Liverpool Parade

[NewClaret]

Sounds awfully like the nonsense which went on in some quarters after Hillsborough.

'If those at the back had just stopped pushing' etc

Agree.

Ultimately there is no excuse whatsoever to consciously drive your vehicle at speed in to crowds of people, even less so swerving towards the crowds.

Incidentally, behind him at that point was an ambulance. The rumours are that the car tailgated the ambulance, so maybe overtook it, but it will completely diminish any argument that he was scared or whatever nonsense he’ll come up with. The emergency services were right behind him.

[NewClaret]

Police given more time to investigate.

[ClaretPete001]

Agree.

Ultimately there is no excuse whatsoever to consciously drive your vehicle at speed in to crowds of people, even less so swerving towards the crowds.

Incidentally, behind him at that point was an ambulance. The rumours are that the car tailgated the ambulance, so maybe overtook it, but it will completely diminish any argument that he was scared or whatever nonsense he’ll come up with. The emergency services were right behind him.

You've have to wait and see what comes out in court. Tailgaiting an ambulance is not the same as someone kicking at your car. I can certainly see how you could do the things he did when confronted with a crowd with a brain addled with drugs.

It's high profile, the authorities will make an example of him and I guess that's his life pretty much over. And his wife and kids will suffer as well - if he has them..!

Nothing we can say will make it any the worse for him.

[Jel]

It's quite possible, a good portion of the crowd that attacked him, were drunk, on drugs, or both.

[Quickenthetempo]

Sounds awfully like the nonsense which went on in some quarters after Hillsborough.

'If those at the back had just stopped pushing' etc

Nonsense

[Mattster]

I think the counter argument will be that anyone getting behind the wheel whilst drugged up, then driving through a parade, stoping, accelerating and swerving in to the crowds, gives enough evidence to charge.

The examples you cite are horrendous and do highlight what a ridiculous justice system we have in this country, but I think the differing factors here are a) he drove in to crowds of people at speed, swerving to hit more as he did so - he can’t possibly, in my mind, have not had intent to kill or known his actions may kill somebody when making that decision, b) the huge scale media and political pressure that will be on the police/CPS/courts to prosecute and punish in a way that acts as a severe deterrent.

Whether they can make it stick or it gets changed as tensions calm down is another matter, but I can’t see them not going for the highest possible charge in the first instance.

You may have a point with the media attention on this CPS may authorise charges at attempt murder in the short term just for the optics, I've never run a job with this level of media attention so I don't know. I am pretty certain that, in a vacuum, CPS would never entertain attempt murder without the specific intent.

[NewClaret]

You may have a point with the media attention on this CPS may authorise charges at attempt murder in the short term just for the optics, I've never run a job with this level of media attention so I don't know. I am pretty certain that, in a vacuum, CPS would never entertain attempt murder without the specific intent.

With regards specific intent, how premeditated/planned does the attack have to be to qualify as being intended?

I ask this because in my mind, stopping your car, reversing at one pedestrian (albeit attacking his car), then accelerating at speed through the crowds in front of him (who were not attacking him, innocent bystanders), swerving in to those crowds and dragging a number along with him… is about as intended as you could get?

[ClaretPete001]

With regards specific intent, how premeditated/planned does the attack have to be to qualify as being intended?

I ask this because in my mind, stopping your car, reversing at one pedestrian (albeit attacking his car), then accelerating at speed through the crowds in front of him (who were not attacking him, innocent bystanders), swerving in to those crowds and dragging a number along with him… is about as intended as you could get?

The guys on drugs and his car is being attacked anyone can see how you would panic.

Equally he may have just flown into a rage. His past history etc should give the police some insight.

For all we know his wife may have just left him and it's completely out of character. Who knows. He's f*cked regardless.

[daveisaclaret]

The crowd is absolutely right to try and stop the bloke driving through the parade. Not sure why people on here are acting like he was being attacked out of malice and not because he was clearly risking hundreds of lives.

[NewClaret]

The guys on drugs and his car is being attacked anyone can see how you would panic.

Equally he may have just flown into a rage. His past history etc should give the police some insight.

For all we know his wife may have just left him and it's completely out of character. Who knows. He's f*cked regardless.

Honestly beyond flabbergasted by this response Pete, as I am a number of other posts who seem to be attempting to justify or apologise for his behaviour. In my view there is simply no justification for getting drugged up, deciding to drive at all never mind through crowds of people, then accelerate in to them.

I agree he’s fu***d and rightly so. I hope he never sees the light of day again and he certainly won’t be living in West Derby if he does. I have zero sympathy for him, whatever his marital or other circumstances, and I don’t see how anyone can. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t if the exact same act had been a terrorist.

[jrgbfc]

If you get behind the wheel drunk or drugged then you deserve all you get. Hopefully won't be allowed to play the mental health or feared for his safety card.

[NewClaret]

The crowd is absolutely right to try and stop the bloke driving through the parade. Not sure why people on here are acting like he was being attacked out of malice and not because he was clearly risking hundreds of lives.

It’s unbelievable, isn’t it?

I expect as well, when the truth comes out, he’ll have driven a long way from the road closure to where the crowds were. And that he’ll have had plenty of time to pull over, stop, leave his car, whatever, before it got to the point that crowds got angry with him.

[Jakubclaret]

The crowd is absolutely right to try and stop the bloke driving through the parade. Not sure why people on here are acting like he was being attacked out of malice and not because he was clearly risking hundreds of lives.

It depends which way you look at it. If he was driving through (shouldn't have been anyway) peacefully & then a chain of events started things to become more sinister then you could argue the crowd have facilitated things. I wasn't there but when you have conflicting reports of what actually happened it's difficult to establish what really happened.

[ollieclarets8]

That closing the door will be a big piece of evidence in the case. The defence will argue a crowd opening his door in an aggressive manner put his safety in great danger.

They could also point out that drugs can make you much more paranoid/anxious and so made his reaction x10.

[Jakubclaret]

They could also point out that drugs can make you much more paranoid/anxious and so made his reaction x10.

That's a Pandora's box of so many variables regarding what/if he was under the influence of & the quantity.

[ollieclarets8]

That's a Pandora's box of so many variables regarding what/if he was under the influence of & the quantity.

Yeah very much so.

[HahaYeah]

I hope the stupid idiot rots in prison - where he belongs for the rest of his life.

[yTib]

the amount of speculation on this thread proves to me that the internet is broken.

[ecc]

Best leave the police and CPS to get on with their work.

[ClaretPete001]

Honestly beyond flabbergasted by this response Pete, as I am a number of other posts who seem to be attempting to justify or apologise for his behaviour. In my view there is simply no justification for getting drugged up, deciding to drive at all never mind through crowds of people, then accelerate in to them.

I agree he’s fu***d and rightly so. I hope he never sees the light of day again and he certainly won’t be living in West Derby if he does. I have zero sympathy for him, whatever his marital or other circumstances, and I don’t see how anyone can. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t if the exact same act had been a terrorist.

It was not my intention to apologise or excuse his behaviour I just don't see the point in sticking the boot into someone who is going to pay for what the did. Quite rightly so.

Quite a number of terrorists also have had mental health and drug dependency issues and I think most decent people can see the difference between someone like that who could also be perceived as a victim and someone who is very ideologically driven to kill people. And be able to express those thoughts without vindicating their behaviour.

I don't want to turn this into a political thread so I'll leave it there.

[ClaretPete001]

Best leave the police and CPS to get on with their work.

Even more sensible the second time you said it. I'll get me coat.

[TsarBomba]

the amount of speculation on this thread proves to me that the internet is broken.

Which in turn has broken society.

[yTib]

Which in turn has broken society.

i fear so.

[Mattster]

With regards specific intent, how premeditated/planned does the attack have to be to qualify as being intended?

I ask this because in my mind, stopping your car, reversing at one pedestrian (albeit attacking his car), then accelerating at speed through the crowds in front of him (who were not attacking him, innocent bystanders), swerving in to those crowds and dragging a number along with him… is about as intended as you could get?

You have to be able to say that, in that moment, the driver absolutely intended to kill someone for attempt murder. Weirdly, if he had killed someone you'd only need to say they intended to cause grievous bodily harm for a charge of murder to stick which I don't think could be argued.

Now under normal circumstances choosing to drive a car into a crowd of people then it would come down to a judgement call of the individual making that charging decision (like in my previous examples) and then onto the court process (plea deals, trial etc.).

In this case I think they'll struggle to make a case for attempted murder because there's a lot of additional circumstances which raise question marks over that specific intent to kill in that moment - it doesn't appear to be premeditated, people attacking the car and putting him in fear of violence, for example.

I could be wrong, I've no personal experience of such high profile incident or one with this as many victims.

[ClaretTony]

Due to people on here not accepting the advice given by the police, there is no alternative but to lock the thread.