Shitty balls, not good 🙁
One of the victim in London has life changing injury, which means now the victim's entire family suffer a life sentence.
In the far east riding moped(s) to rob people off their valuables are common but they seldom injure the victims, as most are grab and ride. They don't injure the victims because they don't want to attract too much attention from the law. No injury to the victims mean they can get away with their acts more often.
Over there acid attacks are mainly intend for revenge or intend to torture others for life. The attackers get life sentence if caught, sometimes death sentence if victim died.
edit: your "bling" bike will be a target next if they get away with the current attacks.
This was on our club forum
"https://twitter.com/thooper11/status/882499395517861888
There's been a spate of attacks on cyclists in Barnes, Putney and near Richmond Park. The little scrotes have been targeting people on bling bikes riding to the park, a guy was pushed off his Venge, they grabbed it and drove off. Seems to be either super early in the morning or later in the evening - just when you're likely to be heading to the park at this time of year. "
Also they've been targeting bikes left at cafes - they turn up, grab the bike, shoulder it and ride off.
Chewkw, you don't need to search far to see how rampant these thieves are and the violence they will use.
There's been reports of scooterists robbing bikes off riders near Richmond park in the last few weeks.
Got a link to anything?
Not seen anything in local news myself and travel through the park a couple of times a week so be good to know where this happened...
edit:cross posted. Priory Lane, don't often go down that way TBH. Have ridden along Danebury Avenue once. Spidey senses were tingling.
craigxxl - Member
Chewkw, you don't need to search far to see how rampant these thieves are and the violence they will use.
I noticed that a while back of some news in London of the trend in "ride and rob" using moped.
Thanks Kilo, that is really useful stuff. I've passed it on 🙂
#chewkw
For me the severity of the injury should reflected in the punishment.
Why should someone get a lesser sentence just because their aim was poor? Intent should be reflected in the punishment not the injury.
Not many cops are going to be willing to pursue a scooter or motorbike when they face serious criminal charges if anyone is hurt. The Police Federation have just published advice to officers suggesting they no longer do anything like exceed the speed limit or crawl through a red light because there is no protection in law for emergency response drivers.
Priory Lane, don't often go down that way TBH
Priory Lane is one of those funny roads in London that is actually quite isolated other than anyone using the road. There's a pretty long stretch with few houses and therefore few people out and about in the morning or evening so you'd be hard pushed to have witnesses or someone to intervene.
Intent should be reflected in the punishment not the injury.
Up to a point, but I wouldn't favour letting someone off lightly because they hadn't actually intended to blind and disfigure someone, and just thought he'd get a nasty sore cheek. There has to be a punishment related to the reckless disregard for possible consequences.
I agree. It's like setting fire to someones house genuinely not intending to kill anyone but that being an outcome. Any reasonable human should know that could happen.
"Any reasonable human" should be some sort of test in law.
trailwagger - Member
#chewkw
Why should someone get a lesser sentence just because their aim was poor? Intent should be reflected in the punishment not the injury.For me the severity of the injury should reflected in the punishment.
Because there will always be a segment of society that will perceive any harsher sentence as heavy handed by the state. They will oppose. When they oppose the punishment will become "mickey mouse" punishment. Practically useless like now.
Since the "heart or will" is not there totally to deal with such crimes, it would send a message to the society that valuable can be replaced (majority of items) but if they injure the victims they get severely punish. Again, the reason is that you do not want to end up with cells full of potential attackers just because they have been seen as "with intend".
However, if their intend turn into action and as a result the victim is severely injured, then the punishment should be severed. Very, if possible. But in the British society unfortunately the latter is not possible.
Therefore, if you suddenly impose very harsh punishment a segment of the/your/our etc society (those detach from reality) will cry foul to defend the wrong cause.
DrJ - Member
Intent should be reflected in the punishment not the injury.Up to a point, but I wouldn't favour letting someone off lightly because they hadn't actually intended to blind and disfigure someone, and just thought he'd get a nasty sore cheek. There has to be a punishment related to the reckless disregard for possible consequences.
Well, in that case you need to decide how to deal with the punishment if someone is severely injured or disfigured.
The Police Federation have just published advice to officers suggesting they no longer do anything like exceed the speed limit or crawl through a red light because there is no protection in law for emergency response drivers.
Feels like this needs to change
I don't think London has ever been a less appealing place to visit in my lifetime.
Crikey, interesting about Priory Lane, hadn't heard about that.
How does sentencing work when one of the people arrested is 15 years old?
I've never ridden down Priory Lane but I've cycled to Barnes Station on Rocks Lane nearby a couple of times in the early morning. This is helpful to know, thanks.
Fortunately (I hope) I tend to enter/exit Richmond Park from either Richmond or Kingston.
50 quid will buy you a small bottle of diphoterine which will do a much quicker and more effective job of saving your skin than water for say an area he size of your face... the body would need a lot though.. so youd still want to get to water AFTER. If you are worried enough to change your commute pattern you are worried enough to buy some.
Ive personally witnessed it in action and Im a bit shocked that ambulances dont carry it.
I don't commute that way, this is just on the weekends when I'm out for fun.
chip - Member
I remember watching a documentary around a Jamaican ermergency room quite a few years ago now
Where acid attacks were commonplace partly because acid was cheap and readily available and you could do maximum damage with out Risk of ending up on a murder charge.It is quite worrying if it becomes commonplace here.
I have wondered if there's partly a cultural thing where in some countries it's become so normal, and as I mentioned earlier it's the same with knives or guns, where just attack first and take without question is the norm. Not wishing to get all Farage but, when "they come over here", some maybe just behave the same way they did at home. Perhaps then others have adopted the same approach as it's become common here.
Or is it just a general realisation around the world that chemicals are a cheap option, quicker to inflict damage and run away with the goods, and won't leave DNA evidence (and may not get investigated anyway).
Though some chemical attacks are hate, revenge or gang related.
It was rather common a while back in SE Asia or far east, where it was used to inflict long term injury to a person. The idea is not to kill but to inflict as severe a suffering as the attacker(s) can on the targeted person. Most victims in SE Asia/Far East are women. It would be much more "humane" for the victims to die than to suffer for their entire life. Some were totally blinded, unable to breath properly, disfigured unable to eat, cannot talk properly. It is a very cruel action to inflict such suffering to another person. Death is kinder in this sense.deadkenny - Member
I have wondered if there's partly a cultural thing where in some countries it's become so normal, and as I mentioned earlier it's the same with knives or guns, where just attack first and take without question is the norm.
As far as I know this is a rather new-ish weapon used on the general UK public ... just to rob them off their valuables. I mean knives and guns are the traditional weapons of choice for robbery but to use acid? Why? Why inflict permanent injury on ordinary people just to rob them?
If the attackers do not know how to draw the line between inflicting pain and permanent suffering, then the law need to be adjusted quick.
The law is fine it is hard to see how use of acid to the face could ever be less than gbh with intent so carries up to 16 years imprisonment robbery carries up to life .
This is factors from the assault guidelines that increase culpability and so sentence "Use of weapon or weapon equivalent (for example, shod
foot, headbutting, use of acid, use of animal)
Intention to commit more serious harm than actually
resulted from the offence
Deliberately causes more harm than is necessary for
commission of offence
Deliberate targeting of vulnerable victim"
And simple carrying intending to use as a weapon carries 4 years.
The problem isn't the available law its detecting and catching the little swear filters. That is police funding and numbers and the public coming forward with information.
Thegreatape isn't the police federation/union letter just the usual political gaming because a copper from Manchester who drove badly is being done for it .
The Cps public interest test gives a significant level of protection to emergency responders without the Cart Blanche immunity the Fed are campaigning for.
"In the course of their duties, police officers, ambulance staff and fire-fighters may need to drive a vehicle in response to an emergency in a manner which would otherwise be considered unacceptable. Our starting point is that it is very unlikely to be appropriate to proceed with a prosecution on public interest grounds if a police officer, member of ambulance staff or fire-fighter commits a driving offence while responding to an emergency call.
However, every individual case must be considered on its own facts and merits, and when considering whether it is in the public interest to proceed with the case, prosecutors should have regard to the following factors:
The nature of the emergency known to or reasonably perceived by the driver. For example, whether the driver was responding to a 999 call in compliance with the agreed operating practice in that service;
The level of culpability of the driver (including the nature of the driving); and
Whether there is evidence the driver may be a continuing danger to others. For example, such evidence may include relevant convictions or internal disciplinary proceedings against the driver"
The law is fine..
...
And simple carrying intending to use as a weapon carries 4 years.
Interesting thanks crankboy. Out of interest, is that 4 years the same for carrying a knife, gun or other weapon with intent?
Be a shame to ban the sale of all acids, as some news sources are calling for, as I'm sure legitimate use is much more common than illegal and there are plenty of nasty alternatives lurking under your sink or in the chemicals aisle of any big DIY store. But if it really is such a growing problem then [i]something[/i] public will need to be done.
crankboy - could well be, I wasn't aware of a particular case but it wouldn't surprise me. I had assumed there would be some sort of leeway within the public interest test but never got round to looking, so cheers!
Graham 4 years maximum is for offensive weapons, ie anything designed adapted or intended to be a weapon, firearms as in guns normally have a 5 year minimum sentence. Knives can be offensive weapons or bladed articles . a case called Povey guides the court to sentence at the harsh end of powers for carrying knives its rationale would transfer straight over to acid .
Bit on the radio yesterday and someone phoned in with their story. They'd pull up in car with windows open at a junction or something, and these guys come up to them and chuck bleach in their face. They'd managed to get away, called the police, but they never turned up. Said no resources available, and that was that.
Stabbed or shot, and sure enough they'd be there in an instant.
I think it's more that they see it as a low priority crime despite the horrendous lifelong injuries it can cause, and little chance of catching them. If it's not treated seriously then it will only get worse.
I think it's more that they see it as a low priority crime
I don't think this is true
Said no resources available
but that is, regrettably.
However, every individual case must be considered on its own facts and merits
From memory, the only points my dad ever got on his license was from crashing his police car responding to a call.
GrahamS - Member
Be a shame to ban the sale of all acids, as some news sources are calling for, as I'm sure legitimate use is much more common than illegal and there are plenty of nasty alternatives lurking under your sink or in the chemicals aisle of any big DIY store. But if it really is such a growing problem then something public will need to be done.
Yes, it would be silly to have a complete ban that for legitimate use. Just like knives. I mean do we ban all kitchen knives?
deadkenny - Member
They'd managed to get away, called the police, but they never turned up. Said no resources available, and that was that.
[b](If it is true for such attack)[/b] That response by the police is a way of legitimising taking actions into own hands. No two ways about that. The victim should use that as proof in the court.
If that is the case then you will see the beginning of people or society taking action into their own hands to protect themselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40624453
Bets on how long before complaints of police heavy handedness?
It's difficult, you don't want people committing crimes with impunity, but at some point you have to use overpowering force. I don't know the circumstances of this incident but round my way moped crime has been on the rise.
morphio - Member
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40624453Bets on how long before complaints of police heavy handedness?
Not heavy handed at all.
That's the normal part of the job.
I don't think it's heavy handed, but I'm sure someone will be complaining. I can see how it's difficult to stop people on mopeds, and it sounds like the rules are currently making it very difficult for the police.
Should be allowed to just run the ****s over. They serve absolutely no purpose in normal society.
3 people on a moped?! Couldn't they just jog steadily after it?
Errata I said 16 years is the Max for section 18 intentionally causing gbh that is the top end if the guidelines the actual maximum is life imprisonment.
Running over scrotes on mopeds and restricting access to acids isn't really getting to the root of the problem.
youth and violent crime have jumped up considerably in the last few years
Coincidentally as austerity has decimated youth services budgets across the country
Blimey, when I was fifteen the only issue with young people and acid involved repetitive electronic beats and disused industrial spaces.
What we need is a third summer of love. That'd sort it.
Just heard about this happening to one of my colleagues a couple of days ago. I hope they find the bastards and lock them up for a long time.
[url= https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/886524140462755840 ]This[/url] is a good explanation of the law relating to the use of acid as an offensive weapon.
Just heard about this happening to one of my colleagues a couple of days ago. I hope they find the bastards and lock them up for a long time.
Just read that story on the [url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/18/paramedic-ambulance-noxious-substance-north-london ]Guardian[/url].
Words fail me, they really do.
notmyrealname - Member
Just heard about this happening to one of my colleagues a couple of days ago. I hope they find the bastards and lock them up for a long time.
Jamie - Member
Just read that story on the Guardian.
Words fail me, they really do.
I really don't understand why they attack a lone paramedic with noxious substance. What is their objective exactly?
