Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

I have worked on computer systems that have done similar operations to the ticket sales. It is not that difficult to have a system that is more equitable.

One of the methods is to run various algorithms on the the ticket requests such as satisfying the purchases of people who just bid for 1 or 2 tickets only first and then cycling round the bids satisfying bids for 3 etc. There are other variants where all bids are considered, but everyone only gets their minimum request on the first cycle. The organizers had plenty of time to run the data all sorts of ways and look at the results to get the maximum number of punters satisfied.

I see that there is one of our cycling team who is thinking of changing his event from a team pursuit because his family can even get tickets to see him.

Hi Aldwick,

Just looked in after a week away and saw your post.
Myself and most of my colleagues have always felt that occupiers of property, in fact anyone who is in the process of being a victim of crime should be allowed far more leeway to defend themselves, family and property.
Many years ago I attended an attempt robbery on a Chinese takeaway where as the owner was cashing up, a man armed with a metal bar ran in and attempted to grab the days takings.
At the time the owners wife and 2 young children who were upstairs in the living quarters on hearing the commotion started to come down into the restaurant area.
The owner fearing for his family, grabbed a thick piece of bamboo and started to hit the would be robber over the head.
The attempt robber, turned an ran, pursued by the irate owner who continued to hit him a few more times, before we arrived.
On arrest, the attempt robber made a complaint of assault (he had several cuts and lumps although none serious). I informed him that I would not take a complaint of assault as he had admitted to the facts of what had occurred, also all the evidence backed up the restaurant owners version of events. I also informed him 'that he got what he deserved'.
Unfortunately I was instructed by a senior officer, who had seen the injuries received by the arrested person to interview the attempt robbery victim for assault. I refused to do so, but was told that if I did not someone else would.
So I interviewed this person (this was before tape recorded interviews).
The main crux of the interview was about the piece of bamboo.
He informed me that he kept it under the counter for protection (not allowed as then an intended offensive weapon).
I informed him that I could not make out what he said (although he was very clear) and had he said that he had grabbed it from the bamboo display in terror of harm to himself and his family. He insisted that he had always kept it under the counter for the reason he had told me.
It took a few more 'prompts' before 'It Clicked' and he agreed with me that he had grabbed it in terror.
He was not charged, but the attempt robber made a complaint about what I had said to him, re the 'Getting what he deserved'.
I was interviewed by Discipline and Complaints for

1 For initially refusing to interview the attempt robbery victim.
2 For what I had said to the attempt robbery victim.

For 1 I was reprimanded and as I denied 2 there was no further action.

Just imagine what trouble I would have been in if it had gone to court for a full hearing(it was a guilty plea) and the attempt robbery victim had stated under examination, that I had prompted him re the bamboo.

As to the incident mentioned in your post.
The occupants of the house had to be arrested on suspicion of Murder for several reasons.

1 If you interview someone for murder and they have not been arrested for such, then any defense can argue that as their client did not know they were under arrest for such a serious offense they may say things they later regret.

2 Until you know the circumstances, you never know. They victims of the burglary may have caught the perpetrator and then in cold blood stabbed him to death, perhaps for reasons as yet unknown.

Mind you on the estates were I worked, which were more violent and had a worse crime rate that anywhere else in the UK, summary/vigilante justice often worked wonders. Trouble is there has to be some law and order, otherwise anarchy rules.

So I agree with far more self defense by intended victims, but they will in cases such as mentioned by yourself nearly always have to be arrests and always interviews.

NOTE.............Fred, please don't waste time commenting to me as I will never read what you say. I only posted due to a request.
And yes I know I lied, but I would sooner do so than let an innocent victim of crime be unfairly punished.

Greek

Greek,

I am glad that you are enjoying your retirement.

It would appear to me as a case of double standards.

Many years ago I was living in an area of London near a shopping high street. There was a mens clothing shop in that street. Two men entered the shop at around closing time and demanded the cash from the till. They both had knives, which they waved at the shopkeeper. The shopkeeper said they could have the money and opened the till.

While the men were taking the cash, the shopkeeper pulled a clothing rail apart and used a metal pole on the thieves. He called an ambulance and the robbers were taken away with serious injuries to jaws, arms etc. The shopkeeper was charged with grevious bodily harm, actual bodily harm etc.

There was a block of flats where quite a few police and their families lived in the area. The shopkeepers and the owner of some pubs and a petrol station had a meeting. They informed the police that if the prosecution went ahead then all the police would be banned from all the shops, pubs and the petrol station permanently. After a few weeks the case was dropped.

Hi,Greekman

Wish that there were more like you in the force today. When crimes like this are committed they should take into consideration that the victims are in fear of they lives, what if someone enters your home at night and you see them coming up the stairs to your family's bedrooms , you don't know what they are armed with .

I thought the Police force was for enforcing the law by preventing transgression of the law and apprehending those who appear to be breaking, or have broken the law.

Many thought the Judicial System was for interpreting the law and dispensing justice.

I didnt realise that part of the responsibility of the Police was to make judgements on those who they considered to have transgressed.

Also, I did not know that the police were able to chose when the laws could be bent on the whim, or personal values of the intervening officers.

Reflecting back, it seems understandable, how many thought the policing of London during the 70-80s was corrupt and how than shambolic period developed.

When does a nod and a wink become corrupting?

I am not saying that a police officer should not have a degree of discretion, on whether, he/she apprehends, or warns an individual over possible minor infringements, but if bodily harm has occurred, then I would think it is beyond his responsibility to make that judgement. Otherwise commencement of the slippery slope has begun.

--------------------------

Recall previous periods of nod and a wink policing,

Operation Countryman was a wide-ranging investigation into police corruption within the Metropolitan Police Service in London from 1978-1984. [1] After being initially established to investigate allegations of corruption in the City of London Police, the main investigation was soon shifted to Metropolitan Police. More than 400 police officers lost their jobs but none were charged with any criminal offences. [2]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Leading Conman found dead in toilets: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-13918856

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/x/Article/201106416018935?DCMP=News-search-sslc&lid=ARTICLE_16018935_x&lpos=searchresults

Police have been ordered not to arrest people who subject them to abuse, it has been revealed. Scotland Yard has told its officers that bad language on its own is not a good enough reason to detain someone.

The guidance has been given on Justify, Account and Record memo cards, which are carried on patrol.

According to The Mail on Sunday the advice states: "The courts do not accept police officers are caused harassment, alarm or distress by words such as: f***,c***, b*****ks, w*****s."

It also informs officers that to place someone in handcuffs "for officer safety" is "not sufficient" and "we can handcuff anyone but we must be able to justify it".

Greek - Well Done Mate. For complete 'Dickheads' like Fred 'The Fraud On The Board' The 'Ways And Means Act' (Just Common Sense) in his eyes is completely meaningless, but then again you can't really expect anything else from the armchair critic on any subject which he chooses to rant about. Professor Know Fxxx All. CDM (Cadburys Dairy Milk)

During the course of a criminal act, all perps. must be deemed to have relinquished their rights, and in the course of protecting their lives and property leniancy must be given to the victims of crime. In the recent case where one of 4 burglars was killed with a single blow (I believe) from a knife that he himself was in posession of during the burglary then the householders should face no charge, if there had been repeated blows or attacks on the burglars continued after the threat had gone, then there should be a case to answer. Reasonable force and all that.---Just my view.
2517

Partially agree, but the court is the arbitrator of guilt, or innocence and not the hands of the police, although, whether such cases get to court, is generally in the hands of the P.P's. Office

RIP Peter Falk, What a great actor.

Hi George,

Agree with your view, although I would take it a bit further.
If a person is stabbed a couple of times and it could be shown that the blows were a result of ,fear or and panic on the part of the initially attacked, I would allow that as self defense.

Hi Chris,

Ah, 'The Way and Means act' the best act ever!

Regards Greek.

Hmmm? I want the government to be 'tough on crime' and I'm not at all happy with the following article. Indeed, for once, I might just decide to try and do something about it by writing a letter to my MP.

From Tory rebellion over sentencing reform that is still too soft
By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
7:00AM BST 27 Jun 2011

Conservative MPs are threatening a rebellion on plans for sentencing, despite government promises of a tough approach on law and order.

Details of legislation drawn up for Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, on sentencing show that, in some cases, more criminals will be able to avoid jail, and the prison population will fall.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will come to the Commons on Wednesday, where Tory Right-wingers are threatening to challenge some of its measures.

The Bill proposes that more criminals should be given suspended sentences instead of being sent to jail.

Under current rules, a judge can only suspend a prison sentence of up to 12 months. The Bill will increase that limit to two years. Guidance to judges will also discourage them from remanding alleged offenders in jail while they await trail.

There will be rules allowing time that an offender spends electronically tagged at home on bail to count as part of a sentence. Two days on tagged bail will count as one day of a prison sentence.

A Tory revolt over the Bill would be embarrassing for David Cameron, the Prime Minister, who last week forced Mr Clarke to abandon many of his plans to reduce prison sentences and shrink the jail population. Mr Clarkes original package would have reduced the prison population by 6,400. The Ministry of Justice still calculates that prison numbers will fall by 2,650 because of its measures.

Philip Davies, a Tory MP, said: Ken Clarke is championing it as a 'tough on crime bill when the detail shows it is not. It has nothing to do with punishment and the prevention of reoffending and everything to do with reducing the prison population.

Mr Clarkes original plans would have saved tens of millions of pounds from his budget. After being forced to amend them, Mr Clarke is now seeking to find that money elsewhere, with cuts in the probation service not ruled out.

Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, said: If you reduce the number of probation officers and prison officers, experienced staff, then your ability to rehabilitate is diminished rather than enhanced and your obsession with cutting costs rather than cutting crime can lead to consequences, not just today but down the road.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: Each year thousands of people are remanded to custody but do not go on to receive a prison sentence. We will end this and only use remand places where it is necessary to protect the public from those whose offending and alleged offending is serious enough to deserve custody.

Criminals will be named and identified on official crime maps showing offences in neighbourhoods, a minister has said. Existing maps, which show only the crimes committed, not the perpetrators, will be changed, according to Nick Herbert, the policing minister.

Hi ExecLine,

I think it would be wrong to name the perpetrators, after all we must respect both their civil liberties and their right to privacy, after all most people who commit crime are misunderstood and should receive far more counseling than they do at present.
Now if only they would employ me as a counselor, I would put them on the straight and narrow! Now where did I put me thumb screws!

As to 'Tougher on Crime'
Perhaps a large percentage of our politicians don't want tougher sentences as that might be a bit like 'Turkeys voting for Christmas'!
Bloody fiddling crooks most of them.

"Criminals will be named and identified on official crime maps showing offences in neighbourhoods, a minister has said. Existing maps, which show only the crimes committed, not the perpetrators, will be changed, according to Nick Herbert, the policing minister. "


If that occurs, I hope that will include a list of those who have criminal driving offences, criminal fraud and the civil action of voluntary bankcruptcy.

Perhaps, a list of fraudulent MPS who return their false expense claims might also be interesting.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/28/uk-markets-sterling-idUKTRE75R14120110628?feedType=nl&feedName=ukdailyinvestor

Pound hits 13-month low vs currency basket


House prices fall 0.4 percent in May - Land Registry

Flogging a house to pay for ones' Medical care or future NHS charges is still possible,

It is good to to know our government of Localism has every thing under a strong hand.

Safe hands,


Also pleased to see they are now trying to ruin any remainders of the University System,

Elitism at it worst.

But I forget Cameron is a genuine man and at the helm.

The Government cannot deport "undesirable" or "dangerous" immigrants who may face ill-treatment at home - however bad their crimes in the UK, human rights judges have ruled.

In a test case ahead of more than 200 similar actions pending against the UK, the Strasbourg judges decreed that the UK's duty to protect people against torture or inhuman treatment is "absolute".

The case involved two Somalis facing enforced return to Mogadishu after receiving convictions in the UK for serious criminal offences. The European Court of Human Rights awarded Abdisamad Adow Sufi and Abdiaziz Ibrahim Elmi, both currently in UK immigration detention centres, 14,500 euro (13,000) and 7,500 euro (6,700) respectively for costs and expenses in bringing the case.

Can the government deport Fred?