Attack on a poppy seller

[Clive Maier]

No these things are not civilised - neither is attacking a 79 year old man with a hammer!

As I said if the 'system' hasn't got the guts to deal with these people in the only way they understand there are always others who will do it - I have seen it happen.

We seem to be in agreement on the barbarity of the attack and the remedies.

What is being suggested is that we should not draw conclusions until we know what happened, until we know whether the attacker can be held responsible for his actions, and until we know how the matter has been dealt with. I see no indication at this point to suggest that the 'system' will not work as it should. The system - and civilisation - will certainly have broken down the moment we have self-appointed vigilantes burning and boiling their way around the country.

[Ivor Lee]

I first started 'selling' Poppies nearly 50 years ago as a 10 year old. In those days the only fear I had was the day a policeman came over to me. I thought he was going to arrest my mother and me because I was so young. Instead I can vividly remember him putting a shilling in my box and taking a poppy from me.

As someone whose father worked for the RBL at Headquarters and later ran one of its residential homes I find this a sad and disturbing tale and a poor reflection of society today.

My best wishes for a speedy recovery go to the victim.

[Alan Lines]

I see no indication at this point to suggest that the 'system' will not work as it should.

It broke down when he was released on bail!

[paul guthrie]

There is still a presumption of innocence and reasonable bail is a truly fundamental right. I can tell you defending a person who is locked up is quite difficult. I am defending a woman now charged with triple murder and facing the death penalty, she's in custody.

Even the hard core right wing people become rather interested in constitutional rights when their child is facing charges.

Let's find the man guily before punishing him; for all I know he is insane and not responsible for his acts in England since 1856 I believe, McNaughton's rule.

[christine liava'a]

Some magician is holed up in a box for weeks, and half of London turns out to see him.

A guy who climbs up a crane, near Tower Bridge, protesting against the rights of estranged Fathers (for the sixth time), gets almost nil publicity - even though he dressed up as Spiderman, and blocked the weekend capital traffic.

Well, We heard about both of these in NZ, where they are both utterly irrelevant. We even saw pictures on TV

[Terry_Reeves]

Whilst I understand why people get hot under the collar, I have to agree with Clive, Max, and John. I work in the criminal justice system and can say without a doubt that newspaper headlines often do not reflect the facts. I don't know the details of this case, and may I suggest , neither does anybody else at the moment. The principal that underpins the law in this country is "innocent until proven guilty". As has been suggested, the tabloids are quite happy to have a trial by newspaper, for financial gain of course. In the end a jury, if it gets that far, will decide the case, based on the facts alone, and not media hype.

On a final point, there is no evidence to suggest that national, or any other sort of military service acts as a cure-all for any sort of problem. I speak as somebody who spent twenty-seven years in the armed forces, and who does not have a reputation as a "wishy-washy liberal".

Terry Reeves

[Clive Maier]

It broke down when he was released on bail!

Yes, it may have done. It's hard to say without knowing the reason and the terms.

My propositions have been well put by others and are simply these. Don't make assumptions and prejudgments. Don't propose cures that are as disabling as the disease. Don't think it is any better or worse for involving a poppy seller. Don't think the checks and balances of a justice system are just a charter for criminals.

[ianw]

I certainly agree that we should wait until we know the full facts before leaping to judgement but would tend to feel that any individual who attacks people with a hammer should be in some sort of custody whether he proves to be sane or as mad as a coot. Are there no prisons or asylums ? Well actually , no there aren't. We now have "Care in the Community". No doubt several social workers and expensive shrinks will be able to wean him off over enthusiastic use of blunt instruments in 5 or 6 years or so.

I would not draw any distinction between an attack on an O.A.P poppy seller or an O.A.P Big Issue seller. I find the young who prey on the old particularly repellent. It is an especially cowardly type of corrosive anti-social behaviour and should be punished in a draconian manner.

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Whilst I understand why people get hot under the collar, I have to agree with Clive, Max, and John. I work in the criminal justice system and can say without a doubt that newspaper headlines often do not reflect the facts. I don't know the details of this case, and may I suggest , neither does anybody else at the moment. The principal that underpins the law in this country is "innocent until proven guilty". As has been suggested, the tabloids are quite happy to have a trial by newspaper, for financial gain of course. In the end a jury, if it gets that far, will decide the case, based on the facts alone, and not media hype.

On a final point, there is no evidence to suggest that national, or any other sort of military service acts as a cure-all for any sort of problem. I speak as somebody who spent twenty-seven years in the armed forces, and who does not have a reputation as a "wishy-washy liberal".

Terry Reeves

Terry,

Didn't spend as long as you in uniform but I agree with your views on National Service - it is too expensive.

However whilst we don't know the facts, a 'contact' between a 79 year old man, one year off of 80, and a 29 year old man who uses a hammer - please!

If he was from down our way this guy would end up with no ear lobes!

Ian

[Terry_Reeves]

Ian

Sorry, but you make my point for me. Implicit in your post there is an immediate assumption of guilt. I will reiterate - we don't know the facts. If, in the end a prosecution results and the defendant is found guilty, or admits guilt, then the law will take its course. In the meantime we should not assume or presume anything.

Terry Reeves

[Dragon]

‘sane’ or ‘mad as a coot’

‘expensive shrinks’

I feel these expressions have the same flavour as the appalling ’Bonkers Bruno’ headlines. They imply that mental illness is not to be taken seriously. They imply that people who are mentally ill are weak and have probably brought their problems on themselves.

I would appeal to people to avoid using stigmatising language when mentioning mental health. Mental illness locks human beings out of society and work as effectively as a locked door. People can die from it.

It’s an illness, it is usually treatable or at least manageable and the medical doctors who help people to come through immense distress and trauma are called psychiatrists. Other people can help by showing compassion.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/campaigns/cminds/index.htm

Stigma is alive and well; it is deeply distressing. Having experienced some people's reactions to my having been in acute psychiatric care for nine months with a form of PTSD after a workplace trauma, I know how it feels.

I haven’t a clue why the attacker chose the poppy day collector as his victim. I won’t even speculate. What happened was awful. But I can’t condone the loose use of the concept of mental health care as evidence of society’s perceived-to-be over-liberal attitudes to laws and justice.

Gwyn

[Guest Simon Bull]

The main reason I want to remember the men we all commemorate is that they died fighting for something I hold very dear - namely freedom from oppression.

Just about the most fundamental tenet of any such freedom is that anyone accused of a crime is Innocent until proven guilty.

I am deeply worried to read on this Forum people suggesting that the individual who has been ARRESTED (NOT CONVICTED) in relation to this crime is a "scumbag" and should automatically be denied bail. This amounts to deciding that the police (and not the courts) are the arbiters of guilt. Surely to suggest that s/he be treated in that way is to betray precisely the fundamental freedoms which these men died to protect?

I, for one, would not have wanted to fight and die for a country which did not have (and respect) a proper judicial system. A society which does not protect fundamental freedoms of that nature is simply not worth fighting for, indeed it must be fought against.

Simon Bull

[ianw]

No Terry, I disagree. Many people prior to their trials are remanded in custody for a variety of reasons. Obviously they are "innocent" men by definition prior to the end of any trial. Many are subsequently acquitted and released. However, the police must make a sensible judgement whether the nature of the offence that may have been commited justifies a remand in custody e.g the "innocent" Soham couple. It would seem that in this case, they have decided that this individual could safely be released. This decision may prove to be correct or not. It is still my contention that if it is likely that the individual concerned did attack someone armed with a hammer, then he should be remanded in custody. This is not presuming guilt, it is merely being sensible and indeed would show concern for the "attacker" who may urgently need medical help/counselling. One hopes that the police decision is not influenced by availability of resources.

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

[John_Hartley]

A remand in custody (or release on bail) is a decision usually taken by a magistrate. The basis on which a decision is taken is (1) is the person who has been charged likely to be a danger to themselves/others, (2) are they likely to try to interfere with witnesses (3) are they likely to do a runner and not attend court.

Previous posts confirm that a man was arrested, but has he actually been charged. If not, then the police obviously have no option but to release. If he has been charged and the police have decided not to apply for a remand, then they must have some pretty strong indications that he is not a risk.

My earlier posts are not in conflict with expressing surprise that someone who makes an unprovoked attack in this way (and may be mentally ill and, therefore at risk to themself and others) is not remanded in custody (or sectioned under the Mental Health Act).

But, as others have pointed out, we don't have the facts.

[Alan Lines]

Don't make assumptions and prejudgments.

I haven't. It's a fact that he has been released on bail which means he is at least under suspicion. Do I want someone who may be guilty of such a crime walking the same streets as my teenage children for months? No!

I agree too that any type of assault is a terrible thing no matter what age etc. but how come you are far more likely to get a longer sentence for killing a policeman than a member of the public?

[stevew]

I wasn't going to add any further comment on this thread, but............

Someone who attacks anybody with a claw hammer is a scumbag. The report I saw, said a man had been arrested and released on police bail - which to me tends to suggest he had something to do with it

[Terry_Reeves]

IanW

I am a bit confused by your post. I don't know if this man was bailed by the police, but if he was they must have had a very good reason for doing so, which has nothing at all to do with resources. If he was bailed on first appearance at a Magistrates Court, then the Justices will have made their decision under the provisions of the Bail Act, having heard representations from the prosecution and defence. If the prosecution had strong objection to the Justices granting bail, then they could have launched an immediate appeal against this decision to a Judge at Crown Court. But then I don't know the facts of the case; and that is my point. Niether does anybody else yet.

Terry Reeves

[Max]

It is still my contention that if it is likely that the individual concerned did attack someone armed with a hammer, then he should be remanded in custody.

Precisely. So what does this say about the case in question?

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't bail based on the individuals likelihood of fleeing or committing crime whilst "free" on bail. The police have made the judgement that this is not likely and we will have to wait to make OUR judgement until all facts are in the public domain.

Andy

[Matt Dixon]

As a former police officer, I have indeed seen it from both sides of the law. I agree with the comments posted that we indeed do not have the facts, we can only rely on what is reported in the media. I would have no problem in suggesting that a radical shake up of the criminal justice system is much needed, and I have no doubt that the sentence passed down to this individual will never be sufficient in some peoples eyes.

In relation to the comment about sentencing for people who assault Police Officers, having been the victim of a serious assault at the hands of an offender, which resulted in two stab wounds to the head caused by a screw driver, plastic surgery and many months of PTSD, it was a sad day when the offender only served 4 months of a 12 month sentence. The fact I was a Police officer would maybe (and indeed I have had this said to me) prompt some people to say "You chose to do the job, therefore you should take the risks".

Regardless of profession, a victim is still a victim, and the punishment should fit the crime. Being cynical regarding the criminal justice system, I only hope that for once, the above might happen, and Eric might see justice done.

[armourersergeant]

To go back to the original posting......

Well for once words fail me.

Arm.

[uncle bill]

Britain went to the dogs a long time ago,the dogs have chewed it up, eaten it and done their business under a bush.

[ianw]

I entered "Poppy Seller Attack" into Google in a bid to get some more facts about the Aylesbury attack. I was interested that in addition this search threw up reports of an elderly poppy seller robbed at knife point in Canberra , an arthritic 61 year old seller beaten by two young men with sticks in Brighton . He apparently now has broken bones in his hands because he would not surrender his collection tin. This man deserves a medal. There was also a similar story from Canada. At the risk of offending those with more liberal sensibilities, I think "scumbags" is as good a collective noun for these reptiles as any other. (Apologies to newt fanciers everywhere.)

Perhaps not too surprising that poppy sellers are thinner on the ground this year !

[Steve_McGarry]

Time to bring back national service?

Tim

Pleeeeze NO !!!!

I am sure HRH has enough problems at the moment without allowing this type of monster in her forces...

No offence intended to any other types of monster that may be reading this..

[ianw]

Quite agree Steve. These people really don't need to be given weapons and unarmed combat training at our expense. Let's put the National Service idea to bed once and for all.