Suspended Sentence??

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I can see how that often may appear to be the case Dnks34, and I will admit that sometimes it can be so, but in cases where the actions of an individual are the subject, then it can turn into a verbal lynch mob either for that individual or for the judge.

I have seen both here and at the other place, screams for blood followed by some small extenuating revelation causing those same people to shout for mercy to be shown. ( I exaggerate for illustration ).

If the EDP for example had a reputation for good journalism, accuracy and balance, then perhaps we could take the "facts" given and judge accordingly, but it doesn't, and we shouldn't.

Lets take the "Whooops... why try it" as another example. and lets further say that there was a rope wrapped round the boats prop. Finally we shall say that the skipper of that boat joins this forum, posting a timeline of what happened.....

"I was approaching the bridge and as soon as I could read the depth indicator, I went astern to turn round. Sadly a clumsily stowed rope had fallen in and became entangled in the prop. That's why we hit the bridge."

Now just imagine all the back peddling and embarrassed coughing that would go on. That wasn't a debate, that was trial by forum. It was wrong and it was unpleasant. We did not, nor do not, know all the facts yet the skipper of that boat was roundly condemned.

In my opinion, that is the difference between Trial by Forum, and discussion/debate.

Finally I also remember the discussion  that followed some youtube footage of someone in an inflatable racing about then falling in and the inflatable charging about in-manned and out of control. The discussion there was that the guy was a total prat, but we had seen sufficient footage to make that judgment, and whilst that too had rounded condemnation from all parties, it was not without supportive evidence.

I hope that makes my usage of the term Trial by forum clear to you.

Absolutely correct sir , far too many Judgement's are made on no evidence , until the FULL facts are known then comment if you wish but be prepared to look a fool if the facts show you were wrong in assumption .

The press can t sadly be relied on for the full facts , agency's reports can however .

As for the other place well they are a law unto themselves most helm a keyboard far more often than a boat but are more than ready to cast judgement on anyone , here is far more restrained , and so it should be , a judge and jury never convict someone before hearing all the facts , and to me nor should a forum any forum BTW .

 

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, Ricardo said:

As for the other place well they are a law unto themselves most helm a keyboard far more often than a boat but are more than ready to cast judgement on anyone...

 

That reads like a judgement on those in the other place, wherever that might be.

--------------------------------------------------

I have read the MCA report, and it is only a report, not the evidence presented to the court. I note that the conviction was for an offence under Section 100 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which says “It shall be the duty of the owner of a ship to which this section applies to take all reasonable steps to secure that the ship is operated in a safe manner.”

This offence could be committed even if the owner was not actually helming the vessel at the time, or even if the owner wasn’t aboard the vessel. Which raised the question in my mind as to who was actually at the helm. That point isn’t covered anywhere that I can find. All the MCA report says is: “Mr Barrett, together with his partner and their two young daughters aged 10 and 8, were travelling at high speed across the Broad…”

I also note that Jeremy Smart, Head of the MCA Enforcement Unit, said: “From the very onset, Mr Barrett has shown a callous disregard for his actions, refusing to cooperate with our investigations and declining to be interviewed.”

Perhaps Mr Smart should be reminded that a person suspected of an offence should, before being interviewed, be cautioned in the following terms: “You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

 How does the exercise of a person of their right not to say anything equate to ”a callous disregard for his actions”?

[JennyMorgan]

4 hours ago, dnks34 said:

The term trial by forum that is often banded about is just a barrier to discussion in my opinion.

Without discussion why bother! 

 

So long as it is a discussion rather than a passing down of judgement and sentence.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Paladin said:

That reads like a judgement on those in the other place, wherever that might be.

--------------------------------------------------

I have read the MCA report, and it is only a report, not the evidence presented to the court. I note that the conviction was for an offence under Section 100 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which says “It shall be the duty of the owner of a ship to which this section applies to take all reasonable steps to secure that the ship is operated in a safe manner.”

This offence could be committed even if the owner was not actually helming the vessel at the time, or even if the owner wasn’t aboard the vessel. Which raised the question in my mind as to who was actually at the helm. That point isn’t covered anywhere that I can find. All the MCA report says is: “Mr Barrett, together with his partner and their two young daughters aged 10 and 8, were travelling at high speed across the Broad…”

I also note that Jeremy Smart, Head of the MCA Enforcement Unit, said: “From the very onset, Mr Barrett has shown a callous disregard for his actions, refusing to cooperate with our investigations and declining to be interviewed.”

 

Perhaps Mr Smart should be reminded that a person suspected of an offence should, before being interviewed, be cautioned in the following terms: “You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when rquestioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

 

 How does the exercise of a person of their right not to say anything equate to ”a callous disregard for his actions”?

Its exactly that a judgement i can still see what is written there dispute lots including yourself claiming i have " moved on " .

Hi think its time you revised the said site before you start calling me  and read what people have stated with absolutely no knowledge most of which  would struggle to find oulton broad ! .

Expect a PM soon as I do not wish to  deliberate about other subjects regarding that site on this forum as that's totally unfair .

 

 

[JennyMorgan]

Paladine, do you know for sure that Mr Barrett wasn't read his rights? You are not normally a man to make unsubstantiated guesses. 

[Paladin]

56 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

Expect a PM soon as I do not wish to  deliberate about other subjects regarding that site on this forum as that's totally unfair .

 

 

It was you who mentioned another forum, not me. I have no interest in in discussing other forums.

26 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Paladine, do you know for sure that Mr Barrett wasn't read his rights? You are not normally a man to make unsubstantiated guesses. 

Where did I say he wasn't 'read his rights'? I was pointing out that, before being interviewed, a suspect must be cautioned that he need not say anything etc., and that the Head of the MCA Enforcement Unit had castigated Mr Barrett for exercising his 'right of silence'. Unfairly, in my opinion.

There must be some sort of software glitch that turns my posts into something completely different from what I thought I posted. 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Paladine, do you know for sure that Mr Barrett wasn't read his rights? You are not normally a man to make unsubstantiated guesses. 

Given the seriousness of the situation and the fact the police were in attendance I'd be amazed of he wasn't cautioned , I have no idea who takes charge in such a situation but I'd be highly surprised that its not the police but as usual I'm more than willing to accept a more knowledgeable view .

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Paladin said:

It was you who mentioned another forum, not me. I have no interest in in discussing other forums.

Where did I say he wasn't 'read his rights'? I was pointing out that, before being interviewed, a suspect must be cautioned that he need not say anything etc., and that the Head of the MCA Enforcement Unit had castigated Mr Barrett for exercising his 'right of silence'. Unfairly, in my opinion.

There must be some sort of software glitch that turns my posts into something completely different from what I thought I posted. 

Actually paladine if you look back over the thread I think you will find it wasn't me that mentioned another place .

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, Paladin said:

Perhaps Mr Smart should be reminded that a person suspected of an offence should, before being interviewed, be cautioned in the following terms: “You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”

Why would he need reminding?

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Why would he need reminding?

If you read the next part of my post, perhaps you would realise.

Mr Smart made what was , in my opinion, a totally unwarranted public attack on Mr Barrett, saying that he had "shown a callous disregard for his actions", giving as his reason for that statement the fact (?) that Mr Barrett had refused to cooperate with the investigation and declined to be interviewed.

Mr Smart appeared to have forgotten, or chose to ignore for the sake of getting in a cheap shot, the provisions of P.A.C.E and the terms of the caution. I have no doubt that Mr Barrett was properly cautioned, and he was then perfectly entitled not to cooperate or be interviewed. That was his statutory right. Why should he be castigated for so doing? He may even have been acting on legal advice.

 

[JennyMorgan]

With respect, Paladine, we are fast heading towards a discussion that really is outside the fairly loose criteria required of a Broads Forum, here or elsewhere. Apart from yourself, few, if any of us are in anyway qualified to comment on the legal niceties that you have highlighted. Let's stick to the facts that have been made public. Mr Barrett has pleaded guilty and he has been sentenced. Clearly you and I have varying, even opposing opinions, let's leave it at that. 

[Guest ExMemberKingFisher]

47 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

With respect, Paladine, we are fast heading towards a discussion that really is outside the fairly loose criteria required of a Broads Forum, here or elsewhere. Apart from yourself, few, if any of us are in anyway qualified to comment on the legal niceties that you have highlighted. Let's stick to the facts that have been made public. Mr Barrett has pleaded guilty and he has been sentenced. Clearly you and I have varying, even opposing opinions, let's leave it at that. 

I think that what Paladin is trying to point out, is that very few facts have actually been made public, including who was at the helm. As always Paladin gives food for thought. It's not so much what has been said, as what hasn't been said.

[riyadhcrew]

Hello Peeps,

I think it's about time that this thread came to an end.

There has been good or should I say excellent input and opinions from every one - and good answers to follow.

However, what is done is done and the forum can't change that. Let us call it a day.

[Hockham Admiral]

6 hours ago, riyadhcrew said:

Hello Peeps,

I think it's about time that this thread came to an end.

There has been good or should I say excellent input and opinions from every one - and good answers to follow.

However, what is done is done and the forum can't change that. Let us call it a day.

Hear! Hear!    

[TheQ]

My only two comments,

You can almost certainly guess the lawyers will have advised Mr Barrett not to say anything to the MCA with the court case coming up.

The court not jailing Mr Barrett was probably, to not punish the injured family by removing their source of income, their father / husband.

[Poppy]

9 hours ago, riyadhcrew said:

Hello Peeps,

I think it's about time that this thread came to an end.

There has been good or should I say excellent input and opinions from every one - and good answers to follow.

However, what is done is done and the forum can't change that. Let us call it a day.

When threads appear to be deteriorating - as does this one, perhaps peeps could consider not just what they are saying but how they are saying it too.

Most get it right, but just one or two IMHO........

[riyadhcrew]

Please peeps - enough is enough on this thread.

If you want to talk about something different - please start a new thread.

[Hockham Admiral]

This topic is now locked.