Still a Major Fraud???
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.
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.
Prince of Darkness
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA and a Brit
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Ozzy
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Jackonicko...
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.
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???
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.
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???
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the thread title is what exactly?
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.
Major Ingram, Chris Tarrant, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, cough, cough.
STOP..................................... CARRY ON.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?)
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?)
he was in fear of his life
forfeit any rights they may have as citizens
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?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: GB
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
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
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Yes, it was all good entertainment, but it would have been better entertainment in the civil courts, at someone else's expense.