PC driver escapes dangerous driving punishment....surprise, surprise.

My days, it is practically unbelievable. The eyebrows raised in surprise will not hold that position for long when you consider a judge has once again dismissed a high profile case with mere words that ends with an offender leaving court free without sanction. Beggars belief.

Police officer Mark Milton had taken control of a new police vehicle, a Vauxhall Vectra 3.2, on the 5th December 2003. At 0300hrs he was on an A-road near the M54 in Shropshire before going onto the motorway itself, and when he returned to his base it was established by checking his on-board cameras that Pc Milton had reached speeds of 131 and then 159mph. The first speed was clocked on the A-road, the second on the motorway. A-road speed limits can vary but on average are 50mph, the motorway carries a 70mph limit, giving an idea of how much over the limit the officer was during casual driving and not in pursuit of an offending vehicle.

The Crown Prosecution Service found the PC had committed an offence and tried him, but he was acquitted after the trail judge heard Pc Milton was 'familiarising himself' with the vehicle, for it was his first time and he wanted to see how the vehicle would perform under pursuit conditions. The CPS appealed tot he High Court and it was found the trail judge had erred and the case was sent for retrial.

It came before District judge Peter Wallis at Ludlow Magistrates' Court, who saind the speeds were "eye-watering", found the Pc guilty of dangerous driving but said he had suffered enough during the past two and a half years of court proceedings. Therefore Pc Milton received an absolute discharge, which means a criminasl conviction is recorded but no punishment.Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 it is to be granted under exceptional circumstances.

West Mercia Police, responsible for the district, said they would appeal the discharge, and Pc Milton's lawyer stated an appeal will challenge the judge's opinion that the officer's advance driving skills were irrelevant.

Now, my take is why did he reach those speeds? Because he was familiarising himself with the vehicle. Then aren't the vehicles tested prior to being made available for duty? They are checked, I am not sure how often but they are, particularly if the driver has a concern or has been involved in a collison or pursuit. Additionally, if Pc Milton had to test the vehicle, why hasn't a senior officer come forward to say they had been aware of what Pc Milton intended to do and gave him permission to do so under certain conditions? Is this country aware of how many people have the mind or experience to do things without going through training or tests? That is why the officer's advanced driving skills are irrelevant, most can handle a vehicle at such speeds with little to no vehicles around at the same time. How many people own a vehicle that can reach speeds of 150-160mph and do so and are prosecuted if caught?

My understanding is that police vehicles in pursuit will call off from the chase if speeds reach 100-130mph for too long because of the danger to other road users. A police helicopter is called and can take over the pursuit from the safe distance above and ground units then follow the commentary from the 2nd man in the 'copter. Therefore there is little to no need for Pc Milton to test the vehicle at such speeds if police policy will forebade such speeds in the interest of public safety. Lawful authority or reasonable excuse are two phrases used when one adopts an approach that is deemed inappropriate or of major concern, and I doubt Pc Milton had either.

If an advanced driver had reached those speeds at the same time of night (which I expect was quoted to show the lack of vehicles on the road surfaces at the time), he or she would still be prosecuted and no doubt would be convicted of dangerous driving even with no other vehicle on the road for miles and miles. Judges are beginning to show a lack of public concern and common sense, and police officers continue to evade punishment for conduct unbecoming of a police officer. Same old same old, and it is partly why law enforcement continues to have a fluctuating popularity.

Finally.....Damilola's killers are eventually brought to justice

Damilola Taylor was found bleeding from a leg wound in a stairwell of a housing estate in Peckham, South East London on the 27th November 2000. He received the wound from an intentional slab of a broken beer bottle, and such was his attempt to get to somewhere for assistance or even be out of sight of his attacker he limped some distance and got as far as two flights of stairs before weakness crept in and he was found by a passer-by. Damilola reached hospital but was pronounced dead due to a severed artery.

In 2002, four youths were charged with his murder on the evidence of one female girl who was so contradicting in her evidence she was practically and inadvertent hostile witness for the prosecution. Her demands for mod cons during her stay under police protection was well documenting of her overall attitude and concern for her role as a vital witness. The case went on to an absolute aquittal beyond all reasonable doubt.

Two youngsters were arrested along with the eventually tried four above. Those two were Daniel and Richard Preddie. They were released at the time but four years went by before forensic evidence was passed to another forensic team from the Forensic Science Service, the original forensic team in the acquittal trial. Experts found traces of Damilola's blood by the heel of a trainer and on a cuff of a shirt, belonging to either of the brothers. Evidence also matched torn fibres with that found on the beer bottle. Today the Preddie brothers (the Pray-die brothers as they hunted their victims during a detailed crime spree from the age of eleven and twelve) were found guilty of Damilola's manslaughter and will be sentenced later. Danny Preddie shouted at the jury after the verdict.

These two have faces of absolute contempt, wicknedness, and a one-way ticket to criminality. You are not meant to judge on appearances and in some cases that is true. In this one, there is no doubt. I expect they will be sentenced for six years, though I sincerely hope it is more.

Another tragic incident from motorist selfishness

A lorry driver, who was driving a 7.5 tonne lorry at the time he was attempting to press the keypad of his mobile handset, was not paying attention to the road ahead of him and his lorry ran onto the back of a vehicle and then rolled over it. In the aftermath, the lorry had also damaged six other vehicles waiting in a queue of traffic. The first vehicle the lorry hit and rolled over had a woman driver only as its occupant, who was pronounced dead at the scene. The lorry driver, 31-year-old John Payne said in court he did not know why he was pressing the buttons on his handset because he did not intend to make a call but the prosecuting lawyer told the court Mr Payne (which is no misnomer) had mentioned to his companion at the time that he wanted to know how to operate the handset.

We have again had another loss of life through the inappropriate actions of a driver concerned more with his mobile handset than the safety of himself, his passenger and other road users. What would have happened had there been cyclists, motorcyclists, people moving in between the traffic, who could have been unaware of the lorry? More deaths. It sounded quite a miracle others were not killed in their vehicles, much less on open road. Some people believe they can handle operating a mobile and drive simultaneously. The judge in this case said the incident described before him in court made for a telling example of why such conduct is to be eradicted. But we are a society that do not pay attention unless we are involved in a circumstance.

The thing is Mr Payne would have looked to avoid thinking about his handset if he could have forseen the incident that unfolded. We should not need to be in a situation to learn to avoid it but we will not listen until it is too late and then aim to make amends, by which time it is far too colossal to turn the clock back. Mr Payne received a custodial sentence of four years. I say the incident should have been a case for Caldwell involuntary manslaughter and Mr Payne jailed for seven, if not eight, years.

I see numerous people still driving and talking on their handsets in total ignorance of the law. If it was considered important for the implementation of a hotline to the Department of Works and Pensions for informing on benefit claimants who abuse the benefits system, so why do they not do the same for those who openly flaunt motoring laws? Report the driver and their registration, time of offence and where. With CCTV said to be in such quantity around cities and of such covert operation, finding a vehicle on camera and deciphering whether drivers were alone or not, it should work to stop the mobile-handset-using drivers. Mobile phone operations are easier to prove giving satellite positioning and the masts logging every signal from the handsets, and the constant sight of drivers on their mobiles allows for plain-clothes officers to film and stop almost on a daily basis.

The call for duty of care under police powers

The stop-and-search powers for the Metropolitan Police is called again into question. To some, the question of its absolute application is no surprise. Before, the police were entitled to stop whoever they wish and question them as well as search them. Now, the police must have a reasonable suspicion to stop and search you. The determination of reasonable suspicion is open but were you to wander from one's garden with a bag that could be considered from its size and bulging contents to be potentially implements to aid committing a burglary and one moves off at a faster than usual walking pace, maybe that is reasonable suspicion. Particularly to a police officer.

Today one of the senior officiers of the Metropolitan Police force, Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, the highest ranking Asian officer, has spoken out at a National Black Police Association conference in Manchester in regard to the potential 'extremism' such powers could encourage to protude from members of the public in the direction of Muslims. Amongst his speech, Mr Ghaffur said:

[stop-and-search powers are] "to be based on physical appearance than being intelligence-led"

"The impact of this will be that, just at the time we need confidence and trust of these communities, they may retreat inside themselves."

This is partly the element amongst the black population today, that the racism from police officers or the bad feelings of everyday pressure directed at black people by police officers has the exact effect of many black people turning away from the law authorities. Amongst the black population, particularly the younger generation, it is a struggle to encourage them the police force is there to combat the crimes of today in the good name of righteousness and justice. Because of the updated legislation that now imprints the treatment of police officers on members of the public in the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the number of stop-and-search on minorities has reduced. That is not to say police officers should not used such powers often, only that they use them with discretion and good intelligence, something which Asst Comm Ghaffur mentioned in his speech today.

The UK law authorities and counter-terrorism agencies have discovered that there are members of the Muslim population in the UK who hold extremist values in favour of the terrorist supporting groups situated globally. Such views has called for the commitment of bombings that resulted in the 7/7 attacks last year, the first of its kind connected to Muslim extremism. Police intelligence appears to have led to a number of raids and arrests up and down the country, one of which has been a major debate recently, that of Forest Gate.

Because of such 'intelligence' (because it is questionable how good the intelligence is), the authorities found no sign or evidence of terrorism-linked activities at the Forest Gate address, while one occupant was shot. Our surveillance people are not stupid, they have methods of conducting intelligence without people knowing, so why had the raid not found any evidence? At the same time, calls are immediately made that the authorities are out to get members of the Muslim community, perhaps at random. I feel it is strong to suggest the authorities choose at random as that is simply a heavily time-consuming exercise but also they must ensure they are right before they conduct a raid.

Additionally, the tragic Stockwell tube station shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes reminds us that intelligence gathering can have its flaw with dire consequences, and such flaws could continue to result in more innocent deaths. The shot occupant in the Forest Gate raid could have been another, though I suspect the pofficer in question had struggled with the occupant before the firearm discharged. The de Menezes incident was different in that officers aimed with intent to kill. A side note, SOMEONE should have been found accountable for that innocent man's death but perhaps because he was a Brazilian national, it made little for such accountability. I know if one of my family members had been shot innocently, I would endeavour to find out the truth because someone somewhere would be responsible, and that someone would have to be found. Regardless.

The UK government is right to debate and pass laws to tighten up the resources, the intelligence gathering, accountability and security measures in order to prepare to combat the threat of further terrorism attacks particularly in homeland. That could call for stringent measures that effects us all but if that's the cost of keeping vigilant, I am OK for that. But I am not OK for an officer to simply pick me out in public because I am black or a Muslim person. Consider this incident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4840814.stm

Also consider how police officers had harassed Duwayne Brooks, the friend who accompanied Stephen Lawrence during that fateful night of Stephen's death. Officers had been accused of harassment of Brooks, allegations from robbery to attempted rape were unfounded and nonetheless do not amount to the right to harass. Mr Brooks successfully sued the Metropolitan Police under the Race Relations Act for not granting him the same rights as they would have to a white person. The Met Police still claimed no admission of liability, astoundingly enough. When an accused is convicted, he or she can plead to the cows go baa but he or she is considered to have been liable. But when the Met Police are found to be wrong in court, they still say they are not liable. This is the kind of mixed message that gives a poor impression on the police. They have the powers to execute their duty under law, why do so to the degree of extremity?

Lebanon: August 7th 2006

The situation in Lebanon has reached the stage of no return. Unless the powers that be (a basic ideal way of describing them) involve some monetary value into a draft ceasefire initiative, the fighting will continue, along with it it's inevitable loss of life and destruction of property. The militia Hezbollah fight for the right of the Lebanonese people for proper recognition of its people by the Israeli government, but in the background they reach out to their fellow Arabs in Palestine.

Today there is more reporting of deaths of civilians, and at the end of the day there is room for talks to occur because no one in war would wholeheartedly choose to fight for the occurrence of deaths of innocent civilians.

The world is a hellhole for many as it is, with famine STILL continuing despite the numerous nations who continue to prosper, criminality reaching the levels where criminals are treated with kid gloves by the very system set up to deter and/or punish them, shooting on the streets between those who wage a vicious war through drugs and guns and its financial incentives that results in the deaths of innocent bystanders, the increasement of costs of living that further widens the gap between society and poverty (I am talking about the streets of England, much less in a third world state), medicinal resources being strained and restricted unless you have some wealth or connections that help you (meaning the many middle-class workers continue to strive for the wage packet that just covers their monthly living and having to work out how they can divert more money for hospitalisation).

Life is hard enough as it is without two factions going to war and many lives destroyed in the process over issues that should be discussed between adults. If adults cannot at least do this to avoid war, what chance is there of encouraging youngsters of doing the same throughout their lives? Isn't this why many youngsters are disillusioned that they brandish or conceal weapons to help settle their disputes?

Another young death under the spectre of drugs and guns

On Friday, a drug dealer named Joel Smith was convicted for the murder of Bertram Byfield and Toni-Ann Byfield. Toni-Ann had been visiting Mr Byfield, who understood he was her biological father, but DNA tests revealed he was not. Mr Byfield was a convicted crack cocaine dealer residing in an ex-offender's bedsit in Kensal Green, North West London. Smith visited to kill Byfield and rob him of his possessions, assumed to be drugs and money. Unfortunately innocent seven-year-old Toni-Ann was there too at the same moment and Smith shot her as she turned her back to flee fromm him, after she witnessed Smith shooting dead Mr Byfield.

To think Smith left no clues, no witnesses of him leaving the premises, no CCTV footage of him or a vehicle suspected to or proven to have been used by him or by anyone else harbouring him. Shooting Toni-An covered any chance of revealing the assailant's identity, the perfect crime, if such a concept can be condoned. Except for the honour amongst thieves, or murdererd, or drug dealers. Because nonetheless, shooting a child, an innocent child, was a step too far.

Criminals are into crime just to get by, others to have something to raise a family on, to help pay the continuingly increasing bills that come with living. There are some who may have both in mind, or simply want to live the rich life at the expense of others, without the effort of honest grafting under legal employment. Nonetheless, shooting a child is a taboo. Due to nationwide appeals, Smith's name was conceded to the law authorities and a search for him developed intelligence of his whereabouts in Liverpool, where he was for two years after the murders as a prisoner.

Yet what it is that gets to me is not so much the murders but also the Birmingham Social Services. What was their policy in regard to Toni-Ann visiting a convicted drug dealer? For me, a convicted drug dealer would have to convince me he or she will have nothing more to do with drugs. No taking them, no selling them, no laundering them, carrying them, looking at them. How they will prove that is up to them, they just have to convince me. But for a statement to be worded like this beggars belief:


"We've made really significant changes to address all recommendations of an independent review.....At the end of the day however, I can't guarantee that armed gunmen won't walk into a room and shoot people. And at the end of the day, that's what lies at the heart of this case."

- Peter Hay, Birmingham City Council's strategic director of social care


Cannot guarantee armed gunmen walking into a room but Birmingham Social Services can guarantee to check more thoroughly, if they did at all, on who children in their care are visiting or residing with. Perhaps they would have preferred a child was sent to visit or reside with a paedophile, a child molester, where maybe they can guarantee the child won't be murdered but interfered with. Such a stupid statement, which comes on the back of those who failed Victoria Climbie in Wembley and Tottenham, North West and North London respectively.

Miss Climbie was being looked after her aunt, Marie-Therese Kouao, under the understanding of her mother in the Ivory Coast that Victoria would have a better opportunity to gain a high standard of education in Europe. Kouao initially lived in Paris, France but was being pursued by the authorities over benefit payments and took off to England. Kouao and Victoria meet Carl Manning, a bus driver, while he was working, and both move into his place in Tottenham. It is there Victoria's tragic abuse began at the hands of Manning. Read the timeline of this terrible, tragic eventual murder of eight-year-old Victoria here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2062590.stm


Birmingham Social Services to release such a statement showed they do not feel any lack of duty in Toni-Ann being allowed to visit Byfield and therefore murdered for being in the wrong place. Such a flippant tone, they should be condemned and those responsible for Toni-Ann's care should be reprimanded or dismissed. Meanwhile, Smith was jailed for life for both murders, with a recommendation he serve a minimum of 40 years for the killing of Toni-Ann and 33 years for the murder of Mr Byfield. Concurrently. I have read many stories of where I feel British justice has constantly let down those affected by the actions of an offender as that offender is let off lightly in punishment. Concurrently means at the same time therefore Smith will served 40 years instead of 73 years. Smith should answer in full for both murders, and he is not the only one.