Mark Duggan - Murdered by the Met?

Kevin Hutchinson-Foster

 

Kevin Hutchinson-Foster has been sentenced today to 11 years in jail for drugs and firearms offences. He was convicted of supplying the gun to Mark Duggan, which he was in possession of, when shot dead by police.

When I first wrote about this story the riots that followed Duggans death were just starting. Some sections of the 'community' in Tottenham and London decided that the police shouldn't go around executing an innocent, unarmed, law abiding, family man. Other parts of the country saw this as an opportunity to take part in the retail riots, thinking that our ineffective justice system would allow them to get away with it.

Hutchinson-Fosters trial has brought out almost all the evidence that will be heard at Duggan's inquest. The jury decided that one gun toting drug dealer gave a gun to another gun toting drug dealer. We can only speculate what Duggan intended to do with the gun. The Trident officers investigating Duggan clearly believed he intended to cause harm to, or murder, the man he believed to be responsible for the death of his cousin. Quite rightly, knowing that he had taken possession of the gun, they ordered the firearms team in to arrest him. The police officer that shot Duggan stated that he had the gun in his hand and raised it towards the officer who then shot him.

Duggan, The Family Man, With Two of His Friends Who are Serving Life for Shooting People

Unfortunately there are still a few misguided souls around who still believe that Duggan was this completely innocent family man who was executed by the police in retaliation for the murder of Keith Blakelock.



 

Greed is The Inventor of Injustice as Well as The Current Enforcer

Debbie Simpson - Thanks, I'll have that 10% pay rise

If you are interested, the post title is a quote from Julian Casablancas.

Some of you may be aware that the new Police and Crime Commissioners have the power to grant Chief Constables pay rises of up to 10% above the rates their post received last October. This was one of the recommendations from Tom Winsor. The idea was that to attract the best leaders you may have to pay more.

Another of Winsor's recommendations was, of course, to reduce the starting pay of new recruits by £4000 or 20%. He wants to improve the standard of new recruits but apparently you can do that by reducing pay in the case of the 'grunts' at the lower echelons.

Debbie Simpson has just been appointed Chief Constable of Dorset. She was already doing the job in an acting capacity. She wasn't going anywhere else. She would have been happy with her £133K salary and a five year contract.

Martyn Underhill, the PCC for Dorset, has decided to give her the full 10% pay increase that is within his power, bringing her salary up to £146K. His decision has been questioned by the Panel that monitors his work and he has defended his decision claiming he needed to offer the extra money to get the right quality applicants.

Our Chief Officers are clambering all over each other to climb the greasy pole and do not need any more incentives. As for good leaders, it is our Chief Officers who are responsible for chasing pointless targets and ignoring real crime and criminals. It is our Chief Officers who sold their integrity to the media chasing spin and good news stories. It is our Chief Officers who have failed to show leadership while the Government and Winsor pulls apart and destroys the police service, the only part of our justice system of any effect.

At a time when almost everyone is suffering from increased costs of living and falling pay, and police officers in particular are having their salaries and pensions decimated what sort of example is this? Martyn Underhill is an idiot who clearly has no political or moral sense at all. If Debbie Simpson has any decency or any real leadership skills she will refuse the pay increase. I won't hold my breath though.

How The Courts Protect Officers

There are a number of blogs out there highlighting the failure of the justice system to punish criminals and I won't make a habit of joining them. This case though just highlights how our justice system fails to protect anyone including those charged with upholding the law.

Two police officers intervened when five thugs were threatening a doorman. The thugs turned on the police and assaulted them both causing significant injuries. Three of the five were convicted of affray and one of assault after a week long trial.

Philip Rawlings was sentenced to 46 weeks in prison suspended for 2 years. David Rawlings and Michael Pulford were sentenced to 36 weeks in prison suspended for 2 years.

This is what the sentencing guidelines have to say regarding the offence of affray.

'Custody is the starting point in their sentencing decision but there is power to reduce the sentence by up to 1/3 for an early guilty plea, which may mean that custody can be avoided by the offender co-operating at the earliest stages. As an alternative to custody, the sentence may be a community punishment e.g. community service, which is served in the community.'
These three didn't plead guilty and because the attack was on police officers there were aggravating factors that should have meant an immediate prison sentence.

Our ineffective justice system will argue that the three received a prison sentence but the court chose to suspend it. A suspended sentence means no penalty. A suspended sentence means if you commit another offence within the 2 year period of its suspension you might have to serve the sentence.

Many years ago I was sucker punched in the cells by an offender. I had a black eye and four stitches in my eyebrow as a result. The offender pleaded guilty to ABH and was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment suspended for two years. A year later he was charged and convicted with ABH. He was fined £150 for that assault and the suspended sentence was not invoked.

Our justice system is so focused on reducing the prison population in order to save money it is of no deterrent effect at all. It is rewarding offenders and failing to protect the vast majority who uphold and obey the law.

For Huhne The Bell Tolls

Lying May 2011

Well, Chris Huhne has finally pleaded guilty to Perverting The Course of Justice. I am sure you are all aware that his car went through a speed camera back in 2003. He was driving but didn't want the conviction so he persuaded his wife, Vicky Pryce, to say she was driving and she took the penalty points on her licence.

 Lying Again Feb 2012

In 2010 Huhne dumped his wife and moved in with his mistress. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and all that. Before too long a police investigation was under way and Huhne denied the offence. The CPS then announced that he was to be prosecuted and Huhne expressed his dismay at the decision but stated that he was looking forward to proving his innocence at the forthcoming trial. Today he pleaded guilty to the offence and has finally resigned as an MP.

 

Admission but no remorse or apology Feb 2013

 

I don't know if any of you saw the Politics Show yesterday morning but if you did you would have seen The Police Federation defending their stance regards their handling of the Andrew Mitchell Plebgate affair. You would have also seen David Davis MP talking about Mitchell being 'fitted up' by the police and talking as if he was completely innocent of all allegations. No acknowledgement that Mitchell admitted swearing at the police. The only argument is, did he use the word pleb during his tirade? You can watch a totally biased version of events tonight at 1930 on Dispatches - Plebs, Lies and Videotape.

 

Interestingly, Davis added in his interview that Cameron had failed to fully support Mitchell as he didn't want a fight with the police. (He is already destroying the police.) He added that Cameron's attitude to the Federation might now be very different and there may be some changes coming. (Wake up Federation.)

 

The media are squirming regards the Leveson Inquiry, worried that the freedom of the press is being gagged by politicians. There is no doubt that MP's would like less intrusion from the media. Why? Some commentators are suggesting that the way the media are treating politicians is preventing people from entering politics.

 

In the past we had politicians who were real statesmen. Their integrity was unquestionable. What we now have running this country is a bunch of self interested lightweights who continually provide the media with the ammunition to undermine them. I remember Edwina Curry discussing the expenses scandal. She said that it would never have happened when Margaret Thatcher was running the country. 'She would have had our guts for garters.'

 

Our current bunch of, often dishonest, politicians are largely unfit to manage this country. In this time of austerity they are still discussing giving themselves a 30% pay rise. Following the disgraceful expenses scandal, where many MP's collars should have been felt, but were not, MP's are now claiming more in expenses than they were before the scandal was exposed. The only difference now is that the taxpayer is paying hundreds of thousands of pounds for the new bureaucratic, 'independent' monitoring of those expenses. To allow these politicians any control over the media is a dangerous move.