Hi

A year ago I was in our high street and a person was taking photos of females dressed in a particular manner in the late afternoon. When I neared them I heard them tell the person to stop taking photos.; he was ignoring their words.

When I passed them I just looked at the individual and said "stop and go away"; he moved away and I continued ignoring the females. As I walked away I heard them shout "hey thanks for that". I did not reply or acknowledge their words due to the words in my SOPO.
A few days latter one of the females was with her parent (someone older) and she pointed me out. The parent tried to say something to me but I just ignored them and walked away without stopping. I assume they thought I was ignorant. 

Whatever scenario we find ourselves in we have to protect others; but we have to protect ourselves first, else how can we look after those who may need us?

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

Hi

I only mentioned "You don't have to go to Buck House to get a bravery award" because of the news reporters highlighting that when the story was front page back then.
Thank you for the comment.

In the end this is one of those stories the spin doctors have to work hard to show as a "result" to their policies working.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

First of all, just because his tariff will be up soon, it doesn't mean he will be released soon. I met plenty of lifers inside who were way beyond their tariff, although the longest overrun I saw was only 26 years....

Was is right that the Royal Prerogative is exercised by the queen's government, not by her personally. When I was in prison all those years ago, I'm sure I read somewhere that a prisoner's sentence can be reduced for exceptional good behaviour - the example that was quoted was saving a life.

You don't have to go to Buck House to get a bravery award, as the majority of honours are dished out by the Lord Lieutenant of your county.

Previous good character/service are not generally used in mitigation because they often came before the offence, so in many people's minds, they don't count. In some cases, they work against the offender as they can then be used as an example, even if they shouldn't be. That should be applied to everyone, though, not just to SOs.

I can only commend JASB for trying to help others while in prison. I remember one particular guy who regularly tried to stop bullying and fights. He was the official Violence Reduction Rep and had no dealings with wing staff other than when they tried bullying him, took liberties, overstepped their authority (and intelligence) and it all back-fired on them.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

If you read this story below, it gives yet another moral perspective on the case. The man Gallant murdered, was himself a dubious character.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/tower-bridge-steve-gallant-jackson-19125673

The media have interviewed the murdered mans family and this is what they said.

"In an extraordinary turn of events, the family of firefighter Barrie Jackson, whom Gallant killed outside a pub in Hull, backed the decision to free the murderer early. Jackson’s student son Jack, 21, said: “I have mixed emotions – but what happened at London Bridge goes to show the reality that people can change,” adding that he would not rule out meeting his father’s killer one day."

Not quite up to the standards of bravery but in terms of being a good person I often wonder what I'd do if I saw a child in danger. Obviously a horrible thing to conjure but say I saw a child pretty obviously being abducted or something has happened like the child is blatantly lost and/or distressed. Would I step in now that I'm an SO? Not so sure but I'd wager probably on the "not" side of things. The hassle it'd likely ensue that I was the one inflicting whatever ailment the child happened to be experiencing or I was in cahoots with the fictitious child snatcher.

Before my offence I would've likely jumped in without a second thought because it'd be the right thing to do.

Hi

I was thinking about this issue a couple of days ago when the papers were talking about honours.

I do think he deserved a thank you of some sort for his bravery; wait until the cynics decide he was only brave because as a murderer it was in his character.....

It is an interesting way of the Gov. getting out of the issue of him not being allowed to have gone to Buck Palace if he had received a bravery award.

I understand the various scenarios but looking at the bigger picture you had the SAS guy get away with having unauthorised weapons because of who he was and his past, a murderer for showing bravery is now a hero and getting special treatment, but as mentioned,  an Ex-SO who has got celebrated history prior i.e. ex-military, fireman etc gets no mitigation for their past even though that could of affected him/her - mentally - in many ways.

I wonder when a paper will be talking to the murdered victim's family to see if their punishment of having to live with losing a family for so many years, do agree with the Government act of "supposed" leniency? Or is that not a point for consideration in this case as it would be for an ex-SO.

Whilst in prison I saw and reacted to many occurrences of threat, violence etc to other inmates and stepped in - verbally not physically, to protect the individual.  The majority of the time I was accused of trying to be an officer by the guards! Again as an EX-SO we can imagine that if it had been us show that bravery, they would of accused us of attempted sexual assault or something.



Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

You should also bear in mind that although it is called the Royal Prerogative, it is actually a political intervention, not one by the Queen. It is issued in her name by the state (i.e. The Government) but not on her orders, in the same way that court cases do not require her individual assent to prosecute Crown vs A. Villain.

The case of Stephen Gallant, the convicted murderer, who carried out an act of outstanding bravery, in stopping a terrorist attack, whilst on day release from prison, is back in the news. It's being reported as if he was given a Royal pardon, but actually he has only been referred to the parole board, 10 months earlier than he would have been. He was sentenced to 17 years, in 2005, so he was going to be out soon anyway.

Nevertheless, it does appear that his parole hearing was fast tracked, thanks to a royal intervention. There is some mention of a royal perogative of mercy, which sounds like a kind of compassionate release. It does appear that he is being 'rewarded' for his bravery in a very small way though.

So that does raise some interesting questions, like would he have had a royal intervention, if he were an SO, rather than a murderer? It also suggests the possibility that someone could get their SHPO lifted early, for example, by performing an act of outstanding bravery.