Hillsborough Report - Norwich Memories

[Yosser Hughes 0]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9539750/Hillsborough-families-will-get-justice-for-this-repugnant-and-heartless-horror-story-but-they-will-never-get-closure.html

"Hillsborough families will get justice for this repugnant and heartless horror story, but they will never get closure

Closure is a concept utterly impossible to comprehend. How can any parent

recover from the sight of a coffin containing their beautiful child being

lowered into a grave? The memory and the misery, the unremitting numbness

and occasional outbursts of fury remain always.

Last Wednesday was a hugely significant day for the families of those 96 Liverpool

fans who set off one sun-strewn morning for a football match and never

returned.

The families’ long, dignified and relentlessly resilient campaign was

vindicated. The police did tamper with statements. They did orchestrate a

cover-up of unbelievable size and criminality.

Liverpool’s supporters were exonerated. They were not drunk. They were not

ticketless. The truth was found. But closure?

There can’t be.

Hillsborough is a tragedy without a final chapter. So let’s not talk blithely

of closure for the families, for the club, for the city of Liverpool over

what happened on April 15, 1989. The pain and anger will always be there

with the relatives, sometimes screaming within them, sometimes kept at bay

for a day. But always there.

The parents could be driving past a wedding, a christening or a university

graduation and be reminded of what they have been denied by the authorities’

incompetence and wilful neglect at Hillsborough.

They will never see their children grow up, go to college, have families of

their own. How can there be closure when a mother keeps a child’s room

untouched for 23 years as a shrine?

Closure is unattainable because of the succession of horrors wrought on these

families. They will never forget those grim hours in that makeshift mortuary

in the gym at Hillsborough or the despair-filled visits to the hospital in

Sheffield. When Trevor and Jenni Hicks tried to see the body of their

daughter Vicki, a police officer refused, saying: “She’s nothing to do with

you any more.” Their child.

Such behaviour was callousness descending into cruelty, almost a default

setting from sections of the authorities at the time.

The police treated the parents as cattle just as the police, in conjunction

with the footballing bodies, had herded their children on to the Leppings

Lane End, caging them in with such fatal consequences.

Police questioning of grieving relatives, sitting yards away from where loved

ones lay in body-bags, was an exercise in pitilessness and one of the many

reasons why there can never be closure.

Consumed with sorrow at the loss of their beloved two daughters, Trevor and

Jenni Hicks were basically interrogated by the police. No sympathy. No

sensitivity. Just question after brutal question. Had the girls been

drinking? Did they have tickets?

When Jenni Hicks asked to go to the loo, a policewoman insisted on

accompanying her, even demanding the cubicle door remained open. Once the

Hicks’ statement was finished, they were allowed to leave with their

daughters’ belongings in a white bin-liner.

There can be no closure when personal heartache is compounded by the

heartlessness of those in authority. Trevor and Jenni Hicks had been brought

up to trust the police, to assume as law-abiding citizens that the police

were on their side. Such trust was abused and abused.

Closure is unrealistic when the Hillsborough Independent Panel unearthed even

greater collusion by the police than suspected.

The disclosure that up to half of the 96 fans could have survived, if they had

been given proper and prompter medical attention, makes the contemptuous

stance of the authorities even harder to bear.

Those parents know that their sons and daughters might have lived. The feeling

of bleakness intensifies.

So the families now have the truth. So now the state that so badly let them

down must give them justice. A new – truthful – inquest must be ordered by

the High Court.

Prime Minister David Cameron spoke well on Wednesday but proper, significant

deeds must now follow his fine words. The Attorney General must take this

on. So must the courts.

The families deserve to have their stories heard in court, to have those whose

failures led to their children’s deaths be called to account.

Those who spread smears must be arraigned. Justice will bring undeniable

succour to the families if never, ever closure.

They deserve to know who tested the blood levels of a 10-year-old for alcohol.

In his report, Lord Chief Justice Taylor made a mockery of the police claims

that Liverpool fans had been drinking by contacting off-licences adjacent to

Hillsborough.

None reported excessive off-sales. Yet the slur remained until yesterday when

Cameron declared that Liverpool fans were not responsible for Hillsborough.

Blame lies with an inadequate stadium, unresponsive and repugnant police

officers and the culture of treating football fans with disdain and

disregard.

For this is the story of a nightmare that befell one club but it could have

been another. The lore of the football jungle is tribalism.

On Wednesday, barring the odd gangs of dementors who fly around the

social-media airwaves, there was rare unity among supporters. Just as at the

time the first manager on the phone to Kenny Dalglish was Alex Ferguson,

offering to send a supporters’ delegation over from Old Trafford to show

solidarity with their rivals in their darkest hour.

Fans understood then, just as they did on Wednesday. It could have been them.

So everyone who cares about the match-day experience should hope that a new

inquest takes place, that the families keep campaigning for state

accountability.

Stadiums are far safer now, and mobile phones and Twitter would give far more

advance warning of unfolding tragedies, but the authorities must always be

reminded that fans are human beings, not the faceless useful only for

fleecing.

So the families’ campaign continues. Justice will come their way. Sadly,

closure never will. They had to bury their children. Nobody ever recovers

from that emotional trauma."

Perhaps this report highlights exactly why there is an issue of misplaced trust amongst many citizens over the UK''s Police Force?

[paul moy 235]

Perhaps you didn''t hear of the two policewomen that were shot and grenaded to death yesterday. Being a policeman or policewoman can be a pretty thankless and dangerous task. People yesterday were even linking those deaths to the fallout of Hillsborough. I don''t trust all police as no doubt there is a corrupt minority, but not all are bad by any means. All deaths are tragic but I think deliberate murder is far worse and I just wish we had the death penalty available.  I hope that Hillsborough relatives at last get proper compensation, corrupt coppers get their day in court and terracing never returns to Premier grounds.

[ricky knight 0]

How can you have a death penalty in a country when the police have been found to be corrupt. I agree not all police are bad and without the police it would be anarchy but there has been so many cases over the years going back to craig and bently, the guildford four, birmingham six, maguire family, too many to name. As for the DNA argument it just makes it easier for an innocent person to be tucked up. The two ladies killed is a terrible crime and shows how dangerous it is to be a cop but the death penalty is way outdated and should stay that way but with life meaning life.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="ricky knight"]How can you have a death penalty in a country when the police have been found to be corrupt. I agree not all police are bad and without the police it would be anarchy but there has been so many cases over the years going back to craig and bently, the guildford four, birmingham six, maguire family, too many to name. As for the DNA argument it just makes it easier for an innocent person to be tucked up. The two ladies killed is a terrible crime and shows how dangerous it is to be a cop but the death penalty is way outdated and should stay that way but with life meaning life.[/quote]

No problem with me if life means life, but murderers are released after an average served sentence of 15 years. In the past decade around 30 released murderers have gone on to murder again. Killers such as Creedy who are obviously guilty do not really deserve to continue with their lives, but at least should never be released.  We have no meaningful deterrent against killing in this country so murders are inevitably on an upward trend and life has become so cheap as we admit all and sundry from the third-world and eastern europe without meaningful criminal checks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7147662/Killers-freed-to-kill-again.html

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="paul moy"]

[quote user="ricky knight"]How can you have a death penalty in a country when the police have been found to be corrupt. I agree not all police are bad and without the police it would be anarchy but there has been so many cases over the years going back to craig and bently, the guildford four, birmingham six, maguire family, too many to name. As for the DNA argument it just makes it easier for an innocent person to be tucked up. The two ladies killed is a terrible crime and shows how dangerous it is to be a cop but the death penalty is way outdated and should stay that way but with life meaning life.[/quote]

No problem with me if life means life, but murderers are released after an average served sentence of 15 years. In the past decade around 30 released murderers have gone on to murder again. Killers such as Creedy who are obviously guilty do not really deserve to continue with their lives, but at least should never be released.  We have no meaningful deterrent against killing in this country so murders are inevitably on an upward trend and life has become so cheap as we admit all and sundry from the third-world and eastern europe without meaningful criminal checks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7147662/Killers-freed-to-kill-again.html

[/quote]IMO death penalty as a deterrent is a myth. Texas are experts at the death penalty, but strangely have a stinkingly high murder rate.  While some states with no death penalty have much lower rates of murder.IMO the death penalty is just wrong. Stiff prison sentences should be given and plenty of psycho analysis given to assess how dangerous offenders are.

[ricky knight 0]

Imo there is no deterrant against murder is someone has murder in mind they dont stop and say, hang on mate you will get topped for this.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="paul moy"]

We have no meaningful deterrent against killing in this country so murders are inevitably on an upward trend.

[/quote]

 

Or not. This from July this year:

The startling fall in the murder rate in England and Wales to its lowest level for nearly 30 years has been driven by a remarkable and largely unexplored decline in domestic violence since the mid-1990s. The number of killings has fallen steadily for the past nine years, since the murder rate peaked at 1,047 in 2002-03 when the 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman were included in the figures.

As the official statisticians point out, more than two-thirds of murders involve a partner or an ex-partner, or stem from some other kind of family-related violence. The extent of domestic violence is still shocking, with more than 1 million women experiencing at least one incident every year. But this masks a 40% decline in domestic violence incidents since 1995, as revealed by former sweeps of the British Crime Survey, which provides the most likely explanation for the fall in the murder rate.

---

And the point there is, as any police officer will confirm, is that most murders are not cold-blooded, premeditated affairs of the Shipman variety involving strangers but family/partner/ex-partner-related and on the spur of the moment. And those murderers are not going to be deterred by the thought of a death penalty because thinking doesn''t come into it.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

We have no meaningful deterrent against killing in this country so murders are inevitably on an upward trend.

[/quote]

 

Or not. This from July this year:

The startling fall in the murder rate in England and Wales to its lowest level for nearly 30 years has been driven by a remarkable and largely unexplored decline in domestic violence since the mid-1990s. The number of killings has fallen steadily for the past nine years, since the murder rate peaked at 1,047 in 2002-03 when the 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman were included in the figures.

As the official statisticians point out, more than two-thirds of murders involve a partner or an ex-partner, or stem from some other kind of family-related violence. The extent of domestic violence is still shocking, with more than 1 million women experiencing at least one incident every year. But this masks a 40% decline in domestic violence incidents since 1995, as revealed by former sweeps of the British Crime Survey, which provides the most likely explanation for the fall in the murder rate.

---

And the point there is, as any police officer will confirm, is that most murders are not cold-blooded, premeditated affairs of the Shipman variety involving strangers but family/partner/ex-partner-related and on the spur of the moment. And those murderers are not going to be deterred by the thought of a death penalty because thinking doesn''t come into it.

[/quote]

Lies, Damn lies and statistics. This reports a 5 per cent increase in murder and manslaughter in the decade up to 2009. It''s very easy to only include murder convictions but these should not be taken in isolation. It is easier to get a manslaughter conviction than a murder conviction, although in fact a manslaughter can cover up a murder. Your figures are a travesty, Purple.         

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4273125/Murder-and-manslaughter-rate-increasing.html

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

We have no meaningful deterrent against killing in this country so murders are inevitably on an upward trend.

[/quote]

 

Or not. This from July this year:

The startling fall in the murder rate in England and Wales to its lowest level for nearly 30 years has been driven by a remarkable and largely unexplored decline in domestic violence since the mid-1990s. The number of killings has fallen steadily for the past nine years, since the murder rate peaked at 1,047 in 2002-03 when the 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman were included in the figures.

As the official statisticians point out, more than two-thirds of murders involve a partner or an ex-partner, or stem from some other kind of family-related violence. The extent of domestic violence is still shocking, with more than 1 million women experiencing at least one incident every year. But this masks a 40% decline in domestic violence incidents since 1995, as revealed by former sweeps of the British Crime Survey, which provides the most likely explanation for the fall in the murder rate.

---

And the point there is, as any police officer will confirm, is that most murders are not cold-blooded, premeditated affairs of the Shipman variety involving strangers but family/partner/ex-partner-related and on the spur of the moment. And those murderers are not going to be deterred by the thought of a death penalty because thinking doesn''t come into it.

[/quote]

Lies, Damn lies and statistics. This reports a 5 per cent increase in murder and manslaughter in the decade up to 2009. It''s very easy to only include murder convictions but these should not be taken in isolation. It is easier to get a manslaughter conviction than a murder conviction, although in fact a manslaughter can cover up a murder. Your figures are a travesty, Purple.         

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4273125/Murder-and-manslaughter-rate-increasing.html

[/quote]

 

My figures are more recent and show a decline to the lowest level in nearly 30 years. You said the murder rate was "inevitably on an upward trend". It isn''t. You made that up and hoped no-one would check. You were the one who limited it to murder. Now you are throwing manslaughter into the arugment. Manslaughter existed as a crime when we had the death penalty, and arguably was easier then in some cases to go with a manslaughter charge and get a conviction for that rather than murder precisely because of the death penalty. So that is at least irrelevant to your argument and may well help even more to disprove it.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

We have no meaningful deterrent against killing in this country so murders are inevitably on an upward trend.

[/quote]

 

Or not. This from July this year:The startling fall in the murder rate in England and Wales to its lowest level for nearly 30 years has been driven by a remarkable and largely unexplored decline in domestic violence since the mid-1990s. The number of killings has fallen steadily for the past nine years, since the murder rate peaked at 1,047 in 2002-03 when the 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman were included in the figures.As the official statisticians point out, more than two-thirds of murders involve a partner or an ex-partner, or stem from some other kind of family-related violence. The extent of domestic violence is still shocking, with more than 1 million women experiencing at least one incident every year. But this masks a 40% decline in domestic violence incidents since 1995, as revealed by former sweeps of the British Crime Survey, which provides the most likely explanation for the fall in the murder rate.---And the point there is, as any police officer will confirm, is that most murders are not cold-blooded, premeditated affairs of the Shipman variety involving strangers but family/partner/ex-partner-related and on the spur of the moment. And those murderers are not going to be deterred by the thought of a death penalty because thinking doesn''t come into it.

[/quote]

Lies, Damn lies and statistics. This reports a 5 per cent increase in murder and manslaughter in the decade up to 2009. It''s very easy to only include murder convictions but these should not be taken in isolation. It is easier to get a manslaughter conviction than a murder conviction, although in fact a manslaughter can cover up a murder. Your figures are a travesty, Purple.         

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4273125/Murder-and-manslaughter-rate-increasing.html

[/quote]There''s the problem with that article, the use of the word homicide that includes both murder and manslaughter together. And goes on to say 30% where the result of a stabbing of some sort.I suppose I''m saying is. Of the 30% the intent to actually commit murder is extremely low imo.  And the reason why many have the verdict of manslaughter.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

We have no meaningful deterrent against killing in this country so murders are inevitably on an upward trend.

[/quote]

 

Or not. This from July this year:

The startling fall in the murder rate in England and Wales to its lowest level for nearly 30 years has been driven by a remarkable and largely unexplored decline in domestic violence since the mid-1990s. The number of killings has fallen steadily for the past nine years, since the murder rate peaked at 1,047 in 2002-03 when the 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman were included in the figures.

As the official statisticians point out, more than two-thirds of murders involve a partner or an ex-partner, or stem from some other kind of family-related violence. The extent of domestic violence is still shocking, with more than 1 million women experiencing at least one incident every year. But this masks a 40% decline in domestic violence incidents since 1995, as revealed by former sweeps of the British Crime Survey, which provides the most likely explanation for the fall in the murder rate.

---

And the point there is, as any police officer will confirm, is that most murders are not cold-blooded, premeditated affairs of the Shipman variety involving strangers but family/partner/ex-partner-related and on the spur of the moment. And those murderers are not going to be deterred by the thought of a death penalty because thinking doesn''t come into it.

[/quote]

Lies, Damn lies and statistics. This reports a 5 per cent increase in murder and manslaughter in the decade up to 2009. It''s very easy to only include murder convictions but these should not be taken in isolation. It is easier to get a manslaughter conviction than a murder conviction, although in fact a manslaughter can cover up a murder. Your figures are a travesty, Purple.         

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4273125/Murder-and-manslaughter-rate-increasing.html

[/quote]

 

My figures are more recent and show a decline to the lowest level in nearly 30 years. You said the murder rate was "inevitably on an upward trend". It isn''t. You made that up and hoped no-one would check. You were the one who limited it to murder. Now you are throwing manslaughter into the arugment. Manslaughter existed as a crime when we had the death penalty, and arguably was easier then in some cases to go with a manslaughter charge and get a conviction for that rather than murder precisely because of the death penalty. So that is at least irrelevant to your argument and may well help even more to disprove it.

[/quote]

Manslaughters include murders that juries were unable to convict for murder due to many reasons, not least the ability of ill-educated, ignorant etc juries to understand evidence and the intricacies of the law. This is one reason why the current government has been talking about abolishing the jury system in favour of a panel of judges. Thus, murders cannot be taken in isolation as it is disingenuous. To state a headline that murders are falling while not stating that manslaughter is increasing is dishonest and most reasonable people can see through this massaging of the figures (mainly done for political gain no doubt).  

So to take your argument to its extreme, we could convict nobody for murder but everybody for manslaughter instead. The headline figure would be that murders no longer happen.  [:D]

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

We have no meaningful deterrent against killing in this country so murders are inevitably on an upward trend.

[/quote]

 

Or not. This from July this year:The startling fall in the murder rate in England and Wales to its lowest level for nearly 30 years has been driven by a remarkable and largely unexplored decline in domestic violence since the mid-1990s. The number of killings has fallen steadily for the past nine years, since the murder rate peaked at 1,047 in 2002-03 when the 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman were included in the figures.As the official statisticians point out, more than two-thirds of murders involve a partner or an ex-partner, or stem from some other kind of family-related violence. The extent of domestic violence is still shocking, with more than 1 million women experiencing at least one incident every year. But this masks a 40% decline in domestic violence incidents since 1995, as revealed by former sweeps of the British Crime Survey, which provides the most likely explanation for the fall in the murder rate.---And the point there is, as any police officer will confirm, is that most murders are not cold-blooded, premeditated affairs of the Shipman variety involving strangers but family/partner/ex-partner-related and on the spur of the moment. And those murderers are not going to be deterred by the thought of a death penalty because thinking doesn''t come into it.

[/quote]

Lies, Damn lies and statistics. This reports a 5 per cent increase in murder and manslaughter in the decade up to 2009. It''s very easy to only include murder convictions but these should not be taken in isolation. It is easier to get a manslaughter conviction than a murder conviction, although in fact a manslaughter can cover up a murder. Your figures are a travesty, Purple.         

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4273125/Murder-and-manslaughter-rate-increasing.html

[/quote]

 

My figures are more recent and show a decline to the lowest level in nearly 30 years. You said the murder rate was "inevitably on an upward trend". It isn''t. You made that up and hoped no-one would check. You were the one who limited it to murder. Now you are throwing manslaughter into the arugment. Manslaughter existed as a crime when we had the death penalty, and arguably was easier then in some cases to go with a manslaughter charge and get a conviction for that rather than murder precisely because of the death penalty. So that is at least irrelevant to your argument and may well help even more to disprove it.

[/quote]

Manslaughters include murders that juries were unable to convict for murder due to many reasons, not least the ability of ill-educated, ignorant etc juries to understand evidence and the intricacies of the law. This is one reason why the current government has been talking about abolishing the jury system in favour of a panel of judges. Thus, murders cannot be taken in isolation as it is disingenuous. To state a headline that murders are falling while not stating that manslaughter is increasing is dishonest and most reasonable people can see through this massaging of the figures (mainly done for political gain no doubt).  

So to take your argument to its extreme, we could convict nobody for murder but everybody for manslaughter instead. The headline figure would be that murders no longer happen.  [:D]

[/quote]That''s not entirely true either.  The abolition of the Jury was muted when complicated fraud cases were going to court. Where you needed to be a maths genius in the first place to commit the fraud.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

We have no meaningful deterrent against killing in this country so murders are inevitably on an upward trend.

[/quote]

 

Or not. This from July this year:

The startling fall in the murder rate in England and Wales to its lowest level for nearly 30 years has been driven by a remarkable and largely unexplored decline in domestic violence since the mid-1990s. The number of killings has fallen steadily for the past nine years, since the murder rate peaked at 1,047 in 2002-03 when the 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman were included in the figures.

As the official statisticians point out, more than two-thirds of murders involve a partner or an ex-partner, or stem from some other kind of family-related violence. The extent of domestic violence is still shocking, with more than 1 million women experiencing at least one incident every year. But this masks a 40% decline in domestic violence incidents since 1995, as revealed by former sweeps of the British Crime Survey, which provides the most likely explanation for the fall in the murder rate.

---

And the point there is, as any police officer will confirm, is that most murders are not cold-blooded, premeditated affairs of the Shipman variety involving strangers but family/partner/ex-partner-related and on the spur of the moment. And those murderers are not going to be deterred by the thought of a death penalty because thinking doesn''t come into it.

[/quote]

Lies, Damn lies and statistics. This reports a 5 per cent increase in murder and manslaughter in the decade up to 2009. It''s very easy to only include murder convictions but these should not be taken in isolation. It is easier to get a manslaughter conviction than a murder conviction, although in fact a manslaughter can cover up a murder. Your figures are a travesty, Purple.         

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4273125/Murder-and-manslaughter-rate-increasing.html

[/quote]

 

My figures are more recent and show a decline to the lowest level in nearly 30 years. You said the murder rate was "inevitably on an upward trend". It isn''t. You made that up and hoped no-one would check. You were the one who limited it to murder. Now you are throwing manslaughter into the arugment. Manslaughter existed as a crime when we had the death penalty, and arguably was easier then in some cases to go with a manslaughter charge and get a conviction for that rather than murder precisely because of the death penalty. So that is at least irrelevant to your argument and may well help even more to disprove it.

[/quote]

Manslaughters include murders that juries were unable to convict for murder due to many reasons, not least the ability of ill-educated, ignorant etc juries to understand evidence and the intricacies of the law. This is one reason why the current government has been talking about abolishing the jury system in favour of a panel of judges. Thus, murders cannot be taken in isolation as it is disingenuous. To state a headline that murders are falling while not stating that manslaughter is increasing is dishonest and most reasonable people can see through this massaging of the figures (mainly done for political gain no doubt).  

So to take your argument to its extreme, we could convict nobody for murder but everybody for manslaughter instead. The headline figure would be that murders no longer happen.  [:D]

[/quote]

 

Paul, that is simple nonsense. How are the evidence and the intricacies of the law harder to understand for manslaughter than murder? If anything, murder is a simpler crime to understand and decide on than manslaughter. With many muders the motive and intent to kill are obvious. Manslaughter is often far trickier.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="The Pinkun Role Model"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

We have no meaningful deterrent against killing in this country so murders are inevitably on an upward trend.

[/quote]

 

Or not. This from July this year:

The startling fall in the murder rate in England and Wales to its lowest level for nearly 30 years has been driven by a remarkable and largely unexplored decline in domestic violence since the mid-1990s. The number of killings has fallen steadily for the past nine years, since the murder rate peaked at 1,047 in 2002-03 when the 172 victims of Dr Harold Shipman were included in the figures.

As the official statisticians point out, more than two-thirds of murders involve a partner or an ex-partner, or stem from some other kind of family-related violence. The extent of domestic violence is still shocking, with more than 1 million women experiencing at least one incident every year. But this masks a 40% decline in domestic violence incidents since 1995, as revealed by former sweeps of the British Crime Survey, which provides the most likely explanation for the fall in the murder rate.

---

And the point there is, as any police officer will confirm, is that most murders are not cold-blooded, premeditated affairs of the Shipman variety involving strangers but family/partner/ex-partner-related and on the spur of the moment. And those murderers are not going to be deterred by the thought of a death penalty because thinking doesn''t come into it.

[/quote]

Lies, Damn lies and statistics. This reports a 5 per cent increase in murder and manslaughter in the decade up to 2009. It''s very easy to only include murder convictions but these should not be taken in isolation. It is easier to get a manslaughter conviction than a murder conviction, although in fact a manslaughter can cover up a murder. Your figures are a travesty, Purple.         

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4273125/Murder-and-manslaughter-rate-increasing.html

[/quote]

There''s the problem with that article, the use of the word homicide that includes both murder and manslaughter together. And goes on to say 30% where the result of a stabbing of some sort.
I suppose I''m saying is. Of the 30% the intent to actually commit murder is extremely low imo.  And the reason why many have the verdict of manslaughter.
[/quote]

Well, according to that Telegraph article there was a rise in killings in the UK of 5% over the decade to 2009. We can argue whether they were murder, manslaughter or whatever until the cows come home, but they are killings, and so it is dingenuous to argue that murder is going down based on one year''s figures, and of course, as we know, headline figures can be manipulated for political gain and IMO these very likely are.