Such a brave man is Dunbavin, we seem to have a new generation of "snappers", so long as their aggresive outburst are targetted at the older, female and or more frail citizens.
OK he was found guilty, and what time did he get?? A 2 weeks ASBO, and a slap on the wrist??
The place is going to the dogs, it's not fit for respectable people to walk the streets.
I wonder how anyone there can sleep soundly in their beds. Can the place get much worse??

Typical me me me berk.

Bet he's in the pub right now, celebrating with his mates who no doubt think he's a top fella!. Dunbavin........ congrats you have just set a new bench mark for other cowadly scum to match.

Well I would not want him going into my parents house to read their metres, both of them are frail. He could take them on, one at a time of course.

Ears.!

what a hard man hitting an oap with cancer.........sad coward

While I'm not defending the assault of an elderly and infirm man, there is more to this than meets the eye.

The complainant, despite his medical condition and/or medication, chose to not only confront Dunbavin but went to Dunbavin's residence to do so. I would say there is a whole lot of "contributory negligence" in these actions.

That's the problem with jury trials - and old man hobbles to the witness stand, adds a few wheezes for effect. looks forlorn and doddery and gets the sympathy of the jury.

That's not justice.

Had this trial taken place without a jury, with just the presiding officer taking argument (legal and fact) I tend to think the outcome would have been different.

Nothing but scum.
I hope one dark night ...soon, he's hit full in the face with the flat side of a shovel ...there again it would make an improvement. Ugly, coward

lets find this scum , and sort it out

The foreigner: "That's the problem with jury trials - and old man hobbles to the witness stand, adds a few wheezes for effect. looks forlorn and doddery and gets the sympathy of the jury."

Maybe, but compared to the alternative of a continental style civil law system, it's by far the lesser of two evils.

" The foreigner
21/11/2009 at 15:45"

That works both ways. If the jury had been made up of people like you, they'd have found the VICTIM guilty!!!

While I'm not defending the assault of an elderly and infirm man, there is more to this than meets the eye.

The complainant, despite his medical condition and/or medication, chose to not only confront Dunbavin but went to Dunbavin's residence to do so. I would say there is a whole lot of "contributory negligence" in these actions.

That's the problem with jury trials - and old man hobbles to the witness stand, adds a few wheezes for effect. looks forlorn and doddery and gets the sympathy of the jury.

That's not justice.

Had this trial taken place without a jury, with just the presiding officer taking argument (legal and fact) I tend to think the outcome would have been different.
The foreigner

As annoying as you are, with your first year in law under your belt (I am guessing) - I have to agree. If this guy was crazy or angry enough to attack a defeceless old man with cancer, why did he not do it when the old geezer came knocking on his door? It would seem this assault, as it is told here, was one based on a losing of temper. It seems odd that during the actual confrontation the defendent would keep his cool and then for no reason snap to the extent of entering the victims property and assaulting him. I am not saying the assault didnt take place, what i am saying is there is more to this than meets the eye. I suspect the old couple were far from whiter than white in this exchange.

Hopefully his employers will sack him, he's not a fit person to be going to the homes of the elderly & vulnerable. How long before he kills someone due his temper tantrums?

It appears to me that Purcel made all the running in this matter.

He parked in Dunbavin's space, went round to confront him about a silly note & then was compelled, for whatever reason, to show the note to a neghbour.

If he had 'half a brain' especially in view of his medical condition, he would have destroyed the note & then if he found it absolutely essential that he have a word Dunbavin, waited until tempers cooled, then had his word.

There is more to this matter than 'meets the eye'. As foreigner has already stated.
I certainly would not like to live next door to Purcel. He appears to be a bad tempered 'old sod'.

The foreigner
21/11/2009 at 15:45
You seem to think the jury were being too sympathetic to the victim due to his poor health.
Mr. Dunbavin a 37 year old writes an offensive note and leaves it on a car windscreen. The owner of the car along with his wife calls to speak to him. Later he breaks into a 71 year old mans house, punches him and hits him with a phone. Any body who acts like this thug, attacking an elderly man even if he was in good health should be locked up to protect the public.

This man is a coward of the highest order, his family should be totally ashamed of him. This is the type of man who would run a mile if it was someone his own size/age stood up to him. Bring him to Salford we'll sort it out.

Black Flag,
21/11/2009 at 17:06
Maybe, but compared to the alternative of a continental style civil law system, ...

Perhaps you'd like to explain to me, and other readers, why you find the continental system of an "investigating magistrate" to be substandard.

As regards a jury. Innocent men need only the magistrate/judge (a trained professional) to assess the facts to find 'justice', the guilty rely on sowing doubt in the mind of just one juror.

Work it out for yourself. And take a good look at the facts surrounding "10 Rillington Place" to understand how a jury can be swayed by a glib conman while a slow thinker is seen, in the public perspective, as being devious and underhand.

The irish scotsman, salford
22/11/2009 at 12:37

Is this the standard, the norm, of English reasoning, logic and rationale?

Vilify an assault - and then rectify the situation with a further assault?

What a novel thought process.

Redberry, Manchester
22/11/2009 at 01:35

You've given scant consideration to my comment. My comment hasn't even made you think of an alternative possibility other than that which the complainant states.

Salfordrat grudgingly makes the admission, Mr Mancunian fully acknowledges my argument - but you ....

If you're ever called for jury duty you can claim mental disability.

On my part it would be thanks, but no thanks, in having you sit as one of my peers as a juror.

And therein lies the inherent problems with a jury trial.

The foreigner: "Perhaps you'd like to explain to me, and other readers, why you find the continental system of an "investigating magistrate" to be substandard."

Because it is too open to corruption and too elitist. It is too easy for the government to pack the judiciary with cronies and produce a system which will give the verdicts they want. A jury is the last defence against tyranny within the system. If the country you live in is the kind of backward state which uses the civil law system and it is to your liking, I'm glad for you, but it isn't the kind of retrograde step we need to take in the UK.

"As regards a jury. Innocent men need only the magistrate/judge (a trained professional) to assess the facts to find 'justice', the guilty rely on sowing doubt in the mind of just one juror."

Nice use of weasel words there - talk about a civil law in terms of benefiting the innocent, but a common law system in terms of benefiting the guilty, without offering any reason for the uneven treatment. Someone being even-handed would also point out that the innocent rely on sowing doubt in the mind of just one juror, but that wouldn't suit your argument, would it?

"Work it out for yourself. And take a good look at the facts surrounding "10 Rillington Place" to understand how a jury can be swayed by a glib conman while a slow thinker is seen, in the public perspective, as being devious and underhand."

We can all churn out cases in any justice system where justice isn't done. That's because no system is perfect. However, I would have much more faith overall in a common law system than a civil law system. In any case, the 10 Rillington Place case was far more complicated than a simple "the jury were fooled" situation. It was a typical example of the excessive faith put in confessions extracted by police at the time, something which was systemic and unlikely to have been any better under the "old boys club" approach of a civil law system.

The irish scotsman Salford.

It seems to me, having read in the M.E.N of many, many reports of 'loutish' behaviour of Salford residents toward each other. That you should attempt to put your own house in order before you put on your 'vigilanty' hat.

I noticed that you used the abbreviation ' we'll ' meaning more than one. Brave you. I wonder how you would manage on your own? Maybe you would be in for a big surprise.

Black Flag,
22/11/2009 at 19:33
It was a typical example of the excessive faith put in confessions extracted by police at the time, something which was systemic and unlikely to have been any better under the "old boys club" approach of a civil law system.


So that was in the 50's. And again in the 80's. And NOW?

Perhaps now might be a good time to refer you to my comments re Fahy and university education.

Ah yes, you have seen those comments.

The foreigner: "So that was in the 50's. And again in the 80's. And NOW? Perhaps now might be a good time to refer you to my comments re Fahy and university education. Ah yes, you have seen those comments."

What are you going on about? You're veering off onto a completely separate subject which is irrelevant to the point I was making.

Black Flag,
23/11/2009 at 10:23

But it was you who raised the issue.

The foreigner: "But it was you who raised the issue."

No it wasn't. You started talking about the issue of university education within the police without any prompting whatsoever. That's a worthwhile debate in itself, but completely irrelevant to the issue which was being discussed, unless there is some context you have to offer.