The news today carries the story of a farmer who was confronted with
three burglars in his home and used his legally held gun - a shotgun? -
to defend himself. One of the burglars was killed, a second was
seriously injured, the third was arrested driving away.
A glum-faced public prosecutor informed the press today that the farmer
was within his rights to defend his property and will not be charged
with any offence. "This decision has been made in accordance with our statutory legal tests as prosecutors and the law surrounding the householder's rights to defend themself. Our thoughts are with Mr
Smith's family and loved ones."
I'll bet they are! A poor little criminal killed and the full weight of
the law cannot be thrown against the innocent householder who did it.
How about this woke unprintable ("themself" forsooth) sparing a thought
for Mr Lomas, the farmer, frightened out of his wits by three
threatening figures breaking into his home in the dead of night,
suffering the stress of not knowing which way that CP will jump, having
to fork out for lawyers and counsel, and all the rest of it. Unlike the criminal Smith, the farmer did not choose any of this. He - and he alone
- is the victim.
You would rather the police turn up, give Rob Lomas a pat on the back
and say jolly good show?
The CPS has now declared there's no case to answer, but that decision
can only be reached once the facts have been established, surely?
(I will say that I believe the decision should have been reached much
sooner but I'm not privy to the workings of the CPS).
So she was wrong to spare a thought for Mr Smith's family and loved ones?
How <unprintable> unempathetic can you get? Mr Smith shouldn't have been there, he was shot by the farmer protecting his livlihood and suffered
the consequences, but <unprintable> me, at least you could have some
empathy for the family he left behind.
Just to quell your ire a little bit all Rob Lomas's legal costs were met
and no doubt some left over following a gofundme that raised at least -u60,000.
Did you make up the bit about the public prosecutor being glum faced?I think it a safe bet that the prosecutor was scowling as he or she
Given it was a press release I rather think you did.
On 14/07/2026 23:23, John wrote:
You would rather the police turn up, give Rob Lomas a pat on the back
and say jolly good show?
Given the facts, I believe the answer is "Yes". There was no doubt that
Mr Lomas was in his own home, the broken door or window was evidence
that the home had been broken into, what more is required?
The CPS has now declared there's no case to answer, but that decision
can only be reached once the facts have been established, surely?
The facts were established within ten minutes.
(I will say that I believe the decision should have been reached much
sooner but I'm not privy to the workings of the CPS).
It would seem that the CPS only reluctantly abandoned its dream of prosecuting Mr Lomas.
So she was wrong to spare a thought for Mr Smith's family and loved ones?
Why does Smith deserve sympathy? But if sympathy for his relatives is appropriate, that should be tacked on to the end of fulsome sympathy for
Mr Lomas and *his* family. That is what sticks in the craw; grief that a criminal has been removed from circulation, not a thought or word for
the victims of his criminality.
How <unprintable> unempathetic can you get? Mr Smith shouldn't have
been there, he was shot by the farmer protecting his livlihood and
suffered the consequences, but <unprintable> me, at least you could
have some empathy for the family he left behind.
Why? What steps did the family take to dissuade him from a life of
crime? What did they do to inculcate moral principles in his life?
Just to quell your ire a little bit all Rob Lomas's legal costs were
met and no doubt some left over following a gofundme that raised at
least -u60,000.
Why was it necessary for him to have any legal costs at all? In America
- which I dislike holding up as an example to emulate but in this case I fear it is justified - a similar case happens during the night and by
midday the following day the police have announced that the homeowner
will not face any charges.
Did you make up the bit about the public prosecutor being glum faced?
Given it was a press release I rather think you did.
I think it a safe bet that the prosecutor was scowling as he or she
dictated the press release.
So lets get this right.-a The police turn up, they are faced with someone dead from gunshot wounds, and someone else injured.-a They then have to
call an ambulance, secure the scene, call SOCO, arrest the perpretator because at this point they don't know (nor have they the authority to determine) whether Rob Lomas lawfully killed Mr Smith.
You really are a scream Ken.-a Where is your evidence that the CPS *relunctantly abandoned it's dream*?
Did I, or the CPS prosecutor express any sympathy for Mr Smith?
Rob Lomas didn't die, Rob Lomas wasn't even injured.-a Yes he was
arrested, but he was also bailed (something they don't tend to do if
it's someone who has murdered someone, so obviously that isn't the case) although to be fair, he's had two years of not knowing if he was going
to be prosecuted, but you know, we have a law in this country where, in general, we don't go killing people with guns. In Rob Lomas's case he
was in his rights to do so, again the facts need to be determined, but
not in 10 frigging minutes.
Oh hear we go, blame the parents. You know, that is something that
really pisses me off. Whilst some are a product of their background it's
not always the case.
That's something you'd need to ask your beloved tories, seeing as they decimated legal aid in their 14 years of power.
Well, if you'd bother to actually check, her name is Janine.She was the spokesperson.
On 15/07/2026 13:48, John wrote:
So lets get this right.-a The police turn up, they are faced with
someone dead from gunshot wounds, and someone else injured.-a They then
have to call an ambulance, secure the scene, call SOCO, arrest the
perpretator because at this point they don't know (nor have they the
authority to determine) whether Rob Lomas lawfully killed Mr Smith.
How long does it take the police to run a check and establish that "the perpetrator" (as you call him) is the lawful resident of that home?
You really are a scream Ken.-a Where is your evidence that the CPS
*relunctantly abandoned it's dream*?
The fact that it took them so long. The fact that they expressed
sympathies for the criminal and not a mention for the victim.
Did I, or the CPS prosecutor express any sympathy for Mr Smith?
But why sympathy for his family? Smith didn't grow up in a vacuum, you
know.
Rob Lomas didn't die, Rob Lomas wasn't even injured.-a Yes he was
arrested, but he was also bailed (something they don't tend to do if
it's someone who has murdered someone, so obviously that isn't the
case) although to be fair, he's had two years of not knowing if he was
going to be prosecuted, but you know, we have a law in this country
where, in general, we don't go killing people with guns. In Rob
Lomas's case he was in his rights to do so, again the facts need to be
determined, but not in 10 frigging minutes.
And not in two years, either.
Oh hear we go, blame the parents. You know, that is something that
really pisses me off. Whilst some are a product of their background
it's not always the case.
Very true. Perhaps the CPS should have made it clear why she was so sympathetic towards the parents?
Well, if you'd bother to actually check, her name is Janine.
She was the spokesperson.
That isn't the point. The police don't have the authority in serious
cases to determine innocence or guilt.-a They prepare a case and submit
it to the CPS.-a The CPS then decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether to prosecute or not.
Also, as I'm sure you know, making on the spot decisions can sometimes
turn out to be wrong, as in Henry Nowak's case.
I really don't understand why you find that it an issue. Isn't that what Jesus was all about?-a Blow me, on two occasions he even had sympathy for the criminals.
We're both fortunate that our sons have turned out well, but the
opposite could so easily be true. Parenting helps, of course it does,
but teenagers can still go off the rails, even with the best parenting
in the world.-a I don't know this lad's circumstances, or why he turned
out to be a wrong 'un, and neither do you.-a I seem to recall something
in that book you so revere about not judging, but here we are.
On 15/07/2026 20:15, John wrote:
That isn't the point. The police don't have the authority in serious
cases to determine innocence or guilt.-a They prepare a case and submit
it to the CPS.-a The CPS then decide, on the balance of probabilities,
whether to prosecute or not.
So the bad guys are the CPS? I'll accept that.
Also, as I'm sure you know, making on the spot decisions can sometimes
turn out to be wrong, as in Henry Nowak's case.
But only because the police are so "woke".
I really don't understand why you find that it an issue. Isn't that
what Jesus was all about?-a Blow me, on two occasions he even had
sympathy for the criminals.
Really?
We're both fortunate that our sons have turned out well, but the
opposite could so easily be true. Parenting helps, of course it does,
but teenagers can still go off the rails, even with the best parenting
in the world.-a I don't know this lad's circumstances, or why he turned
out to be a wrong 'un, and neither do you.-a I seem to recall something
in that book you so revere about not judging, but here we are.
That is all true, but if your son or mine had caused so much trouble for someone, I would not expect the authorities to come smarming around with "sympathy" for me - but never a word for the victim of the crime.
Most people would consider such a response disproportionate and unreasonable. I'm sure I would be arrested if I tried it. Conviction
would, rightly, follow.
The same principle applies to the case of this farmer.
I don't know anything about the case, but if Mr Lomas could have warned
off the burglars with a shot in the air then he should have done that
rather than killing anyone.
Otherwise, where does it end? Any wrong-doer can be put to death for any minor transgression?
Consequently, its obviously right that the CPS gave the case full and detailed consideration. That should not have taken 2 years, of course.You mean, the CPS sat on the file for two years and ignored it for as
There are no bad guys, other than Mr Smith and his partner's in crime.
The police did their job, correctly imo, and the CPS did theirs, albeit being longer than we agree it should have taken.
The guidance to police officers would seem to be wrong. I am in favour
of all citizens being treated exactly the same, or as Ted Hastings (1)
puts it "without fear or favour"-a But let me season that comment,
because for too long, black and coloured citizens have been on the
receiving end of racist police (not all police are racist) abusing their power. It's wrong it's swung the opposite way and hopefully that will
now be corrected.
Yes really, do you not know your own bible?-a As you're struggling try
the adulterous woman, who broke God's law, and the thief on the cross.
Come swarming round? It was one sentence in a written statement.And where was the one sentence expressing sympathy for the victim?
On 16/07/2026 10:55, GB wrote:
Consequently, its obviously right that the CPS gave the case full and
detailed consideration. That should not have taken 2 years, of course.
You mean, the CPS sat on the file for two years and ignored it for as
long as they could - and when, finally, they were forced to take action
and admit that Mr Lomas was innocent, they revealed their true feelings
by heaping fulsome sympathy on the family of the offender and never a
word for the victim.
On 16/07/2026 12:35, John wrote:
There are no bad guys, other than Mr Smith and his partner's in crime.
The police did their job, correctly imo, and the CPS did theirs,
albeit being longer than we agree it should have taken.
Justice delayed is justice denied. By sitting on the file for two years
the CPS made themselves the bad guys.
The guidance to police officers would seem to be wrong. I am in favour
of all citizens being treated exactly the same, or as Ted Hastings (1)
puts it "without fear or favour"-a But let me season that comment,
because for too long, black and coloured citizens have been on the
receiving end of racist police (not all police are racist) abusing
their power. It's wrong it's swung the opposite way and hopefully that
will now be corrected.
The police are by no means the paragons of virtue that you suppose. On
the other hand, when, day after day, the police observe black people behaving suspiciously and, when they are stopped, find them in
possession of weapons or drugs, a certain weariness is the inevitable result.
Certainly the police stopped and searched a large number of blacks, but
so what? I don't know what your experience has been, but when I was
young I was stopped many times by the police, who wanted to know who I
was, what I was doing there and why, and so on. I don't recall ever
being searched, but I put that down to being friendly and open and
always having a good reason for my presence and my actions.
There you go Ken, it was a complex case. I'm not privy to theI'm glad you've found that extra information, because I was dubious that
information the police had, but it seems a darn sight more than your
knee jerk reaction that it should have been wrapped up in 10 minutes.
I've since found out the police were investigating the case a year
later. It was a complex case
You must have been a right rogue then, there was probably a marker on
your car!
I've been stopped no more than 10 times by police in all my 40 years driving. I'm sure if I had been a black person it would be 10 times that.I'll bet that those ten times were all back in the past and now that you
On 17/07/2026 01:30, John wrote:
There you go Ken, it was a complex case. I'm not privy to theI'm glad you've found that extra information, because I was dubious that
information the police had, but it seems a darn sight more than your
knee jerk reaction that it should have been wrapped up in 10 minutes.
the CPS were the only villains - or even the villains at all. There was nothing complex about the case at all. A home-owner, in his own home,
uses a legally held weapon against three thugs (and I'll bet they all
have a police record) who have broken into his home. What's complex?
That is just a police excuse to cover up the fact that they deliberately strung the thing out as revenge for the death of one of their mates. (If
you think the police are on the side of the law-abiding, think again.)
On 17/07/2026 01:42, John wrote:
I've since found out the police were investigating the case a year
later. It was a complex case
Go on, tell me what was complex about it?
As I say, I'm astounded you aren't the attorney general. Your amazing insight into how these cases are dealt with is astonishing.-a Tell me,
how many years of training did that take, or are you just a keyboard
warrior who spouts dung without having a clue what goes in the real world?
That's bordering on being libellous, as I identified the Detective Chief Inspector who made that statement. You sound incredibly bitter, could I suggest a reading of 1 Corinthians 13, it might help you know.I am perfectly familiar with 1 Cor 13, thank you. That's why I have such sympathy for the victims of crime. I'm not sure why you and the CPS only
Go on, tell me what was complex about it?
I don't know, but then I'm not an expert in these matters, nor do I
pretend to be.-a You have zero knowledge of the situation but there you
go, jumping in and slating the police/cps without cause, making
insinuations that are so extreme they're absolutely ridiculous.
Unlike you, I don't have a deep hatred of the police.-a They do a
difficult job in increasing difficult circumstances. Yes there are bad apples, and they're getting better at rooting them out, but on the whole they do a good job.
On 17/07/2026 13:04, John wrote:
As I say, I'm astounded you aren't the attorney general. Your amazing
insight into how these cases are dealt with is astonishing.-a Tell me,
how many years of training did that take, or are you just a keyboard
warrior who spouts dung without having a clue what goes in the real
world?
So you cannot say what is complex about the case, all you can do is
attack me personally.
You are correct that I can't say that it's complex, but by the same
token you can't say it's an open and shut case.-a Although aparently you know better than the Detective Chief Inspector who dealt with-a the case.
The reason I "attacked" you was because you said it was wrong to have sympathy for the perpetrator's friends and family, and you've got all
worked up because they didn't apologise/express sympathy to Rob Lomas,
and I simply don't understand why.
Should the CPS apologise/sympathise every time someone charged is givenNo, let them stick to cold hard facts and no one can complain. But if
the all clear?
On 17/07/2026 13:14, John wrote:
Go on, tell me what was complex about it?
I don't know, but then I'm not an expert in these matters, nor do I
pretend to be.-a You have zero knowledge of the situation but there you
go, jumping in and slating the police/cps without cause, making
insinuations that are so extreme they're absolutely ridiculous.
Yet with absolute confidence you declare that the case is complex - and
when I point out the lack of complexity, all you can do is attack me personally.
Unlike you, I don't have a deep hatred of the police.-a They do a
difficult job in increasing difficult circumstances. Yes there are bad
apples, and they're getting better at rooting them out, but on the
whole they do a good job.
I hate the way the police have gone. Fifty years ago the British bobby
was someone the whole world respected. Today?
And what is this "good job" the police do? Arresting murder victims, refusing to log crimes (because it would look bad in their statistics),
but rushing round if there is a smell of a "hate crime" against anyone
who is not a normal British citizen.
I was repeating what the detective chief inspector said.
Given the
choice between accepting the word of someone deeply involved in the case
and a layman like yourself who only has the bare bones to go on then
I'll go with the chief inspector every single time.
You made some
extremely inane comments and slagged off two individuals, and I
commented how stupid you were to do that. If I've gone over the top then
I apologise, but I will say one thing, if you don't like it then don't
do it to others in future. I will temper my comments going forward.
Defund the police then and let anarchy rule.I totally agree with that. Unfortunately, in this world we need a force
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:48:18 |
| Calls: | 1,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,965 |