penalty. Just in case anybody has forgotton what the thread is about let me give you some clues.
Major Ingram, Chris Tarrant, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, cough, cough.
STOP..................................... CARRY ON.

[Zoom]

Jacko
The death penalty debate is usually conducted between the supporters and the opposers. But there is a third category: those of us who feel that the death penalty should never have been done away with in the first place (and I don't feel that this point of view places me at any particular position in the intelligence spectrum). However, I am not sure that we could re-introduce it now, as some States in the USA have done, but I can't help concluding that today's crime figures would be an awful lot lower if we still had it. This means that I am with Training in part, although not so frantically so (and I don't feel that this point of view puts me at any particular position in the political spectrum). The current police philosophy is 'We can't do anything until something has happened', and I have had this mantra quoted at me in the past. Where does that leave the citizen?

[Jackonicko]

TR,

I know that I'm 'arrogant' but I also know that I may be in the lower IQ-band majority who support the death penalty, since I'd support its retention for treason and for certain terrorist crimes! I could even win a brownie point by admitting to unease about the way in which being part of Europe has influenced our freedom of action on the crime and punishment front.

And re the tired old red-top hack - yes/no/partly. I write for a number of clients, principally specialist, broadsheet, radio/tv and yes, have written about three pieces in ten years for red-tops. I still have my bounced cheque from Captain Bob!

Re Clegg/Martin. Clegg was a serving soldier in an operational theatre, whose life had genuinely appeared to be in danger (though that danger may have passed, seconds before he fired the fatal shot).

Re Fred Barras. He was a small, rather runt-like boy. And whether or not he was allowed to ride a moped, or old enough to be ******ed, or whatever, he was a child. And a child who was running away who was shot in the back.

Re your own ignorance and stupidity:

"They were gypos. That means as they don't pay tax or contribute to our society in any shape or form, they automatically forfeit any rights they might have by not facing up to their responsibilities as citizens." And in this case, one of those rights you think that they should 'forfeit' is the right to life.

Zoom,

This isn't really about the death penalty, per se, it's about whether Tony Martin had the right to be judge, jury and executioner in this case of burglary/aggravated trespass...... it's about whether the citizen has the right to impose the death penalty.

And actually it should be about the dear old Major and his pals anyway.

[Training Risky]

Interesting points posed by all parties. I guess its all academic anyway though, no matter how much we argue on this site, we won't change the law.

Each to his own opinion I suppose.

Back to the Major, I still don't believe it was in the publics' interest to bring the case to court; guilty or not.

(What's this doing in mil aircrew anyway? Should this be in the question time forum?):O

[steamchicken]

he was in fear of his life

What, arssefirst? And can you give us a list of all groups of people you believe forfeit any rights they may have as citizens - just so we Untermenschen can know our place? For example, as this seems to include non-taxpayers, would (say) someone just leaving the Forces and not earning above the income tax threshold qualify to get the good news from your friendly local social cleanser?

BTW, I was brought up in a Yorkshire Dales village spread out along roughly 2.5 miles of road and hillside. We had - how wonderful - A Bobby On The Beat. That is, one copper travelling by shanks pony. In 19 years we had 2 worthwhile crimes - the first, a builder who got seriously battered by large fellows he owed money, took place when the Bob was in place. Unfortunately he was at the wrong end of the village - the first bill on the scene were the area car from *****, six miles away. No-one was ever arrested, although he ended up bleeding from the eyes (I know, I called the ambulance). The other one, much worse, occurred recently when a drunken idiot stabbed a school friend of mine dead outside our local. No bobby, and the cops from ***** turned out in time to nick him. Now acquiring what we call in Yorks an "Armley Tan".... so which was more successful?

[Zoom]

Looks like we're all wrong - crime does pay. According to the tabloids the Ingrams are on the point of making millions peddling their wares overseas - books, films, cough medicine adverts and the like. :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Training Risky]

I just regard violent criminals as those who give up their Human Rights.

Why are you asking Steamchicken? Are you planning to do a spot of housebreaking tonight?

[Eight Eights Blue]

Question for any legal beagles out there on this thread.

How on earth did he get legal funding to defend himself. He may have been fined £? but he and the other 2 got away without paying for their legal fees.

Having just been seen off for a grand plus just to sort out a poxy divorce case without the assistance of legal funding (oh yeh ex wife got it) and that was an out of court settlement, I would hate to see what his final bill was that has been coughed up by us, The Taxpayer.

I am led to believe if you earn more than £550 a week which he clearly does then under no circumstances can you get legal funding, obviously some clause somewhere. I should sue my ex for one million (knowing for certain that there is no chance of getting it) but legal funding may help if I ask nicely and say there is chance I may get the verdict.

Ooh that is better, just swallowed a reality pill so I am back to normal now.

Come on the barrack room lawyers answer that one for me!!

[steamchicken]

TR - that isn't what you said! let's not have any porkies now..

They were gypos. That means as they don't pay tax or contribute to our society in any shape or form, they automatically forfeit any rights they might have by not facing up to their responsibilities as citizens

[Jackonicko]

Mike,

Point taken. Barras may have been a thief who deserved a real punishment for his crimes. He was, however, innocent of anything which was deserving of what he actually got.

In the interests of balance, it must be admitted that Barras did have a string of arrests and court appearances behind him. All for petty offences. He was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a violent criminal.

Tony Martin’s background, on the other hand, doesn’t bear scrutiny if you want to maintain your view of him as an ‘ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances’.

This pillar of the community (known locally as "Mad Man Martin") had openly advocated putting Gypsies in a field surrounded by barbed wire and machine-gunning them. He had spouted similar racism against travellers at public meetings, though he had narrowly escaped arrest and prosecution for this. Martin was related by marriage to Andrew Fountaine, a founder of the National Front, and was a frequent visitor to Fountaine's 5,000 acre stately home, Narford Hall in Norfolk, where regular Aryan summer camps were held.

Jurors were not told that Tony Martin had a history of gun crimes which dated back more than 20 years. Neither were they told that police had earlier found a sawn-off shotgun hidden in Martin's garage.

Nor were they aware that Martin had expressed contempt for Police initiatives to reduce rural crime, and had publicly said that ‘self defence’ was the only way. The Police themselves regarded him as an unstable nutter.

But Martin didn’t just own guns. He had a track record of using them in an irrational, unstable and irresponsible manner.

In 1976, Martin shot a pigeon with a First World War revolver after a row at a friend’s house ‘while in a distressed state.’

In 1987, Martin used his shotgun to smash windows (by firing it, not by using it as a blunt instrument) at his brother Robin's house in Wisbech St Mary, Norfolk, after an argument about some property. His brother subsequently moved abroad.

In 1994 Martin fired a shot at a car – an incident triggered when he disturbed a person apparently stealing apples from his orchard. (Perhaps an apple scrumper also deserves to be shot, eh, TR?). This led to his shotgun certificate being revoked.

During the incident for which he was jailed, he opened fire with an illegally held pump action shotgun, murdering 16-year-old Fred Barras and seriously injuring Brendan Fearon. Barras was shot in the back from only 12 feet, after reportedly begging for his life. Martin then left the boy to bleed to death, without reporting the incident.

The jury decided Martin was not defending his property on 20 August but was taking the law into his own hands, and his conviction was rightly for the crime of murder. If there has been any miscarriage of justice, it is in the fact that this was reduced to manslaughter on appeal.

[Training Risky]

Good trawl for information there. Can you clarify just one thing for us though?

If those two 'travellers' had stayed at home and not broken into someone's house to steal/maim..... would they still be alive today?

Their choice I believe.


(I still believe that the Millionaire Three should not have gone to court)

[Jackonicko]

TR,

Were you to go out tonight, fully intending to park in a resident's parking space, and if you then then did so, and if some unbalanced berk with a record of firearms offences as long as my arm decided to shoot you, stone dead, because the parking space was outside his house, I would not be rushing to say: "Ah, but had TR stayed at home, he'd have been alright" or "he went out intending to commit an offence - violent criminals deserve all they get", nor even "he was only a Bluntie (albeit ex-aircrew), who cares?"

1) It's not the householders place to act as judge, jury or executioner - let alone all three.
2) It's all about proportionality. Barras was a child and would have been obviously a child as he begged (sobbing, apparently) for his life. He was not a violent criminal. He was running away.
3) It has nothing to do with whether or not Barras was a Pikey! (oops!)
4) Even criminals deserve protection against Martin's sort, as his previous behaviour ought to indicate.

[Flying Lawyer]

The thread
I think there's much to be said for TR's view that the Major and Celador should have resolved their dispute at their own expense in the civil courts, not at the taxpayers expense.
And I'm with the sceptics regarding the television programme. If I hadn't formed a view already, the highly edited selection of recordings and 'I knew all along' types on the programme wouldn't have persuaded me. If it was all as obvious as they made out, it's curious that the jury took so long to reach their verdicts (which were by majority, not unanimous) and that Chris Tarrant who was sitting only a metre from the Major and facing the FFF contestants didn't notice anything amiss.

Jacko's sidethread
There were three burglars at Mr Martin's house. They'd travelled all the way from the Midlands to his remote farmhouse in Norfolk. He was known to live alone and his house was a target for burglars because his eccentric lifestyle had given rise to rumours that he was very wealthy and the house was full of valuables antiques. It wasn't - anything of any value had been taken by previous burglars.
All three burglars had previous convictions for violence. Burglars who break into occupied houses at night are prepared to use violence against their victims if necessary. Their first choice may be to run away if disturbed but burglars who are not prepared to use violence to escape don't generally break into houses at night when they're likelty to be occupied.
We'll never know what these burglars would have done to an elderly man alone in an isolated farmhouse if he hadn't had a gun - but we do know what sometimes happens to elderly people when they disturb burglars in their homes.

Jacko
Barras didn't have "a string of arrests and court appearances behind him"; he had a string of convictions behind him which included burglaries and offences of violence.
"All for petty offences. He was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a violent criminal." I suppose it depends on whether you regard burgling people's houses and using violence as petty offences. I don't. I won't repeat my comments about night-time burglars and violence.

Where do you get this emotional 'innocent child sobbing and begging for his life' from? I don't remember this being alleged during the trial. :confused:

[Zoom]

The Martin business reminds me of the incident many years ago when one of a pair of burglars hopped over (I think) John Aspinall's 9ft high security fence adorned with signs saying 'Beware of man-eating mountain lions' or somesuch. He was set upon by a pair of man-eating mountain lions. He got out - just - and tried to sue for damages. When asked what he was doing scaling the fence, he said that there was no answer at the front door and so he decided to nip round the back while his mate waited at the front for the owner. Hmmmm. :\

[Scud-U-Like]

The only loser in this game was the taxpayer. The production company received a much needed fillip, for a quiz show well past its sell-by date, the Ingrates and f**kWhittock will doubtless make a mint from the book and film rights and a DS, who should have been out nicking crack dealers, will get his promotion to Inspector.

Yes, it was all good entertainment, but it would have been better entertainment in the civil courts, at someone else's expense.

[osbo]

Jacko

I presume that you look forward to a Barras type inviting himself in to your home so you can offer him some late night hospitality. Good luck to you. Tw*t

[Jackonicko]

That well known trendy lefty liberal campaigning rag, ‘The Daily Telegraph’ outlined Barras' criminal record, and his emotional state at the time. The paper revealed that:

“THE teenage burglar shot dead at a farmhouse last August had a criminal record stretching back to when he was 12, Norwich Crown Court was told yesterday. Fred Barras, 16, had made 18 court appearances - mainly for burglary and theft but including two for assaults on policemen - by the time he was shot in the back at Bleak House in Emneth, Norfolk”

Other papers reported that this was to have been Barras' first 'big job'. The Telegraph described the incident in some detail.

"Fearon maintained that he and Barras had set out to rob a cottage in the farm's grounds and had entered the farmhouse only to escape Martin's three guard dogs......Confronted by one of the rottweilers, however, he said the pair retreated into a wooded area. Mr Fearon said: "Fred was clinging to my shoulder. He was frightened and crying." With the dog snarling and barking, he said they had stumbled across what they believed was a shed and accidentally smashed a window. They clambered in to escape the dog. They were not interested in stealing anything by this time, he said. Then the shooting started. "I saw what I thought was a torch. I saw a flash. I heard Fred say: 'He got me.' " He said he turned to see an "old man" in the hallway. "I saw another flash and next my leg felt numb."

"Tony Martin, 55, shot Fred Barras in the back from about 12 feet, causing injuries that killed him within two minutes, it was claimed. Fearon said in desperation to escape he ripped out a window covered in iron bars. He had crawled away, across a field, passing out twice before reaching a bungalow. Barras crawled after him but collapsed and died in undergrowth about 15 yards from the house.

Rosamund Horwood-Smart, QC, prosecuting, said that Mr Martin had not acted in self-defence and the shooting had been calculated. Mrs Horwood-Smart told the court that the dying teenager's last words were: "He's got me. I'm sorry. Please don't. Mum!"

Mrs Horwood-Smart added: "He was vitriolic about burglars, particularly gipsies, and he talked about putting them in one of his fields surrounded by barbed wire and machinegunning them." She said the unsolved thefts from his farm had led to him losing all faith in the police to handle rural crime. "You're on your own and you're the law," he told fellow farmers, according to the prosecution.

Mrs Horwood-Smart said: "He fired at Barras and Fearon not in self-defence but in accordance with his professed view that the only way to stop thieves was to shoot them. In acting the way he did, his intent was to kill or cause really serious injuries to his victims."

The Telegraph also offered the snippet that it had been alleged that:

"after the shooting, Martin had planted two silver jugs and a silver pot found in the holdalls he had left in the farmhouse, in an attempt to justify killing Barras."

and that

"Martin went to his neighbours and told them that he had shot at what he believed to be three burglars. He was told to call the police. He drove to his mother's home, where he left the shotgun in a lavatory, and went to a friend's hotel in Wisbech, where he was arrested at about 7am on Aug 21."

[osbo]

Fair enough Jacko,

Martin should have had no fear, these thieving (potentially murdering), bastards have a code that we should all feel at ease with. You really are a tw*t and I look forward to your response to their first visit to your abode in the depths of your comfortable sleep.

Put the kettle on and chat about the hardknocks will you??

[Four Seven Eleven]

Society demands that we conduct ourselves in a certain manner:
[list=1]
When confronted by a burglar, we are required to make a judgment as to whether taking a person's life is warranted. If our life is threatened, we are entitled to kill in self-defence. We are not entitled to kill for any other reason. If we make the choice to kill for other reasons, we are criminals and will be punished by the law. (Of course, the law should punish the burglar, as well.)
When confronted with an opinion with which we disagree, we are required to make a judgment also. We can either counter the argument, or we can resort to puerile name-calling. If we make the choice to resort to puerile name-calling, we diminish ourselves and our argument.
[/list=1]

[Flying Lawyer]

Jacko
Thank you for clearing that up. Looks like we're agreed that Barras (like the other two burglars with him) had a long criminal record including using violence on previous occasions when caught. And agreed there is no basis for your earlier claim that Barras "begged (sobbing, apparently) for his life and Mr Martin shot him.
The Telegraph simply quotes Fearon's account of the burglary. ie the account of a professional burglar who has been proved on numerous occasions to be thoroughly dishonest. Just because the jury was satisfied that Mr Martin was wrong to shoot doesn't mean they believed Fearon's 'we only broke into the farmhouse to escape the dogs' story.

I'm not trying to go behind the verdict of the jury. They heard the evidence and came to what they considered to be the proper verdict.
My concern was that, for some reason, you seem very anxious to play down the fear in which Mr Martin lived and do all you can to make him (the victim of the burglary) out to be such an evil man whilst trying to make the burglars sound like naughty boys. They weren't; they were criminals with long records. This was not a spur of the moment 'opportunist' burglary. These professional burglars had selected Mr Martin's farmhouse because of the belief in the criminal world that there were rich pickings to be had, and travelled all the way from the Midlands to Norfolk especially to break into his house in the middle of the night knowing he would be at home on his own and unable to summon help.

[Jackonicko]

Flying Lawyer,
It's about balance. Martin benefited from a media campaign which sought to explain and excuse what he did, and which painted him as a completely innocent 'ordinary bloke' who made an honest mistake and accidentally and unintentionally killed some major criminal while quaking in his boots with fear.

I don't think that is an accurate picture.

Fearon was undeniably a man with a long record. Barras had a long record for one so young, but it would be foolish to judge him as a 'violent career criminal'. That was not the impression of his parole officer (or are we going to accept the stereotype that all such people are wet, hand-wringing liberals who always see the best in their 'clients'?).

Having many friends who work in the criminal justice system, I can assure you that the impressive sounding 'assaulting the police' charge is remarkably common (and in some Forces has been used as a catch-all), and that those so-charged have often done no more than resist arrest. I don't condone it, of course, I'm just suggesting that it may give a misleading impression of these chaps 'hard man' image.

You can 'google' just as well as I can, and so (if you choose) will come across the various accounts of Barras sobbing. In one such account (Sunday Times if memory serves), Martin himself acknowledged hearing crying - but before he entered the room.... In any case his last words were fairly descriptive - "He's got me. I'm sorry. Please don't. Mum!"
Use your imagination and wit to picture the circumstances under which such words would be used. Or did he mistake Martin for his mother, perhaps?

Osbo,

If I ever get a nocturnal visit of this sort, you may be assured that I will not shoot the visitor to death. As a law-abiding bloke, you may also be assured that I do not possess a repeating pump action shotgun, nor a convenient 'sawn off'. As a sane person, if I did have one, and if I kept it loaded under the bed, I'd ensure that the first round was blank or ball (and not buckshot), in order that it could be used as a warning shot. You would be unwise to assume that I would not posess and would not use a baseball bat or its equivalent.

You may also be assured that I will take the law into my own hands in what I would view as a rather more proportionate manner, but which might still lead to my facing charges. If my actions involved a kettle and hardknocks it wouldn't involve either tea or sympathy, however. If convicted of ABH, GBH, or criminal assault, it will be a fair cop, and I would trust to the good sense of a jury to decide whether my actions were appropriate.

No-one is suggesting that Barras didn't deserve a damned good hiding, nor that he should not already have been in prison. I have never suggested that Barras' deprived background excused his criminality, nor that his criminality should go unpunished. It may even be that Barras represents exactly the sort of case for which 'cruel and unusual punishments' outlawed by the EU (like the birch) would actually serve a useful purpose.

The argument here is the very narrow one as to whether an unbalanced, racist, thug like Martin had the right to carry out a death sentance.

[BlueWolf]

In life, we all have choices, and choices all have consequences. When we make a choice, we must, by definition, accept the consequences of that choice.

If a person chooses to break into another person's home, with the intention of stealing that person's property or doing them harm, one of the consequences they must accept is that they may get shot.

If this happens, they don't really have the right to complain.

Whether the response of the victim is legal, or morally justifiable, is irrelevant. Shot is shot. It is an undeniable possible consequence.

Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, the now deceased young burglar will make better choices in his next life.

Like not robbing people.

Life can sometimes appear harsh, but in the long run, it often proves to be fair.

[sarboy w****r]

Well said. I think it's called Darwinism. If you're stupid enough to go out and rob people, there's a fair chance you'll end up out of the gene pool. Which is a good thing, me thinks.

[SOMAT]

Statistics show, perhaps surprisingly to some, that the UK is one of the most violent and drug-ridden countries in the World, and certainly in Europe.

I hesitate to suggest that one of the reasons for this is that our very liberal laws protect, and indeed encourage the belief in criminals that they can get away with almost anything.

And is it not so? Ask yourself this: on the evening in question, was it Barras who went all that way to burgle Martin's home, or was it Martin who went all the way to Nottingham to murder Barras?? If Barras had not been in the act of burgling Martin's home, there would not have been this so-called murder!!

Will 'commonsense' ever return??? Alas, I suspect that if it ever did, countless UK lawyers would be living less lucratively!!

[BEagle]

Enough of this pinko nonsense.

Any burglar, thief or housebreaker should expect to be shot on sight. No excuses, no mercy - just shot. There is no place in society for such scum.

[wub]

Hear Hear Beagle

[Jackonicko]

So you'd have Major Ingrams and his cronies shot too, BEags? There's no moral difference, after all..... Thieves, eh?

And how about those who recklessly endanger other people's lives, rather than just their property? I hope you'll be just as tough on drink-drivers.

And those who park illegally? They could obstruct the emergency services.....

I have to own up to not having a dog licence, myself (I don't have a dog, either)........

[BEagle]

Not being expert in these things, I understand that there is a technical distinction between someone who breaks in to steal something, someone who gets into a house through an open window and someone who keeps the old lady talking whilst an associate rifles through her bedroom looking for money?

Whatever. All should be shot on sight. Except the old lady.

Since you ask - that coughing idiot and his co-conspirators should have been made to do some time in clink.....those who park illegally should be fined.....drink-drivers treated as at present.....drug pushers boiled alive in their own excrement.

Wouldn't shoot rapists or child molestors though. I'd have them castrated. Slowly.

[BlueWolf]

Mr BEagle, Sir; I salute you.

[TC27]

Statistics show, perhaps surprisingly to some, that the UK is one of the most violent and drug-ridden countries in the World, and certainly in Europe.

This is news to me, I have spent the last month looking over US, UK and French crime stats for a academic project. This all largely stems from a (in)famous telephone survey undertaken some years ago that apparantly revealed the UK and Australia to be the most dangerous countries in the Western world. However much more accurate crime surveys and levels of recorded crime tell a different story.

Barras almost certainly was a victim of his own actions, but Martin still broke the law, and however understandable his actions were he did NOT kill in self defence and thus must suffer the consequences.

[Dr Jekyll]

How much does a Major earn anyway?

[Scud-U-Like]

Official statistics show that crime in Britain has been falling for a decade. This includes the British Crime Survey, which, rather than relying on police statistics, obtains information by asking people about crimes they have experienced.

The fact is, the gutter press (Sun, Daily Mail et al) can't make good headlines out of falling crime figures. They can, however, sensationalise extremely rare occurrences, such as burglars being killed by householders. The gullible are happy to lap-up this nonsense, whereas those with a more enquiring mind look elsewhere for their information.

[Captain Gadget]

Jacko, BEagle, Flying Lawyer et al

Whilst accepting that this has about as much to do with military aviation as the proverbial accordion has to do with deer hunting...

My understanding is that the law of the land is based upon the actions of the 'reasonable man' (man = species, not gender, so no sexist ripostes, please!)

This means that any individual is entitled to use 'reasonable' (there's that word again!) force to defend himself and his property.

But what on earth is the definition of 'reasonable'?

Someone please explain to me why any citizen should expose him/herself to any personal risk in order to repel an attack. Surely, at the point where an individual decides to go and do something that they know (or 'reasonably' should know) is unlawful, the burden of risk passes to them?

I am not condoning the holding of illegal firearms (and I am deliberately not commenting on the legal technicalities of the Tony Martin case) but it seems to me that anyone who breaks into an isolated rural property at night should consider that barbed wire/piss*d-off dogs/shotguns are among the run-of-the-mill hazards that they are likely to face. Coming to grief as a result should not, therefore, come as any great surprise. Unless, of course, the would-be criminal is 'prepared' for these eventualities and has a cunning plan for dealing with them...

If I had a spade/pitchfork/shotgun to hand, I don't think that I'd be too inclined to wait around to find out what it was, either.

And, Jacko...you have a reputation for wisdom on this forum that I think most journos would die for. However, I am at a loss to understand how Barras could have simultaneously been pleading for his life and running for his life...please explain!

Gadget :ok:

[Scud-U-Like]

Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 states:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Additionally, there is a common law right to use reasonable force in self-defence or in the defence of another.

What is 'reasonable force' is a question for the jury. A court, in considering what is reasonable force will, in the words of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, "take into account all the circumstances, including in particular the nature and degree of force used, the seriousness of the evil to be prevented and the possibility of preventing it by other means".

This law takes into account the nature of the crisis leading to the use of force and that the person using force may have acted in the heat of the moment. Even the most reasonable man cannot be expected to judge with fine accuracy the minimum force required. In the words of one appeal judge, in a case where the amount of force used was in question, "In the circumstances one did not use jewellers' scales to measure reasonable force".

It is for the jury (ie ordinary people, like those who have contributed to this debate), having heard all the evidence, to decide whether the amount of force used by the accused was reasonable or not. In the Martin case, for example, they decided that, in the circumstances, the amount of force used by the defendant was not reasonable. In other, (less well publicised) cases, juries have decided that using fatal force on a burglar was reasonable. It all depends on the facts of the case, which, IMHO, is exactly how it should be.

[Flying Lawyer]

Captain Gadget
As you say, this topic has got nothing whatsoever to do with military aviation.
I only responded because Jacko's persistent attempts to make the criminals who tried to burgle Mr Martin's house seem like poor little children engaged in high jinks was getting on my tits (as we lawyers say). He even described Barras as an innocent child at one point. :rolleyes:

How he can say that there's no moral difference between cheating on a game show and breaking into somebody's house at night to steal from them is, I confesss, beyond my understanding. :confused:

[Jackonicko]

Barras was attempting to obtain property which did not belong to him. That is never morally right, and anything that I or anyone else might say about his tender age, his background, etc. can only ever mitigate (and not excuse) what was a crime for which punishment was obviously appropriate.

Ingrams was attempting to obtain property which did not belong to him. His 'education' allowed him to do that by lying and cheating his way to £1 m of someone else's money, rather than by going and physically stealing it in the dead of night.

Do please point out the MORAL difference to me, Flying Lawyer. I would have thought that both contravene the "Thou shalt not steal" commandment, while Ingrams also "bore false witness".


Cap'n G,

My understanding was that Barras was running to the window. Stopped, was shot once in the back, begged for his life, and was shot again as he struggled to get to the window. I'm afraid that any wisdom I might have is entirely 'out of the window' because this case (and especially the way it has been presented) just makes me see red. Martin was not an ordinary bloke who was in fear of his life, he was a psychopath who was looking for an opportunity to shoot burglars and/or gypsies, and his previous record makes this clear. As Scud points out, there have been other cases when householders have killed intruders, and their actions have been found reasonable, and I would not necessarily disagree with such findings.

[A Civilian]

I think the farmer case points out a lot of stupidity concerning UK's self defense laws. The subject of "reasonable force" comes up time and time again. What this means is that if your assaulted in your home by 3 drug addicts and they attack you, you pick up a knife and defend yourself. You are in the wrong. Likewise you will be charged if you use a gun (a legal weapon) to defend yourself if they do not have a gun also.

What it all comes down to is that you are not allowed to defend either yourself, your family or your propety only the police can do that. Your wife could be getting gang raped in your own home and yet if you knife them you will be charged with murder and end up in court. Compare that to the US were if anyone enters your properity you can legally shoot them dead. Im not saying this is the best alternative but its certain that the current system is ****ing useless.

[Flying Lawyer]

Jacko
The actions of both Ingrams and Barras were morally wrong.
Both men tried to steal property which didn't belong to them, but Barras's victim wasn't some impersonal 'legal entity' but a real person with real feelings. He didn't break into commercial premises, but into someone's home. Compare any 'distress' the shareholders of Celador might have felt if Ingrams had succeeded with the distress they'd feel if someone broke into their home to steal.
The distress residential burglars cause to their victims is enormous, far greater than simply the distress they feel at the loss of whatever is stolen.
Night-time burglaries of houses cause even greater distress. The one place where we should feel safe is in our own homes; victims of night-time burglars frequently never feel safe in their homes again.
That is why, rightly in my view, the courts impose more severe punishments for house burglaries than for burglaries of commercial premises and more severe punishments for house burglaries at night when houses are, or are likely to be, occupied than for burglaries of unoccupied houses by day.
Stealing is morally wrong but, in my view, violating someone's home to steal is morally worse.

[pulse1]

FL,

Small technical point, but I remember being told by a policeman that burglary could only be defined as such if it took place at night. Is that not true?

[Dr Jekyll]

"Ingrams was attempting to obtain property which did not belong to him. His 'education' allowed him to do that by lying and cheating his way to £1 m of someone else's money, rather than by going and physically stealing it in the dead of night."

Surely it was his lack of education that caused him to cheat. A social worker would no doubt argue that an educated person would have been able to answer the questions honestly and therefore the Majors lack of education left him with no choice but to cheat.
Just they argue that burglars have no choice but to steal.

[Jackonicko]

Dr J,
That's why 'education' was in inverted commas. The Major's inability to answer some fairly simple questions unaided was astonishing, IMHO. The argument that anyone in Britain today has 'no choice but to steal' is specious, though I can see that environment, parental influence education and deprivation may sometimes combine to reduce the natural restraint against criminal and anti-social behaviour, making it more likely that some elements within society will engage in crime. That's why Tony's 'Tough on crime AND tough on the causes of crime' one-liner would actually be such a great idea, if it represented what he really intended. Punish and deter individual criminals and change the environmental factors which influenced their offending behaviour.

FL,
No MORAL difference then? ;) (Since morals are absolute). Of course I can see a difference between both crimes and can recognise that both should attract different punishments. I'll even agree that there's something uniquely nasty about having your home violated and about having personal property (which may have sentimental value) stolen, rather than 'mere' cash. I have always thought that crimes against an individual should attract a tougher penalty than crimes against an organisation, and always thought the way in which the Criminal Justice system imposed heavier penalties for crimes which involved very large amounts of money than for simple burglaries (even if the latter involved serious assaults) was questionable. I daresay Ronnie Biggs would agree, too! Not that I'm defending the Great Train Robbery, before we go off on another tangent.

[Training Risky]

As for tangents, I'll agree that we have wandered down this one quite a way. But this interesting discussion IS linked to the question in hand: the Ingrams.

The Martin burglars and the Ingrams all attempted to steal valuables/money.

The major difference between the two cases is that the Ingrams never physically threatened or hurt anyone. If the burglars had been caught and sent to court, they admittedly would not have been shot as a result... but that is not relevant.

What is relevant is that Tony Martin used what HE believed was reasonable force to defend himself and his home.

He had no idea what they might do to him in order to cover up their crime. So in my view, he actually did use reasonable force to counter the threat he faced. The jury obviously took a different view, but then the legal system in this country stinks and it is guilty of charging Martin with murder. When he should have faced a lesser sentence of a fine, a warning and probation, and put the whole thing behind him.

JACKO: I too fail to see the association between parking in someone's space accidentally, and deliberately breaking into the house it belongs to :confused: After all one act contains violence, and the other ....doesn't!

Have you resorted to such gibberish (like the Bluntie jibe) as a last stand against the tide of opinion on this thread which is in favour of my view over yours?? Better luck next time:p

A CIVILIAN: One of the best points you've raised on this forum, keep it up.:)

[Banana99]

The Martin case was heard by a jury. After considering all the evidence he was found Guilty by at least a 10-2 vote. Everyone else on here DID NOT hear all the evidence. Anyone who disagrees with the verdict doesn't understand that the jury, representing you, found that the force used exceeded a "reasonable force" and that came to that conclusion "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Now I don't disagree that Barras should not have been there BUT killing him was not "reasonable force". I'm sure that all the arguments presented here (in fear of life or whatever) would have been presented to the jury and been rejected.

Those who claim his innocence should stop reading the Daily Mail and remember the above. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Jackonicko]

What the accused thinks is reasonable is irrelevant. You might think it reasonable to shoot me to shut me up (and I might well agree.....) but when the accused is quite so plainly 'eccentric' (I'm being charitable and not using words like deranged, unhinged, or insane) the definition of what is and is not reasonable must, quite rightly, lie with the jury.

Re parking. Were I to shoot you for deliberately parking on double yellows outside my home (I don't have any double yellows, but bear with me) or even on my drive, or in my garage it would patently be an insane, disproportionate and unreasonable act on my part. The fact that you had deliberately gone out with the express intention of breaking the law, committing trespass, or breaking into my garage would be irrelevant.

I find it interesting that those who so vocally campaign for Martin choose to ignore his past record (whereas that of Barras is paraded as being of supreme relevance) and his far right political leanings and links.

You chose to label me as a tired old hack and questioned the 'nobility'of my profession. Fair enough. You also chose to post a tirade about gypos 'forefeiting' their rights and then got pompous (inviting me to look at your profile) when I drew the obvious inferences from that ignorant and ill-educated piece of prejudice. My reference to blunties was to tip you the wink that I had indeed checked your profile. I'm horrified that anyone who holds a commission in HM Forces should express some of the views that you have done, especially with regard to the desirability of vigilanteeism and with regard to gypsies.

No-one here has expressed the classic liberal argument. Not even me! We all seem to agree with SpruceMoose's statement: "I despise burglars" and would all want burglars to be properly punished for their despicable crimes. I suspect that most of us would agree that force (and even lethal force) is sometimes reasonable. But it seems that to agree with SM's belief that he "doesn't want to live in a country where any loon can fatally wound someone with a shotgun" (let alone to despise oily, greedy white collar criminals with equal vehemence) marks one out as a peddlar of dangerous "pinko nonsense".

[Dr Jekyll]

The point is that the previous record of Barras was relevant. What is reasonable action to take depends on the threat, an habitual criminal is clearly more of a threat than a decent human being. So in order to judge whether, or to what extent, the householders action was disproportionate clearly we have to consider what he was dealing with.

Imagine this scenario:
Defendant: I shot the intruder because it was a rabid man eating grizly bear.
Prosecution: But that is unreasonable, you should not shoot harmless pussy cats.
Defendant: But it wasn't a cat was it, it was a rabid man eating grizzly bear.
Prosecution: Oh, but that isn't relevant.

Martin's record on the other hand is not relevant.
Previous convictions are not normally admissable in evidence,and in any case being eccentric and holding demented political views are not yet illegal.

Are you suggesting Martin's previous record justifies his house being burgled?

[Banana99]

Dr J, your reply defies belief. So what if you parked on double yellow lines before - it doesn't mean you can be shot this time. Besides I doubt whether Martin asked him about his "previous" before his premeditated use of lethal force. And presumably in your "analogy" (in the loosest term) the Grizzly Bear would be acting like a Grizzly Bear and not a Pussy Cat. Get a life.

Maybe you could list what crimes deserve the suspect to be dispatched with instant justice? Presumably anything that would be considered a greater crime than bulgary.

[Scud-U-Like]

pulse1

Must be a very old copper or a very old conversation.

Prior to the Theft Act 1968, there were separate offences for burglary during the hours of darkness and during the daytime. There is now no such distinction, though, as already stated, the circumstances (eg time and place) of the burglary are very important at the sentencing stage. For example, a dwelling burglar (as opposed to, say, a warehouse burglar) will invariably receive a custodial setence, even for a first offence.

Put simply, burglary is entering a building as a trespasser with intent to steal or, having entered as a trespasser, stealing whilst therein. There are additional elements to the offence, which, for the sake of brevity, I won't go into.

[BEagle]

Nope, sorry. Anyone breaking into a house should expect to run the risk of being shot on sight by the occupant. Don't like the idea? Then don't break in. Simple.

[Banana99]

Nope sorry, anyone parking outside my house in MY space should expect to run the risk of being shot on sight by the displaced car's owner. Don't like the idea? Then don't park there. Simple.

Nope sorry, anyone dropping litter should expect to run the risk of being shot on sight by the local litter patrol. Don't like the idea? Then don't drop litter. Simple.

Nope sorry, anyone exceeding the speed limit should expect to run the risk of being shot on sight by anyone whose kid has been injured by a speeding motorist. Don't like the idea? Then don't speed. Simple.

[Flatus Veteranus]

Can we not foget the Reductio ad Absurdum and stick to practicalities? Most American states allow the use of firearms in defence of one's person and property (which includes home and, in some states car). In consequence, the incidence of homicide is higher in the USA than in the UK; but the incidence of property crime is much lower. A friend I stayed with in Virginia not long ago, who was ex-FBI, made a point of leaving his house unlocked when he went down town and his car unlocked when he parked there. Brits must understand the culture when they visit the USA. Some poor sod a few years ago who landed at Miami late at night got lost and knocked on a door to ask for directions. The door opened and Bang! he was a dead man.

[Scud-U-Like]

............which, (sticking to practicalities) is a perfect illustration of why people should not be allowed to 'shoot on sight' anyone who happens to enter their property.

[Training Risky]

JACKO: Fair enough then, I had a go at you for being a "tired old hack" and you called me a blunty. We are even.
But where do you get off suggesting that just because I am an officer I should not have this or that view or say something which happens to upset the sensibilities of a few select liberals!:mad:

As mature grown-ups in a supposed democracy, the military (and the police, firemen, nurses, binmen, etc) should be allowed to think and opine WHATEVER they choose to!
Only 2 things should keep me out of said military:

1. The initial selection process, where links to fascist groups and foreign govts are sniffed out.

2. Once serving, any ACTION of physical violence/intimidation towards another person (outside of the laws of armed conflict), which results in me being fairly convicted.

So as I am at the moment, why the hell shouldn't the 200 000 odd servicemen in UK PLC hold any view they like?

And Scud-U-Like:

I don't see how you can tie together knocking on a door, and housebreaking; that's absurd.

If the chap FV was referring to was a criminal and was caught kicking the window in, and was caught INSIDE the house, ......then give him both barrels.
But if the story went down as suggested, then the Miami householder in question exceeded minimum force.

[Scud-U-Like]

So, TR, you should be allowed to shoot-on-sight a person who breaks into your property, but not one who simply walks into your property. They could both be burglars, so, why waste one and spare the other?

Those who advocate the summary execution of burglars are hysterical fools, completely out of touch with reality. The law currently allows you to use reasonable force (even lethal force, where appropriate), so, why this ridiculous notion of shooting-on-sight?

It is not as if burglary is even on the increase. Between 1999-2001/02, domestic burglary in England and Wales fell by 23%. Sorry, I know some of you would like to hear that burglary is rife and out of control, but reality is rarely as exciting as media and political hype.

[RubiC Cube]

Obviously a lot of you have not been victims of crime. I have just finished giving my statement to the police and was asked if I wanted to give a "victim statement" as well to express how I felt. I don't think that "If I could get my hands on the beggars they wouldn't walk again" would have been appropriate, but thats how I feel. Believe me, you have to experience crime to know what your reactions truly would be. Bring back hanging!

[Training Risky]

Good point RC.

I imagine all of the posters here who trash the idea of defending themselves at home, have not had the trauma of crime coming to their homes.

[Jackonicko]

Yess, of course. Letting victims of crime set the appropriate punishment - that would be a sensible course of action, wouldn't it? Great for justice.

Why bother with courts at all, when you could just let the Police arrest known troublemakers (any Gypo, the unemployed, anyone whose skin is a different colour, anyone with a body piercing, journos, striking firemen - you know - scum) and hand them over to anyone who has been burgled. Especially if they have a record of gun crime themselves, and so much the better if they are known to be unstable and verging on the psychotic, with a penchant for lurid talk about revenge and vigilantee action. And so much the better if the victim also has links with the National Front or British movement.

[Mach the Knife]

As far as I can see the only error Martin made in this case was not being a better shot, would have been much simpler if he'd got good hits on all of the sneaky low life robbing bastiges. Home contents and family protection policy with Smith and Wesson gets my vote. Beags, for once I agree with you. Jacko, you are an arse, sir.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Training Risky

I imagine all of the posters here who trash the idea of defending themselves at home, have not had the trauma of crime coming to their homes.

I am not sure that anyone has in fact said that. (I certainly have not.) The right to defend oneself, even by use of deadly force is part of the law - in most countries. Defending one's VCR by killing the thief is an overreaction which is frowned upon in most civilised societies.

Their was a story in one of our papers recently (included as a light-hearted piece) about a 34 year old bloke who, after a night on the town, returned home to the house he knew and loved - having grown up in it with his parents. He staggered to 'his' room and promptly fell asleep. What he had forgotten in his stupor was the fact that he and his family had in fact moved out 7 years previously. The 18 year old who discovered him called his dad, who woke sleeping beauty and told him off - resisting the apparently justifiable urge to blast holes in him with whatever firearms might have been handy.

It's simple: defend your life (or your family's lives) against a real threat at any cost. In all other cases, exercise restraint and proportionality.

I admit to knowing nothing about the Martin case except what I have read here. Judging only by what has been said, it seems that the jury decided that there was no real threat to Martin and thatb his his actions did not amnount to self-defence, but were motivation by other factors. Motives such as anger, revenge or retribution are not defences against a charge of murder.

[BEagle]

It's precisely the attitude of "It's not worth defending your VCR by killing the thief" which encourages the thieving ba$tards to break in and start stealing in thr first place. Because they know that there's bug ger all chance of Plod catching them as he's too busy filling out meaningless huggy-fluffy paperwork (instead of assisting Chummy down the steps to the jail) and even if he did, some weak willed magistrate would probably only give them a few minutes of yoof-custody or 'shirk in the community'.

But if they thought "Stick my head through that window and I might get to meet Mr Smith and Mr Wesson on rather a personal (and terminal) level", then perhaps they'd think twice?

[You want it when?]

What a strange thread to find in Military Aircrew. I ignored it because the cheating Major scam is pretty boring news - he should have got to keep the money for finding a loophole.

I've had my house broken into and it's not nice. I made the choice there and then - if you break in and I catch you I will prosecute to the best of my ability. I want you rendered unconscious and ready for collection by the Police. I don't have a gun but I have a number of swords (and I know how to use them), and I'm big enough and daft enough to knock most people down. I've a wife and small children at home, believe me you don't want to break in.

As for the car parking issue - funnily enough I had my drive blocked by a car recently, once I'd opened my gate and sounded my horn a couple of times. I guess which house he was visiting and knocked on the door - they were having dinner and he would move it later (!) I waited a further five minutes and then went bumper to bumper and pushed his car back. He came running out of a house a bit peeved... and Flying Lawyer - - private (unadopted) road so he had no come back, and I'm still pals with my neighbours.

Fully support the views of BEagle here - not that he needs them.

[Scud-U-Like]

Beags

Following your retirement from the Service, why not apply to become a JP?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/law/becomingamagistrate.shtml

[SOMAT]

Come, come, Jacko. You've included most of Britain's population in your last post !!! Steady.;)

[BEagle]

Become a 'Legal BEagle'?

Hmmmm.....

[aytoo]

...understand that the working title for the film about the Ingrams is 'Great Expectorations'

The so-called 'unedited' version of WWTBAM was anything but. Apparently Maj I was taking up to 1/2 an hour to decide on some of his answers in real time - all of the shows are, in fact, distilled from the very long time taken to film an episode.

Legal question (seriously) - if Maj I is found guilty in his forthcoming case for insurance fraud, will he also have to serve the suspended sentence from the coughing case? Or will the legal position be that the 'alleged' insurance offence took place before he received the suspended sentence?

On the Tony Martin case; I suppose he would indeed have been hailed as a hero in the USA for defending his property. But then, we are talking about a country where the loser gets in to the White House, the family behind the Presidency has links with the Bin Laden family - oh yes, and at least one state has a legal defence for murder in that the victim 'Needed killing'. So that's all right then.

[Scud-U-Like]

aytoo

It depends on what conditions the judge imposed, on suspending Ingram's prison sentence. Normally, the judge will inform the defendant that if he commits and is convicted for an imprisonable offence during the period of the suspended sentence, he will be imprisoned.

Therefore, if Ingram committed the alleged insurance fraud, before he was sentenced in the 'Millionaire' case (and is found guilty), this will not affect his suspended sentence.

This does not, however, mean he will be out of the woods. In sentencing, the court may take account of any previous conviction and impose a more severe punishment, in the light of this. So, he could still end up in the clink.

Incidentally, Ingram may well plead 'not guilty' and argue that the publicity surrounding the previous case is likely to prejudice the outcome of his trial. In this event, the judge will probably warn the jury to disregard any knowledge they have of the previous case, to try the case on the facts and the trial will proceed as normal.

[Archimedes]

If he'd shot the burglar, this would have made this thread so much simpler! ;)

[Flying Lawyer]

Aytoo
Your legal question - if Maj I is found guilty in his forthcoming case for insurance fraud, will he also have to serve the suspended sentence from the coughing case?
No, he won't.

Scud
No. It doesn't "depend on what conditions the judge imposed."
The only condition attached to a suspended sentence is not to commit an imprisonable offence during the period of the suspension.

[Scud-U-Like]

http://www.holodeck.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dadsarmy/graphics/arthur_lowe_1.jpg
"Very good, Flying Lawyer. I wondered who was going to spot that first."

Apologies for my injudicious sentence (no pun intended). The 'A' level law was some time ago. :\

[Matelot B'stard]

I read yesterday the fool is 400 grand in debt, over his shennanigans.. do I care? No. Should you care? No

The dummy is just a common thief, and not a very good one at that, more importantly a complete disgrace to the Services.

As we used to say.. a complete waste of a service number.:mad: