MP Mike Hancocl's son Dean Hancock sentenced to community service for attacking photographer

MP's son sentenced to community service for attacking photographer

MP's son sentenced to community service for attacking photographer

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author © by

The son of Hampshire MP Mike Hancock has been ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work and pay more than £2,000 in compensation for head-butting and punching a press photographer.

Dean Hancock had expressed regret at his ''loss of control'' and accepted that he was the more aggressive party when he attacked Steve Reigate of the Daily Express with ''tremendous force'', Portsmouth Magistrates' Court was told.

The 38-year-old unemployed pipe-fitter was found guilty of causing the photographer actual bodily harm and criminal damage to a camera lens and flashgun belonging to Mr Reigate.

District Judge Anne Arnold described the attack, which happened outside the family home in Rockingham Way, Portchester, Fareham, on January 23, as a ''red mist situation''.

She sentenced him to a 12-month community order comprising of 200 hours unpaid work and ordered that he pay a total of £2,951.20 in compensation and court costs.

Kate Watts, representing Hancock, said he had found work as a welder with his brother in Sheffield following his conviction and that he had accepted he was the more aggressive party.

She said: ''He has always accepted that he should not have done what he did.

''Even recently, the press are still there at his house and he handles them very well.

''This is a moment I do not feel he will ever repeat again.''

During the trial, the court was told the fracas occurred while journalists and photographers were waiting outside hoping to talk to the defendant's father.

The MP for Portsmouth South was making headlines at the time as he was being sued in the High Court by a ''vulnerable'' female constituent who alleged that he sexually assaulted her.

The 68-year-old, who has since settled the court action, had just been suspended from the Liberal Democrat Party.

Vivian Ducie, prosecuting, told the trial that the assault happened after a number of members of the press were gathered outside the Hancock family house and the defendant had not been ''very impressed'' by them being there.

He said that at 9.20am, the defendant's mother, Jacqui, started to leave the property in her car and was accompanied by her son who shielded her using an umbrella.

Mr Ducie said that after Mrs Hancock had driven away, he walked over to Mr Reigate and attacked him ''using some tremendous force''.

Mr Reigate told the court that he had not expected trouble when he went to the Hancock house as he had been there previously without problem.

He said: ''I was prepared to be called something unpleasant but instead Mr Hancock came straight up to me and head-butted me in the face, between the bridge of my nose and my forehead, at which point I put my hands forward, in one I had a camera in, to defend myself.''

Mr Reigate said that he suffered an injury to his nose and a split lip.

Footage of the incident filmed by freelance cameraman Paul Wellings for ITN was also shown to the court.

Hancock admitted swearing at the journalists but claimed that he only hit Mr Reigate out of self defence after he said the photographer struck him in the stomach.

He denied that he had head-butted Mr Reigate but said that they had ''exchanged blows'' with himself suffering facial injuries in the incident.

Hancock said that he had dealt with the press over many years and had never threatened or attacked anyone but did admit that he would ''bait'' journalists by deliberately opening the front door in a bid to make them believe his father was leaving the property.

Hancock did not make any comment as he left the court.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:14pm Wed 25 Jun 14

carolroads says...

Was hitting the paparatzi not a community service already?
Was hitting the paparatzi not a community service already? carolroads
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Taskforce 141 says...

The press cross the line, if they were outside my house harassing my family I don't think I would be able to restrain myself...
The press cross the line, if they were outside my house harassing my family I don't think I would be able to restrain myself... Taskforce 141
  • Score: 11

2:13pm Wed 25 Jun 14

HorndeanSaint says...

Taskforce 141 wrote:
The press cross the line, if they were outside my house harassing my family I don't think I would be able to restrain myself...
So would that make it right Taskforce? Would you also accept a large fine and community service?

Not saying that the press are angels but head butting and punching them, damaging their equipment etc. is not acceptable.
[quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: The press cross the line, if they were outside my house harassing my family I don't think I would be able to restrain myself...[/p][/quote]So would that make it right Taskforce? Would you also accept a large fine and community service? Not saying that the press are angels but head butting and punching them, damaging their equipment etc. is not acceptable. HorndeanSaint
  • Score: -7

4:16pm Wed 25 Jun 14

userds5050 says...

HorndeanSaint wrote:
Taskforce 141 wrote:
The press cross the line, if they were outside my house harassing my family I don't think I would be able to restrain myself...
So would that make it right Taskforce? Would you also accept a large fine and community service?

Not saying that the press are angels but head butting and punching them, damaging their equipment etc. is not acceptable.
Watch the video. They caused his mother to drive off at speed, in doing so she accidentally runs him over. He lost it at the nearest photographer. The camera was not damaged on purpose. The photographer was more interested in calling the police than his injuries. 200 hours community service is a fair sentence.
[quote][p][bold]HorndeanSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Taskforce 141[/bold] wrote: The press cross the line, if they were outside my house harassing my family I don't think I would be able to restrain myself...[/p][/quote]So would that make it right Taskforce? Would you also accept a large fine and community service? Not saying that the press are angels but head butting and punching them, damaging their equipment etc. is not acceptable.[/p][/quote]Watch the video. They caused his mother to drive off at speed, in doing so she accidentally runs him over. He lost it at the nearest photographer. The camera was not damaged on purpose. The photographer was more interested in calling the police than his injuries. 200 hours community service is a fair sentence. userds5050
  • Score: 8

4:26pm Wed 25 Jun 14

bullsbags says...

Trouble is it's son of Hancock
Shame it wasn't his old man he twatted
Trouble is it's son of Hancock Shame it wasn't his old man he twatted bullsbags
  • Score: -11

5:15pm Wed 25 Jun 14

eurogordi says...

He's paid the price for his outburst, but the press are equally to blame. No journalist or photographer should be allowed to gather outside of someone's private home. And that should apply for ALL private homes, irrespective of whether its royalty, celebrities, politicians or you and me!
He's paid the price for his outburst, but the press are equally to blame. No journalist or photographer should be allowed to gather outside of someone's private home. And that should apply for ALL private homes, irrespective of whether its royalty, celebrities, politicians or you and me! eurogordi
  • Score: 4

5:32pm Wed 25 Jun 14

bullsbags says...

eurogordi wrote:
He's paid the price for his outburst, but the press are equally to blame. No journalist or photographer should be allowed to gather outside of someone's private home. And that should apply for ALL private homes, irrespective of whether its royalty, celebrities, politicians or you and me!
There is no excuse for his actions .Believe it or not there is no law against standing on the pavement
Are you a lib dem supporter living in Fratton by any chance?
[quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: He's paid the price for his outburst, but the press are equally to blame. No journalist or photographer should be allowed to gather outside of someone's private home. And that should apply for ALL private homes, irrespective of whether its royalty, celebrities, politicians or you and me![/p][/quote]There is no excuse for his actions .Believe it or not there is no law against standing on the pavement Are you a lib dem supporter living in Fratton by any chance? bullsbags
  • Score: -6

5:35pm Wed 25 Jun 14

userds5050 says...

eurogordi wrote:
He's paid the price for his outburst, but the press are equally to blame. No journalist or photographer should be allowed to gather outside of someone's private home. And that should apply for ALL private homes, irrespective of whether its royalty, celebrities, politicians or you and me!
I wouldn't have a problem if it was Mike Hancock they were after, but it was his wife. You can clearly see them trying to take photos of her through the car window as she drives off. How is that in the public interest?
[quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: He's paid the price for his outburst, but the press are equally to blame. No journalist or photographer should be allowed to gather outside of someone's private home. And that should apply for ALL private homes, irrespective of whether its royalty, celebrities, politicians or you and me![/p][/quote]I wouldn't have a problem if it was Mike Hancock they were after, but it was his wife. You can clearly see them trying to take photos of her through the car window as she drives off. How is that in the public interest? userds5050
  • Score: 9

7:43pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Linesman says...

Why are we reading The Echo?

The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper.

It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item.

This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house.

Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work.

How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong?

I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.
Why are we reading The Echo? The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper. It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item. This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house. Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work. How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong? I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury. Linesman
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Zexagon says...

Linesman wrote:
Why are we reading The Echo?

The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper.

It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item.

This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house.

Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work.

How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong?

I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.
What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Why are we reading The Echo? The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper. It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item. This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house. Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work. How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong? I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.[/p][/quote]What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken? Zexagon
  • Score: 3

9:05pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Linesman says...

Zexagon wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Why are we reading The Echo?

The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper.

It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item.

This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house.

Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work.

How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong?

I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.
What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?
She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections.

How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed?

If they did, did you consider it acceptable?
[quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Why are we reading The Echo? The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper. It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item. This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house. Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work. How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong? I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.[/p][/quote]What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?[/p][/quote]She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections. How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed? If they did, did you consider it acceptable? Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:03pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Zexagon says...

Linesman wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Why are we reading The Echo?

The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper.

It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item.

This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house.

Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work.

How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong?

I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.
What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?
She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections.

How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed?

If they did, did you consider it acceptable?
I just don't see why they have to keep taking photos.Theyve been there before taking photos. I'd be cheesed off if they were constantly outside my house.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Why are we reading The Echo? The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper. It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item. This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house. Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work. How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong? I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.[/p][/quote]What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?[/p][/quote]She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections. How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed? If they did, did you consider it acceptable?[/p][/quote]I just don't see why they have to keep taking photos.Theyve been there before taking photos. I'd be cheesed off if they were constantly outside my house. Zexagon
  • Score: 3

10:05pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Zexagon says...

Zexagon wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Why are we reading The Echo?

The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper.

It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item.

This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house.

Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work.

How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong?

I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.
What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?
She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections.

How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed?

If they did, did you consider it acceptable?
I just don't see why they have to keep taking photos.Theyve been there before taking photos. I'd be cheesed off if they were constantly outside my house.
Forgot to say,what has she done to warrant having her photos taken? So what if she's an ex councillor , she's not done anything.
[quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Why are we reading The Echo? The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper. It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item. This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house. Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work. How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong? I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.[/p][/quote]What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?[/p][/quote]She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections. How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed? If they did, did you consider it acceptable?[/p][/quote]I just don't see why they have to keep taking photos.Theyve been there before taking photos. I'd be cheesed off if they were constantly outside my house.[/p][/quote]Forgot to say,what has she done to warrant having her photos taken? So what if she's an ex councillor , she's not done anything. Zexagon
  • Score: 5

5:21am Thu 26 Jun 14

Orwell's Ghost says...

So a violent assault only gets you a fine and community service, but placing bacon on a Mosque door handle gets you a year in prison. Welcome to the British apartheid justice system.
So a violent assault only gets you a fine and community service, but placing bacon on a Mosque door handle gets you a year in prison. Welcome to the British apartheid justice system. Orwell's Ghost
  • Score: -1

8:36am Thu 26 Jun 14

userds5050 says...

Linesman wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Why are we reading The Echo?

The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper.

It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item.

This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house.

Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work.

How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong?

I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.
What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?
She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections.

How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed?

If they did, did you consider it acceptable?
This has got nothing to do with her being a city councillor. Saying that's why they were harrassing her and why the photographer got a whack is as lame as The Sun front page claiming Brook's aquittal was a good day for British justice whilst failing to mention Andy Coulson.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Why are we reading The Echo? The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper. It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item. This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house. Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work. How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong? I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.[/p][/quote]What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?[/p][/quote]She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections. How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed? If they did, did you consider it acceptable?[/p][/quote]This has got nothing to do with her being a city councillor. Saying that's why they were harrassing her and why the photographer got a whack is as lame as The Sun front page claiming Brook's aquittal was a good day for British justice whilst failing to mention Andy Coulson. userds5050
  • Score: 3

8:59am Thu 26 Jun 14

Linesman says...

Zexagon wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Why are we reading The Echo?

The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper.

It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item.

This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house.

Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work.

How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong?

I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.
What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?
She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections.

How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed?

If they did, did you consider it acceptable?
I just don't see why they have to keep taking photos.Theyve been there before taking photos. I'd be cheesed off if they were constantly outside my house.
Forgot to say,what has she done to warrant having her photos taken? So what if she's an ex councillor , she's not done anything.
I guess that is why she was not re-elected.
[quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Why are we reading The Echo? The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper. It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item. This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house. Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work. How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong? I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.[/p][/quote]What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?[/p][/quote]She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections. How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed? If they did, did you consider it acceptable?[/p][/quote]I just don't see why they have to keep taking photos.Theyve been there before taking photos. I'd be cheesed off if they were constantly outside my house.[/p][/quote]Forgot to say,what has she done to warrant having her photos taken? So what if she's an ex councillor , she's not done anything.[/p][/quote]I guess that is why she was not re-elected. Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:09am Thu 26 Jun 14

Linesman says...

userds5050 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Why are we reading The Echo?

The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper.

It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item.

This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house.

Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work.

How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong?

I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.
What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?
She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections.

How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed?

If they did, did you consider it acceptable?
This has got nothing to do with her being a city councillor. Saying that's why they were harrassing her and why the photographer got a whack is as lame as The Sun front page claiming Brook's aquittal was a good day for British justice whilst failing to mention Andy Coulson.
Where did I say that was the reason they were 'harassing' her?

If you read, and fully comprehend what was written, I was asked, "What's the story on Mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?"

I gave an answer that was factual.

At no time did I claim that this was the reason why she was being photographed, but would remind you that when Lord Archer was accused of having a 'session' with a prostitute, which he denied, but was later found to have lied, Lady Archer was photographed many times, at both trials.

When a married man is 'having it away', the media and readers of newspapers are often interested to see what the wife he cheated on, looks like. That would appear to be what has happened here.
[quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Why are we reading The Echo? The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper. It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item. This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house. Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work. How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong? I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.[/p][/quote]What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?[/p][/quote]She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections. How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed? If they did, did you consider it acceptable?[/p][/quote]This has got nothing to do with her being a city councillor. Saying that's why they were harrassing her and why the photographer got a whack is as lame as The Sun front page claiming Brook's aquittal was a good day for British justice whilst failing to mention Andy Coulson.[/p][/quote]Where did I say that was the reason they were 'harassing' her? If you read, and fully comprehend what was written, I was asked, "What's the story on Mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?" I gave an answer that was factual. At no time did I claim that this was the reason why she was being photographed, but would remind you that when Lord Archer was accused of having a 'session' with a prostitute, which he denied, but was later found to have lied, Lady Archer was photographed many times, at both trials. When a married man is 'having it away', the media and readers of newspapers are often interested to see what the wife he cheated on, looks like. That would appear to be what has happened here. Linesman
  • Score: -1

9:16am Thu 26 Jun 14

userds5050 says...

Linesman wrote:
userds5050 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Why are we reading The Echo?

The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper.

It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item.

This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house.

Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work.

How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong?

I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.
What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?
She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections.

How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed?

If they did, did you consider it acceptable?
This has got nothing to do with her being a city councillor. Saying that's why they were harrassing her and why the photographer got a whack is as lame as The Sun front page claiming Brook's aquittal was a good day for British justice whilst failing to mention Andy Coulson.
Where did I say that was the reason they were 'harassing' her?

If you read, and fully comprehend what was written, I was asked, "What's the story on Mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?"

I gave an answer that was factual.

At no time did I claim that this was the reason why she was being photographed, but would remind you that when Lord Archer was accused of having a 'session' with a prostitute, which he denied, but was later found to have lied, Lady Archer was photographed many times, at both trials.

When a married man is 'having it away', the media and readers of newspapers are often interested to see what the wife he cheated on, looks like. That would appear to be what has happened here.
For sure the readers want to see what his missus looks like. Lady Archer became part of the original case as a result. Didn't the judge say something like: "Is she not fragrant?" Implying why would Archer play away with such a lovely wife.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Why are we reading The Echo? The answer is that we want to be kept abreast of the news, which is why it is called a Newspaper. It is the job of reporters to report news, and for press photographers to take photographs to add to the news item. This is what was taking place on the day. No journalists were trespassing on the Hancock's property, but were located on public property - the pavement and road outside of Hancock's house. Dean Hancock left the family property, and went on to public property to assault a person who was doing their legitimate work. How can anyone in their right mind support the assailant, and claim the victim was in the wrong? I hate to think what verdicts they would bring in if they should ever be called upon to serve on a jury.[/p][/quote]What's the story on mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?[/p][/quote]She was a Portsmouth City Councillor who was voted out at the last Council elections. How many city councillors' children do you know have attacked the press when their parent or parents have been photographed? If they did, did you consider it acceptable?[/p][/quote]This has got nothing to do with her being a city councillor. Saying that's why they were harrassing her and why the photographer got a whack is as lame as The Sun front page claiming Brook's aquittal was a good day for British justice whilst failing to mention Andy Coulson.[/p][/quote]Where did I say that was the reason they were 'harassing' her? If you read, and fully comprehend what was written, I was asked, "What's the story on Mrs Hancock? What has she done to be in the news and have her photograph taken?" I gave an answer that was factual. At no time did I claim that this was the reason why she was being photographed, but would remind you that when Lord Archer was accused of having a 'session' with a prostitute, which he denied, but was later found to have lied, Lady Archer was photographed many times, at both trials. When a married man is 'having it away', the media and readers of newspapers are often interested to see what the wife he cheated on, looks like. That would appear to be what has happened here.[/p][/quote]For sure the readers want to see what his missus looks like. Lady Archer became part of the original case as a result. Didn't the judge say something like: "Is she not fragrant?" Implying why would Archer play away with such a lovely wife. userds5050
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree