Tuesday, June 20th, 2000
A Complex Question
A question I am regularly asked is whether the two child killers of the tiny tot James Bulger should be released.
Despite the complexities of the question an instant answer seems to flash immediately into many people's minds, including that of mine, and the answer is - no, they should not if they pose a danger to other children.
For my part maybe this is due to my love of children and not being able to abide by people unnecessarily hurting them.
The killing of little James Bulger, and the behaviour that led-up to his murder, are horrendous.
As a ten-year-old I was in no way an angel and there were others, who had less parental control than me, who were worse.
Nevertheless, the thought of hurting a tiny tot never entered our minds. In fact we were expected to mind them and invariably we did.
The Danger Of Emotion
Any view I may have on the Bulger matter is based upon emotion because I am not privy to all the details of the two boys, now young men, who killed little James. Emotion is the sense that should play no part when making a decision of such importance.
Contrary to reports you may have read, and any alternative views you might have, I am able to assure you that based upon my personal experience the two killers of James Bulger will have been watched 24-hours-day, 7 days a week, 365 days of every year - since the time they were taken into custody.
The comprehensive files that the authorities will have on them are certain to contain the reason, or reasons, why they should, or should not, be released.
However, the final decision when the files are analysed will rest on either human wisdom or error.
Guesswork Is For The Lottery
Recent reports in the media that one of the killers attempted kill a fellow inmate should be ignored because no judgement should be made solely on media reports.
To correctly arrive at an important decision it is essential to rely upon facts.
Guesswork is for those who play the lottery and should form no part of an important decision.
For a proper judgement to be made on whether the two young killers are ready for release it will be necessary to have known the two young men when they committed the dreadful crime, and to have monitored their behaviour over the years they have been incarcerated.
I trust that there are people with this experience and knowledge who will make the final decision. It is a very difficult decision to make and we must all hope that wisdom prevails.The only assurance I am able to give is that prison doesn't work.
A Sleazy And Sordid Affair
I have received a number of requests for my opinion on the Dave Courtney acquittal of the charge of perverting the course of justice. Bizarrely, some of the requests are from associates and 'friends' of 'Dodgy' Dave.
The good news is that he was acquitted.
However, there were a number of serious accusations and counter-accusations, but an undeniable fact is that the case was a sleazy and sordid affair.
The Real Victim
The victim, a hard working young mother and nursery teacher, was 'fitted' up as a Class One drug dealer by her estranged husband, a private eye and a drug addict policeman.
The purpose of the plot was to ensure the estranged husband, a wealthy jeweller, would gain custody of the couples 2 years-old son.
It was alleged by the police that 'Dodgy' Dave was involved in the conspiracy.
Any act of 'fitting-up' is a disgraceful crime and I know of many, many cases. They are all bad!
However to 'fit-up' a young mother, of good character, for the purpose of cheating her out of the custody of her son, and, at the same time, get the young woman a long prison sentence is, probably, the worst case I have come across.
Dodgy' Tommy Mack
However, this sickening scenario doesn't end there for 'Dodgy' Dave because he was denounced in court as a 'grass' by the police and his 'snide' police informer name was said in court to be, Tommy Mack'.
Dodgy's explanation for this is that it was a disguise to cover-up his corrupt relationship with the crooked 'Old Bill'.
I'm glad to say that I don't know what alleged crooked business he was doing with the corrupt policeman, but that which I do know is that if the price of doing the crooked business was to have your name on the Scotland Yard register as an informer then it is a price no respected member of the 'Chaps' would accept.
Alleged KO - Not OK
Far away from the court 'Dodgy' Dave said that after he was charged he saw the crooked policeman in the entrance to the court; he went over to his former police 'friend' and hit him on the chin.
The crooked copper was very lucky. Had he involved any 'one of the Chaps' that I know in such a sickening case there would be no 'right-hander'.
He would probably now be lying in a sealed wooden box, and it wouldn't be to meditate.
Different people have different values.
Remarkably, 'Dodgy' Dave was not nicked for assaulting his former 'friend'.
Despite the location no police or court witnesses came forward, nor were there any photographers present to photograph the incident for posterity, which is unusual when 'Dodgy' is involved in any alleged action.
However be that as it may, the statistic revealed by The Observer newspaper that, "Courtney has made 10 court appearances in the past 15 years and has now received 10 not guilty verdicts", requires explaining.
I'm not sure if this statistic doesn't qualify for an entry in the Guinness Book of Records.
One additional good reason for the need of an explanation is that if you take 15 years off the age of 'Dodgy', which is 41 years, all the alleged 'bird' he has done must have been served between his coming-of-adult age at 18 and 26 years - 8 years.
Some time ago I invited 'Dodgy' Dave to tell us where he had served his years' in prison, the serious offences with which he was charged, the people he was charged with, the courts that he appeared in, the names of Counsel that defended him, the identity of the senior 'cozzers' that nicked him and the good people with whom he served his time.
No details were forthcoming. Perhaps, he has forgotten my offer, so I am repeating it.
He makes no secret of the fact that he works hard at getting publicity. I will make life easy for him. If he will give answers to the questions I will put them on this web site for free, and the whole world will have access to it.
Apparently 'Dodgy' has issued a writ in which he alleges that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service conspired together to 'Allow a case with no evidence to be brought to the Central Criminal Court for the sole purpose of discrediting the claimants name to the level where it is believed would endanger the claimant and his family's life' - and is said to be seeking £50,000 damages.
Dodgy' is selling himself short.
For being stopped 27 times in his car a young black man is expecting a £1,000,000 payout from the police.
For 'Dodgy' Dave Courtney, an 'innocent' man to be charged, brought before the courts, with the worry and aggravation this would cause to him and his family on no less than TEN occasions only to be found not guilty on each occasion, would seem to be very serious police harassment, if harrassment was responsible.
Because 'Dodgy' Dave was involved it has to be presumed they were all serious' charges, and with 'Dodgy's' self-proclaimed bad police record, plus an alleged conspiracy between the police and the CPS, the damages have to be worth a great deal more than being stopped in your car 27 times.
Dodgy' has said that if he were a 'grass' he would have been shot.
Unfortunately, the man is wrong again. There is no doubt that 'grasses' deserve to be shot like the sick dogs they are, but Bertie Smalls, and other filth like him are still walking around, and 'Dodgy' is well aware of this.
Yes, there are 'grasses' that did receive their just desserts, but that is because they picked the wrong person to inform on. I can personally vouch for the truth of this statement.
To sue the police and accuse them of being involved in a conspiracy is not difficult.
Cynical people will say that 'Dodgy' Dave has issued his writ against the police and the CPS as a smoke-shield, and it is a ploy to allow time for the statement in court that 'Dodgy' is an informer to fade away, and that nothing will come of it.
To deny the cynics their glory, 'Dodgy' has to ensure that the case does go to the High Court.
If he encounters difficulty in taking the case to the High Court he should consider using the brilliant legal manoeuvre of the late Alfie Hinds who was convicted in 1953 on manufactured evidence by Chief Supt. Bert Sparks, of a major robbery on Maples the former top West End furniture store.
When Chief Supt. Sparks wrote his memoirs Alfie sued him for libel. At the time libel actions were rare.
An impartial jury believed Alfie and awarded him £1,300 damages, a large award in the '50's. The case ruined the retirement of Sparks.
A Serious Defamation
Several newspapers reported that 'Dodgy' Dave was a registered police informer so if 'Dodgy' is really incensed at being unfairly labelled a 'grass' then he has a choice of newspapers to sue for libel.
It is defamatory to wrongly call a person a 'grass'. Lord Archer received £500,000 for a questionable defamation so perhaps 'Dodgy' should consider issuing more writs.
If 'Dodgy' allows the matter to fade into inaction then the cynics will have a field day - and understandably so.
To Be Or Not To Be....
Opinions are still divided and the debates rage on regarding the appointment of the Swedish national Sven Ericsson as the England team manager.
As a passionate football fan I hold the opinion that it is sad that the England football team manager is not English - or at least British.
I cannot accept that we do not have a person who is capable of getting the best out of the England players and team. The problem is that the F.A. is unable to identify such a person or, worse, will not!
Terry Venables is certainly good enough as he has proved time and time again.
However, that is now water under bridge. Sven Ericsson has been appointed and I wish him well. The fans and media must give him every chance to do his job.
Success is success no matter how it is achieved.
The achievments of Mr. Ericsson in the coaching and management fields have been with foreign players. Will he be able to repeat his past performances with English players?
Only time will tell.
The one outstanding duty should he fail to deliver falls upon the hierarchy at the head office of the Football Association which, is that there has to be a wholesale clear-out of the F.A. of this hierarchy. Enough is enough.
They will have had their last chance to bring success to England. Such faulty judgement must not be allowed to stumble along indefinitely.
The F.A. say that the future's bright - and it is not orange - but then it doesn't have to be. The colours that desperately need success are not those of Holland but of England, which is a white background with a red cross.
If Sven Ericsson does bring pride back to English international football then it will most certainly be: "Arise,Sir Sven, or the even more grander : Lord Sven of Sweden.