I'm very proud of my son

[pepi1967]

Accidents do happen you know people get run over all the time :nuts::nuts:

Why make it an accident? Why not just go and do what your saying your going to do? Let them know it was you. If you want to send a message what's the point if no one knows who it's come from. You say the police don't help or don't care or can't wont do anything and you would sort it yourself so if you decide to take matters in your own hands makes sure they know it was you. After all you just said the police won't care so nothing to hide is there?

 

[Studi0488]

Why make it an accident? Why not just go and do what your saying your going to do? Let them know it was you. If you want to send a message what's the point if no one knows who it's come from. You say the police don't help or don't care or can't wont do anything and you would sort it yourself so if you decide to take matters in your own hands makes sure they know it was you. After all you just said the police won't care so nothing to hide is there?

Clearly the humour has been lost on you :bonk:

 

[pepi1967]

vice versa

I'm not allowed humour I'm married.

 

[Splog]

The really sad thing about this is that the thieves got let off but Gary's son and wife who were the victims in this have been put through a lot of stress that was no fault of their own. I've only skimmed the thread! but instead of knocking the police perhaps some anger should be aimed at the barrister who defended the scum and the judge who allowed the thieves to get away with their crime?....... and of course the CPS...

 

[DemiLion]

The really sad thing about this is that the thieves got let off but Gary's son and wife who were the victims in this have been put through a lot of stress that was no fault of their own. I've only skimmed the thread! but instead of knocking the police perhaps some anger should be aimed at the barrister who defended the scum and the judge who allowed the thieves to get away with their crime?....... and of course the CPS...

Mags court, so I doubt that any barristers or judges were involved. I agree with you about the CPS but not the defence; they're doing their job.

 

[Yves Geza]

I've only skimmed the thread! but instead of knocking the police perhaps some anger should be aimed at the barrister who defended the scum ...

Not really. That's his or her job! And anyway half the barristers at the bar have to be proved wrong and lose every time, don't they?

FWIW I'm far more angry at the reports that the Indian bus rapists, who don't seem to be very nice people, nor particularly innocent, are apparently facing rejection and are being shunned by the Indian legal profession.

 

[Byker28i]

Bill Edwards is on bbc 1 news this morning telling his story

 

[tdodd]

On BBC Breakfast this very moment. A full five minute studio interview.

 

[gramps]

Interesting interview, seems really odd that his mum was put in a cell as well ... what was that all about?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Mags court, so I doubt that any barristers or judges were involved. I agree with you about the CPS but not the defence; they're doing their job.

The CPS can only act on the file presented to them, but they do seem to be a bit over-ready to take the easy option.

The Magistrates sometimes seem to me to be less than with it. They seem to be unaware of the real world effect that criminals have on our lives. They have limited powers but don't even seem to use the powers that they do have - in this particular case, the maximum sentence available to the Court was 6 months but as he pleaded guilty the maximum became 4 months - or the criminal could have been sent to the Crown Court for sentence. But it was a £100 fine instead, less than half the amount the same magistrates imposed for a speeding offence to someone with a clean licence...

Yes, the solicitor was just doing his job. He is allowed to lie his head off in mitigation, so he was doing nothing wrong. It's the system that's wrong, an early guilty plea reduces the sentence by a 1/3rd and reduces the costs dramatically too, almost forcing people to plead guilty to get the discount, and a guilty plea is also the obvious course of action for anyone who doesn't want the true facts to come out.

As for the way that the police treated Bill and Louisa, there are issues here that have already been taken up with both the Temporary Chief Constable and the PCC, and a formal complaint is also likely. But most of the police officers acted properly and did their best to be fair. The problem was with the attitude of certain CID officers, treating obvious victims of crime as criminals, and the strokes that seem to me to have been pulled.The highly prejudiced "knocking posts" above are just ridiculous - I'm the first to be critical of the police, but people who have no idea of what the police actually do in the real world, usually out of sight of the public, should get their facts right before wearing out their keyboards...

Just seen the item on BBC, Bill looked a bit nervous, he is more at home with tractors and sheep than he is with TV studios, but I think he made his point well enough.

 

[odd jim]

Interesting interview, seems really odd that his mum was put in a cell as well ... what was that all about?

I read she was arrested for possession of a firearm? Was she holding one of Bill's shotguns (and not a FAC holder?).

Missed it on the BBC

 

[big soft moose]

I think they understood fully what would happen, nobody would give a **** if they went missing.:nuts::nuts:

its very easy to be an armchair warrior about it, but what would actually happen is that you and your family would be dead, and the police would hopefully then trace the fire to the scumbags concerned and do them for murder

 

[Garry Edwards]

I read she was arrested for possession of a firearm? Was she holding one of Bill's shotguns (and not a FAC holder?).

Initially, they were both arrested for possession of a firearm with intent. Bill was later further arrested for attempted murder.
Louisa was not in physical possession of anything, she has never even touched a shotgun or firearm. She was just with someone who had one.

She was 100% victim and also a witness. The only possible reason I can think of was that she was still on the 999 call when the second attack happened. She is clearly heard on the police recording shouting out to Bill "He is going to kill us, shoot his tyres". It would make sense for the police to consider her to be guilty (joint enterprise) if Bill was also guilty, but at the time of her arrest I doubt whether the arresting officer knew that she had shouted that out. I could be wrong about that.

 

[big soft moose]

But most of the police officers acted properly and did their best to be fair. The problem was with the attitude of certain CID officers, treating obvious victims of crime as criminals,

thats the key bit - was it really obvious to the officers concerned ?, you and we can see that its obvious from your perspective, but the CID have the other side saying "no guv we were just trying to get away and he kept shooting at us, he's a nutter, innit" they've got to look at everything objectively and then weigh up the various evidence. so its fair enough to interview the shooter under caution.

 

[Garry Edwards]

thats the key bit - was it really obvious to the officers concerned ?, you and we can see that its obvious from your perspective, but the CID have the other side saying "no guv we were just trying to get away and he kept shooting at us, he's a nutter, innit" they've got to look at everything objectively and then weigh up the various evidence. so its fair enough to interview the shooter under caution.

Yes, of course they had to investigate it. The problem is the way that they went about it.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Interview on BBC Radio York coming up in a few minutes

 

[big soft moose]

Yes, of course they had to investigate it. The problem is the way that they went about it.

so the issue isnt that they were 'treated like criminals' , but that they werent treated with the respect they were due under the various police procedures on interviewing suspects ?

 

[Studi0488]

its very easy to be an armchair warrior about it, but what would actually happen is that you and your family would be dead, and the police would hopefully then trace the fire to the scumbags concerned and do them for murder

hahaha I am certainly no armchair warrior trust me.

 

[big soft moose]

hahaha I am certainly no armchair warrior trust me.

so you combine your clothing studio business with being the local don corelone who the criminals are all afraid to cross then,

Begs the question of why they stole your sons bike in the first place tho if you have such a hard rep

 

[Studi0488]

so you combine your clothing studio business with being the local don corelone who the criminals are all afraid to cross then,

Begs the question of why they stole your sons bike in the first place tho if you have such a hard rep

Nobody said that, thats just your imagination, what I am saying is there are people who get walked all over and there are others who deal with stuff.

never been one for rep, it means nowt, 5 years on the doors taught me that.

I see where you coming from with the fashion studio, I also own a womens fashion retailer, as well as property, so that must mean its all a bit girly

 

[big soft moose]

its you who's talking about " they'd know what would happen" and " they'd just disapear"

so assuming you arent an armchair warrior that would indicate that you have the rep of making people dispear when they cross you.

Assuming you arent actually the local crimelord, chances are that the local crims don't know anything of the sort and the only thing keeping you safe from reprisal for going round and offering them a kicking, is the force of law and the police.

 

[Garry Edwards]

so the issue isnt that they were 'treated like criminals' , but that they werent treated with the respect they were due under the various police procedures on interviewing suspects ?

They were arrested and held in cells for 24 hours.
Louisa had (minor) injuries, she wasn't even asked if she needed medical attention.
Their home was searched by police.
His guns were taken (and still haven't been returned)
His car was seized (illegally) even though it wasn't part of what happened and he had to pay £150 to get it back.
They were on police bail for 4 months, with extremely restrictive bail conditions that made life difficult, and which made it very difficult for Bill to work as a farmer.

They were victims of a serious crime and were also witnesses, but were treated as criminals. Now, witnesses can also turn out to be criminals, I fully accept that, and of course I accept that the police could take nothing at face value and needed to investigate - it's what they did and how they handled the situation that has caused Bill, who has always supported the police and the work they do in the past, that has left him hurt and upset with the police, he now wants to have nothing more to do with them. Rightly or wrongly, he now feels that his local force is self serving and isn't interested in serving the law abiding public.

In a society in which the police can only function with the help and cooperation of the public, this change of his attitude towards the police is the opposite of what the police should be working towards.

 

[Studi0488]

its you who's talking about " they'd know what would happen" and " they'd just disapear"

so assuming you arent an armchair warrior that would indicate that you have the rep of making people dispear when they cross you.

Assuming you arent actually the local crimelord, chances are that the local crims don't know anything of the sort and the only thing keeping you safe from reprisal for going round and offering them a kicking, is the force of law and the police.

clearly the sky is a funny colour on planet Pete :bonk:

crims really do worry about "the force of law and the police."

 

[Studi0488]

They were arrested and held in cells for 24 hours.
Louisa had (minor) injuries, she wasn't even asked if she needed medical attention.
Their home was searched by police.
His guns were taken (and still haven't been returned)
His car was seized (illegally) even though it wasn't part of what happened and he had to pay £150 to get it back.
They were on police bail for 4 months, with extremely restrictive bail conditions that made life difficult, and which made it very difficult for Bill to work as a farmer.

They were victims of a serious crime and were also witnesses, but were treated as criminals. Now, witnesses can also turn out to be criminals, I fully accept that, and of course I accept that the police could take nothing at face value and needed to investigate - it's what they did and how they handled the situation that has caused Bill, who has always supported the police and the work they do in the past, that has left him hurt and upset with the police, he now wants to have nothing more to do with them. Rightly or wrongly, he now feels that his local force is self serving and isn't interested in serving the law abiding public.

In a society in which the police can only function with the help and cooperation of the public, this change of his attitude towards the police is the opposite of what the police should be working towards.

Agreed, they can cock up an whole load of good work very easily, I was stopped under a full blues and twos in the middle of a busy junction, when i drove about 100 yarss up the road to find a safe place to stop the guy wnet nuts about me not stopping, and all for having a number on my plate 1 inch to the left, the guy was a total arse, and whats more didnt really know what he was talking about.

Anyway its a rubbish job now, and wouldnt wish it on anyone, no respect from the goverment, the public or even internaly

 

[Garry Edwards]

Interview on BBC Radio York coming up in a few minutes

The radio York interview was on and off for a total of 3 hours.
Firstly, there was an interview with Bill, then various people phoned in with their views.

There seemed to be some misunderstandings, so I phoned in and pointed out that the police had tried to get Bill to sign a statement that left out all details of the attacks on him and his mum - the Det. Supt who was in overall charge then came on to give the police viewpoint, which was interesting - he said that he had no knowledge of the attempt to present a false statement and, under pressure, said that he would investigate.

Anyway, to get to the point, I recorded the programme but unfortunately the sound quality is poor. A replay will be on their website later - does anyone know how I can record it directly onto my computer?

 

[BethAtTheHug]

Saw the interview with Bill on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20942890. I think he came across as a calm and well controlled young man. He should have his shotgun(s) returned forthwith.
As for the thieves, why the hell aren't they being prosecuted for attempted murder, dangerous driving/etc? £100 fine is pathetic and simply sends the message that crime pays.

 

[joescrivens]

Garry,

Is Bill getting anything from all this media coverage? Is he wanting to go and talk to all these people, is it helping his cause or would he rather just get on with his life?

 

[onomatopoeia]

Anyway, to get to the point, I recorded the programme but unfortunately the sound quality is poor. A replay will be on their website later - does anyone know how I can record it directly onto my computer?

Audacity, records everything going to the sound card into a wav or whatever file (this means it will also record stuff like the sound of an email coming in if that happens while you're listening to a streamed bit of radio).

http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

 

[Garry Edwards]

Joe,

There are two aspects to all this, maybe 3.
1. He doesn't want other innocent people to have to go through what he and his mum have had to endure. He hopes that a bit of publicity may make certain police officers re-evaluate how innocent members of the public should be treated in the future.
2. The media have been extremely supportive throughout, and especially the Daily Mail. He didn't feel it right to tell them to bugger off once it was all over.
3. There has been a lot of very negative local publicity. He wants local people to know that the CPS ended up accepting that he acted entirely within the law, which they have today stated on the radio - there has been zero communication from the CPS prior to this statement, which could have left him "innocent, you did what you had to do" or "Guilty but we're doing nothing because we can't prove it"

Audacity, records everything going to the sound card into a wav or whatever file (this means it will also record stuff like the sound of an email coming in if that happens while you're listening to a streamed bit of radio).

http://audacity.sourceforge.net/

Many thanks for that

 

[andya700]

The really sad thing about this is that the thieves got let off but Gary's son and wife who were the victims in this have been put through a lot of stress that was no fault of their own. I've only skimmed the thread! but instead of knocking the police perhaps some anger should be aimed at the barrister who defended the scum and the judge who allowed the thieves to get away with their crime?....... and of course the CPS...

I totally agree with you steve, but the police review the case, and refer it to the CPS, they then decide whether or not to prosecute, based on police evidence/statements.
The barrrister is duty bound to defend anyone he is delegated to defend so do not criticise them.
IMO the majority op this is down to the police who decide to prosecute and the CPS who decide to go along with it - based on my own experience.

 

[andya700]

The CPS can only act on the file presented to them, but they do seem to be a bit over-ready to take the easy option.

Garry, I am not a "police basher", but totally agree with you on this point.

 

[James J]

I personally think its disgusting that he was arrested along with his mother for defending them against someone trying to run them over. Saw him on TV this morning before I had to go out and thought he put his side of the events across quite well, even though the two interviewers aren't exactly great.

 

[big soft moose]

Thing is james hindsight is a wonderful thing - if you put yourself in the position of the first responders you've got one side saying one thing, the otherside saying something else and the only hard and fast evidence is that the transit van has shot holes in the windscreen, and a guy in possession of a shot gun.

So of course he's going to get arrrested. What is disgusting is what followed with it seems various senior officers not following police procedures correctly

 

[odd jim]

But what did these "senior officers" actually do? From what Garry's posted its hearsay (ie, no documentation or direct contact was witnessed). Officers above the rank of inspectors rarely even get involved in investigations, they're simply managers and pen pushers.

 

[big soft moose]

the other thing that looks like a discontinuity in the story is that he fired 3 seperate times , so if he had time to reload (assuming it wasnt a pump action) why didnt he have time to get to cover instead ?

I'm sure theres a reasonable explanation , but i can also see how this could raise doubts in the minds of investigating officers

 

[Garry Edwards]

But what did these "senior officers" actually do? From what Garry's posted its hearsay (ie, no documentation or direct contact was witnessed). Officers above the rank of inspectors rarely even get involved in investigations, they're simply managers and pen pushers.

There were various things that I'm not going to detail on an open forum - or anywhere else, because I believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and there is always the possibility of error rather than something more sinister. And I'm not completely sure that the most senior officer here actually knew what was going on - although he certainly should have done, as a letter from Bill's MP urged him to take a look.

But if you listen to the BBC Radio York programme, aired yesterday from 9 - 12, you will find that I claimed that the police tried to get Bill to sign a false statement. That's a serious allegation, but fortunately the police left a paper trail so it can be proved, even though they refused to let Bill keep a copy of it. It can certainly be proved to civil evidence standards, although it may not be provable to criminal evidence standards. Later in the programme, the Det Supt said that he knew nothing about it but agreed that it was very serious and said that he would refer it to his own professional standards dept.

Of course, I have absolutely no idea why the police would want my son to sign a false statement that incriminated him and helped the thief. Maybe it was an error.

Bill is considering a formal complaint. Whether or not he goes ahead with this complaint is entirely a matter for him. My personal view is that if he does, there will be serious consequences for certain police officers, and as all that any of us want is for innocent members of the public to be treated better in the future, a formal complaint may not be the best way forward.

 

[Garry Edwards]

the other thing that looks like a discontinuity in the story is that he fired 3 seperate times , so if he had time to reload (assuming it wasnt a pump action) why didnt he have time to get to cover instead ?

I'm sure theres a reasonable explanation , but i can also see how this could raise doubts in the minds of investigating officers

It was a pump action, but a S.2 one, it required constant reloading. Bill did have time to get to cover during the later attacks, but this wasn't about him.
During the second attack, his mum was down and injured, as a result of the first attack. He stood over her and started shooting. The first shot hit the windscreen as far as possible from the driver. The second shot was much closer, but still a safe distance away. A third shot wasn't needed because the attack then stopped.
In the later attacks, she was on her feet and trying to get to cover. The shots were needed to distract the driver and buy time, and it worked. When she did eventually manage to get to cover, the shooting was no longer needed and stopped immediately.

Obviously the police had to investigate, but they were helped, right from the start, by their own recording of the 999 call.

 

[odd jim]

There were various things that I'm not going to detail on an open forum - or anywhere else, because I believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and there is always the possibility of error rather than something more sinister. And I'm not completely sure that the most senior officer here actually knew what was going on - although he certainly should have done, as a letter from Bill's MP urged him to take a look.

But if you listen to the BBC Radio York programme, aired yesterday from 9 - 12, you will find that I claimed that the police tried to get Bill to sign a false statement. That's a serious allegation, but fortunately the police left a paper trail so it can be proved, even though they refused to let Bill keep a copy of it. It can certainly be proved to civil evidence standards, although it may not be provable to criminal evidence standards. Later in the programme, the Det Supt said that he knew nothing about it but agreed that it was very serious and said that he would refer it to his own professional standards dept.

Of course, I have absolutely no idea why the police would want my son to sign a false statement that incriminated him and helped the thief. Maybe it was an error.

Bill is considering a formal complaint. Whether or not he goes ahead with this complaint is entirely a matter for him. My personal view is that if he does, there will be serious consequences for certain police officers, and as all that any of us want is for innocent members of the public to be treated better in the future, a formal complaint may not be the best way forward.

Without going into specific details, what did the statement evidence? This is unheard of I have to say. Sometimes suspects will provide a prepared statement prepared by their defence solicitor so they don't have to answer questions during interview, but I've never heard of the police drafting one and asking a suspect to sign it?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Without going into specific details, what did the statement evidence? This is unheard of I have to say. Sometimes suspects will provide a prepared statement prepared by their defence solicitor so they don't have to answer questions during interview, but I've never heard of the police drafting one and asking a suspect to sign it?

Please bear in mind that I haven't personally seen it. It was presented to Bill, he asked if he take it away with him, this was refused, so I am relying entirely on what he says here...

The statement was concerned only with the theft. It contained absolutely no mention of the criminal damage or, more importantly, the attacks by the van driver. It had been prepared in Bill's absence.

If he had signed it, Bill would, in effect, have said that nothing happened other than the theft, which would have made it very easy for him to be charged with attempted murder, because that statement would have made it very clear that he had absolutely no reason to use force.

Bill then submitted his own statement. He then received a telephone call from a D.C. The DC said his own statement wasn't what was needed and that Bill should sign the statement that he had prepared for him. Bill said that he wasn't going to do that, as it was incorrect. The DC then said that Bill's own solicitor had said that he should sign the police statement (not true) and Bill then asked why the police wanted him to sign a statement that didn't contain the true facts. The DC then said that he had prepared the statement on the instructions of his boss, and that he would have to now speak to his boss about it. This is something that I do know about personally as Bill was with me at the time

As I said, the Det. Supt. has now said on air that he will refer it to the Professional Standards dept. Personally I would be happier if the investigation was external, but there you go.

 

[Flashman]

If he had signed it, Bill would, in effect, have said that nothing happened other than the theft, which would have made it very easy for him to be charged with attempted murder, because that statement would have made it very clear that he had absolutely no reason to use force.

Makes you wonder how many people have fallen for this before and how much trouble they have ended up in as a consequence... scary!