[Closed] For people of a certain age Broadwater Farm

Presumably because they believe they have identified one of the mob.

HTH 🙂

Hard to believe a 16 year old could do that on his own.
Bet he thought he had got away with it though.

perhaps they feel they can prove he was the one who actually stabbed the PC

Wasn't it more like beheading than stabbing?

If he is guilty how long do they give him? Do they consider he was a kid ? I mean they cant send him to a young offenders place? Is there differing sentencing for minors ? Trying to think to the Bulger case I know they were younger again .

[quote=franksinatra said]perhaps they feel they can prove he was the one who actually stabbed the PC

I don't think they have to prove that, just that he was part of the "mob" which attacked the PC.

Wasn't it more like beheading than stabbing?

Bet he thought he had got away with it though.

It doesn't matter what age he was when he committed the crime, he's an adult now, and will be tried and sentenced as such.

I'm glad we've come over all[i] tabloid[/i] and found him guilty before the actual trial has commenced.

Whats the proof of the Bernie Grant allegation?

I thought you couldn't be tried for crime older than twenty five years. Or was that a film I watched?!!

It doesn't matter what age he was when he committed the crime, he's an adult now, and will be tried and sentenced as such.

he can only be sentenced as a child surely though he will go to proper prison

I didn't realise how brutal the murder was until I was reading about it earlier. Horrendous stuff.

I thought you couldn't be tried for crime older than twenty five years. Or was that a film I watched?!!

It was an American film and I'm pretty sure there is no state of limitation on murder even there. Here 6 month time limit for minor offences only. The general principle is that you are sentenced as at your age when the offence occurred but it is a principle not a binding rule .

I'm glad we've come over all tabloid and found him guilty before the actual trial has commenced.

This is one crime where the proof is going to have to be absolutely cast iron for them to get a conviction after last time they had a go.There must be quite a sizable group of people who have carried around the truth of exactly what happened for a very long time.

Whats the proof of the Bernie Grant allegation?

Presumably Bernie Grant and Tower Hamlets Council were successfully prosecuted for removing weapons from a murder scene.

Or is deliberately removing vital evidence from a crime scene not an offence ?

[quote=CountZero said]
It doesn't matter what age he was when he committed the crime, he's an adult now, and will be tried and sentenced as such.

Surprised at that, I would have thought that sentencing would have to take into account his age at the time the crime was committed.

A defendant who is 18 at the date of conviction should be sentenced in accordance with the purposes of sentencing set out in section 142 Criminal Justice Act 2003, including the reduction of crime by deterrence.

The relevant date for determining eligibility for sentences is generally the date of the finding of guilt: R v Danga (1991) 13 Cr. App. R.(S) 408. [b]However, where a defendant crosses a relevant age threshold between the date of the offence and the date of conviction, the starting point is the likely sentence that would have been passed had the youth been sentenced on the day that the offence was committed[/b]. (R v Ghafoor [2002] EWCA Crim 1857). This may result in a maximum sentence for an offence that is not a "grave crime" of 2 years custody (equivalent to the maximum period of 24 months for a Detention and Training Order): R v Ghafoor, or a non custodial sentence if the youth is ineligible for a Detention and Training Order: R v LM [2002] EWCA Crim 3047. The starting point may be departed from where there is good reason to do so: R v Bowker [2007] EWCA Crim 1608.

Perhaps this bit

The starting point may be departed from where there is good reason to do so:

It's taken this long to get any real proof for a conviction because Bernie Grant had Tower Hamlets Council clear the scene of weapons and evidence before the forensics bods could move in.

Is there any actual evidence for this?

...and surely the death of a serving police officer would have concentrated the minds of the police who were investigating it to the extent that no one, even from such an important organisation as the council, would be allowed to interfere with a crime scene?

My verdict is CountZero is guilty of talking a load of old bollocks.

Yeah, interested to hear more about this too. Or is it just more residual Bernie Grant bullshit?

I just had an idle google and the only place I could find it mentioned was in a fantastic Mail article, which also repeated the lie that Grant blamed the police, and implying that the original arrests were only overturned because of a lack of evidence, and that the miscarriage of justice claims were only "partly justified" by the "suspicions that police fabricated key interview notes".

So all in all, as reliable a source as a detective's fabricated evidence.

Wonder how you can make a good case now considering how rotten the original investigation was... Hope they can but you've got to wonder.

Perhaps the police thought "it's been a difficult day, we'll come back tomorrow and look for evidence".

I bet they thought "bollocks, too late" when they realised that the council road sweepers had got there first.

Bernie Grant said Blakelock brought it on himself, and the council removed evidence from the scene.

Too uncomfortable to comprehend Ernest?

enfht - Member

Bernie Grant said Blakelock brought it on himself,

Bernie Grant said : "The youths around here believe the police were to blame for what happened on Sunday and what they got was a bloody good hiding." Which was reported as "Bernie Grant said the police were to blame for what happened and got a bloody good hiding". But hey, I bet the constant misquoting was nothing to do with the fact that he was an up-and-coming black labour politician.

It was proved that evidence was tampered with- but by the police, not Grant. Where is the proof or the motive that Grant ordered evidence destroyed? (and inexplicably infiltrated his cleaning ninjas onto the crime scene?) You'd think the police would have had something to say about that really. (other than unsubstantiated off-the-record quotes, which this whole sad story is drowning in)

Bernie Grant said...the council removed evidence from the scene

Bernie Grant had Tower Hamlets Council clear the scene of weapons and evidence before the forensics bods could move in

Likewise, the fact that Broadwater Farm (North London) is in Haringey Council's area and nowhere near Tower Hamlets (East London) also makes you look like a numpty.

Personally, I'm quite enjoying the image of Tower Hamlets Council (which, like all London councils in the 1980s, was known for a high level of efficiency) having a cross-London Wet Ops platoon that goes around disposing of murder evidence while Metropolitan Police detectives (who, like all London police officers in the 1980s, were known for a high level of deference and sensitivity) stood by waiting their turn for access to the crime scene.

We can hope that a decent conviction is still possible after all this time, but (like the OJ case) the original investigation may have been so seriously mishandled as to ruin the chances of any successful convictions coming out of it.

Dobson and Norris were sentenced so as to reflect their ages at the time they murdered Stephen Lawrence. That's the most recent example that springs to mind.

Personally, I'm quite enjoying the image of Tower Hamlets Council (which, like all London councils in the 1980s, was known for a high level of efficiency) having a cross-London Wet Ops platoon that goes around disposing of murder evidence while Metropolitan Police detectives (who, like all London police officers in the 1980s, were known for a high level of deference and sensitivity) stood by waiting their turn for access to the crime scene.

Too uncomfortable to comprehend

Or too wildly and obviously made up in order to get a reaction, although top marks for spelling 'comprehend' correctly.

Winston silcott was the guy the police originally framed for this . As a result of that the law was changed to make it impossible and then virtually impossible to get bail if you were accused of murder and had a previous murder charge . As it happens his other murder charge was overturned on appeal . So this horrendous case was used effectively to remove all of our rights and the presumption of innocence based on a false premise.

If the guy is guilty he deserves life but it will be interesting to see the evidence.

Shout out to enfht and CountZero!

Come on boys, y'all got questions to be answering............

other murder charge was overturned on appeal

Personally I'm relatively happy with bail being difficult to obtain if one is charged with murder. It's a right I'm pretty comfortable living without!

I'm delighted that the police have pursued this after all the time that has passed, let's wait to see the evidence presented.

crankboy - Member

Winston silcott .... As it happens his other murder charge was overturned on appeal .

Is there a reference for that appeal i thought he was still on licence for the previous murder - not trolling just curious

I was repeating something I was told as 5 seconds on Google seems to demonstrate I am wrong. In my defense I last thout about this years ago . It seems silcott's appeal did not succeed in relation to his first conviction for the bouncer he killed. Sorry .

Shout out to enfht and CountZero!

Come on boys, y'all got questions to be answering............

[img] [/img]

Tower Hamlets Council's Director of Sanitation Services, pictured yesterday.

Three weeks on, and still no further word on the Tower Hamlets Cheka that apparently roamed London in the 1980s...

Bernie Grant heard that word was getting out so he sent in the cleaners. Both literally and metaphorically.

I was in the UK Police when this happened, isn't it amazing how hot tempers still become.? I dislike the Met as an organisation for many reasons. However, I have heard the beat radio transmissions sent by Keith Blakelock as he was killed.
If you knew a person who was frankly, tortured, knew his family and kids, would you not want justice? I do not condone the Met in any way for the manner in which they conducted the 'investigation', but given the responses on here, the emotions still apparent, it is understandable (if not forgivable) how somebody HAD to be guilty? Again I stress, I am not supporting the Met, but neither do Bernie, Silcott or anybody else involved come out with any sort of dignity. A sorry, sorry episode in a bleak period of UK history.