Sussex drink drivers to be named and shamed in summer crackdown

Drink drivers to be named and shamed in summer crackdown

Drink drivers to be named and shamed in summer crackdown

First published in News

Drink drivers will be named and shamed as part of police crackdown.

Sussex Police will publish the names of all those who appear in court on suspicion of having committed a drink or drug-driving offence in June.

It comes following a similar scheme run during last year’s Christmas period.

Posters will also be put up across the county at sites where offenders were stopped during the Christmas campaign to warn drivers in those areas that they could be caught if they get behind the wheel while over the limit.

The campaign has been given the name Operation Dragonfly and aims to prevent avoidable tragedies by discouraging people from taking to the road while they are unfit.

Officers will also tweet about people stopped on suspicion of drink or drug-driving offences throughout June.

Chief Inspector Natalie Moloney said: "The summer puts a different type of offender on the roads than we catch at Christmas - the warm weather drinker.

"Whether drinking with family or friends at home or out at the beach, park or pubs don't be tempted to drive and don't forget that after a late night heavy session you will undoubtedly still be over the limit if you decide to drive in the morning.

"Into that mix are young drivers for who this may be their first summer on the roads. If you are a friend getting a lift make sure you don't pressurise them into drinking.

"There is no excuse for driving while over the limit or after taking drugs.”

During June 2013 more than 3,500 motorists were breathalised and more than 140 people were arrested.

Road users in Sussex can text officers on 65999 with details about people they suspect of drink or drug driving or visit www.operationcrackdown.co.uk.

If you know someone is driving while over the limit call 999.

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:42pm Tue 27 May 14

JoeBlow says...

While I'm in favour of naming and shaming these selfish toerags, shouldn't it be the names of those found guilty, not those who are charged and appear in court?
While I'm in favour of naming and shaming these selfish toerags, shouldn't it be the names of those found guilty, not those who are charged and appear in court? JoeBlow
  • Score: 13

7:50pm Tue 27 May 14

Mr chock says...

this has been "talked about for some time.." is this one called Operation Dragonfly , why not just call it "drunk drivers list 2014 then we can look back at lists from 2014 in "drunk drivers list 2015 and see repeat names ?
ohh its all so complex operation dragons fly .. that reminds me of the basil fawlty sketch
this has been "talked about for some time.." is this one called Operation Dragonfly , why not just call it "drunk drivers list 2014 then we can look back at lists from 2014 in "drunk drivers list 2015 and see repeat names ? ohh its all so complex operation dragons fly .. that reminds me of the basil fawlty sketch Mr chock
  • Score: -3

9:49pm Tue 27 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

So the police want to name innocent persons but don't want to name escaped felons who are on the run?

Sometimes, I think our police are stupid.
So the police want to name innocent persons but don't want to name escaped felons who are on the run? Sometimes, I think our police are stupid. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 3

10:06pm Tue 27 May 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Once you have provided a positive roadside test you are providing a guilty result so you can usually only enter mitigation for the length of ban and size of fine.
Some show biz lawyers get drunk drivers out of bans but ordinary folk facing magistrates are almost always banned and getting insurance after a ban for this offence is extremely difficult and expensive. A cab home is cheaper.
Once you have provided a positive roadside test you are providing a guilty result so you can usually only enter mitigation for the length of ban and size of fine. Some show biz lawyers get drunk drivers out of bans but ordinary folk facing magistrates are almost always banned and getting insurance after a ban for this offence is extremely difficult and expensive. A cab home is cheaper. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 3

10:32pm Tue 27 May 14

FatherTed11 says...

Where do these drink drivers manage to find somewhere to park near a decent pub anyway?
Where do these drink drivers manage to find somewhere to park near a decent pub anyway? FatherTed11
  • Score: 2

11:05pm Tue 27 May 14

Watchdog50 says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
So the police want to name innocent persons but don't want to name escaped felons who are on the run?

Sometimes, I think our police are stupid.
ZeeGee,

Going by your previous posts, you ALWAYS think our police are stupid.

However, I think that your 'innocent persons' comment has betrayed your attitude towards drink driving and your general contempt for those who abide by the law. I've become very wary of anything reported in the Argus as it's so often misleading or just plain wrong. In this case it's been reported that the police would be naming those who appear in court on suspicion of having committed a drink or drug driving offence. That sounds very wishy washy to me and not the sort of thing that the police would put out on a press release. I know how fussy the police are with regards to the release of information prior to a court case as such a disclosure would only serve to prejudice the case. I suspect that they'll actually only be naming those CONVICTED at court for a drink or drug driving offence and believe me, such people are anything but innocent. Drink driving is probably the most contested piece of legislation in existence. Practically every possible defence has been tried, refuted and tried again. The upshot of this is that, even though drink driving is what's called an absolute offence (i.e. one for which there is no defence in law), the police still have to jump through hoops just to get such a job to court, never mind a conviction. To that end, even if the article were to be accurate and a true reflection of what the police have said, I wouldn't be too fussed.

Oh and another thing.......Exactly which escaped felons do the police not want to name? You really don't do yourself any favours sometimes.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: So the police want to name innocent persons but don't want to name escaped felons who are on the run? Sometimes, I think our police are stupid.[/p][/quote]ZeeGee, Going by your previous posts, you ALWAYS think our police are stupid. However, I think that your 'innocent persons' comment has betrayed your attitude towards drink driving and your general contempt for those who abide by the law. I've become very wary of anything reported in the Argus as it's so often misleading or just plain wrong. In this case it's been reported that the police would be naming those who appear in court on suspicion of having committed a drink or drug driving offence. That sounds very wishy washy to me and not the sort of thing that the police would put out on a press release. I know how fussy the police are with regards to the release of information prior to a court case as such a disclosure would only serve to prejudice the case. I suspect that they'll actually only be naming those CONVICTED at court for a drink or drug driving offence and believe me, such people are anything but innocent. Drink driving is probably the most contested piece of legislation in existence. Practically every possible defence has been tried, refuted and tried again. The upshot of this is that, even though drink driving is what's called an absolute offence (i.e. one for which there is no defence in law), the police still have to jump through hoops just to get such a job to court, never mind a conviction. To that end, even if the article were to be accurate and a true reflection of what the police have said, I wouldn't be too fussed. Oh and another thing.......Exactly which escaped felons do the police not want to name? You really don't do yourself any favours sometimes. Watchdog50
  • Score: 3

11:58pm Tue 27 May 14

JoeBlow says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Once you have provided a positive roadside test you are providing a guilty result so you can usually only enter mitigation for the length of ban and size of fine.
Some show biz lawyers get drunk drivers out of bans but ordinary folk facing magistrates are almost always banned and getting insurance after a ban for this offence is extremely difficult and expensive. A cab home is cheaper.
You get caught shoplifting with a couple of pounds of raw salmon up your jumper with no receipt, you are also going to have trouble getting off. Nevertheless, in this country we have always been presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. It's a slippery slope if you start to undermine that.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Once you have provided a positive roadside test you are providing a guilty result so you can usually only enter mitigation for the length of ban and size of fine. Some show biz lawyers get drunk drivers out of bans but ordinary folk facing magistrates are almost always banned and getting insurance after a ban for this offence is extremely difficult and expensive. A cab home is cheaper.[/p][/quote]You get caught shoplifting with a couple of pounds of raw salmon up your jumper with no receipt, you are also going to have trouble getting off. Nevertheless, in this country we have always been presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. It's a slippery slope if you start to undermine that. JoeBlow
  • Score: 0

12:39am Wed 28 May 14

scuba1 says...

So just a summer crackdown , What happened to the rest of the seasons ?
So just a summer crackdown , What happened to the rest of the seasons ? scuba1
  • Score: 1

1:42am Wed 28 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"ZeeGee,

Going by your previous posts, you ALWAYS think our police are stupid."

No, I don't. I had nothing but praise for the coppers on the MFE event.

I have issues with the police when they do stupid things or deliberately scr*w things up.

"However, I think that your 'innocent persons' comment has betrayed your attitude towards drink driving and your general contempt for those who abide by the law. "

I would say that your comment displays an absence of thought.

I haven't commented upon drink-driving or upon those who abide by the law.

"Exactly which escaped felons do the police not want to name?"

We don't know....the police won't name them.

http://www.theargus.
co.uk/news/11236751.
Ministry_tried_to_ke
ep_fugitives____name
s_secret/

Jeez........
"ZeeGee, Going by your previous posts, you ALWAYS think our police are stupid." No, I don't. I had nothing but praise for the coppers on the MFE event. I have issues with the police when they do stupid things or deliberately scr*w things up. "However, I think that your 'innocent persons' comment has betrayed your attitude towards drink driving and your general contempt for those who abide by the law. " I would say that your comment displays an absence of thought. I haven't commented upon drink-driving or upon those who abide by the law. "Exactly which escaped felons do the police not want to name?" We don't know....the police won't name them. http://www.theargus. co.uk/news/11236751. Ministry_tried_to_ke ep_fugitives____name s_secret/ Jeez........ ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

5:52am Wed 28 May 14

ohhumanity says...

Watchdog50 wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
So the police want to name innocent persons but don't want to name escaped felons who are on the run?

Sometimes, I think our police are stupid.
ZeeGee,

Going by your previous posts, you ALWAYS think our police are stupid.

However, I think that your 'innocent persons' comment has betrayed your attitude towards drink driving and your general contempt for those who abide by the law. I've become very wary of anything reported in the Argus as it's so often misleading or just plain wrong. In this case it's been reported that the police would be naming those who appear in court on suspicion of having committed a drink or drug driving offence. That sounds very wishy washy to me and not the sort of thing that the police would put out on a press release. I know how fussy the police are with regards to the release of information prior to a court case as such a disclosure would only serve to prejudice the case. I suspect that they'll actually only be naming those CONVICTED at court for a drink or drug driving offence and believe me, such people are anything but innocent. Drink driving is probably the most contested piece of legislation in existence. Practically every possible defence has been tried, refuted and tried again. The upshot of this is that, even though drink driving is what's called an absolute offence (i.e. one for which there is no defence in law), the police still have to jump through hoops just to get such a job to court, never mind a conviction. To that end, even if the article were to be accurate and a true reflection of what the police have said, I wouldn't be too fussed.

Oh and another thing.......Exactly which escaped felons do the police not want to name? You really don't do yourself any favours sometimes.
I actually agree with ZeeGees point but not necessarily escaped felons. What about things like the killers of james bulger? One of them has recommited offences several times but the police wont reveal their new identities. Murderers who are underage- why cant we release their names? Especially the ones who are around 16/17 years old but their names cant be released "for legal reasons". Im sorry but at that age you know exactly what you're doing.

While I agree that drink drivers should be named and shamed and forced to face the consequences, I don't think the laws are fair when drunk drivers (who HAVEN'T harmed anyone else in the act) are named and shamed but murderers aren't.
[quote][p][bold]Watchdog50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: So the police want to name innocent persons but don't want to name escaped felons who are on the run? Sometimes, I think our police are stupid.[/p][/quote]ZeeGee, Going by your previous posts, you ALWAYS think our police are stupid. However, I think that your 'innocent persons' comment has betrayed your attitude towards drink driving and your general contempt for those who abide by the law. I've become very wary of anything reported in the Argus as it's so often misleading or just plain wrong. In this case it's been reported that the police would be naming those who appear in court on suspicion of having committed a drink or drug driving offence. That sounds very wishy washy to me and not the sort of thing that the police would put out on a press release. I know how fussy the police are with regards to the release of information prior to a court case as such a disclosure would only serve to prejudice the case. I suspect that they'll actually only be naming those CONVICTED at court for a drink or drug driving offence and believe me, such people are anything but innocent. Drink driving is probably the most contested piece of legislation in existence. Practically every possible defence has been tried, refuted and tried again. The upshot of this is that, even though drink driving is what's called an absolute offence (i.e. one for which there is no defence in law), the police still have to jump through hoops just to get such a job to court, never mind a conviction. To that end, even if the article were to be accurate and a true reflection of what the police have said, I wouldn't be too fussed. Oh and another thing.......Exactly which escaped felons do the police not want to name? You really don't do yourself any favours sometimes.[/p][/quote]I actually agree with ZeeGees point but not necessarily escaped felons. What about things like the killers of james bulger? One of them has recommited offences several times but the police wont reveal their new identities. Murderers who are underage- why cant we release their names? Especially the ones who are around 16/17 years old but their names cant be released "for legal reasons". Im sorry but at that age you know exactly what you're doing. While I agree that drink drivers should be named and shamed and forced to face the consequences, I don't think the laws are fair when drunk drivers (who HAVEN'T harmed anyone else in the act) are named and shamed but murderers aren't. ohhumanity
  • Score: 2

5:53am Wed 28 May 14

ohhumanity says...

and by 'not necessarily escaped felons', I mean that I dont know of any reported escapee that hasnt been named.
and by 'not necessarily escaped felons', I mean that I dont know of any reported escapee that hasnt been named. ohhumanity
  • Score: 0

7:40am Wed 28 May 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Joeblow, the roadside test is indisputable evidence you have been found guilty of a crime so you are automatically guilty when you enter court. You wouldn't be in court if the blow wasn't positive. There's no maybe. When you blow, you are either over the limit or not so you are guilty so there's no problem naming. It's probably one of the few crimes where medical evidence to prove indisputable guilt is gathered immediately.
Other crimes, such as the salmon theft require witness statements or CCTV for a court to establish guilt.
I've sat through some terrible drink driving court cases where the drivers have killed other people and even their own kids. It destroys those who do it and innocent victims and really is an avoidable crime.
Joeblow, the roadside test is indisputable evidence you have been found guilty of a crime so you are automatically guilty when you enter court. You wouldn't be in court if the blow wasn't positive. There's no maybe. When you blow, you are either over the limit or not so you are guilty so there's no problem naming. It's probably one of the few crimes where medical evidence to prove indisputable guilt is gathered immediately. Other crimes, such as the salmon theft require witness statements or CCTV for a court to establish guilt. I've sat through some terrible drink driving court cases where the drivers have killed other people and even their own kids. It destroys those who do it and innocent victims and really is an avoidable crime. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

9:24am Wed 28 May 14

Watchdog50 says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"ZeeGee, Going by your previous posts, you ALWAYS think our police are stupid." No, I don't. I had nothing but praise for the coppers on the MFE event. I have issues with the police when they do stupid things or deliberately scr*w things up. "However, I think that your 'innocent persons' comment has betrayed your attitude towards drink driving and your general contempt for those who abide by the law. " I would say that your comment displays an absence of thought. I haven't commented upon drink-driving or upon those who abide by the law. "Exactly which escaped felons do the police not want to name?" We don't know....the police won't name them. http://www.theargus. co.uk/news/11236751. Ministry_tried_to_ke ep_fugitives____name s_secret/ Jeez........
Fair enough, but you must admit that some of your posts do give that impression. I actually started commenting on this site as I was sick and tired of the unfair comments that I was reading and your name seemed to appear more than most. I mean, I've read your link to the 'escaped felons' and there is absolutely no suggestion that the refusal to name escaped prisoners has been attributed to the police. It quite clearly states that this was a ministry of justice decision so why you suggested that it was solely down to the police, I don't know. Perhaps it's claims like that which lead people such as myself to believe that you have an issue with the police.

I too am annoyed and frustrated when the police mess things up. But believe me, that doesn't happen nearly as often as the Argus and the media in general would like to make us believe. Many reports are extremely skewed and obviously designed to cause dissaffection. You'll probably find that for every scr*w up by the police, there are thousands of triumphs, yet they never seem to make it to print. We just have to remember that the media have an agenda and want to sell their product...'bad news is good news' and all that. It irks me when people take media reports as fact and don't look deeper before commenting.

You said that you haven't commented upon drink driving. Well, you have really haven't you? The story was about naming and shaming people appearing at court for drink driving and your first line read, 'So the police want to name innocent persons...' As I tried to make clear, while there is always a post conviction presumption of innocence, in the case of drink driving there is always irrefutable evidence in the form of intoximeter readings. Some people may subsequently get off on a technicality, however, I can assure you that for the job to have gone as far as court, they're most certainly not innocent of the basic offence....and that's from someone who tends to give the benefit of the doubt.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "ZeeGee, Going by your previous posts, you ALWAYS think our police are stupid." No, I don't. I had nothing but praise for the coppers on the MFE event. I have issues with the police when they do stupid things or deliberately scr*w things up. "However, I think that your 'innocent persons' comment has betrayed your attitude towards drink driving and your general contempt for those who abide by the law. " I would say that your comment displays an absence of thought. I haven't commented upon drink-driving or upon those who abide by the law. "Exactly which escaped felons do the police not want to name?" We don't know....the police won't name them. http://www.theargus. co.uk/news/11236751. Ministry_tried_to_ke ep_fugitives____name s_secret/ Jeez........[/p][/quote]Fair enough, but you must admit that some of your posts do give that impression. I actually started commenting on this site as I was sick and tired of the unfair comments that I was reading and your name seemed to appear more than most. I mean, I've read your link to the 'escaped felons' and there is absolutely no suggestion that the refusal to name escaped prisoners has been attributed to the police. It quite clearly states that this was a ministry of justice decision so why you suggested that it was solely down to the police, I don't know. Perhaps it's claims like that which lead people such as myself to believe that you have an issue with the police. I too am annoyed and frustrated when the police mess things up. But believe me, that doesn't happen nearly as often as the Argus and the media in general would like to make us believe. Many reports are extremely skewed and obviously designed to cause dissaffection. You'll probably find that for every scr*w up by the police, there are thousands of triumphs, yet they never seem to make it to print. We just have to remember that the media have an agenda and want to sell their product...'bad news is good news' and all that. It irks me when people take media reports as fact and don't look deeper before commenting. You said that you haven't commented upon drink driving. Well, you have really haven't you? The story was about naming and shaming people appearing at court for drink driving and your first line read, 'So the police want to name innocent persons...' As I tried to make clear, while there is always a post conviction presumption of innocence, in the case of drink driving there is always irrefutable evidence in the form of intoximeter readings. Some people may subsequently get off on a technicality, however, I can assure you that for the job to have gone as far as court, they're most certainly not innocent of the basic offence....and that's from someone who tends to give the benefit of the doubt. Watchdog50
  • Score: -1

9:39am Wed 28 May 14

Watchdog50 says...

ohhumanity wrote:
Watchdog50 wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote: So the police want to name innocent persons but don't want to name escaped felons who are on the run? Sometimes, I think our police are stupid.
ZeeGee, Going by your previous posts, you ALWAYS think our police are stupid. However, I think that your 'innocent persons' comment has betrayed your attitude towards drink driving and your general contempt for those who abide by the law. I've become very wary of anything reported in the Argus as it's so often misleading or just plain wrong. In this case it's been reported that the police would be naming those who appear in court on suspicion of having committed a drink or drug driving offence. That sounds very wishy washy to me and not the sort of thing that the police would put out on a press release. I know how fussy the police are with regards to the release of information prior to a court case as such a disclosure would only serve to prejudice the case. I suspect that they'll actually only be naming those CONVICTED at court for a drink or drug driving offence and believe me, such people are anything but innocent. Drink driving is probably the most contested piece of legislation in existence. Practically every possible defence has been tried, refuted and tried again. The upshot of this is that, even though drink driving is what's called an absolute offence (i.e. one for which there is no defence in law), the police still have to jump through hoops just to get such a job to court, never mind a conviction. To that end, even if the article were to be accurate and a true reflection of what the police have said, I wouldn't be too fussed. Oh and another thing.......Exactly which escaped felons do the police not want to name? You really don't do yourself any favours sometimes.
I actually agree with ZeeGees point but not necessarily escaped felons. What about things like the killers of james bulger? One of them has recommited offences several times but the police wont reveal their new identities. Murderers who are underage- why cant we release their names? Especially the ones who are around 16/17 years old but their names cant be released "for legal reasons". Im sorry but at that age you know exactly what you're doing. While I agree that drink drivers should be named and shamed and forced to face the consequences, I don't think the laws are fair when drunk drivers (who HAVEN'T harmed anyone else in the act) are named and shamed but murderers aren't.
That's a legitimate gripe and one with which I agree. However, the police have no choice in such matters as those. The law states that such offenders cannot be named. A judge may choose to remove these restrictions in the public interest but the police can't. Once again though, the police get the blame for all the ills of the criminal (in)justice system.
[quote][p][bold]ohhumanity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Watchdog50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: So the police want to name innocent persons but don't want to name escaped felons who are on the run? Sometimes, I think our police are stupid.[/p][/quote]ZeeGee, Going by your previous posts, you ALWAYS think our police are stupid. However, I think that your 'innocent persons' comment has betrayed your attitude towards drink driving and your general contempt for those who abide by the law. I've become very wary of anything reported in the Argus as it's so often misleading or just plain wrong. In this case it's been reported that the police would be naming those who appear in court on suspicion of having committed a drink or drug driving offence. That sounds very wishy washy to me and not the sort of thing that the police would put out on a press release. I know how fussy the police are with regards to the release of information prior to a court case as such a disclosure would only serve to prejudice the case. I suspect that they'll actually only be naming those CONVICTED at court for a drink or drug driving offence and believe me, such people are anything but innocent. Drink driving is probably the most contested piece of legislation in existence. Practically every possible defence has been tried, refuted and tried again. The upshot of this is that, even though drink driving is what's called an absolute offence (i.e. one for which there is no defence in law), the police still have to jump through hoops just to get such a job to court, never mind a conviction. To that end, even if the article were to be accurate and a true reflection of what the police have said, I wouldn't be too fussed. Oh and another thing.......Exactly which escaped felons do the police not want to name? You really don't do yourself any favours sometimes.[/p][/quote]I actually agree with ZeeGees point but not necessarily escaped felons. What about things like the killers of james bulger? One of them has recommited offences several times but the police wont reveal their new identities. Murderers who are underage- why cant we release their names? Especially the ones who are around 16/17 years old but their names cant be released "for legal reasons". Im sorry but at that age you know exactly what you're doing. While I agree that drink drivers should be named and shamed and forced to face the consequences, I don't think the laws are fair when drunk drivers (who HAVEN'T harmed anyone else in the act) are named and shamed but murderers aren't.[/p][/quote]That's a legitimate gripe and one with which I agree. However, the police have no choice in such matters as those. The law states that such offenders cannot be named. A judge may choose to remove these restrictions in the public interest but the police can't. Once again though, the police get the blame for all the ills of the criminal (in)justice system. Watchdog50
  • Score: -1

11:38am Wed 28 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

A person who is attending court hasn't been proven guilty of anything, hence my concerns about this exercise whose stated aim is to 'shame' people rather than to educate them and others. It seems to me to be a petty act that smacks of immaturity.

And I would bet the farm that not one poster will feature any coppers who are caught.

I fully support the need to protect those whose identities have been changed for reasons where they aren't guilty of any crimes, such as those in witness protection programmes., and those who have served their time and become 'normal' subjects of Her Maj.

The question about failing to inform the public of the names of wanted felons highlights a major problem - who exactly controls the police? The Home Secretary used to, yet here the Ministry for Justice seems to have that honour. Further, the police have recently issued the names of various thugs who have absconded form prison, so why doesn't that apply to ALL such persons?

It's a total mess, and we, the public who actually fork out for the justice system, are deliberately left in the dark about the dangerous thugs wandering our streets whilst apparently being told who was driving p*ssed last night.
A person who is attending court hasn't been proven guilty of anything, hence my concerns about this exercise whose stated aim is to 'shame' people rather than to educate them and others. It seems to me to be a petty act that smacks of immaturity. And I would bet the farm that not one poster will feature any coppers who are caught. I fully support the need to protect those whose identities have been changed for reasons where they aren't guilty of any crimes, such as those in witness protection programmes., and those who have served their time and become 'normal' subjects of Her Maj. The question about failing to inform the public of the names of wanted felons highlights a major problem - who exactly controls the police? The Home Secretary used to, yet here the Ministry for Justice seems to have that honour. Further, the police have recently issued the names of various thugs who have absconded form prison, so why doesn't that apply to ALL such persons? It's a total mess, and we, the public who actually fork out for the justice system, are deliberately left in the dark about the dangerous thugs wandering our streets whilst apparently being told who was driving p*ssed last night. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree