Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

[Raj]

2 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Which to me, makes it far more complex than the judge deciding it was ‘rage’

 

I don’t know the ins and outs but like @Paninistickers says, his counsel have missed a trick by not playing  some sort of mental health card- real or imagined. 

Yes I was suprised the old" diminished  responsibility " wasnt used

[Parafox]

2 minutes ago, Raj said:

Yes I was suprised the old" diminished  responsibility " wasnt used

 

Why wasn't the ex-veteran PTSD used either, unless it couldn't be proven to be a factor I guess.

[Raj]

Just now, Parafox said:

 

Why wasn't the ex-veteran PTSD used either, unless it couldn't be proven to be a factor I guess.

Yep, maybe because he hadn't had any other issues for decades so not an excuse either?

[The Year Of The Fox]

19 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

Why wasn't the ex-veteran PTSD used either, unless it couldn't be proven to be a factor I guess.

Yet ‘rage’ was a proven factor

 

This is my whole point really

[StanSP]

Just now, The Year Of The Fox said:

Yet ‘rage’ was a proven factor

 

This is my whole point really

Was 'rage' mentioned by the judge as part of her sentencing? If so, there must have been reference to it as part of the police's evidence? 

 

 

As for the diminished responsibility angle others have mentioned, I'd rather that gets used genuinely and honestly as opposed to a chance of an excuse to get off lightly. 

[Raj]

Just now, The Year Of The Fox said:

Yet ‘rage’ was a proven factor

 

This is my whole point really

Do they class rage as an " instant action" type of thing rather than "pent up" anger?

 

If someone punched your other half the action to punch back would be rage rather than punch, punch, kick, stamp, stamp stamp until you've nearly killed the perpetrator  because of the pent up anger over years has bolied over??

 

I dunno...

[The Year Of The Fox]

7 minutes ago, Raj said:

Do they class rage as an " instant action" type of thing rather than "pent up" anger?

 

If someone punched your other half the action to punch back would be rage rather than punch, punch, kick, stamp, stamp stamp until you've nearly killed the perpetrator  because of the pent up anger over years has bolied over??

 

I dunno...

I don’t know,  because in my eyes, I’d call the second example you gave ‘justified rage’ 

[Raj]

1 minute ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

I don’t know,  because in my eyes, I’d call the second example you gave ‘justified rage’ 

As an ex special cop that would be classed as "disproprtionate action"

 

I.e OTT!!

 

 

[The Year Of The Fox]

9 minutes ago, Raj said:

As an ex special cop that would be classed as "disproprtionate action"

 

I.e OTT!!

 

 

No I know 

[Parafox]

29 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Yet ‘rage’ was a proven factor

 

This is my whole point really

 

Was it ever challenged that the "rage" had a reason, such as PTSD?

 

I'm not defending his actions but I'm questioning the back story. There seems to be something amiss.

 

I think there'll be an appeal.

Edited 16 December 2025 by Parafox

[Tommy G]

The guy had a decent history of bad behaviour including biting someone’s ear off. 
 

Clearly unhinged, feel for the families affected and have no sympathy for him all. 

[Parafox]

11 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

The guy had a decent history of bad behaviour including biting someone’s ear off. 
 

Clearly unhinged, feel for the families affected and have no sympathy for him all. 

But none of us knows his true life history. Or the reasons why he became this person. 

 

I'm not defending his actions, more like trying to think beyond the event and what he was experiencing at the time.

 

 

[Paninistickers]

3 hours ago, Tommy G said:

The guy had a decent history of bad behaviour including biting someone’s ear off. 
 

Clearly unhinged, feel for the families affected and have no sympathy for him all. 

There's drink drivers who've recklessly caused deaths get far less than 21 years. 

 

Just seems wildly OTT. And I mentioned earlier, his defence and probation pre sentence reports haven't done him any favours at all. And dare I say, a brother or best friend could've talked some sense into the defence counsel to offer a better mitigation. 

 

 

 

 

[Leeds Fox]

4 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

Why wasn't the ex-veteran PTSD used either, unless it couldn't be proven to be a factor I guess.

The proportion of ‘ex-forces’ who have legitimately been involved in incidents severe enough to cause severe PTSD isn’t very high, fortunately.

 

People go through worse in their day to day lives and other careers than the average ‘ex-forces’ do.

 

This isn’t necessarily aimed at you or this post, but it’s a misconception that grates when it assumes PTSD is a factor. Don’t get me wrong, some poor souls have seen horrendous things (as I’m sure you have 1000 fold) albeit to their colleagues/friends. But in the grand scheme, not a large proportion have.

 

I’m sure if it was a factor, they’d have used it as a defence. If it could be proven otherwise, it’d have been torn to shreds by the prosecution.

 

[Zear0]

7 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

There's drink drivers who've recklessly caused deaths get far less than 21 years. 

 

Just seems wildly OTT. And I mentioned earlier, his defence and probation pre sentence reports haven't done him any favours at all. And dare I say, a brother or best friend could've talked some sense into the defence counsel to offer a better mitigation. 

 

 

 

 

Not sure his sentence for attempted mass murder, including children, is particularly harsh myself. Drink driving are scum, but they're not specifically trying to hurt people so not sure on the equivalence.

 

Reading about him he appeared to be a violent psychopath who used to just randomly beat people up for fun even before he even joined the forces.

[Samilktray]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

Not sure his sentence for attempted mass murder, including children, is particularly harsh myself. Drink driving are scum, but they're not specifically trying to hurt people so not sure on the equivalence.

 

Reading about him he appeared to be a violent psychopath who used to just randomly beat people up for fun even before he even joined the forces.

Yeah bit mental some of these posts, good job his name was Paul I suppose!

[Raj]

1 minute ago, Samilktray said:

Yeah bit mental some of these posts, good job his name was Paul I suppose!

As opposed to???

 

Go on say it.....

[Raj]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

Not sure his sentence for attempted mass murder, including children, is particularly harsh myself. Drink driving are scum, but they're not specifically trying to hurt people so not sure on the equivalence.

 

Reading about him he appeared to be a violent psychopath who used to just randomly beat people up for fun even before he even joined the forces.

To be fair the more i read about it and him the more i think the judge was bang on

[Samilktray]

9 minutes ago, Raj said:

As opposed to???

 

Go on say it.....

Pablo!

[Grebfromgrebland]

1 hour ago, Raj said:

As opposed to???

 

Go on say it.....

Greg 

[Alf Bentley]

16 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

Why wasn't the ex-veteran PTSD used either, unless it couldn't be proven to be a factor I guess.

 

This report is informative: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/paul-doyle-bit-sailors-ear-33051416?int_source=nba

 

The ex-veteran PTSD argument was not used because he was never on active service during his time in the military.

 

As a young man he was repeatedly in trouble with the courts and his military employers for numerous violent assaults (including one against his superior officer), criminal damage and dishonesty. This culminated in him getting discharged before the end of his service period and being given a 1-year prison sentence for biting a sailor's ear off in a bar brawl.

 

That answers the "ex-veteran PTSD" question, but doesn't answer why he perpetrated this rampage, when he'd clearly turned his life round. It seems he'd not been charged with any offences for 30 years, had settled down in employment and a stable family life - then suddenly went haywire.

 

Blood tests showed that he had no alcohol or illegal drugs in his system. Video footage shows that well before he reached the celebrating crowd, he was repeatedly undertaking cars and jumping red lights. Why was that? You'd presume that, if any psychiatric/psychological assessment had found him to have been seriously mentally ill, then his defence team would have presented that - as grounds for a diminished responsibility not-guilty plea or mitigation, at least. I don't know if he or his lawyers offered any explanation of his driving before he reached the event? Again, if some extreme event had provoked his behaviour, surely his lawyers would have raised that as mitigation for a lighter sentence?

 

Maybe, he is just a man prone to rage and violence (as his youthful behaviour suggests), who had successfully got those inclinations under control for 30 years - but for some minor reason (stressful life? argument with wife? pissed off at having to pick his mate up?) or simply due to a foul mood, he drove into the city like a maniac, then saw red at the crowds getting in his way - and did what he did? 

 

 

Edited 17 December 2025 by Alf Bentley

[Tommy G]

26 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

This report is informative: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/paul-doyle-bit-sailors-ear-33051416?int_source=nba

 

The ex-veteran PTSD argument was not used because he was never on active service during his time in the military.

 

As a young man he was repeatedly in trouble with the courts and his military employers for numerous violent assaults (including one against his superior officer), criminal damage and dishonesty. This culminated in him getting discharged before the end of his service period and being given a 1-year prison sentence for biting a sailor's ear off in a bar brawl.

 

That answers the "ex-veteran PTSD" question, but doesn't answer why he perpetrated this rampage, when he'd clearly turned his life round. It seems he'd not been charged with any offences for 30 years, had settled down in employment and a stable family life - then suddenly went haywire.

 

Blood tests showed that he had no alcohol or illegal drugs in his system. Video footage shows that well before he reached the celebrating crowd, he was repeatedly undertaking cars and jumping red lights. Why was that? You'd presume that, if any psychiatric/psychological assessment had found him to have been seriously mentally ill, then his defence team would have presented that - as grounds for a diminished responsibility not-guilty plea or mitigation, at least. I don't know if he or his lawyers offered any explanation of his driving before he reached the event? Again, if some extreme event had provoked his behaviour, surely his lawyers would have raised that as mitigation for a lighter sentence?

 

Maybe, he is just a man prone to rage and violence (as his youthful behaviour suggests), who had successfully got those inclinations under control for 30 years - but for some minor reason (stressful life? argument with wife? pissed off at having to pick his mate up?) or simply due to a foul mood, he drove into the city like a maniac, then saw red at the crowds getting in his way - and did what he did? 

 

 

Thats at the extreme end of rage and violence - so its now good news he's banged up for a long time. 

[Parafox]

6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

The ex-veteran PTSD argument was not used because he was never on active service during his time in the military.

I haven't been following the case or media reports that closely, but this is something I didn't know.

[Paninistickers]

Goodness gracious, this news report of the nine year old girl being stabbed to death. At Christmas. Incomprehensible how the family must feel. As upsetting a story as it gets. 

 

[CornwallFox]

22 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Which to me, makes it far more complex than the judge deciding it was ‘rage’

 

I don’t know the ins and outs but like @Paninistickers says, his counsel have missed a trick by not playing  some sort of mental health card- real or imagined. 

They had his car cam and could hear him on it. He very clearly simply lost his temper. 

Unsure why you'd think a whole trial couldn't work it out but you've figured better after briefly musing on a few details from the case.