Drink drivers still behind the wheel
8:00am Wednesday 25th January 2012 in Latest News By Josh Layton
EIGHT motorists are still on the road in Swindon despite having three convictions each for drink driving.
The offenders were able to legally renew their licences when their latest disqualification periods ended.
Another 74 drivers in the town are still behind the wheel despite having two convictions, while 1,606 have clocked up one offence.
Campaigners have responded to the figures by calling for more to be done to stop motorists who persistently get caught while over the limit.
Kevin Clinton, head of road safety for RoSPA, said: “This level of repeat drink-drive offending is extremely worrying.
“Any driver who is convicted of drink driving more than once in a 10-year period becomes a high-risk offender.
“They must pass a DVLA medical exam to show that they are no longer misusing alcohol before they can get their licence back at the end of their ban.
“The fact that eight drivers went on to have a third conviction for drink driving is even more worrying. All this illustrates the need for strong, high-profile enforcement to protect the vast majority of innocent, law-abiding people from this dangerous minority who persistently drink and drive.”
Ellie Pearson, spokeswoman for national charity Brake, said: “It is very worrying that so many drivers are knowingly taking such huge risks with their own lives and the lives of others.
“Even a small amount of alcohol impairs driving ability so drivers should never get behind the wheel after drinking even a drop of alcohol.
“We are calling on the government to send out the clear message that it’s ‘none for the road’ by introducing a zero tolerance drink drive limit, and to provide an effective deterrent for drink drivers by stepping up policing.”
Over Christmas the mangled wreck of a car was put on display in the town centre. A 22-year-old girl, who was over the drink-drive limit, died as a result of the accident in which the car hit a tree in Devizes at 50mph earlier in 2011.
Richard Palusinski, head of Swindon Community Safety Partnership, said: “One would hope that after disqualification drivers would have learnt their lesson.
“This hasn’t been evidenced by those who have further convictions and are now driving again.
“All I can say is there is no excuse whatsoever for driving while under the influence of drink or drugs.
“The message should be pretty straightforward.
“What’s not acceptable is putting other people at risk from a potentially lethal piece of metal while under the influence of alcohol.”
The figures for the Swindon postal area were released by the DVLA under the Freedom of Information Act.
The maximum penalty for driving while over the legal limit is six months’ imprisonment, up to a £5,000 fine and a ban from driving for at least one year. This rises to three years if a motorist is convicted twice in 10 years.
Comments(100)
itsamess
says...
8:36am Wed 25 Jan 12
I 2 Could B
says...
8:37am Wed 25 Jan 12
I 2 Could B
says...
8:37am Wed 25 Jan 12
AndySN3
says...
8:56am Wed 25 Jan 12
Why are these people given second and third chances? Why are they allowed behind the wheel of a car again?
Until the court gets tough with these criminals, they have no reason to change their ways!!
Are the courts waiting until they kill somebody before they get tough? By then a families life will have been torn apart, and they will suffer whilst the culprit is dealt with in a lenient way. Shocking!! Name and shame them I say!
AndySN3
says...
8:57am Wed 25 Jan 12
Why are these people given second and third chances? Why are they allowed behind the wheel of a car again?
Until the court gets tough with these criminals, they have no reason to change their ways!!
Are the courts waiting until they kill somebody before they get tough? By then a families life will have been torn apart, and they will suffer whilst the culprit is dealt with in a lenient way. Shocking!! Name and shame them I say!
I 2 Could B
says...
9:25am Wed 25 Jan 12
Are the courts waiting until they kill somebody before they get tough?
They don't even get 'tough' then.
itsamess
says...
10:01am Wed 25 Jan 12
Seems you never read the Hudson article-seems to be a common problem with SN3 folk.
mrwoo
says...
10:17am Wed 25 Jan 12
So assume that I am one of the 74.
I however don't condone drink driving and never take my car if I am having a drink these days.
AndySN3
says...
10:44am Wed 25 Jan 12
itsamess wrote:I most certainly did read the Mr Hudson article, and posted on it.
Andy
Seems you never read the Hudson article-seems to be a common problem with SN3 folk.
What are you saying I never read?
Mr Hudson was severely injured and left disabled by a drink driver, yet the person responsible escaped prison!!
Before you make assumptions about people from SN3, get your own facts straight!!!!
AndySN3
says...
10:48am Wed 25 Jan 12
mrwoo wrote:Does it matter if it is in a ten year period or not?
This is misleading. Are they saying 3 convictions in 10 years or 3 convictions? I have 2 drink driving convictions. One in 1987 and one in 2005.
So assume that I am one of the 74.
I however don't condone drink driving and never take my car if I am having a drink these days.
To be caught twice for the same offence must mean that the punishment is not harsh enough.
You may not drink drive now, or condone it, but you still saw fit to do it at least twice, and it is more luck than judgement that nobody was injured or killed as a result of your stupidity!
itsamess
says...
10:52am Wed 25 Jan 12
Do re-read the article again as there is no mention of drink driving--the other driver was convicted of 'dangerous driving'
AndySN3
says...
10:56am Wed 25 Jan 12
itsamess wrote:You are right, I have just re read the article. Sorry.
Andy
Do re-read the article again as there is no mention of drink driving--the other driver was convicted of 'dangerous driving'
itsamess
says...
10:59am Wed 25 Jan 12
mrwoo
says...
11:03am Wed 25 Jan 12
AndySN3 wrote:Have you ever speeded?
mrwoo wrote: This is misleading. Are they saying 3 convictions in 10 years or 3 convictions? I have 2 drink driving convictions. One in 1987 and one in 2005. So assume that I am one of the 74. I however don't condone drink driving and never take my car if I am having a drink these days.Does it matter if it is in a ten year period or not? To be caught twice for the same offence must mean that the punishment is not harsh enough. You may not drink drive now, or condone it, but you still saw fit to do it at least twice, and it is more luck than judgement that nobody was injured or killed as a result of your stupidity!
Robfm
says...
11:06am Wed 25 Jan 12
Having a zero level will achieve little the recidivist drinker is not the one or two pint man or woman.
Of course drinking to excess and driving is of wrong, but I have known people literally admitting to drinking 5 pints and still blowing a negative. There are far more factors at work than just the alcohol.
AndySN3
says...
11:14am Wed 25 Jan 12
mrwoo wrote:No, neither have I driven under the influence of drink or drugs.
AndySN3 wrote:Have you ever speeded?
mrwoo wrote: This is misleading. Are they saying 3 convictions in 10 years or 3 convictions? I have 2 drink driving convictions. One in 1987 and one in 2005. So assume that I am one of the 74. I however don't condone drink driving and never take my car if I am having a drink these days.Does it matter if it is in a ten year period or not? To be caught twice for the same offence must mean that the punishment is not harsh enough. You may not drink drive now, or condone it, but you still saw fit to do it at least twice, and it is more luck than judgement that nobody was injured or killed as a result of your stupidity!
Your point being?
If you have been caught twice, then the original punishment wasn't severe enough to deter you doing it again.
Until it is a more severe punishment, this will keep happening, and as you seem to suggest, speeding also falls into this category.
We rely on cars, vans and lorries in everyday life, I make a living from vans and lorries, but we also need to respect them, and educate people appropriately to the dangers of not obeying the law that was written to protect them.
itsamess
says...
11:28am Wed 25 Jan 12
The rest of your post is gibberish.
mrwoo
says...
11:38am Wed 25 Jan 12
AndySN3 wrote:well done Andy, you must be one of those annoying numpties who get in the way of my big Merc. Never driven at 31 in a 30?? Oh and I don't condone speeding after.
mrwoo wrote:No, neither have I driven under the influence of drink or drugs. Your point being? If you have been caught twice, then the original punishment wasn't severe enough to deter you doing it again. Until it is a more severe punishment, this will keep happening, and as you seem to suggest, speeding also falls into this category. We rely on cars, vans and lorries in everyday life, I make a living from vans and lorries, but we also need to respect them, and educate people appropriately to the dangers of not obeying the law that was written to protect them.AndySN3 wrote:Have you ever speeded?mrwoo wrote: This is misleading. Are they saying 3 convictions in 10 years or 3 convictions? I have 2 drink driving convictions. One in 1987 and one in 2005. So assume that I am one of the 74. I however don't condone drink driving and never take my car if I am having a drink these days.Does it matter if it is in a ten year period or not? To be caught twice for the same offence must mean that the punishment is not harsh enough. You may not drink drive now, or condone it, but you still saw fit to do it at least twice, and it is more luck than judgement that nobody was injured or killed as a result of your stupidity!
BTW I got a 12 month ban in 1987, should that have been life, or perhaps life in prison, hanging?
AndySN3
says...
11:45am Wed 25 Jan 12
mrwoo wrote:Strange how because I don't speed, you start to throw insults around.
AndySN3 wrote:well done Andy, you must be one of those annoying numpties who get in the way of my big Merc. Never driven at 31 in a 30?? Oh and I don't condone speeding after.
mrwoo wrote:No, neither have I driven under the influence of drink or drugs. Your point being? If you have been caught twice, then the original punishment wasn't severe enough to deter you doing it again. Until it is a more severe punishment, this will keep happening, and as you seem to suggest, speeding also falls into this category. We rely on cars, vans and lorries in everyday life, I make a living from vans and lorries, but we also need to respect them, and educate people appropriately to the dangers of not obeying the law that was written to protect them.AndySN3 wrote:Have you ever speeded?mrwoo wrote: This is misleading. Are they saying 3 convictions in 10 years or 3 convictions? I have 2 drink driving convictions. One in 1987 and one in 2005. So assume that I am one of the 74. I however don't condone drink driving and never take my car if I am having a drink these days.Does it matter if it is in a ten year period or not? To be caught twice for the same offence must mean that the punishment is not harsh enough. You may not drink drive now, or condone it, but you still saw fit to do it at least twice, and it is more luck than judgement that nobody was injured or killed as a result of your stupidity!
BTW I got a 12 month ban in 1987, should that have been life, or perhaps life in prison, hanging?
Must say something about your mentality!!
As for a suitable punishment for drink driving, I think people caught should be stopped from driving a motor vehicle ever again.
That would make people stop and think about what they were doing.
If they were daft enough to get behind the wheel again, this time they are uninsured and driving without a licence. Then I would send them to prison!
The courts and the enforcement authorities need to get tough with these and a whole host of other offences, and until they do people will always "take a chance"
itsamess
says...
11:47am Wed 25 Jan 12
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
12:09pm Wed 25 Jan 12
Hmmmf
says...
12:40pm Wed 25 Jan 12
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:Probably about the same as any other large town. They've all "paid their debt to society", after all. What's your point if you "don't mean to scare people"?
I don't mean to scare people but if we have serial convicted drink drivers still driving around Swindon, what are the chances that we have serial convicted offenders fraudsters rapists, murderers, fraudsters and other violent criminals roaming our streets right now?!?
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
1:25pm Wed 25 Jan 12
Hmmmf wrote:well if violent offenders can and "have" paid their debt to society, so have the convicted drink drivers unless there is a different rule of Law for motorists, that was the point I was trying to get to.
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:Probably about the same as any other large town. They've all "paid their debt to society", after all. What's your point if you "don't mean to scare people"?
I don't mean to scare people but if we have serial convicted drink drivers still driving around Swindon, what are the chances that we have serial convicted offenders fraudsters rapists, murderers, fraudsters and other violent criminals roaming our streets right now?!?
Old Town
says...
1:37pm Wed 25 Jan 12
.
I am all for giving motorists a break, and a 12 month ban for first offence is reasonable. However for a second offence it should be a minimum of a 5 year ban - and anyone convicted for the 3rd time should be banned for life !
.
Speeding is completely different. For example a car driving at 80Mph on a clear motorway is different to someone driving who's driving ability is impaired through alcohol
.
Politiprat, of course we have people in Swindon who have in the past been convicted of all the things you talked about
.
As far as I am concerned the same thing should apply - 1st offence they should be punished accordingly, 2nd offence they should be punished in a far harsher way, and if they are bad enough to be convicted for a 3rd time, the book should be thrown at them and taken out of our society for a very very long time if not forever....
Disco20
says...
1:55pm Wed 25 Jan 12
Old Town wrote:Fantastic, someone who talks sense!
I'm sorry Mr Woo but you cannot possibly suggest speeding and drink driving are in the same bracket ? . I am all for giving motorists a break, and a 12 month ban for first offence is reasonable. However for a second offence it should be a minimum of a 5 year ban - and anyone convicted for the 3rd time should be banned for life ! . Speeding is completely different. For example a car driving at 80Mph on a clear motorway is different to someone driving who's driving ability is impaired through alcohol . Politiprat, of course we have people in Swindon who have in the past been convicted of all the things you talked about . As far as I am concerned the same thing should apply - 1st offence they should be punished accordingly, 2nd offence they should be punished in a far harsher way, and if they are bad enough to be convicted for a 3rd time, the book should be thrown at them and taken out of our society for a very very long time if not forever....
Good to see you back on here OT!!!
I 2 Could B
says...
1:59pm Wed 25 Jan 12
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:Of course we do, plenty of them. That's how our so called 'Justice System' works - to allow the convicted criminals back into society as quickly as possible.
I don't mean to scare people but if we have serial convicted drink drivers still driving around Swindon, what are the chances that we have serial convicted offenders fraudsters rapists, murderers, fraudsters and other violent criminals roaming our streets right now?!?
It's not very 'just' for their subsequent victims, but the authorities could not care less about that, it's of absolutely no concern to them... as they prove time after time after time.
house on the hill
says...
2:00pm Wed 25 Jan 12
We need to stop being so soft and basically condoning irresponsible behaviour, lives are being lost every day by being so pathetically soft on crime, but we live in this "it will never happen to me" society where no one really gives a **** about anyone else but themselves.
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
3:03pm Wed 25 Jan 12
ity) yet the Law states that driving under the influence is an aggravating factor when sentencing......
The other interesting side of the Law/Justice, is that convicted car offenders often have to retake driving test, attend rehabilitation courses, but the most shocking is that motorists are not entitled to any representation when appearing in Court.
To me it seems that we treat driving offenses a lot worse than hardcore/real crime, maybe we should treat criminals like a treat driving offenders, we might end up with a decent justice then.
Old Town
says...
3:51pm Wed 25 Jan 12
.
Yes they are !!
.
There is a duty solicitor present who any motorist can hire, or you can bring your own
.
Alternatively you can defend yourself ?
.
This thread is about drink driving as well, not other crimes.....
The Patrician
says...
4:12pm Wed 25 Jan 12
Robfm
says...
5:55pm Wed 25 Jan 12
11:47am Wed 25 Jan 12,
You use different words but essentially say the same thing.
Baron good point re mitigation for other crimes, but motoring related is an aggravating factor.
Patrician driving at 40 miles per hour in a 30 limit means almost certain death for anyone hit. Far more people speed than drink drive.
A car can be of itself a lethal weapon in the wrong hands.
I think every case should be judged on it's merits, perhaps a motorist who speeds 3 times in 12 months should lose their licence for 5 years.
We could of course turn the statistics on their head, because far more fatal accidents occur where the drive is sober than when drunk. Just a thought.
Drunk drivers will always be an emotive issue.
Knobfm
says...
6:22pm Wed 25 Jan 12
Lots of good posts but firstly Walter you say I was talking gibberish (what's new?)
and yet itsamess (who I continuall call Walter because I expect it makes me look funny and clever) says...
11:47am Wed 25 Jan 12,
You use different words but essentially say the same thing.
I have no point to make, but I haven't posted for a while and I have nothing better to say.
Baron good point re mitigation for other crimes, but motoring related is an aggravating factor.
You may rest easy that I've cast my expert opinion on your comment and approved it.
Patrician driving at 40 miles per hour in a 30 limit means almost certain death for anyone hit. Far more people speed than drink drive.
Likewise far more people have won the lottery in Swindon than frequent my pub.
A car can be of itself a lethal weapon in the wrong hands. As can a frozen pork chop, a bunsen burner or a firework.
I think every case should be judged on it's merits.
I will cast my essential judgement when I am not so busy on the internet.
Perhaps a motorist who speeds 3 times in 12 months should lose their licence for 5 years.
We could of course turn the statistics on their head, because far more fatal accidents occur where the drive is sober than when drunk. That will give me an opportunity to argue with a few more people, pretend I'm The Oracle and say Walter a few more times.
Just a thought.
Drunk drivers will always be an emotive issue.
itsamess
says...
6:33pm Wed 25 Jan 12
Do not start your nonsense on here trying to divert the thread with unrelated quotes from another thread.
The legal principle applied as to drink/drug driving as far as mitigation is that both are self inflicted. It has been successful in murder trials as intent could not be proved.
As for speeding in 30 mph areas at 40. A sober driver would have quicker reaction times than a drunk driver travelling at 30. RRL has extensive comparison studies in a wide range of simulated instances and the drunk driver poses the greater risk.
Robfm
says...
8:30am Thu 26 Jan 12
Once again Walter you are simply restating what others have said re mitigation.
Knobfm how very apposite your login is.
Knobfm
says...
9:58am Thu 26 Jan 12
It means a lot to me.
I will just say Walter again so that I appear to be funny and clever.
Walter :-)))
moonraker
says...
10:29am Thu 26 Jan 12
Robfm
says...
10:54am Thu 26 Jan 12
Old Town
says...
11:03am Thu 26 Jan 12
.
Ever heard the expression "people in Glass Houses shouldn't throw stones" ???
itsamess
says...
11:05am Thu 26 Jan 12
You do need to check acronyms as RRL is valid--but not what you think it is.
Robfm
says...
11:24am Thu 26 Jan 12
OT mine is not repetitive.
We will now see Walter refusing to disclose what his RRL means.
itsamess
says...
11:29am Thu 26 Jan 12
Old Town
says...
11:30am Thu 26 Jan 12
.
This is not an opinion I have alone is it ?
.
As other people have also said, the use of "Walter" is just boring now
.
You don't want to ever debate anything with him, you just want to disagree with everything he says and it stops people bothering to post as it's always the same
.
The "one up man ship" is just so tedious - lot's of people have told you this over the weeks, months and years - surely not everyone can be wrong and only you be right ?
Robfm
says...
11:59am Thu 26 Jan 12
He does it all the time, he used an old acronym but instead of admitting it, he claims he didn't mean the Road Research Laboratory.
I think the being right aspect is directed at the wrong person.
Jim Royle
says...
12:08pm Thu 26 Jan 12
moonraker wrote:Less tedious than the Robfm and itsamess daily feud. That pair should not be allowed to go about the way they currently do on this site.
Knobfm - Your joking is becoming tedious - I will however admit I enjoyed your comments when you first posted.
Old Town
says...
12:16pm Thu 26 Jan 12
.
What itsamess posted was perfectly reasonable and he makes a very good point about RRL research - you're only response was to try and pick holes by saying the RRL had changed it's name - so what ??
.
So the name might be changed and now different - but the research is still valid, and the "acronym" used to be RRL
.
All it looks like is you cannot find anything within his post to pick holes in apart from the RRL name has changed - that's what is so tedious....
Robfm
says...
12:31pm Thu 26 Jan 12
He is not admitting that or that he was referring to them. That's the point, he did exactly the same with the CCRC repeatedly calling it the CCRB, which is an American organisation.
Anyway other things to do.
Old Town
says...
12:40pm Thu 26 Jan 12
.
Get over it and many more people might be interested in debating on the site
.
While you carry on this nonsense it will be the same....
Jim Royle
says...
1:00pm Thu 26 Jan 12
Robfm wrote:You comment on almost every article yourself professing knowledge about each issue. Itsamess and yourself blatantly trawl the internet for answers in an attempt to put one over on the other. It's easy to see through the pair of you.
He claims repeatedly expert knowledge he doesn't have, ergo referring to a 20 yearold now defuncted organisation. He is not admitting that or that he was referring to them. That's the point, he did exactly the same with the CCRC repeatedly calling it the CCRB, which is an American organisation. Anyway other things to do.
itsamess
says...
1:19pm Thu 26 Jan 12
CCRB is not an american company it is the cold case review body who hold central records as to where every unsolved or partially solved cases where ie a second defendant was not traced. Very simple when you know bobby. No i have nothing to add to that as being a former officer you would be aware of its function--to advise any force where the files are available.
Now perhaps folk can give their views as to the article.
itsamess
says...
2:29pm Thu 26 Jan 12
Easy to see through you too--no interest in the articles. Oh look--you never mentioned the drink drivers--a little shy are you?
Jim Royle
says...
2:42pm Thu 26 Jan 12
itsamess wrote:I am interested in the articles. That is the point, you ruin them. Shame you and Robfm along with a couple of others are only interested in fighting with each other. You take up the whole page with pathetic rows nobody but yourselves cares about. Sad old silver surfers with nothing better to do.
Jim Easy to see through you too--no interest in the articles. Oh look--you never mentioned the drink drivers--a little shy are you?
Smokin Joe
says...
4:59pm Thu 26 Jan 12
Jim Royle wrote:Hear hear.
itsamess wrote: Jim Easy to see through you too--no interest in the articles. Oh look--you never mentioned the drink drivers--a little shy are you?I am interested in the articles. That is the point, you ruin them. Shame you and Robfm along with a couple of others are only interested in fighting with each other. You take up the whole page with pathetic rows nobody but yourselves cares about. Sad old silver surfers with nothing better to do.
And to reprimand you for not commenting on the article is jaw-dropping, rank hypocrisy.
Robfm
says...
6:18pm Thu 26 Jan 12
As for cold case review body, how very TV.
Most forces have cold case review teams now so called because of the various TV series, like Waking the Dead, New Tricks, or the US series Cold Cases. So now we know where one invented acronym originated.
Nothing wrong watching TV programmes, provided you realise they are fantasy Walter.
Knobfm
says...
6:46pm Thu 26 Jan 12
I don't get out much and the bar is empty. I can't think why.
I watch a lot of telly and I say Walter a lot.
Hey everyone look at me.
I'm going to say it..........
Walter!
:-)) :-))))))
itsamess
says...
10:45pm Thu 26 Jan 12
Robfm wrote:Bob
Wow, so Roads Report Lobby, and how convenient it no longer exists. Strange there are absolutely no archives, and what now is the RTRL Walter.
As for cold case review body, how very TV.
Most forces have cold case review teams now so called because of the various TV series, like Waking the Dead, New Tricks, or the US series Cold Cases. So now we know where one invented acronym originated.
Nothing wrong watching TV programmes, provided you realise they are fantasy Walter.
Yes clearly you must watch lots of tv--in between your witterings on here--telling folks what a fantasist i am in disclosing all these acronyms.
Oh dear bobby you have very obviously not read the press release in todays adver--and in the advers national news links on this site.
This relates to the murder of Lynette White in 1988 where 3 men were wrongly convicted.
Later 10 officers were arrested on numerous charges as to the evidence.
The case collapsed in dec last year when "Top cold case detective" Chief Superintendent? claimed the files had likely been destroyed. The files have now been found and the investigation is ongoing.
Some fantasy--eh bobby.
Just like the new forensic advances that can pick up DNA and more conclusive writing or erasures from statements etc.
Do be careful when you try to belittle posters as it will always come back to bite you.
STFC1974
says...
6:10am Fri 27 Jan 12
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzz
have you lot finished yet?
Robfm
says...
7:56am Fri 27 Jan 12
He is of course getting desperate, so after pretending to be someone else in a previous email exchange, he now claims a friend has allowed him to use their email address, one Gordon Chalmers, odd that it is also a Gmail account just like the last series of emails.
Well her it is. Same old waffle. Same old accusations and still no court case.
'Bob
just to update you personally(using a colleagues laptop). Yesterday was a very good day as you really fell right into a trap--you really are not very smart-i was aware of the report published in the national press as to the case of Lynette White. That is significant for various reasons--and why i chose to disclose what the CCRB means. As you claim to have been an exemplary Police Officer who also taught Law i would have expected you to have a clear understanding of the duties of forces to retain evidence. There have been several options and rules for all parties to retain evidence/transcripts etc. Particularly cold cases of serious crime that are unsolved or subject to an appeal or if any party to the crime has not faced Justice. A further instance being if on appeal an injustice becomes apparent. In those cases the courts forward copies of the bundle and transcript and judgement to centralised storage. Likewise both prosecution and defence record where their files are available if required and the location of items of evidence. Most forces only kept the most serious cases and sent the others to what was a centralised secure storage facility in Lambeth--i do not need to go into when the files can be destroyed. This system dates back centuries. It had several names until it became the CCRB-named so as a board once notified a case had completed had to check all the details were correct and agreed before destruction--the IPCC also have an input.
In the case of my friend it took 4 months to collate all the documents and evidence. 4 items were sent for forensic examination which confirmed what a witness had claimed. The case was handed to the CCRC complete with legal precedents. The family of the deceased had been made aware the likely outcome would be a recommendation a pardon be offered--which as you would know is merely forgiving the crime--they would not accept that. They wanted total exoneration. The law is simple when an original appeal was denied--there has to be evidence not available at the trial of sufficient weight to cast doubt on the decision and the weight the judge in his summing up placed on the original evidence--but you would know that. Who would have thought that decades after the offence the forensic service could prove DNA on 3 items did not match the defendants and handwriting samples did not match either. I have listened to your feeble claims as to what you believe would happen--wrong--and you are wise enough to know if you could get me to reveal information on the site it would prejudice the case. Let me make it quite clear-- i am 100% honest and i have gone out of my way to contact numerous people who you have accused of being liars and suffered your tirade of abuse. Several sites have provided and verified your constant abusive manner and false claims. Why have i done that Bob? Look at the communications acts and you will get the answer.
Look at the contradictions you made on the diabetes thread--you made a total fool of yourself as you did on the earlier ones. Clinical trials have been ongoing since 2009 with no pricking to test bloods--its all done by a tiny implanted sensor--no input at all for the patient--even common sense would tell you that becaus the body changes throughout the day. How dare you try to mislead folk on the summise because you are a diabetic and know it all. Scientists--clinicia
ns-surgeons and a host of others have strived to help ease the way the problem is controlled--safely and efficiently--and are moving on to the ultimate solution. Yes i do have a colleague in Basel on the project--he is not high up but a part of a very competent research team. Your stupid remarks as to how could i get and read all the report in so short a time--i am at my workplace most nights overseeing various ongoing experiments and the report had been faxed there--assumptions never work--do they?
As to my profession and my identity--i have given you many clues which shows despite your spurious claims to know this and that about me--and know all these high ups that claim i am a nutter i can tell you the security service has investigated your claims--spoken to senior staff who do not support any of your claims. If any of it had been remotely true they would have immediately known who i am as i use a very specific title. I only ever appear in the high security area to a specific audience.
Do you in your tiny mind believe i will allow you to get away with you name calling and abusive comments--dream on bobby as you incite others to join in the abuse to support you and ruin just about every thread and your card was marked long ago. You bragged on the site how easily you could identify me if i signed up to flickr--threats against I Too--trying to sabotage his site--not so smart are you bobby.
My revelations will be on flickr the day before the official complaint is made which will put everything in motion--its called payback--you chose the wrong scientist to pick on this time--i would love to tell you everything bobby--but i have told you most of it and you say its lies. Dont worry about all your claimed friends reading my flickr site as i will print off copies to send to your claimed friends where you mentioned them--the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
ITSAMESS
ps--leaving for home now'
Leaving home, more likely leaving the planet to return to planet Zog.
itsamess
says...
8:16am Fri 27 Jan 12
As you say it bears no relationship to you--just to demonstrate your ludicrous claim the CCRB does not exist
Nice try though bob--you did as expected.
Robfm
says...
8:27am Fri 27 Jan 12
As for cold cases they have always been reviewed when new evidence or advances make it a realistic likelihood of clearing them up. As I stated forces now follow TV, like Wiltshire now have CSI's, formally SOCO (Scenes of Crime Officers)
itsamess
says...
8:47am Fri 27 Jan 12
Robfm
says...
9:35am Fri 27 Jan 12
I Too
says...
9:57am Fri 27 Jan 12
Robfm
says...
10:16am Fri 27 Jan 12
itsamess
says...
10:39am Fri 27 Jan 12
Robfm
says...
10:48am Fri 27 Jan 12
Robfm
says...
1:00pm Fri 27 Jan 12
'Earlier on Friday, Mr Roddick had indicated that a retrial could be a possibility if the files produced "compelling" evidence that could persuade a jury to convict, and if it was in the public interest.
But later Mr Roddick said a retrial was "most unlikely" as he understood the evidence favoured the defence, rather than the prosecution.'
So hardly the conspiracy Walter implied. Why would the police hide evidence that would potentially clear them.
itsamess
says...
2:33pm Fri 27 Jan 12
I asked you why you called Lambeth Police (a) there is no police station in Lambeth. (b) I stated the CCRB archive facility is in Lambeth together with another body. Access is only available to Police-Courts and legal advocates to research cold cases.
In Dec last year a case arising from the conviction of 5 men for the 1988 murder in Wales of Lynette White. All were cleared on appeal as witnesses were convicted of Perjury.
A full review of the case was ordered by the IPCC and Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Coutts of the cold case team was appointed to bring up to some 35 officers and witnesses to trial.
In Dec last year the case against numerous officers failed when it was claimed Chris Coutts had ordered the documents to be shredded. This was denied and the relative documents were found. Currently there is an ongoing investigation by the IPCC and thus certain evidence cannot be discussed.
All you have to do is search DCS Chris Coutts
Which does not even resemble what you have written above.
Robfm
says...
5:41pm Fri 27 Jan 12
As for there not being Lambeth Police Walter, note I did not say police station. Contact URL for Lambeth Police.
http://content.met.p
olice.uk/Borough/Lam
beth/Contact
itsamess
says...
7:03pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Did i say it was a secret?
Not the conspiracy i implied--you mean that 5 men were jailed for a crime they never commited--a murder and all told 35 officers and staff between them faced charges--or did you miss the part where at the appeal (after the real killer was convicted) officers and witnesses were convicted of Perjury. But there you go--you think its ok for Police to lie to obtain a conviction--you know 3 life sentences.
Strange how crucial evidence went missing on a claim the cold case officer had ordered the files to be shredded--do you believe that officer was not aware of the law that evidence has to be held until the completion of sentences.
Perhaps you dont find it strange how that evidence was found in the place it was supposed to be after the corrupt officers were told the trial could not be heard fully. Why do you think the IPCC and the Director of Public Prosecutions are still examining the case--for fun?
I Too
says...
7:43pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Robfm wrote:That makes no sense whatsoever.
Oh dear I Too back to type. Got board with plagiarism or is it copyright infringement did you.
"got *board*"??
Plagiarism? Do you even know what that means?
Is that another trumped up allegation, to go with the low flying accusations?
Had a letter from CAA yesterday. Strange they didn't mention your claims.
For someone denying falsified evidence you're hardly portraying yourself as a good person.
Gelatine magic
says...
11:39pm Fri 27 Jan 12
Knobfm
says...
9:56am Sat 28 Jan 12
Robfm
says...
10:21am Sat 28 Jan 12
As for the CAA why would they mention anything with regard to me, I at no point stated I would or did contact them, another delusion.
Key it up you've almost overtaken Walter.
itsamess
says...
10:51am Sat 28 Jan 12
Not a lot of time to post right now--tea break from a meeting that started at 6 am.
As i did attempt in my only letter to you--despite your claims-to take these issues off line--you chose to drag it back here--probably to get your cronies to support you--it doesn't work as you choose to be deceptive once again with more b/s. You will regret it as you will face the consequences of your actions and inciting others to mimic your claims--a feature of most sites such as this.
Robfm
says...
11:11am Sat 28 Jan 12
But you said it had been. Oh they must be telling porkies.
Perhaps you should work during the week like normal people, whoops that implied you actually do work, my mistake.
Knobfm
says...
2:34pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Why this week I have served at least 4 customers.
I never lie. That is evident within these threads.
I am a fully paid up member of HOPS (honest oratory publicans society )
I also have superiol keebord scills and never make spelling misteaks.
Knobfm
says...
2:48pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Robfm wrote:Liar.
I Too what are you waffling about. If you are referring to Walters ramblings I have not even made comment about the rights and wrongs of the White case. Like you Walter simply invents other peoples comments for his next rant.
As for the CAA why would they mention anything with regard to me, I at no point stated I would or did contact them, another delusion.
Key it up you've almost overtaken Walter.
http://www.swindonad
vertiser.co.uk/news/
local/9443444.More_o
f_brewery___s_landlo
rds_gain_top_award/
Liar.
http://m.flickr.com/
#/photos/73970391@N0
3/6704603859/
Liar.
http://m.flickr.com/
#/photos/73970391@N0
3/6704601581/
Knobfm
says...
3:27pm Sat 28 Jan 12
It was my neighbour.
My neighbour also typed out all those accusations onto the readers comment, using my laptop when I wasn't looking.
My pub was not empty when those pictures were taken.
They are satellite images and the satellite clock was set incorrectly..
The satellite is called Walter :):):):)
To prove they are satellite pictures go to www.googlybob/talks-
bs/lies-isassoff/emp
tybar.co.uk
itsamess
says...
5:15pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Robfm wrote:Bob
Oh heavens more threats from the fantasist. Still no case listed with the CCRC involving me Walter. They are very helpful people.
But you said it had been. Oh they must be telling porkies.
Perhaps you should work during the week like normal people, whoops that implied you actually do work, my mistake.
Very strange concept you have of what a threat is.
Appeal--are you Appealing a Conviction or Sentence?
Puzzled as to how you are you involved in a case?
In a criminal appeal (after a single Judge has granted leave to appeal against conviction or sentence) 3 High Court Judges (who would have read the case and judgement and the points in law challenged and/or in the case of an out of time appeal fresh evidence.
On an appeal against sentence there are several options-unduly lenient if the prosecution feels that to be the case--or excessive if the defence feels so dependent on who lodges the appeal. The Judges have the option to increase the sentence if defendants appeal is regarded as frivolous.
Appeals against conviction are based on points of law and evidencial rules usually when evidence was allowed or disallowed and prevented a fair trial. In cases where new or fresh evidence is claimed the court has to be convinced that evidence is of sufficient weight to have allowed a jury to reach a different verdict. Likewise if the trial Judge had in his summing up misdirected the jury as to evidence relied on. Thus the appeal is not about re-trying the case. It is about if Justice was done.
The Court can quash the appeal-or uphold the appeal--or find the case should be retried.
Finally in their judgement they give the reasons behind the decision. If the appeal is upheld the defendant is released-quashed-bac
k to prison. Re-trial back to prison to await a fresh trial-or apply for bail.
So you see Bob unless you are a Judge--Counsel or defendant i fail to see how you could be involved.
If of course you have an interest in a case you only need to know the defendant or the case number then the CCRC can be very helpful.
So seems it is not them telling porkies--is it Bobby?
My work programme varies as to a number of things and can be as much as 18 hours a day. Most of it being studying data or research results--even being online to discuss issues with colleagues via secure links.
Robfm
says...
6:09pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Robfm
says...
6:09pm Sat 28 Jan 12
itsamess
says...
6:28pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Shall i double post it--nah--i know how to get over the problem.
Robfm
says...
6:42pm Sat 28 Jan 12
If I don't understand something I can hardly comment on it.
The case you claim to be involved in, you stated was referred to the CCRC for retrial, ergo those who were previous witnesses would give evidence.
But that can't happen, it is the CCRC who recommend a case to the Court of Appeal or Higher Court. As I said the CCRC haven't referred any cases this year.
Gelatine magic
says...
7:14pm Sat 28 Jan 12
itsamess
says...
7:15pm Sat 28 Jan 12
I referred the case to the CCRC for retrial? No-one can refer a case to the CCRC for a re-trial-that is the perogative only of the 3 Judges.
Usual thing when you are caught out--invent another claim.
Again you are showing ignorance of appeals procedures.
There is no higher appeals court as an appeal to the Lords is not regarded as a court.
As i said to find out any details of any court hearing you need a case number or name of defendant or appellant.
Perhaps you should try to read what is said before you post.
Must be quiet in your place tonight--could be due to the party in the village. I will go for a few hours later.
I Too
says...
11:18pm Sat 28 Jan 12
Nearly decided to go to that dive up the road, but then I remembered the sour faced keyboard commando barman.
I like the Carriers. always busy, but friendly :-)
Robfm
says...
8:06am Sun 29 Jan 12
Probably had a free band on.
Good luck to them if they can afford to do that most small pubs, and it is small could never take enough to cover the cost.
That must have been the party Walter spoke of.
Robfm
says...
8:18am Sun 29 Jan 12
Once the investigations have been completed to our satisfaction, we decide whether or not to refer the case to the appropriate appeal court.'
Directly from the CCRC website Walter. The convicted person must have exhausted all other avenues of appeal before the CCRC can even consider the application let alone refer it to the appropriate court which in the case of a Magistrates decision would be the Crown Court, not the Court of Appeal.
The applicant is the convicted person who must be in a position to supply new evidence, the CCRC cannot refer a matter for appeal simply because the convicted person believed a witness lied.
So please stop all your waffling. Your continual lies and obfuscation over this and other matters is quite tedious.
Gelatine magic
says...
10:44am Sun 29 Jan 12
l end up using electric scooters, jamming up cycle paths, dirtying supermarket aisles with their dripping wheels, occasionally veering into the road, going two-abreast on pavements, reaching for things with their walking sticks held in pudgy hands and crying when their trousers no longer fit them." yes, this will happen, and I don't think it will take that long. You see most of them in track suit bottoms, there is a reason for this. They do not take exercise, it is simply that when they gave up, they continued to eat the same amounts. As their mighty thighs expanded, their trousers didn't. I am only talking here about drink drivers being forced onto scooters, no one else.
Knobfm
says...
11:10am Sun 29 Jan 12
A snippet I carefully chose from a website www.selectivegoogly/
blabber-frombob.co.u
k
I never lie. I occasionally, very rarely, say Walter at every opportunity.
I bet it makes me look funny and clever so there Walter :):):):)
I ran out of things to say so I slung a couple of insults at Walter :):):):)
I expect everyone waits to see what I am going to write next
Robfm
says...
11:35am Sun 29 Jan 12
So carry on 'Nob'.
itsamess
says...
3:46pm Sun 29 Jan 12
You are grasping at straws which began when you claimed to have contacted the CCRC for details of a case. With no details of that case. You do not know who the appellant is--you do not know which court the trial and conviction and sentence took place. You do know the case dates back to the early 80s.
You do claim the CCRC were very helpful.
Your distinct lack of knowledge shows as the only way to gain an appeal which is very clearly 'out of time'. Prior to the CCRC the Home Secretary could only refer a case to the court of appeal if fresh compelling evidence existed.
The same rules apply to the CCRC. The 3 judges hearing the appeal will have studied the transcript of the case and hear submissions for both parties and make a judgement on the facts to 'quash' 'uphold' or 'order a retrial'. It is not the duty of the court of appeal to re-try a case.
You did exactly the same when you claimed quite remarkably that you had contacted Lambeth Police as i had mentioned CCRB is based in Lambeth. They accept and collate cold case documents and evidence in archives--access is only available to police-courts-lawyer
s and cold case teams. They hold details of where original evidence is stored.
Due to advances in forensics the FSL contribute to CCRBs database which can flag up if DNA results match any archived cases and the board notifies relative forces to review a case and usually a senior cold case detective takes up the case.
You have tried to discredit all that information claiming these things do not exist--yet Bob your former force were one of the first to contribute to the CCRB. Your claim that from looking at the CCRC site shows no new cases this year have been sent for appeal. You were told in 2010 on here of this case and the judges have studied the original trial and the new evidence and have ordered it to be listed. Again for you to get any details of the case--you need basic details--you do not have them.
If it goes to retrial--as i forgot to mention there was a second defendant-so yes you will get a chance to give your evidence again--and the counsel can test your credibility--which is why i keep all your posts.
Knobfm
says...
5:32pm Sun 29 Jan 12
Robfm wrote:I'll bet I do.
You clearly do 'Nob'. Anyway must go and start our welcoming roaring fire, to make it nice and cosy for all our diners.
So carry on 'Nob'.
I must light a fire because both my customers think it's cold.
They won't wear a tatty jumper like I do.
So ..... carry on nob. My favourite film.
I wish I'd been invited to the party, but the locals don't like me.
Probably 'cos I lie a lot, cause trouble, and spend too much time on here
Robfm
says...
8:23pm Sun 29 Jan 12
Dates of trials, dates of referrals, dates of results. Simples.
So they are all there Walter: http://www.ccrc.gov.
uk/cases/case_referr
ed.asp
Don't tell us it was a secret.
Knobfm
says...
8:33pm Sun 29 Jan 12
For I am just a parody
To the readers it is known.
There are two of us. You're not alone.
From the earth I may tell many a lie.
Whilst truth doth emanate from the sky.
As folk do gather round claimed crowded bar.
Though clearly absent of custom from afar.
Why should it be that no-one is here?
Not all the fault of the brand of the beer.
A welcome, a personality, they'll surely visit twice???
They haven't? Guess I'm just not very nice
Off to the laptop, I type in my vault.
I'll claim it's all others that are to fault.
You may despise me. So hate. Please do.
Though note your despisal, for I am... you
itsamess
says...
9:20pm Sun 29 Jan 12
I Too
says...
9:20pm Sun 29 Jan 12
I like that.
Robfm
says...
8:57am Mon 30 Jan 12
You are a delusional person Walter, real life appears to have escaped you.
itsamess
says...
9:10am Mon 30 Jan 12
itsamess
says...
12:10pm Mon 30 Jan 12
More Latest News stories
- HORSE RACING: Nicky holds All The Aces
- Local riders come through national qualifier
- MOTORSPORT: Testing time for Belcher
- RALLYING: Sub-zero to hero for Barnes
- SOUTHERN LEAGUE: Marine hold Stags in stalemate
- Support group's concern over Wiltshire dementia diagnosis
- Could you find this education role appealing?
- Melksham scrap firm backs action
- Rare Titanic menu up for sale in Devizes
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with