Murder In The Car Park

[grendel]

This is why its not a great idea to discuss legal cases on forums, everyone forms their own opinions on the facts presented and the accused as you say can appear to be guilty, it is only in the professional standing of our judicial system that the truth can be ascertained - where the accused has the expertise of his legal representatives to uncover the truth of the case.

Unlike on a forum, or indeed television program.

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

The man was found guilty of an offence and was punished. That is the end of that matter, or at least should be

But, it doesn't end there. Certain crimes even if you have served the time for them will still stop you from doing certain jobs in the future, or maybe even signing a register. 

For many they accept that he did his time but feel that the system has failed in someway when his chosen profession afterwards was as a pub landlord or manager, especially one aimed at families.

Many unsuspecting customers have used that pub over the years, whom more than likely wouldn't if they had known his background. Many have said as much on this very forum and others.

I'm sure the forum doesn't want to damage any business, hence the T&C's and everyone speaking about the matter in code. but can't help thinking that the system has gone wrong when someone with a conviction  goes back to that kind of job.

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

Many unsuspecting customers have used that pub over the years, whom more than likely wouldn't if they had known his background. Many have said as much on this very forum and others.

My thoughts exactly,

[grendel]

But under our judicial system, if you have been convicted of a crime, taken the punishment and done the time, then you are deemed to have paid the cost for that crime.

who are we to additionally punish someone - on top of the punishment already served and completed, are we now judge jury and executioner - I think not.

Many crimes, once the punishment has been taken the incident is then treated as over, for some the person is watched after, but we should not go on to hold that against them in the future, that course ends in vigilante actions.

If you personally find the person distasteful, then by all means dont go into his premises, but extorting others to follow suit is a kind of vigilante action.

Are you so certain that somewhere in your past there isnt an action that you are thoroughly ashamed of now, that would cause you distress if it were brought back to light and published over social media?

[Poppy]

It is rediculous how we have to be talking in code - especially since the pub concerned is under entirely different ownership, and is almost unrecognisable from the place it once was - thank goodness. !

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, grendel said:

But under our judicial system, if you have been convicted of a crime, taken the punishment and done the time, then you are deemed to have paid the cost for that crime.

who are we to additionally punish someone - on top of the punishment already served and completed, are we now judge jury and executioner - I think not.

Many crimes, once the punishment has been taken the incident is then treated as over, for some the person is watched after, but we should not go on to hold that against them in the future, that course ends in vigilante actions.

If you personally find the person distasteful, then by all means dont go into his premises, but extorting others to follow suit is a kind of vigilante action.

Are you so certain that somewhere in your past there isnt an action that you are thoroughly ashamed of now, that would cause you distress if it were brought back to light and published over social media?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the forum should act as vigilante, I'm saying the system has gone wrong.

He may have done his time, but if he was to try and become a taxi driver for instance, he would more than likely fail a DBS check and therefore even though he has done his time, wouldn't be able to have quite so many options as those who would pass a DBS check.

Being a pub landlord or manager or working in family friendly environments should require a DBS check. Removing a persons right to work in certain environments should be automatic and therefore if he couldn't have been in the situation of being able to be a pub manager or landlord then there would have been none of this nonsense on the forums over the years.

[grendel]

And thus all this is dredged up 10 years on by a tv program, and thence by an internet forum.......................

[Poppy]

8 minutes ago, grendel said:

And thus all this is dredged up 10 years on by a tv program, and thence by an internet forum.......................

It's of public interest ! The matter of the Peckham axe murder was never really sorted, so it won't go away.

[grendel]

it may be, as you say, the pub is under totally different ownership now, so adverse publicity for the premises concerned is to be avoided surely.

[Poppy]

3 minutes ago, grendel said:

it may be, as you say, the pub is under totally different ownership now, so adverse publicity for the premises concerned is to be avoided surely.

Where is the adverse publicity 'for the premises'  here ?    Anyone who follows the thread and is able to untangle the puzzle of the location will KNOW it's ' under totally different ownership' !

I started this thread because I genuinely thought thathe programme was of interest with a Broads link.  I still do ! 

 

[Meantime]

13 minutes ago, grendel said:

it may be, as you say, the pub is under totally different ownership now, so adverse publicity for the premises concerned is to be avoided surely.

To be totally honest those in the know already know. Those who are new to the forum will now be guessing and making all kinds of assumptions and maybe even jumping to the wrong conclusions or thinking of the wrong pub. It is in the past, it is in the public domain. It would be far better to say the pub is xyz and is now under totally new ownership and has no involvement with the previous landlord. That would stop the current guessing game from harming the current ownership of the pub, who are doing a sterling job there.

To put some historical context to this for Motorboater and others who may not know. This forums stance is not to name and shame, or to allow posts that may cause damage to a business, which is all very laudable. However, and I was one that felt strongly on this matter, you shouldn't allow advertising, advertorials, recommendations or positive reviews even those from people who didn't know, if it has a chance of leading to an increase of footfall, if you are going to moderate or censor the counter view. It was posts such as positive reviews for the business or those stating what a helpful or cheery fellow the landlord was, that led to others feeling they needed to provide balance so that those who were not in the full picture could make their own balanced decision. To allow the former, without the latter is censorship.

In my honest opinion this forum is always going to struggle with this issue. It doesn't allow name and shame and is never happy with negative reviews in case they damage a business, whilst being happy to allow recommendations or positive reviews. That will always lead to a bias and with many feeling gagged if they have had a genuine negative experience with a business.

[Poppy]

Thanks ECIPA. I couldn't have put it better myself.  Perhaps the present owner of the premises would care to comment on  how he thinks this is affecting his premises ?

[Oddfellow]

what the flip has any of this got to do with 23rd June 2020? 

Yes, there is a TV programme examining an unsolved murder that took place 33 years ago. 
Yes, one of those who was involved with the proceedings at the time was once a landlord of a Broads pub. Once. He isn't any more and hasn't been for about three and a half years. 

There are some people getting some kind of kick out of this; some are coming to conclusions that have never been arrived at in a legal sense and some are also making hypothetical suggestions that are unhelpful, but at their heart, UTTERLY POINTLESS. 

The TV show is interesting but no more so than any other true-crime documentary. What makes it a topic here is that there is a local connection; but that's it. The event itself happened about 120 miles away, 33 years ago. It's not exactly newsworthy today, is it? 

If you want to get angered at something, try our current situation.

 

[grendel]

Actually we did revise those restrictions a few years ago

Quote

Forums members must not post confidential or other information that may infringe upon the privacy, proprietary or personal rights of others. This includes, but is not restricted to, personal telephone numbers, email and postal addresses. The NBN does not subscribe to 'naming and shaming'.  i.e. pictures or descriptions of accidents where either the boats or people are recognisable.

Details and photos of what a crew are wrongly doing or particular issues with a yard should not be reported here.  Reports to the concerned authorities are more appropriate.

so what you are referring to with respect to businesses is slightly out of date in as much as we do allow criticism, but you must satisfy us that you have contacted the business in connection with your complaint and not received a satisfactory response in a reasonable time, before you post the complaint here.

But you would also have to satisfy us that the above conditions were also true, if you wished to post and the name of the pub could conceivably fall under postal addresses in that instance (it would have to be discussed between the moderators as to whether that did infringe the TOS in that instance) so we see people skirting around those types of details.

[grendel]

10 minutes ago, FreedomBoatingHols said:

what the flip has any of this got to do with 23rd June 2020? 

I think they are bored Andy, they want to get back aboard their boats and sleep on them. its like the posts over winter, but has had an extra 3 months worth of boredom tacked on the end.

[CambridgeCabby]

6 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

I have great faith in the judicial system in this country. I support it to the hilt.

 

 

As do I , the case is question however would appear to best suited to a non proven verdict if England had one .

The murder case is still an open case and one where the police are not seeking any other suspects other than those previously accused (as we have been led to believe) it is unlikely that we will ever know the true sequence of events as whoever committed and was involved in this crime was well versed in the procedure .

Irrespective of any spin by the documentary makers the programme highlighted many glaring mistakes that were made , I find it unbelievable that a serving police officer when confronted with a close friend being charged with murder and then proceeds to permit themselves to be the prosecuting officer without making their friendship fully known to their senior officers was allowed.

The literal “stepping into dead mans shoes” after he left the force also doesn’t endear him to anyone .

Yes you could say trial by forum but this “trial” being resurrected is a direct result of  the individual self advertising by taking part in the program, if you don’t want to be shot down don’t stick your head above the parapet .

[Poppy]

Oh dear !   

Don't like it ? Move on .

https://helpdeskgeek.com/how-to/automatically-scroll-down-pages-in-your-web-browser/   

[VetChugger]

Lets see if this survives the T & C's! Clues .........    Kenny Everett's alter ego "*** Snot", Panthera leo, adjacent  to a large white example of Don Quixote's mortal enemy!

[ranworthbreeze]

I watched the three episodes this morning, it was informative, no doubt at the time I would have not been interested in a case in London. If even a small percentage of the production was correct it smacks of corruption and a cover-up.

I gather there is a tie up with Norfolk but we as a forum do not need to debate the program on here.

Regards

Alan

[Poppy]

32 minutes ago, ranworthbreeze said:

I watched the three episodes this morning, it was informative, no doubt at the time I would have not been interested in a case in London. If even a small percentage of the production was correct it smacks of corruption and a cover-up.

I gather there is a tie up with Norfolk but we as a forum do not need to debate the program on here.

Regards

Alan

But it's in the Broadscot Lounge which is for  ' Non Boat/Broads related Topics and Discussions'.

I refer the honourable Gentlemanto the reply I posted earlier

[JennyMorgan]

33 minutes ago, ranworthbreeze said:

I gather there is a tie up with Norfolk but we as a forum do not need to debate the program on here.

There is a Broads link,  so a valid debate, if only to a lesser degree. Let's be honest, we even debate topics that have absolutely no tie up with Norfolk let alone the Broads!