Thursday, 23 August 2012

Police Responsible for More Deaths

David Oakes - Murderer


The police have been blamed for the deaths of Christine Chambers and her daughter Shania. The pair were shot by Christine Chambers boyfriend David Oakes, who has been sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment. I am very disappointed that senior officers in Essex Police have simply rolled over and apologised for the alleged failings of the police and promised that lessons will be learnt.

I have previously written about the difficulties of prosecuting domestic abuse cases and about the apparent unwillingness of domestic abuse victims to press charges. There are also links between this case and my last post concerning Tia Sharp. If you read the first article you cannot miss the similarities between that case and this latest one. No lessons were learnt. I am not sure that there are any to be learnt.

Victims - Christine Chambers with daughters Shania and Chelsea


If the police failed in some way then I agree that we must look at our strategy and processes and see if we can do anything better. When I see the IPCC stating that not enough resources are placed in domestic abuse then alarm bells begin to ring. When I see that this offender has been in front of a judge and given a non molestation order and breached it I am not surprised as most breaches of such orders usually result in a ticking off by the judge and further bail. Every incident of domestic abuse is investigated. Invariably the victim will not press charges. I think we understand that victims are frightened of their attackers and perhaps we need to look more carefully at why.

Huge resources are spent trying to persuade victims to press charges. Every case is risk assessed using a 16 page form. Alarms, refuges and all sorts of support are offered but in most cases victims fail to support prosecutions. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) are not easily persuaded to go ahead with victimless prosecutions, quite rightly, when few of them are successful.

There are more and more demands made by various inspection authorities for the police to put more resources into domestic abuse, child abuse, anti terrorism, vulnerable adults, anti social behaviour. Etc. No thought seems to be given as to where these resources will come from. Police Officer numbers have been cut 16,000 in the last year. Most of these resources have come from the front line. Response officer numbers are pared to dangerous levels. Neighbourhood officers are becoming local crime investigators and prisoner handlers. Less than 50% of all crime reported is investigated at all. More resources placed in specialist departments will mean even fewer victims crimes being investigated.

What I think I would like to have heard the Essex ACC was this;

Appropriate resources are allocated to investigate domestic abuse. All incidents of domestic abuse are risk assessed and investigated. We do everything we can to persuade victims of domestic abuse to press charges but unfortunately they do not feel that the justice system offers them the protection they want. When offenders are charged they are invariably bailed by the courts and regularly breach bail conditions and re offend. Occasionally those on bail go on to commit very serious offences including murder. The courts are not investigated for their responsibility in these cases.

Sometimes we have to accept that the way some individuals chose to live their lives puts themselves and their children at greater risk. The police and other authorities should do all they can to protect vulnerable victims, including victims of domestic abuse. Sometimes it has to be accepted that because of peoples life choices and the constraints of our present justice system, not every victim can receive the protection that society would like them to have.

8 comments:

  1. “WOOP, WOOP!”

    Shanky arrives with his muscled torso daringly exposed and flexes mightily…

    Jess, my patwa may be a ruthless affectation, but I’m afraid it is clearly not calculable as any part of my defence. It’s strictly a utilitarian construct I use to rascalise the many weak opponents that I both routinely and comprehensively defeat. As these opponents are primarily police, and as the police are both institutionally racist and institutionally corrupt, I like to think that it stings just that little bit more when I serve up my patwa like a bombastic rasta, and you’ll neva put no fatwa on me patwa, child…

    I agree with both you and Rafael Correa in that Assange must answer his accusers, but he is being prevented from doing so. As much as I would also like to clear my name should I find myself in his position, would I seek to do so with the CIA on my case and Guantanamo Bay in my future? Nah, I’d be playing the long game hunkered down in an embassy building attempting to use the press to fight back in the only way available to me.

    To compare the likelihood of Assange receiving a fair trial due to his notorious media profile to the prospect of your man Adolf Hilter being tried fairly should he have lived is probably the most fatuous comparison I have ever heard. The ignorance expressed by such a statement instils within me only contempt for whatever education you may or may not have received. There is a qualitative dislocation between disseminating information to provoke debate through increased understanding on the one hand (whether considered criminal or not), and genocide, book-burning and the destruction of Western Europe on the other. Many like you have already made up their minds about the Assange case due to the misrepresentations of the media. This is very different to looking out of the window in the Forties and seeing your town or city aflame.

    This is good: “As to being monitored you are right- I could not give a toss- they can watch me 24-7 if they like- it will make for rather glum viewing. But if it prevents terrorism or gun running or drug related crime then great. super great. Its like the queues at the airport- a necessary evil Im afraid.”

    Surely you understand that the government monitoring YOU will only prevent terrorism, gun running and drug related crime if YOU are the one intending to commit these crimes. Are you? If you are then the best way to prevent these crimes is to simply not commit them. Clearly you’re not a feminist if you need the “big-daddy” of patriarchal totalitarianist authority keeping a little lady like you on the straight and narrow. Children require supervision: I don’t. And just because something seems like a good idea doesn’t necessarily make it so, does it. As to necessary evils, I don’t believe in them. The majority of successful terrorist acts are perpetrated by state actors to serve the domestic slavery agenda or their own geopolitical ends. Anyway, if you loathe privacy so much, why do you wear clothes and have secrets? Why shut the curtains? Maybe you do it because aspects of you life are no one’s business but your own?

    When you work out where you’re coming from, let me know.


    I am Shanky: Fit, strong, powerful…

    ReplyDelete
  2. Victims, like this lady, might just as well be juggling with knives and loaded guns when their lives lead them into partnerships with people like him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shanky off topic darling. AS to Essex, the police don't seem to do anything except beat shit out of hippies or cripples (Jody MacIntyre anyone?) Google "Joe Poulton" to see why you are despised.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here is another reason the Police can't win:

    http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9888835.Sentencing_adjourned_in_non_molestation_case/?ref=rss

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shanky,
    I think you may put this on the wrong thread.

    Anyhow,

    1- affectation- I think its a bit tiresome and detracts from your points. If it was amusing I could see the point but ... Just saying...

    2 - I think bunkering down weakens ones case

    3 - Pity you resort to insults but I stand by my point that even infamous 'alleged' criminals have to stand trial. I never suggested Hitler and Assange had committed crimes of equal magnitude. I was making the point about infamy effecting juries or judges.

    4. - I havent made my mind up about Assanges guilt on either the rape or putting operatives lives at risk. I haven't seen enough evidence. I do believe he should be investigated though and possibly stand trial for both.

    5- Alas criminals are deceitful and hide away- the wee buggers- so police etc have to use a wide net to catch them. And phone and net snooping, with appropriate software can be very useful here- which is why I welcome it.

    6- I wear clothes cos its cold over here, and is the law, and I close my curtains so that a random perv cannot look in at me.

    However I dont mind a paid agent monitoring my account or emails, or even tapping my phone as I am an honest, law abiding person- they will soon realise so and leave me alone Im sure.

    Jess

    ReplyDelete
  6. Using a wide met Jess? You mean fitting up. To which we will see an end in South Yorkshire if/when I am elected PCC. Start resigning now you scumbags, it is gonna hurt.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am wiping away the tears of laughter-elected in South Yorkshire?

    Anyway back on topic- I have booked my police car in to have a crystal ball fitted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Learned Council23 August, 2012 19:17

    Broxted elected! I nearly choked on my doughnut. Delusional idiot. He will get less votes than his blog gets readers. Any bets on single figures?

    ReplyDelete