In thinking a man who pretends to be a policeman and tries to abduct a woman obviously wasnt playing a joke and this sentence is an insult??!

[MobyDicksTinyCanoe]

5 months??!

What planet am I on? The horrendous case in the media recently obviously got his thick, twisted little brain ticking so he went online, bought a police lanyard and assaulted a woman claiming she was drug dealing and attempted to 'arrest' her. Luckily a member of the public intervened or God knows what could have happened.

And in five months he's going to be out to give it another go but will cover his tracks a bit better.!

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-58829818.amp

You can only sentence people for crimes they've actually committed - in this case, impersonating a police officer.

"God knows what would have happened" is not grounds to prosecute someone.

Yeah, it seems light but they can only prosecute for what happened, not for his intentions. I mean, I don't know whether they'd searched his home, car and devices - presumably if they'd turned up a bunch of searches on 'how to abduct someone' and they'd found a load of rope and weapons in his car there might have been a case to be made for worse, but I guessing they didn't find that. I do hope they did check all those things out, but I wouldn't bet on it. I can't think of any innocent reason for what he did.

Unfortunately it is true that he can only be charged for what he actually did rather than what might have happened. He does need monitoring now though ideally because what sort of sicko would hear about the Sarah Everard case and think “oh, I’ll give that a go”
Maybe it was what happened to Sarah though that made the woman resist and a passerby to help too?

I agree they can only deal with the actual offences he committed, but I’m surprised that’s all you get for those offences especially when he was already on a suspended sentence.

Unfortunately it is true that he can only be charged for what he actually did rather than what might have happened.

There's nothing unfortunate about it, this is exactly as it should be. Can you imagine how dangerous it would be if the government was allowed to imprison people based on might-have-beens and maybes? Should thought crimes be a thing?

If someone speeds do we also issue prosecute them for running red lights and killing schoolchildren (well, they might have done if they were speeding, after all)? If someone pushes another person out of the way, do we prosecute them for murder or manslaughter (well, they might have killed them)?

I would certainly hope not.

The law tends to be reactive though. You can't arrest or punish anyone for what you think they might do, no matter how clear the warning signs.

Most serious offenders start with minor offences that may well signal a pattern of escalation, but I'm not even sure that 'monitoring' is a thing.

There is always a feeling that 'he could have been stopped' when horrific crimes take place, but in reality the law doesn't do that, and I don't know by what mechanisms it possibly could.

Rogue 'issue' in there, not sure where that came from...

@MorrisZapp

The law tends to be reactive though. You can't arrest or punish anyone for what you think they might do, no matter how clear the warning signs.

Most serious offenders start with minor offences that may well signal a pattern of escalation, but I'm not even sure that 'monitoring' is a thing.

There is always a feeling that 'he could have been stopped' when horrific crimes take place, but in reality the law doesn't do that, and I don't know by what mechanisms it possibly could.

That's not really the job of the legal system though, when patterns of behaviour are noticed and seem to be escalating that should be dealt with by appropriate social workers / medical professionals.

It would require a lot of funding though which the government is unlikely to commit to.

I fully agree it's better to intervene early rather than allow behaviour to escalate until there are victims, but that has to be paid for and I suspect there is no appetite in government nor on much of the public's behalf to put such a system in place.

YANBU
They should at least be welding an electronic tracker to his ankle for some years.

It may only be five months, but thankfully it will have longterm consequences from changing jobs, relationships, travel etc.

@Lockheart

Unfortunately it is true that he can only be charged for what he actually did rather than what might have happened.

There's nothing unfortunate about it, this is exactly as it should be. Can you imagine how dangerous it would be if the government was allowed to imprison people based on might-have-beens and maybes? Should thought crimes be a thing?

If someone speeds do we also issue prosecute them for running red lights and killing schoolchildren (well, they might have done if they were speeding, after all)? If someone pushes another person out of the way, do we prosecute them for murder or manslaughter (well, they might have killed them)?

I would certainly hope not.

I don’t mean it’s unfortunate in terms of law, it’s how it should be. I meant it’s unfortunate that this man can’t be stopped yet before/in case he escalated Although hopefully now he will

@Hoppinggreen I agree he needs watching carefully and some form of intervention but sadly I would bet he won't get it.

I know they can only charge him for the crime committed but i think circumstances like this should be different.

He does have a lot of previous convictions, mainly for violence and crimes against women. I seriously hope he's closely monitored when he gets out. But lets face it he probably won't be.

How scary

Was there not an attempted abduction charge?

Pickle no he got 4 weeks of a suspended sentence for a previous offence then 18 weeks for impersonating a police officer and common assault.

Op where are you finding his previous crimes? I’ve been trying to find them and can’t. I don’t understand why he hasn’t been charged with attempted abduction.

I think it’s because the CPS would need to be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to abduct her and the evidence for that just won’t have been there. All the CPS could prove was that he impersonated a police officer.

I mean, I think the facts speak for themselves because why else would you impersonate a police officer and attempt to arrest a lone woman - but I don’t think that’s how the system works.