/ Police Officers Killed in Manchester

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Absolutely chilling. RIP.
Darren Jackson - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Here's a bloke who has now shot dead 4 people in cold blood and tossed grenades about the streets of Manchester like confetti. I hope that he gets a particularly 'warm' reception from the Plod.
Wonko The Sane - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity)
>
> Here's a bloke who has now shot dead 4 people in cold blood and tossed grenades about the streets of Manchester like confetti. I hope that he gets a particularly 'warm' reception from the Plod.

I am pretty sure they will act professionally in order to secure conviction. I wonder why he would do that, then hand himself in at a police station? I am sure I heard that on the radio.
off-duty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

He was wanted for two murders and a grenade attack.
He has been described as one of Britain's most wanted men.
If he hadn't handed himself in he knew sooner or later he would have had to face a firearms team.

F@cking cowardly murdering scum.
Wonko The Sane - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>

>
> F@cking cowardly murdering scum.

Can't disagree with that. Tosser probably thinks he's a hero too.
Gordon Stainforth - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

The level of evil here leaves one completely lost for words.
Scotsken on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Darren Jackson:

What, like being assaulted in the cells or the back of the van? Which would result in him making a complaint. Which would result in them being investigated by professional standards. Which could result in being suspended, or dismissed, or imprisoned...

Not going to bring them back is it?

Maybe if the two GMP constables had been armed they could have defended themselves?
The New NickB - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Scotsken:

Police officers don't want to be routinely armed and I don't want them to be routinely armed.
Enty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> He was wanted for two murders and a grenade attack.
> He has been described as one of Britain's most wanted men.
> If he hadn't handed himself in he knew sooner or later he would have had to face a firearms team.
>
> F@cking cowardly murdering scum.

That's the first thing I thought when I saw the news this afternoon - he handed himself in because he knew the other option was to go down like Raul Moat.

I hope there's some old fashioned Bobbies looking after him in the cells tonight.

(sorry to the UKC fluffies but that's how I feel and I can't help it)

E

Enty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Scotsken:

>
> Maybe if the two GMP constables had been armed they could have defended themselves?

For a routine burgulary? - you think an arms race between serious criminals and the police force will be a good thing?

E

John_Hat - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty:

Agree - that was my thought as well. That he thought that if he didn't hand himself in he'd be likely shot dead.

Thoughts with family, friends, and colleagues.

If there is a positive (somewhat scraping the barrel I'll admit) at least this doesn't occur often in this country, as opposed to, e.g. the states.
ThunderCat - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:

I can't get my head around the motive for killing those WPC's - was it a case of knowing he was going down for life anyway (for the previous 2 murders), so he wanted to up his reputation and get bragging rights amongst the rest of the prison / underworld elite.

I sometimes wish I believed in God, so I could rest knowing that the c*nt will burn in hell.

Unfortunately, he won't. He'll have his warm life and his three square meals a day courtesy of us whilst his poor upbringing and lack of opportunities are blamed for his crimes.
ThunderCat - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to ThunderCat:

And my knee jerk thought was that he'll be escorted to a cell filled with policemen with batons and left for 10 minutes with them. I hate myself for hoping that will happen, because I know it's wrong (however attractive it might seem). I hope it doesn't (even though a bit of me does)

I'm extremely proud of the cops who will want to kick the shit out of him until he scream and pisses blood but manage to restrain themselves and remain professional.

Thoughts with the family and with the rest of the force out there tonight.
subalpine - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to ThunderCat: can you get broadband in solitary?
Darren Jackson - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Scotsken:
>
> What, like being assaulted in the cells or the back of the van?

Good heavens, no! I'm all in favour of him being afforded his rights when in custody... Such as, for example, his right to medical attention if he falls down the stairs at the station, or gets his head caught in his cell door or similar.

andyathome - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:

> I hope there's some old fashioned Bobbies looking after him in the cells tonight.
>
> (sorry to the UKC fluffies but that's how I feel and I can't help it)
>
> E

Not sure I'd describe myself as 'fluffy' but kicking shit out of him in the cells will solve what exactly?

Sure - there is always a desire for immediate and violent retribution; I get that myself every now and again in far more trivial circumstances :-)

But it brings who back to life?; could it makes court cases more difficult?; does it makes an appeal more likely?

Let the process begin.

Clint86 - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity: ...and the venom of the replies is somewhat chilling as well.
off-duty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Clint86:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity) ...and the venom of the replies is somewhat chilling as well.

Though not really as chilling as luring two young police officers to an address knowing they would be unarmed and shooting them in cold blood.

I think a bit of internet venom is pretty tame really.
The Lemming - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:



WTF?

Just got in from a 13 hour shift. Not heard the news all day and no buzz of this at work as we were working our socks off and this is the first news I heard.

What has this country come to?

I pity the fluffies of this forum who protest police brutality. :-(

Am I still the only member of the forum who agrees with Capital Punishment. Hanging isn't good enough for this.

:-(
ThunderCat - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Clint86:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity) ...and the venom of the replies is somewhat chilling as well.

Somewhat understandable given the circumstances though.

I don't agree with it by the way, but I fully understand why people would have that reaction.



ads.ukclimbing.com
ThunderCat - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Clint86)
> [...]
>
> Though not really as chilling as luring two young police officers to an address knowing they would be unarmed and shooting them in cold blood.
>

I can't really imagine the feeling with your crowd at the moment...

subalpine - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to The Lemming:
>
> I pity the fluffies of this forum who protest police brutality. :-(
>

who said that? get on the case..
andyathome - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Clint86)
> [...]
>
> Though not really as chilling as luring two young police officers to an address knowing they would be unarmed and shooting them in cold blood.
>
> I think a bit of internet venom is pretty tame really.

And you are currently absolutely clear that that is what has happened?
Enty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Clint86:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity) ...and the venom of the replies is somewhat chilling as well.

Really?

E
IceKing - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to The Lemming: Oh FFS, the country isn't coming to anything, he's obviously a psychopathic nutcase! These things don't happen because standards have slipped or something!

And as for the continuous and ridiculous misrrepresentation that people who don't agree with capital punishment actually want this **** to have a nice life, live in luxury, play play station all day and have sky beamed into his cell, well that's bollocks. How we treat the lowest in our society keeps our society above their level, its got nothing, at all, to do with what these f***ers really deserve. It's about what we want our society to be. If we allow vigilantism, summary justice and so on then you will really get to see "what has happened to this country". Justice should absolutely be about dishing out the law without emotion and anger, otherwise it is the law of the jungle and we all will suffer because of it. It is so very short sighted to not see that.

Terrible crime but out justice system needs to deal with him correctly for the good of us all, including you. It has nothing at all to do with fluffiness or he had a dodgy upbringing and feel sorry for him. Straw men aplenty from the hang em and flog em brigade.
subalpine - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty: thank god we don't execute people over here..
ThunderCat - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> And you are currently absolutely clear that that is what has happened?

All reports currently indiciate so.

off-duty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> And you are currently absolutely clear that that is what has happened?

That is the account provided at the press conference by the CC of GMP.
I think it might have been a little ill-advised and possibly a sprinkling of "allegedly"s might help the subsequent court case, but in short - yes.
andyathome - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to IceKing:
Nicely put!
off-duty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to Enty) thank god we don't execute people over here..

If there was ever a better candidate for an execution I am struggling to think of one.
andyathome - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to andyathome)
> [...]
>
> That is the account provided at the press conference by the CC of GMP.
> I think it might have been a little ill-advised and possibly a sprinkling of "allegedly"s might help the subsequent court case, but in short - yes.

No need for a trial then.
Enty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to IceKing:

I used to know a guy who would go out and commit crimes only at the end of November so he could spend the Christmas period in prison - warmth, food, no family hassles etc etc (actually he admitted that having a playstation inside was a bonus)
True story!

E

ThunderCat - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to IceKing:
> It has nothing at all to do with fluffiness or he had a dodgy upbringing and feel sorry for him. Straw men aplenty from the hang em and flog em brigade.

I'm not part of the hang em and flog em brigade. I don't believe in summary justice, the death penalty, etc etc etc. I hope he'll get life, and never see the outside of a prison wall though. And I hope it's all done above board because even though I want him to get a good pasting, I know that it diminishes us as a society.

But I guarantee an abused upbringing will be put forward as a mitigating factor.

off-duty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> No need for a trial then.

You do know what "allegedly" means?
I look forward to his defence which I imagine will consist of the "prove it then" variety.
ThunderCat - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> No need for a trial then.


Que?
Wonko The Sane - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to IceKing)
>
> I used to know a guy who would go out and commit crimes only at the end of November so he could spend the Christmas period in prison - warmth, food, no family hassles etc etc (actually he admitted that having a playstation inside was a bonus)
> True story!
>
> E

I'm confused as to the moral of this story? Is it that the penal system is easygoing? Or is it that you have some pretty mental friends?

P.S. you do not automatically get a playstation in prison, you have to work quite hard to get it and be 'enhanced'
simon c on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to The Lemming:

first condolences to the families involved.

second.. well in the same way you don't kick seven bells out of people in your yellow taxi or withdraw care to those you don't like, they have to get on and do a professional job. let the court sort it out without prejudicing the case. hard as that maybe.

and yes I hope so.. CP is not an answer.
Enty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to IceKing:

Where's the straw man in all of this - I can't see one.

E
IceKing - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty: I can completely understand why you feel that way, it is absolutely shocking and as a police officer it must cut you to the bone. But surely that is exactly the reason why our justice system should deal with him in an unemotional manner. It's the only way or else it is anarchy. If I was the arresting officer, or the desk sargeant I would have to strain every sinew not to give him a kicking and I would probably fail and he would get it. But surely that is why we should aspire to deal with him and his ilk properly for the good of us all even if we might fail at tate sometimes. If we give in we start walking the other direction and things will only get worse in the long run.
off-duty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

I understood it worked the other way round and misbehaviour lost you privileges putting you on "Basic".
ads.ukclimbing.com
andyathome - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to ThunderCat:
> (In reply to andyathome)
> [...]
>
>
> Que?

I quote from above.

''> Me - And you are currently absolutely clear that that is what has happened?

Off-duty - That is the account provided at the press conference by the CC of GMP.''

So we know already all the facts of the case so there is no need for a trial. Is there?
The New NickB - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to The Lemming:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity)
>
> What has this country come to?

I don't know, what had it come to when three Police officers were shot dead in West London in 1966
>
> I pity the fluffies of this forum who protest police brutality. :-(

A few people have rightly suggested that giving him a kicking in the cells tonight wouldnt be the most intelegnt thing to do, but I think these 'fluffies' are in your head.
>
> Am I still the only member of the forum who agrees with Capital Punishment. Hanging isn't good enough for this.

I am sure you are not, but that just makes a number of you that are wrong. It wouldn't stop people getting murdered.

subalpine - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to IceKing:
> Justice should absolutely be about dishing out the law without emotion and anger

because it's the law? what is the law?
off-duty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to IceKing:
> (In reply to off-duty) I can completely understand why you feel that way, it is absolutely shocking and as a police officer it must cut you to the bone. But surely that is exactly the reason why our justice system should deal with him in an unemotional manner. It's the only way or else it is anarchy. If I was the arresting officer, or the desk sargeant I would have to strain every sinew not to give him a kicking and I would probably fail and he would get it. But surely that is why we should aspire to deal with him and his ilk properly for the good of us all even if we might fail at tate sometimes. If we give in we start walking the other direction and things will only get worse in the long run.


I don't think I have suggested anything different, though I won't criticise the internet "venom".
Darren Jackson - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:
>
> Where's the straw man in all of this - I can't see one.

I can't see the point in hanging a straw man... Scarecrow?

And, what's more so, why proceed to flog them *after* you've hung them? Isn't that arse uppards?
Wonko The Sane - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> I understood it worked the other way round and misbehaviour lost you privileges putting you on "Basic".

Not that I'm aware. I thought particularly bad behaviour lost you priviledges and could wind up with you in solitary for periods up to a fortnight. Basic is the 'norm', enhanced the carrot and solitary the stick.
Duncan Bourne - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to subalpine)
> [...]
>
> If there was ever a better candidate for an execution I am struggling to think of one.

Thomas Hamilton?
Enty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:

Icekings post was actually quite hard to understand but I read it as though he thought it was bollocks that Playstations and Sky in the cells was bollocks.
My point is that a scumbag in my local pub who I knew first hand (not a friend - why did you make that up?) would choose the periods of the year when he was fed up with life he'd go inside for a while so his life would be a bit easier.

E
Wonko The Sane - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to IceKing)
> [...]
>
> because it's the law? what is the law?

It's the rules society (not the individual) agrees to live by to maintain order.
Gordon Stainforth - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:

Sorry, Enty, however evil he is, he should be treated decently in custody with all his rights before the law, so that he is brought before the law in the (only) correct way.
Enty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> I understood it worked the other way round and misbehaviour lost you privileges putting you on "Basic".

Don't argue, he knows more about prison than you ;-)

E
off-duty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
> [...]
>
> I quote from above.
>
> ''> Me - And you are currently absolutely clear that that is what has happened?
>
> Off-duty - That is the account provided at the press conference by the CC of GMP.''
>
> So we know already all the facts of the case so there is no need for a trial. Is there?

OK. I "believe" that to be the case.
I look forward to seeing it "proved".

But I am still happy to brand Cregan a f@cking murderous coward, and if you want to shove an "alleged" in there feel free.
Wonko The Sane - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> Icekings post was actually quite hard to understand but I read it as though he thought it was bollocks that Playstations and Sky in the cells was bollocks.
> My point is that a scumbag in my local pub who I knew first hand (not a friend - why did you make that up?) would choose the periods of the year when he was fed up with life he'd go inside for a while so his life would be a bit easier.
>
> E

And my point stands.
You, despite appearances, are probably a normalish person of normalish intelligence........... If you were offered a cell for three months (with playstation) would you take it?
No? Really?
No, me neither.

The fact this aquainance of yours does means what?
That the system is easy? Or that he's got a bloody screw loose?

off-duty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> Thomas Hamilton?

Yes. Him too.
ThunderCat - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
> [...]
>
> I quote from above.
>
> ''> Me - And you are currently absolutely clear that that is what has happened?
>
> Off-duty - That is the account provided at the press conference by the CC of GMP.''
>
> So we know already all the facts of the case so there is no need for a trial. Is there?

Ah - sarcasm. gotcha.
IceKing - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty: To be fair you haven't, I'm just using what you said about him being a candidate for CP to expand the argument. From everything I've read you've written I have every respect that you agree, I was just trying to post in defence of our justice system and the reasons why we have it and people like you and why that makes our society a better place. Sometimes when you stand up for our justice system you are accused of being fluffy and somehow are not appalled by the crimes of people like this. I think this is a misrepresentation and actually the more appalling the crime the more importnant it is to do things right.
Enty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
>
>
> That the system is easy? Or that he's got a bloody screw loose?

None of the above - he just didn't like work - simple.

E

Dax H - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Actual life in prison would be a good start and that life should be in solitary confinement in an 8 by 6 cell, no tv, books, Internet or window.
If he is never coming out again why bother with rehabilitation and this level of punishment might detere others.
Wonko The Sane - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> None of the above - he just didn't like work - simple.
>
> E

I think you'd have to be abnormally adverse to work to choose prison over it.
Gordon Stainforth - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:

PS. being in custody in a police cell and being a convict are two completely different things. His chances of having any access to anything like Playstation tonight is precisely zilch. He'll be very lucky tonight to have anything but his clothes (stripped of all belongings) to stand in.
ads.ukclimbing.com
andyathome - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to ThunderCat:
> (In reply to andyathome)
> [...]
>
> Ah - sarcasm. gotcha.

Your point is...?
Enty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Enty)
> [...]
>
>
> You, despite appearances, are probably a normalish person of normalish intelligence...........

Ha ha - I can just imagine you walking up to someone in a pub and pointing your finger at them and saying this - I'd love to be a fly on the wall when you did it ;-)

E
subalpine - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty: what would be the typical prison conditions for this sort of guy? (assuming guilt)
i would imagine solitary, but would he have internet, visitors, access to drugs etc?
IceKing - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty: What I am trying to say is not that prisoners having playstations is bollocks, I know they do, anything to keep them mildly amused so that they aren't rioting is a good thing if you are a prison officer! I am trying to highlight that the counter argument from the hang em and flog em brigade is often these psychos deserve to be treated nicely as hey had a rough upbringing and this is what the fluffies are accused of.

I am saying that that is bollocks. That actually the people in favour of treating the lowest of the low reasonably well is about our society and how we want to be, not about what ****s like this bloke actually deserve. It is important for the good of us all that we treat everyone, however low, with certain standards or else we go back to the middle ages and we all suffer.
off-duty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to IceKing:
> (In reply to off-duty) To be fair you haven't, I'm just using what you said about him being a candidate for CP to expand the argument. From everything I've read you've written I have every respect that you agree, I was just trying to post in defence of our justice system and the reasons why we have it and people like you and why that makes our society a better place. Sometimes when you stand up for our justice system you are accused of being fluffy and somehow are not appalled by the crimes of people like this. I think this is a misrepresentation and actually the more appalling the crime the more importnant it is to do things right.

I agree. He will receive all the benefits of a system that from arrest onwards is centred on protecting the rights of the defendant at all costs.
Gordon Stainforth - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Dax H:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) Actual life in prison would be a good start and that life should be in solitary confinement in an 8 by 6 cell, no tv, books, Internet or window.
> If he is never coming out again why bother with rehabilitation and this level of punishment might detere others.

I totally disagree with your attitude in every way, because what you are saying is that the only way to cope with bestiality is to treat it with bestiality. Not realising that you are then treating human life in exactly the same undervalued way. (Very boring? old cliché: two wrongs don't make a right.)
Enty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> PS. being in custody in a police cell and being a convict are two completely different things. His chances of having any access to anything like Playstation tonight is precisely zilch. He'll be very lucky tonight to have anything but his clothes (stripped of all belongings) to stand in.

Not talking about tonight Gordon - the next 30 years.

E
andyathome - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty:
Please understand I'm not 'against' you and any reactions you may have to the death of the two WPC's. But I don't know anything more than the bare reports about the incident. The knee-jerk reactions of the UKC 'non-fluffy hang 'em and burn 'em mob' to reports like this do tend to wind me up a bit however. Presumably they would have been out there demanding criminal action against Liverpool supporters after Hillsborough? OK. That's a disgustingly cheap shot but I'm sure you will appreciate the point I'm making.

You may well be right about Cregan; but I don't share the information you obviously have about him.
off-duty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to off-duty) what would be the typical prison conditions for this sort of guy? (assuming guilt)
> i would imagine solitary, but would he have internet, visitors, access to drugs etc?

His typical prison conditions will be exactly that - typical. I don't know much about prison regimes. I would hope if convicted he will receive a mandatory life sentence for murder, and hopefully a whole life term. That should him in a lifer unit.
Enty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> Presumably they would have been out there demanding criminal action against Liverpool supporters after Hillsborough? OK.

At last the first straw man emerges!

E

Gordon Stainforth - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:

That is not for us to decide. it is still remotely possible that the guy is mentally ill (cf. Breivik - though I was mightily relieved when they judged that he was not) rather than rational.

But to take someone's freedom away, for life, is surely still the ultimate punishment, in the eyes of anybody but a rather sick sadist?
Enty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Enty)
>
>
>
> But to take someone's freedom away, for life, is surely still the ultimate punishment, in the eyes of anybody but a rather sick sadist?

I agree. Unless you like it inside - and some people do!

E
off-duty - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> Please understand I'm not 'against' you and any reactions you may have to the death of the two WPC's. But I don't know anything more than the bare reports about the incident. The knee-jerk reactions of the UKC 'non-fluffy hang 'em and burn 'em mob' to reports like this do tend to wind me up a bit however. Presumably they would have been out there demanding criminal action against Liverpool supporters after Hillsborough? OK. That's a disgustingly cheap shot but I'm sure you will appreciate the point I'm making.
>
> You may well be right about Cregan; but I don't share the information you obviously have about him.

You're right it is a cheap shot.
The public information about the circumstances comes from a surprisingly frank public press conference conducted by Sir Peter Fahy, from his exact words saying what he (as the police) believes has occurred.

Whilst he might have strayed into comments that might be a bit close to prejudicing a trial, we are not talking about off the record briefings, smear campaigns or unnamed "sources".
Dax H - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Dax H)
> [...]
>
> I totally disagree with your attitude in every way, because what you are saying is that the only way to cope with bestiality is to treat it with bestiality. Not realising that you are then treating human life in exactly the same undervalued way. (Very boring? old cliché: two wrongs don't make a right.)

Why is it wrong to lock someone away untill they die of old age if they have committed murder.
They have taken a life in what looks like a pre meditate murder, what would you suggest?
Gordon Stainforth - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Dax H:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> Why is it wrong to lock someone away untill they die of old age if they have committed murder.
> They have taken a life in what looks like a pre meditate murder, what would you suggest?

Exactly what you are advocating. I think someone who is convicted of such a crime should be locked up for life. Where did I say or imply otherwise?
The New NickB - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Dax H:

I didn't realise until just now that this took place in Hattersley, that place must be cursed. First Brady and Hindley and now this.
ThunderCat - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
> [...]
>
> Your point is...?


Pointy. How about yours?

Sir Chasm - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome: If, for argument's sake, this chap has done what is reported - made a fake call and killed the 2 responding officers - and is found guilty, what purpose does keeping him locked up for a long time serve? Why not kill him? Is it some lingering doubt about guilt?
andyathome - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to andyathome)
> [...]
>
> At last the first straw man emerges!
>
> E

Not sure that is accurate or fair. The point I was making was really about the complete unquestioning acceptance of initial reports to leap to a knee-jerk reaction. We 'knew' that the tragedy at Hillsborough was the fault of the Liverpool supporters. We 'know' exactly what has happened in this case.

Or do we?

It may well be the case that initial reports are accurate and that all of the current speculation is proven to be correct BUT its a bit early to be calling for hanging or a good kicking in the cells.

That does not mean that I have no feelings for the dead officers or their families-far from it.
Dax H - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Dax H)
> [...]
>
> Exactly what you are advocating. I think someone who is convicted of such a crime should be locked up for life. Where did I say or imply otherwise?

In your first reply to me further up this thread you started with.
I totally disagree with your attitude in every way.

My attitude is to lock him down forever and you stated that you don't agree with that.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Ridge - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Dax H)
> [...]
>
> I totally disagree with your attitude in every way, because what you are saying is that the only way to cope with bestiality is to treat it with bestiality. Not realising that you are then treating human life in exactly the same undervalued way. (Very boring? old cliché: two wrongs don't make a right.)

I've never really subscribed to the 'sinking to their level' arguement. If we ran about killing innocent people for a laugh we'd be sinking to their level. Having a fair trial, and then if convicted by due process, sticking him in the chespest possible cell for the rest of his life and giving him animal feed is simply being practical. We could spend the money on helping kids keep out of trouble rather than wasting it on a lost cause.
Dax H - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Dax H)
> [...]
>
> I totally disagree with your attitude in every way,

just incase you forgot what you put.

Wonko The Sane - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Dax H:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> In your first reply to me further up this thread you started with.
> I totally disagree with your attitude in every way.
>
> My attitude is to lock him down forever and you stated that you don't agree with that.

No, you said he should be locked away forever in a room with no windows, access to books or TV. Otherwise known as severe mental cruelty. Fortunately our prisons run along slightly different lines.
Gordon Stainforth - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Dax H:

You were talking about solitary confinement in an 8 x 6 cell (if you remember)
IceKing - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm: You know exactly what the point is. It isn't about how we treat one particular **** it is about treating everyone the same for the good of us all. But you already knew that as devils advocates are normally quite intelligent.
abr1966 - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity: Very sad....RIP
Duncan Bourne - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
It is sad and tragic that this has occurred but I am glad that I live in a country where such occurrences still generate outrage rather than being the norm as is sadly the case elsewhere in the world.
Dax H - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Dax H)
>
> You were talking about solitary confinement in an 8 x 6 cell (if you remember)

Ahh so you don't object to life imprisonment, just the 8x6 and no tv ect.
That is only partially disagreeing with my attitude, not totally.

The taking of a life should involve the removal of the guilty persons life and seing as we are too civilised to kill them my way is the next option.
Sir Chasm - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to IceKing: It's not about treating everyone the same, I'm not suggesting executing people who haven't been convicted of murder. But I'm sure you'd worked that out.
Gordon Stainforth - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
>sticking him in the chespest possible cell for the rest of his life and giving him animal feed is simply being practical.

That is more or less what will happen to him, if he is convicted. Yes.

IceKing - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm: I tried to give you the benefit of intelligence but that was obviously misplaced, not unusual to be disappointed (you aren't the only one who can do sarcasm) - as you well know - I am talking about treating everyone the same IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. But again you knew that. It is quite trying debating with someone who cant even be bothered to represent their OWN views honestly. Try a bit harder please, it's getting boring.
Sir Chasm - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to IceKing: And everyone has agreed that, gut reactions notwithstanding, the justice system should run its course, so I'm not really sure what you're getting your knickers in a twist over.
Gordon Stainforth - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Dax H:

We treat such a prisoner humanely, just as we would an animal.

In doing so we are treating him with that level of respect only: he is no longer able to make any decisions about his own life, and anything that he is allowed to do will be within strict guidelines that have nothing to do with anything he might want to do (unless perhaps it contributes to society outside). In other words, he's reduced for the rest of his life to having little more than the status of a baby in a pram. If he seriously repents in a convincing enough way, that is another matter, but in most such cases that is about as unlikely as pigs flying.
IceKing - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> what purpose does keeping him locked up for a long time serve? Why not kill him? Is it some lingering doubt about guilt?

To which I gave an answer. At which point you just sniped like someone in the 6th form debating society. I expected more but you haven't really managed it. You sometimes make good, salient and useful points. And then at other times you appear to be smug at pointing out some inconsistency or another which isnt really that relevant to the larger debate. I don't think he should be executed regardless of what he has done as I believe our current system and it's lack of CP and the way it affords everyone the same treatment and assessment under the law in an unemotional manner is really important. But it gets a bit tedious to have to repeat that several times while you snipe making silly points. The debate is several levels higher than you are currently managing. It would be nice if you joined in with the intelligence you obviously have!

IceKing - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to IceKing) It's not about treating everyone the same, I'm not suggesting executing people who haven't been convicted of murder. But I'm sure you'd worked that out.

This as an example. It IS about treating everyone the same and then you finish off with a silly point about not suggesting we execute people who haven't been convicted of murder. This is article A in the sixth form debating/smugness behaviour I am referring to. I speak to you in the way that you speak to others. Id rather not.id rather have a proper debate with you!
Sir Chasm - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to IceKing: Waffle, waffle, you repeat that you want everyone treated the same, that's the justice system. But if being executed was an option, in the justice system, then everyone could still be treated the same.
IceKing - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm: Ok maybe it is me being thick. But I don't follow the point you re trying to make. Can you expand please?
Sir Chasm - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to IceKing: You want all to be treated equally under the law? I think that's what you're saying. So if the death penalty was one penalty available why would that be treating people any more unequally than having different sentences for different crimes is?
stroppygob - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity: I want him to get fair and decent British justice.

Then I want them to hang him.
IceKing - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm: Ok. When you examine what punishments are appropriate we all, arbitrarily, draw a line somewhere and I guess what you are saying is why not draw it further over and include the death penalty? Why is it ok to bang someone up for life but not kill someone? You are challenging us to qualify why one is better than the other?

To be honest, when analysed that closely it is very difficult to answer. All I can say is, 'I draw the line here (life but no CP) and the only reason I can give is we are trying to make our society progress forwards for the good of us all, and I think executing people will mean a gradually worse existence for us all' and I don't know exactly why, but that is what I fear would happen and I'd rather not take the risk. After all, it took a lot to get where we are and we go the other way at our peril.
ads.ukclimbing.com
IainRUK - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to IceKing: Because if new evidence comes to light you can release the person if innocent... you also allow the possibility of the person changing and no longer being a threat to society..
David Martin - on 18 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty:

> I think a bit of internet venom is pretty tame really.

I tend to feel the guy is a psychopath. A bit hard to think of any other reason for it. In which case, I have a certain degree of sympathy as its probably a mental condition he was born with and pretty much controls his life. None of that is to say he shouldn't be locked up for the longest time, but kicking him in the nuts is unlikely to make anyone actually feel any better except, perhaps, himself.

Clint86 - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty: I haven't been able to read through the thread since last night, but he should be put in prison to protect society, and his time in prison should be used to try and rehabilitate him. Everyone involved should be given time and support to grieve. Lessons should be learnt, big picture and small picture. We should remember we all have it in us to be callous and evil, and that our neighbur (as in, love thy neighbour) isn't really referring to the person next door.
Trangia - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Clint86:
> (In reply to Enty) , and his time in prison should be used to try and rehabilitate him.

Rehabilitate him for what? He's cold bloodily murdered 5 people ffs! It's real pity that he wasn't taken out by a police fire arms squad which would have avoided the cost to society of homing and "rehabilitating" such a worthless bit of scum.

> Everyone involved should be given time and support to grieve.

I'm sure they will be, and given support.

> Lessons should be learnt, big picture and small picture.

I'd be interested to know what usefull lessons you think will be learnt?

> We should remember we all have it in us to be callous and evil, and that our neighbur (as in, love thy neighbour) isn't really referring to the person next door.

If you want to volunteer to go and love such shit, go ahead and put your money where your mouth is, but don't patronize me or others with your hollow reminder.

off-duty - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> [...]
>
> I tend to feel the guy is a psychopath. A bit hard to think of any other reason for it. In which case, I have a certain degree of sympathy as its probably a mental condition he was born with and pretty much controls his life. None of that is to say he shouldn't be locked up for the longest time, but kicking him in the nuts is unlikely to make anyone actually feel any better except, perhaps, himself

I have no sympathy with him whatsoever. His murder of two police officers in cold blood appears to have been entirely premeditated and totally unnecessary. He was rational enough to hand himself in immediately afterwards knowing full well that he was already the most wanted man in Britain, and he was happy to take his chance with British justice rather than the firearms team that would, inevitably have found him.
off-duty - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Clint86:
> (In reply to Enty) I haven't been able to read through the thread since last night, but he should be put in prison to protect society, and his time in prison should be used to try and rehabilitate him. Everyone involved should be given time and support to grieve. Lessons should be learnt, big picture and small picture. We should remember we all have it in us to be callous and evil, and that our neighbur (as in, love thy neighbour) isn't really referring to the person next door.


I find it both insulting and patronising to both compare him with "all" of us, and to minimise his evil by suggesting his actions fall even into the comprehension let alone the bounds of any actions "we" could take.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

If he gets life in prison, will he be a bit of a "hero" with the other lifers inside because he killed two policewomen?

For the hang him high brigade...Why not send him to a different type of prison where his cell mates will be beagles and monkeys and test some acids on that one eye he has left, then maybe inject him with some dieseases and have a stab at curing him. And repeat until he is used up and dump him with the rest of the animal corpses? At least then he gives something back to society.

/sarc off
jkarran - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Fiona was my friend, it's such a senseless waste. Thoughts are with their families and loved ones today.

Justice will be done but it doesn't bring back those who were killed, it never can. Now is not the time to be proposing rash changes to the Police or justice system, I really hope those seeking to push their agendas and score political points over this can resist the temptation.

Why do these threads always descend into violent vengeance fantasies.
jk
Wonko The Sane - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity)
>
> If he gets life in prison, will he be a bit of a "hero" with the other lifers inside because he killed two policewomen?
>

Possibly for a very few...... but no, I don't think he would be thought of in that way at all. Not every criminal is a murderer. Not every murderer is a cold blooded, pointless murderer. I am sure many criminals will be just as disgusted by this as anyone else. At least, I'd hope so.




In reply to jkarran: really sorry to hear that. Condolences to friends and family.
The New NickB - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to jkarran:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity)
>
> Fiona was my friend, it's such a senseless waste. Thoughts are with their families and loved ones today.
>
Really sorry to hear that, I know a lot of officers in GMP and I certainly worried for them, before I heard the names of the officers involved. Felt very close to home, even though I didn't know either victim.

Clint86 - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Trangia: I think your way off the mark, but I can see how difficult it is to discuss on here.
Dave Garnett - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to David Martin:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> [...]
>
> I tend to feel the guy is a psychopath. A bit hard to think of any other reason for it.

I really hope it doesn't turn out that he watched the first episode of Good Cop.
Tyler - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

I just hope GMP manage to find time, over the next few years, to make the the lives of the scumbags who will have been protecting him a living hell. It seems inconcievable to me that there won't be large numbers of people beyond his immediate associates who knew his whereabouts.
BigBrother - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Game of Conkers:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity)
>
> If he gets life in prison, will he be a bit of a "hero" with the other lifers inside because he killed two policewomen?

Apparently there are already facebook pages set up describing him as a hero and supporting what he did. So I suspect there will be many inside who view him in a similar way.
Jimbo W on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to the thread:

This guy is clearly a very nasty piece of work who needs to be convicted and sent to prison, as do all those who have harboured or helped him... ...but to all those wanting their pound of his flesh (albeit advocated at arms length under someone else's professional responsibility).. ...your morality points toward him, not away from him, and the less of your kind of morality in society the better. Lets as calmly as possible gather evidence, convict him and send him to prison, which I presume will be for good?!
Sir Chasm - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Jimbo W: Do you think the UK population suddenly became more moral after 1964/69?
Tall Clare - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to BigBrother:
> (In reply to Game of Conkers)
> [...]
>
> Apparently there are already facebook pages set up describing him as a hero and supporting what he did. So I suspect there will be many inside who view him in a similar way.

The (rather naive, probably) part of me hopes that that's overridden by the fact that he killed two unarmed women.
Jimbo W on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:

As other's have clearly learnt, there really is no point in engaging with you on these forums... ...full stop.
MG - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
>
> As other's have clearly learnt, there really is no point in engaging with you on these forums... ...full stop.

I disagree - he/she/it poses some worthwhile questions albeit in a sarcastic manner normally. I think the answer is "yes" to the one above.
The New NickB - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to BigBrother)
> [...]
>
> The (rather naive, probably) part of me hopes that that's overridden by the fact that he killed two unarmed women.

The sort of people that idolise him won't worry about about, they were cops. To be honest I don't think the sex of the victims makes it any worse, but I guess that view is out of step with society generally.
Gordon Stainforth - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:

I suspect that he will be regarded as 'scum' in prison for the reason you say. There seems to be an arcane code inside of what's OK and what's completely unacceptable. Remember that sex offenders always have to be segregated for their own safety.
Jimbo W on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to MG:

> I disagree - he/she/it poses some worthwhile questions albeit in a sarcastic manner normally. I think the answer is "yes" to the one above.

He/she/it doesn't hold any overtly stated position. Consistent with that, is the freedom to advocate any discrepancy of an argument because preciselyt because of the freedom of that lack of position. Its great for debating points and ego titillation, but useless in moving forward in reality.
Ridge - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Tall Clare:
> (In reply to BigBrother)
> [...]
>
> The (rather naive, probably) part of me hopes that that's overridden by the fact that he killed two unarmed women.

A guy I used to work with spent a few years inside for GBH. With the exception of kiddy fiddlers, (everybody needs to look down on someone), crimes that most people find repugnant were seen as perfectly acceptable. There's a romantic myth, (think of the "Ronnie and Reggie were good lads..."), about the criminal fraternity. I suspect there was s lot of cheering and jeering in jails and custody suites across the land last night.
David Riley - on 19 Sep 2012
The police have announced they will be taking severe action against those who harboured him.
Apparently, and typically, that will be the local council. It was an empty council house (safest place in the world). The occupant died 6 months ago.
Jimbo W on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to MG:

> I think the answer is "yes" to the one above.

Yes.
Sir Chasm - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Jimbo W: You thinking changing a law changes people's morals?
The New NickB - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) You thinking changing a law changes people's morals?

It is often the other way around. Changes in the law often reflect changes in society, morality is perhaps a rather tricky concept to attach to these changes.
Sir Chasm - on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to The New NickB: That's why I asked Jimbo, he brought up the morality issue.
Jimbo W on 19 Sep 2012
In reply to The New NickB:

> It is often the other way around. Changes in the law often reflect changes in society, morality is perhaps a rather tricky concept to attach to these changes.

The law is both a symbol / reflection of where society stands morally on particular issues, but it can also be an influence on the morality of individuals within society.
In reply to David Riley: The local Council didn't harbour him.
In reply to Tall Clare: He killed two unarmed people*
andyathome - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Clint86)
> [...]
>
> Though not really as chilling as luring two young police officers to an address knowing they would be unarmed and shooting them in cold blood.
>


So. Is that what HE did?

Gordon Stainforth - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
>
> So. Is that what HE did?

Yes, he sent out a hoax call about a burglary.

Now we know that he is one of the most dangerous men in Britain: charged with no less than four murders and four attempted murders.

andyathome - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
'he sent out a hoax call about a burglary'.

Keep following the news at it evolves, Gordon.

I, personally, suspect that it will eventually emerge that the police officers were called out on a tip-off phoned in by a rival faction intent on getting Cregan arrested and that there was a panic response from Cregan who, after the killing*, immediately handed himself in.

Given the numerous assertions above in this thread (from 'offduty' amongst others) about his intent being, as the 'most wanted man' in Manchester, to calmly lure police officers to their deaths in order to increase his 'standing' when he went down, I stand to be disproved.

But that proposition is a bit bizarre isn't it. He is successfully in hiding; so he decides to phone the police so he can kill some police officers?

*And from someone living in Bradford when Sharon was killed I don't condone the killings. Do I really need to say that?
Enty - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
>
> So. Is that what HE did?

I honestly think the public don't know 100% if that is the case but if it does eventually come out as being the truth how on earth will you cope?

E
Sir Chasm - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome: Excellent wotireckonery, it's what the internet's for.
ThunderCat - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> 'he sent out a hoax call about a burglary'.
>
> Keep following the news at it evolves, Gordon.
>
> I, personally, suspect that it will eventually emerge that the police officers were called out on a tip-off phoned in by a rival faction intent on getting Cregan arrested and that there was a panic response from Cregan who, after the killing*, immediately handed himself in.
>
> Given the numerous assertions above in this thread (from 'offduty' amongst others) about his intent being, as the 'most wanted man' in Manchester, to calmly lure police officers to their deaths in order to increase his 'standing' when he went down, I stand to be disproved.
>
> But that proposition is a bit bizarre isn't it. He is successfully in hiding; so he decides to phone the police so he can kill some police officers?
>
> *And from someone living in Bradford when Sharon was killed I don't condone the killings. Do I really need to say that?



I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from with this. You seem to be having a go at people for jumping to conclusions from the snippets they pick on the news, whilst at the same time jumping to conclusions from the more recent snippets you pick up from the news.
andyathome - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to andyathome) Excellent wotireckonery, it's what the internet's for.

Totally agreed. Look at the whole thread.
Gordon Stainforth - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:

Oh for goodness sake, stop speculating. The complex true nature of the case will only emerge at the trial. Apart from ghoulish titillation, it is not much of our business now. The main thing is that he's out of the way for public safety and justice will take its course.
ads.ukclimbing.com
andyathome - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to andyathome)
> [...]
>
> I honestly think the public don't know 100% if that is the case but if it does eventually come out as being the truth how on earth will you cope?
>
> E

As I understand your post; I'll cope.

My point is that the posters up above were leaping to conclusions without knowing anything beyond what had come from an initial press briefing. And I said as much.

Leaping to conclusions about intent/motive, creating a virtual 'crime scene', and deciding that the death penalty is called for, on such flimsy 'evidence', is dodgy to say the least.
andyathome - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Gordon,

I'll leave it for now. But your assertion above that, 'Yes, he sent out a hoax call about a burglary' is that 'fact' or 'speculation' on your part.
Gordon Stainforth - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:

It wasn't speculation, it was what the police were saying yesterday. I suspect it still has some factual basis, but I haven't followed the case at all today because it's clearly very complicated and there is no point whatever in doing so at this stage.
MG - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to andyathome)
>
> It wasn't speculation, it was what the police were saying yesterday. I suspect it still has some factual basis, but I haven't followed the case at all today

Except on here clearly.....
andyathome - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
So the police said that 'Cregan phoned in a burglary report'? To lure two officers to their deaths.

The factual basis is what exactly? You do know that another person has been arrested for making the phone call? And that the police are now asking for inter-family feuding to stop?
ThunderCat - on 20 Sep 2012
andyathome - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to ThunderCat:
> (In reply to andyathome)
> [...]
>
>
>
> I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from with this. You seem to be having a go at people for jumping to conclusions from the snippets they pick on the news, whilst at the same time jumping to conclusions from the more recent snippets you pick up from the news.

Aye, Mr no profile ThunderCat. I AM having a go at people jumping to conclusions from snippets they pick up on the news (and leaping to a whole load of extrapolations from those 'snippety' conclusions).

I have offered NO conclusions, or decisions on the fate of the accused, in this case. I have suggested a scenario.

We will see which picture is the most accurate.

Won't we.
Eric9Points - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)

> But that proposition is a bit bizarre isn't it. He is successfully in hiding; so he decides to phone the police so he can kill some police officers?
>

I must say that your theory seems more improbable.

Why would an enemy of Cregan just report a burglary at the address rather than just say that the bastard was hiding there? Not only would they be able to collect £50K but they'd have the added bonus that Cregan would probably have been shot.

But it's all speculation. I'll keep an open mind on what precisely happened.

What doesn't seem to be in dispute is that he killed two unarmed women in cold blood. That makes him a turd no matter what led up to it.

One thing does puzzle me though. He was out on bail because the police didn't have enough evidence to charge him. Who was he hiding from and why?
Gordon Stainforth - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> So the police said that 'Cregan phoned in a burglary report'? To lure two officers to their deaths.
>
> The factual basis is what exactly? You do know that another person has been arrested for making the phone call? And that the police are now asking for inter-family feuding to stop?

Yes. But I don't get your point at all. It seems that the police officers had clearly been misled in some way, because if they'd known who it was the operation would surely have been treated completely differently (e.g. with crackshot armed policemen etc.) The picture that the police have painted so far is not unlike a mini-mafia, and they were clearly regarded as extremely dangerous people. But all speculation must cease. The minimal judgement we can pass so far is that the police had somehow been misled.

andyathome - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Eric9Points:

>
> But it's all speculation. I'll keep an open mind on what precisely happened.
>

>
I think that is a good response!

andyathome - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> It seems that the police officers had clearly been misled in some way, because if they'd known who it was the operation would surely have been treated completely differently (e.g. with crackshot armed policemen etc.) The picture that the police have painted so far is not unlike a mini-mafia, and they were clearly regarded as extremely dangerous people. The minimal judgement we can pass so far is that the police had somehow been misled.

Gordon. I think you have made my point perfectly for me.
Goucho on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Dax H: Forgive me for being a cynic, but if this f*cker gets life, meaning life - he comes out in a box - then bearing in mind the huge financial cutbacks the UK is having to make, wouldn't it make perfect sense to just blow the tw*ts brains out purely on cost saving grounds.

I'd sooner see the hundreds of thousands (in fact possibly millions) of pounds it will cost to keep him in prison for the rest of his life, spent on slightly more worthy causes.
IainRUK - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Goucho:
> (In reply to Dax H) Forgive me for being a cynic, but if this f*cker gets life, meaning life - he comes out in a box - then bearing in mind the huge financial cutbacks the UK is having to make, wouldn't it make perfect sense to just blow the tw*ts brains out purely on cost saving grounds.
>
> I'd sooner see the hundreds of thousands (in fact possibly millions) of pounds it will cost to keep him in prison for the rest of his life, spent on slightly more worthy causes.

I thought the economics didn't clearly support that... as you pay for execution, appeals, time on death row.. bare in mind the average time on death row in the US is 15 years..
Goucho on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to IainRUK: No appeal...he's plainly guilty....no time on death row...he's taken out the back of the court and shot....cost of a bullet and 30 seconds of a someone's time with a gun.

A somewhat extreme approach maybe, but it might just send out a message that enough is enough, and that the British Justice system is the big boy in town, not the wannabe hoodlums out there.
Sir Chasm - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to IainRUK: I wonder how much some of our more high profile inmates have cost, Ian Brady has been locked up for almost half a century and made full use of the free legal system, perhaps it hasn't been worth it.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Goucho:

Please see jkarrans post at 0845 on Wednesday

That really should have been the end of this thread.

Sadly it wasn't
ScraggyGoat on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Goucho:
Doesn't work though does it. The defendant knowing that the court would pass a capital punishment sentence wouldn't have walked into the station.

The end game could then have been very uncontrolled, in a crowded high street, supermarket, road school. The defendant would have had nothing to loose in trying to shoot his way out, with likelihood of innocent loss of life, or police fatalities.

The fact we have no CP has probably saved lives in this case.
IainRUK - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Goucho: yeah it works in the US... the death penalty is a great deterrent...

IainRUK - on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to ScraggyGoat: See that case in the news, in New York. A guy executed his boss and the police shot him, in doing so they also shot 9 members of the public.. at the time it was publicised as a mass shooting.. then they realised all the bullets in the by-standers were from police guns..
Goucho on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to IainRUK: Can't argue with that one - although making comparisons between US criminal culture, and UK criminal culture, is possibly not comparing like for like.

Maybe the answer, is far longer prison sentences for murder - especially multiple murder - with no chance of parole.

Or maybe it's all a horrible Catch 22?
Goucho on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to ScraggyGoat: That maybe the case, I suppose the best way forward would be to pass legislation so there was a mandatory 20 year prison sentence for anyone caught in possession of a firearm.

I'm not looking to create a culture of revenge, but some effective form of deterrent.
ScraggyGoat on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to Goucho:
The deterrent is already present for most crimes, we can argue whether the punishment fits the crime...............but IMHO; ultimately its the chance of being caught that is the deterrent.

For guns, criminals know that a huge amount of resources are put into catching them, so I suspect that has put a lot of criminals off using them. On the other end of the scale a bit of vandalism, petty theft the chance of being caught is a lot lower, so the criminals have a sense of impunity.

We have to ask ourselves how many police are we prepared to pay for, and as citizens be prepared to stand up in court and testify.
ScraggyGoat on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to ScraggyGoat:
Once we are catching and convicting them, then we can start arguing for the hard core repeat offenders to get longer terms, if the current terms aren't enough to deter.
Goucho on 20 Sep 2012
In reply to ScraggyGoat: I'm not convinced we do, and I'm not convinced the sentences are in fact a deterrent.

For instance, if you get caught speeding in the UK, you get 3 points on your licence plus around an £80 fine (I know above certain speed thresholds it can be more, but I'm just talking about a basic SP30). As you have 12 points to play with, it is a deterrent of sorts, but you'd have to get caught 5 times before you lost your licence (you can drive with 12 points on your licence).

However, if you got a mandatory 6 points and a £500 fine for each speeding offence, then I reckon people would be far less inclined to do it.

Therefore, if we applied that principle to crime, wouldn't we surely see a reduction? The more hardened the criminal, and serious the crime, the tougher the mandatory sentence.
birdie num num - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to Goucho:
Hardened criminals have no fear of the police or the courts, crime will always be a gamble that they are prepared to take. Generally , folk who get SP30s have been less attentive to their speedometers than they have to the road ahead, increase the penalty and the reverse will be true.
If prison were a really shit experience for all who were detained, it might possibly deter a few, at the moment, it appears to be fairly comfortable provided that you're not bothered about going out.
Clint86 - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to birdie num num: It would be interesting to work in a prison and be the one who monitors and gives out the punishment. It would be hard I feel, to consistantly deprive criminals of everything apart from bread and water. There are practical problems, and the natural empathy which we have for others, especially if we were not a victim of their crimes. Its fine just passing a judgement, but difficult delivering it.
Clint86 - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to birdie num num: Its nice to hear the real you by the way. Your amusing in role play, but far better when you are genuine.
Wonko The Sane - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to birdie num num:
> (In reply to Goucho)
> Hardened criminals have no fear of the police or the courts, crime will always be a gamble that they are prepared to take. Generally , folk who get SP30s have been less attentive to their speedometers than they have to the road ahead, increase the penalty and the reverse will be true.
> If prison were a really shit experience for all who were detained, it might possibly deter a few, at the moment, it appears to be fairly comfortable provided that you're not bothered about going out.

I've always felt that loss of freedon is punishment enough for most. Of course, some are institutionalised, but should we really make prison as unpleasant as possible just so these people also feel punished?

I just can't get behind the idea of what to me amounts to mental torture of people who, whilst not excusing them in any way, are often people who have fallen through the gaps in society from a young age.

I also think that where possible prison should be abour real rehabilitation. You don't rehabilitate by demeaning a person you do it by encouraging them to see their own potential.

Yes, it will mean that many in the system will take the piss out of it and that may annoy you. It does me too........... but I feel you have to be pragmatic about these things.

I am not after a softly softly approach, but an effective one.

In the case of this chap who killed these two police officers....... there's almost certainly no hope for someone like this and I think he should be locked up for life and never get out. But I don't wish to see him treated inhumanely. What would be the point of that??? I doubt he'd learn a thing and I certainly wouldn't take any pleasure from it.
ollieollie - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity: stop bickering
ThunderCat - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
> [...]
>
> Aye, Mr no profile ThunderCat.

??

What does me not having a profile have to do with anything?

Indulge me.
ThunderCat - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to ThunderCat:
> (In reply to andyathome)
> [...]
>
> ??
>
> What does me not having a profile have to do with anything?
>
> Indulge me.

Would you like some personal information? Photograph? Turn ons?



off-duty - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> 'he sent out a hoax call about a burglary'.
>
> Keep following the news at it evolves, Gordon.
>
> I, personally, suspect that it will eventually emerge that the police officers were called out on a tip-off phoned in by a rival faction intent on getting Cregan arrested and that there was a panic response from Cregan who, after the killing*, immediately handed himself in.
>
> Given the numerous assertions above in this thread (from 'offduty' amongst others) about his intent being, as the 'most wanted man' in Manchester, to calmly lure police officers to their deaths in order to increase his 'standing' when he went down, I stand to be disproved.
>
> But that proposition is a bit bizarre isn't it. He is successfully in hiding; so he decides to phone the police so he can kill some police officers?
>
> *And from someone living in Bradford when Sharon was killed I don't condone the killings. Do I really need to say that?

Good luck with that theory. The only thing it does is minimise Cregans responsibility for the murders.
off-duty - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to andyathome)
> [...]
>
> [...]
> One thing does puzzle me though. He was out on bail because the police didn't have enough evidence to charge him. Who was he hiding from and why?

Whilst on bail he committed a second murder and grenade attack. Which is why he became Britain's most wanted.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to ThunderCat:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
> [...]
>
> Would you like some personal information? Photograph? Turn ons?

Please just drop it both of you. As I pointed out last night at least one regular user of this site appears to have known one of the murdered police women.

The response of the police, media and public in general appears to have been dignified and restrained. You are doing yourself no favours by allowing these sad events to be the catalyst for an increasingly personal episode of internet bickering

If you must continue this pointless and distasteful argument, please consider doing it privately by email.

Best wishes

Gregor
Sir Chasm - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs: Have you been in touch with the BBC? They keep mentioning it on their website too.
ThunderCat - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
> (In reply to ThunderCat)
> [...]
>
>
> If you must continue this pointless and distasteful argument, please consider doing it privately by email.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Gregor

I'm just genuinely interested why my lack of profile is an issue...

And pointless and distastful arguments are the lifeblood of UKC, as far as I'm aware.
ThunderCat - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to birdie num num)
> [...]
>
> I've always felt that loss of freedon is punishment enough for most. Of course, some are institutionalised, but should we really make prison as unpleasant as possible just so these people also feel punished?
>
> I just can't get behind the idea of what to me amounts to mental torture of people who, whilst not excusing them in any way, are often people who have fallen through the gaps in society from a young age.
>
> I also think that where possible prison should be abour real rehabilitation. You don't rehabilitate by demeaning a person you do it by encouraging them to see their own potential.
>
> Yes, it will mean that many in the system will take the piss out of it and that may annoy you. It does me too........... but I feel you have to be pragmatic about these things.
>
> I am not after a softly softly approach, but an effective one.
>
> In the case of this chap who killed these two police officers....... there's almost certainly no hope for someone like this and I think he should be locked up for life and never get out. But I don't wish to see him treated inhumanely. What would be the point of that??? I doubt he'd learn a thing and I certainly wouldn't take any pleasure from it.

I think that sums up how I feel, but put in a much clearer way than I could.
marsbar - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to ThunderCat:
> (In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs)
> [...]
>
> I'm just genuinely interested why my lack of profile is an issue...
>
> And pointless and distastful arguments are the lifeblood of UKC, as far as I'm aware.

Somebody's friend is dead. Ffs grow up.
ThunderCat - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to marsbar:

Calm down. Deep breath.
marsbar - on 21 Sep 2012
ads.ukclimbing.com
marsbar - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to ThunderCat: no offence like....
ThunderCat - on 21 Sep 2012
In reply to marsbar:

Better wait and check that out from home...

off-duty - on 25 Sep 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:

I thought I'd just bump this thread as the vigil was today and the murders a week ago.

RIP.
Albert Tatlock - on 25 Sep 2012
In reply to off-duty:

A week on, and I still fail to make sense of such a pointless waste of two young lives.

RIP
andyathome - on 25 Sep 2012
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
From a BBC report:
Issuing an order under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, Judge Gilbart said he was concerned with "material which has been published and to press conference answers and accounts, which have been widely disseminated".

"The court is very much aware of the intense interest the public will have in what went on and why," he said.

"But the punishment of a man or woman charged with crime can only happen in a free democratic society if he is convicted after due process.

"It is critical to the maintenance of that due process that any defendant who denies a charge receives a fair trial.

"It cannot and must not be decided on the basis of material published otherwise."

He added that "deciding what happened is a matter for a jury to consider, and not for the press, broadcasting media, internet sites, police or politicians".

"Due process is an important safeguard not just for any defendant, but also for the relatives of the victims and the public interest in seeing justice done.

"I remind everyone who is thinking of publishing or broadcasting anything in this case which lies outside the proper bounds of the potential for prosecution."

Well said.

So maybe this thread needs pulling?
off-duty - on 25 Sep 2012
In reply to andyathome:

Yes. You are probably right. I will report it and start another.

RIP Fiona and Nicola

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.