R4's PM and Newcastle DV case (well, alleged murder)

[Unlikelyamazonian]

Posted this in chat too.
Am I the only one who thinks it is totally bloody shocking beyond belief that R4's PM (presented by eddie 'cocktail' twonk) have not discussed AT ALL the fact that the police were warned this man may try to kill his partner??

sdhocked that there was no discussion of why the police did nothing about this (otherwise it would have been reported - the police would have made sure of that) #that there was no discussion of the statistics for these kind of cases,

that they actually ran a clip from a neighbour who told the reporter that the killer clearly seemed nice, ok and to love his partner / baby?

I mean for fucks fucks sake, what era are we living in?? who the fuck was editing this steaming heap of sloppy shit?

The interview ended up by talking about how hard it is to track recently released prisoners and about government cuts

Jesus christ. The editor should be shot and if anyone female is working on that show presumably they are going home to a nice meal out with their non-violent partner at some poncy islington nosherie.

jurassic

jurassic

jurassic

but, sadly, bloody typical

Shit news editing. shit coverage.

[marantha]

OK, HerBeatitude Even if police take threat seriously, what options are open to them?

Can they really lock people up, for example, on account of what they might do? (I gotta say this does not sit easy with me)
Could they warn partner that they are in danger (but then partner would now that anyway if partner was abusive)?
Injuctions? But if a man is intent on killing his partner he's not going to be put off by a mere injuction, is he?

[HerBeatitude]

Currently as Tiffany's post illustrates, their powers are limited.

But you keep expressing concern about locking people up for what they might do. This man had already done something. He had threatened to commit murder, and threatening to do that, is a criminal offence in itself.

Reasonable people don't seriously threaten to kill other people. It is not unreasonable then, to treat such a threat with some seriousness, particularly if the person making the threat belongs to a group which has a higher likelihood of carrying out their threats (ie has served a prison term for a violent assault and has a history of DV).

But it isn't just a problem for the police, it is also a failure of the prison service. There has obviously not been one iota of rehabilitation with this bloke.

[celticfairy101]

Well I would say this. If a woman said that on release she was going to kill her husband do you think for one minute they would let her walk the streets?

If the policeman had died then this would be a national manhunt.

[HerBeatitude]

To be fair, I think it is more or less a national manhunt.

They're scared he'll shoot another police officer.

[marantha]

celticfairy101 To be honest- and I stress this is my opinion only- I think the reaction would be a roll of the eyes and a muttering of, "Yeah, sure she'll kill him".
If they don't take a man seriously, they surely won't take a woman seriously.

[GypsyMoth]

people make idle threats all the time....you cant lock someone up for it.

but i still wonder where probation service was in this. there is usually some involvement upon release,or is this an example of 'cutbacks'

when i was in the police,many moons ago,we had a paedophile on patch. he's groomed kids,gone on to more serious stuff. he seved a short prison term and was bailed to his mothers address,on my beat. we were told we could do NOTHING but watch him. no approaching no nothing. just had to treat him same as anyone. then one day i got a callout with my sergeant.....it was to the scene of a murdered child (east finchley,1992 if anyone remembers) an 8 year old boy. we all knew he's go ont o reoffend. in fact i think there is research to back this up.....but we had NO powers to stop this. imagine how that felt. i remember looking at the murder scene waiting for cid to turn up. in fact i think about it everyday still

[edam]

Of course the police can't lock up everyone who makes a threat, but the justice system repeatedly fails to protect victims of domestic violence. Even here, where the man was a convicted violent criminal. How many women die every week at the hands of their partners? Is it two? Yet we have the family courts forcing women and children into contact with violent dangerous men, we have police services again and again failing to protect women who end up dead and children who end up dead or orphaned... and SS who often berate women suffering domestic violence, instead of dealing with the offender.

[HerBeatitude]

But that's the point - we should be able to lock people up for making threats in certain circumstances. We lock terrorists up for threateing murder.

DV abusers don't make idle threats, they make real ones. They are at least as dangerous as terrorists and more women die each year at the hands of their partners or ex partners, than are killed by terrorists.

Perhaps probation weren't involved because he'd served his sentence? I thought probation was only used when you're released early and can be sent back to prison if you misbehave?

[Unlikelyamazonian]

*marantha' - 'a mere injunction'

quite right bruvver...they are frookin useless aren't they. might as well slay the bitch. nothing the law can do and it aint nobody's fault.

tuck tuck.

slap

[Unlikelyamazonian]

quote from bbc news:
"Police were told suspected gunman Raoul Moat had threatened to seriously harm his former girlfriend the day before she was shot and her boyfriend killed."

yep. fuck all they could have done.

[mathanxiety]

Not only do they fail to convict abusers of DV, they fall over themselves giving these men visitation with their unfortunate children, an arrangement that means the women are left constantly aware of their unwanted presence in their lives, and are often forced to have completely unwanted contact with them as a result of dealings regarding the children.

I agree, HerBeatitude. A threat made in the context of DV issues should be treated as an arrestable offence. The only way to tackle the epidemic of DV and spousal abuse is to tackle it in all its forms, including verbal threats.

[HerBeatitude]

On the other thread it says that he still had 2 months of his sentence to serve, but they let him out early.

So they allow violent criminals who are making murder threats, to leave prison before they have served their sentence and have obviously not reformed their characters or their attitudes.

Great. What a success story for the prison service.

[Unlikelyamazonian]

...which means that all our serious advice (but now obviously feckin sadly misguided) to women in dangerous DV situations here on MN to ring the DV unit or call the local police, amount to jack shit.

Even if dismantlethesun was lying she would be a good example of how she could be scared one day and dead the next.

[Unlikelyamazonian]

Hey marantha - just re-read this part of your earlier post...
"For it is deeply inappropriate of you.. "

Are you Noah?

[GypsyMoth]

the only thing which could have been done would be to give her a new identity...and move her away...costs loads and she would need to agree.

[Unlikelyamazonian]

perhaps maranthais martha

[thatbuzzingnoise]

Early on on local TV it mentioned that parole services were not involved because his sentence was shorter than a year.

Isn't it standard practice for prisoners to serve only half their sentences for some crimes?

the steriod use (allegedly) will play a big role in split personality behaviour and feed into the DV.

[marantha]

Unlikelyamazonian, so you HONESTLY think that a man who is intent on killing a partner will be put off by an injuction? I. Don't. Think. So.

You think because I can see the flaws in the "Lock up all up argument" I agree with what has happened here?! If you do, you're not thinking straight.

Can't you see that unless the flaws of any "Lock 'em up argument" are exposed things won't change?

You're thinking with your gut not your head.
Perhaps you've reason to be like this but you're not being rational.

[marantha]

I'm NOT saying that injunctions have no place-I think they may work on a person who is "mildly" abusive but not on a complete psycho who is intent on killing.
(I'd be interested to know what percentage of abusers kill, I guess it's a small percentage).
Just WHY this statement upsets OP so much, I don't know.

Perhaps you are scared, OP? I am sorry if you are but you know this is a forum and people may respond with things you don't wish to hear, so keep off them for a while- or steer clear of domestic violence threads for now.

[GypsyMoth]

maranths....UA was trolling on the threads last night,not quite sound of mind