All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. Yes it was a crime, as everyone but you agrees on. If you've an issue with it then :: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/complaints http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/for-the-public/using-a-solicitor/complaints/ https://www.gov.uk/complain-judge-magistrate-tribunal-coroner http://www.cps.gov.uk/contact/feedback_and_complaints/ It doesn't annoy me, it reminds me of the guys who tell me they're paying my wages, and saying they are close personal friends of the Chief Constable.
  3. Yesterday
  4. We are talking about a specific case, there seems little doubt he did it, the issue is was it a crime. In that situation if he pleads guilty, then there is no presentation of evidence, are you sure youve been inside a court room? nb I don't use punctuation as I'm lazy and its not an English exam, but now I know it annoys you, Il do it just for fun, init
  5. *Prosecution *Isn't The PROSECUTION still has to put it's case before the court. They can't sit there and say "Well, we don't know who did it, but he's admitting to it, so lets lock him up" when someone says they have committed a crime. They have to present their evidence to the defence (In disclosure) and the court. If the evidence isn't sound, or is arguable then the defence can enter a Not Guilty plea. If the defence solicitor looks at the evidence, and knows it can't be argued with he or she is likely to advise on entering a plea of Guilty. Do you understand that you can't just say you did something without being able to prove you did? There are people with mental health issues who will admit to stuff they didn't do, or another favorite my grandfather told me about was a certain guy he was familiar with as a D/Supt who used to admit to crimes for other people.
  6. no you quite clearly said there was a burden of proof on the prosicution in this case, and there clearly isnt/wasnt
  7. *There *isn't *prosecution. If you're going to try and correct something I didn't actually say again, at least try and spell it right yeah? I said that you're innocent until proven guilty, or you admit that you're guilty. Even if you claim guilt they still have to be able to show you did a crime, they can't just accept a guilty plea when the evidence plainly points that it couldn't be you or indeed if it is plainly someone else.
  8. there isnt a burden of proof on the prosicution if a guilty plea is entered. I'm not at all sure you have ever been in a court
  9. Again with not understanding meaning. He had the opportunity to enter a Not Guilty Plea. There was enough evidence for the police to arrest, there was enough evidence for CPS to charge, there was enough evidence for the Mags to sentence after listening to any arguments, and taking legal advice if required. He took Guilty because the evidence left no room for argument. There isn't as good an argument for claiming not guilty makes you not guilty, as there is a burden of proof on The police and CPS to prove guilty. Remember you're not guilty until either proven otherwise, or you admit it. I would also suggest the number of people who plead guilty when innocent is infinitesimal compared to the people who enter Not Guilty when they are. You may hate the criminal justice system, but not all of us do. Those miscarriages of justice should be investigated closely, examined in minute detail, and kept in mind for future cases. This isn't the 1970s any more after all.
  10. Scientists looked at how social media could be used as a source of information during disruptive events. Twitter could have been used to detect serious incidents such as cars being set alight and shops being looted up to an hour earlier than they were reported to police during the 2011 riots, researchers have said. Computer scientists from Cardiff University looked at how social media could be used as a source of information for police during major disruptive events, analysing data from the disturbances six years ago. They found that in all but two reported incidents, a computer system automatically scanning Twitter feeds could have alerted officers earlier. Co-author of the study Dr Pete Burnap, from Cardiff University's School of Computer Science and Informatics, said: "In this research we show that online social media are becoming the go-to place to report observations of everyday occurrences - including social disorder and terrestrial criminal activity. "We will never replace traditional policing resource on the ground but we have demonstrated that this research could augment existing intelligence-gathering and draw on new technologies to support more established policing methods." The study comes after West Midlands Chief Constable Dave Thompson claimed on Friday that police would face "real challenges" tackling a repeat of the 2011 riots following years of budget cuts. It showed that on average the computer systems could pick up on disruptive events several minutes before officials and more than an hour in some cases. The research team, which believes the work could enable police officers to better manage and prepare for both large and small-scale disruptive events, analysed 1.6 million tweets relating to the 2011 riots in England, which were sparked by the police shooting of Mark Duggan in London and started as an isolated incident in Tottenham on August 6 but quickly spread across London and other cities in England. Vandalism and looting spread to Birmingham, Bristol and Manchester over the following few days, with more than 5,000 crimes committed. A total of 16,000 officers were deployed in London on one night alone in a bid to quell the violence. The researchers used machine-learning algorithms to look at each of the tweets, taking into account a number of key features such as the time they were posted, the location where they were posted and the content of the tweet itself. The results showed the system could have alerted police to reports of disorder in Enfield, Greater London, one hour and 23 minutes earlier, they said. Dr Nasser Alsaedi, who recently completed his PhD at Cardiff under the supervision of Dr Burnap, said: "Coming from a policing background myself, I see the need for this type of cutting-edge research every day. "I wanted to develop a thesis that could have a real impact in real-world policing. I would like to see this implemented alongside the established decision-making processes." View on Police Oracle
  11. so after reading all that, the best you,can do, it he must be guilty as he went guilty. I think thete is a equally good case for saying if he went not guilty, he would have been found not guilty. next you will be telling me that innocent people have nether pled guilty . Or that there are not lots of innocent people in jail
  12. if the guy pleads guilty the guidlines don't matter, they have a very good chance of a conviction, which is really all they care about
  13. Are you suggesting that the CPS ignored their own guidelines and the mags ignored the law? Just because you and your mates don't find something grossly offensive, doesn't mean that the courts / man on the Clapham omnibus doesn't either. Continuing to argue this point and that he'd received crap legal advice as a way of satisfying yourself that it was the only way a bent lethal system could possibly have convicted him is painting yourself into a corner. And with all due respect you're starting to make yourself look silly and lacking in any credibility the more you post on the subject.
  14. I've read the CPS guidelines, and as well as the words I also see the intent behind them. I suspect you understand the words, but not the meaning. Section 127 is fairly clear, and carries a fairly high threshold to charge. So they must have been fairly confident. In fact they had enough evidence that he plead guilt because the evidence was impossible to argue with. Regardless of your opinion he said he was guilty, so he is. As for picture of dead bodies all being offensive or all not as you argue I wouldn't say that is the case. Unless The Pope lying in state is no different to photos of people used in medical testing by the Nazis. I suggest that there is a difference in context between different photos depending on situation and circumstances.
  15. your just ignoring the law completely, possibly as you haven't bothered to read that or the cps guidelines before posting. the issue isn't if he wanted to shock people, I'm not sure shocking people has ever been an offence, nor is posting something that is distressing, upsetting or heartbreaking, its if he wanted to grossly offend people, that's at issue.or at least knew it would a picture of a dead body is either grossly offensive or its not, you cant say this one isn't and this one is
  16. He could argue the point he was given bad legal advice? While pictures if dead bodies are not usually deemed offensive, it depends on context. Photos of a dead person aren't usually true, but if it's something like an accident victim, and your intention is to shock people then it would be malicious. I've seen bodies in the past in various situations before I joined SC. I have no issues with the image of my dad in a coffin one of my family took (just a bit macabre), but I do occasionally remember and shudder at the guy I saw smeared up the road and between the wheels because he ran his moped under an articulated lorry. That was unpleasant to say the least. Taking photos of that, then posting to facebook for a reaction would be malicious. While a photo of a dead body itself in normal circumstances wouldn't bother me at all.
  17. A man was smashed from behind and sent flying through the air by an out-of-control bus in a dramatic crash in central Reading. Shocking CCTV footage shows the victim walking across the road when a double-decker bus suddenly comes hurtling around the corner of a busy town centre street. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/incredible-moment-man-wiped-out-by-outofcontrol-bus-before-getting-back-up-and-walking-into-a-bar-a3574291.html
  18. A sadistic killer who carried out of a campaign of “Dark Ages” abuse against a vulnerable man, including forcing him to eat his own testicle, has been jailed for 33 years. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/killer-who-forced-man-to-eat-own-testicle-jailed-for-33-years-a3574271.html
  19. as a general rule you cant appeal if you went guilty. no one is dealting with the point that pictures of a dead body are not deemed to be even offensive in every day life,
  20. Most coppers I've met have great faith that persistent offenders they take in today will be out tomorrow and doing the same thing again. That is pretty much the limit of their faith. This guy opened a bodybag, he took photos and at least one video of the body after he opened the bag. He then didn't remove them at the first chance he got. The Police decided there was a case to answer, the CPS agreed there was a case to answer, the Magistrate agreed there was as well. There may have been other offences that they opted not to charge for as well, because either there isn't a lot of point, or because they didn't meet the required theshold for the CPS. Lawyer friend pointed out that it could if you squinted at it be interfering with an investigation, but he'd have not been inclined when he worked there because it can be difficult to prove at the best of times. As it stands he can appeal yeah? Let him, and if he wins the appeal he'll get an apology a payout and he'll have his record removed. Simplistic would be your views for the most part. You appear to assume any serving officer is either lying, corrupt or just plain wrong. Your assumption that he is ill-educated and possibly/probably doesn't have English as his first language smacks of ingrained racism also. Just because he isn't called "Tommy Smith" doesn't mean he wasn't born here. Don't be blind to your own bias while calling others on what you perceive as theirs.
  21. but he went guilty, the court decided nothing only the sentence, though court have been know to misapply the law, hence the appeal that are successfully. Lodges but we are talking about someone who is poor, ill educated and quite possibly not with English as a first language. The court system is accepted to treat such people unfairly. you faith in the court system is touchingly simplistic at best
  22. Well, a court of law disagrees, and I guess there endeth the lesson.
  23. no it wouldnt grossly offend me, i would find it extremely distressing, but not in any way offensive nether mind grossly so, but he didn't send it to the relatives, he put it on social media, they would have to go and find it, that's even of they were capable of recognising the remain as their relative. something can't be grossly offensive by context, either the picture is or it isn't grossly offensive. I remember. A picture from the summer land fire,of a badly burnt child in the wreckage, it was one the front page of nearly every new paper. No one that i can remember thought it grossly offensive just very very sad, then there was the picture of all the lraq troops, burt to a chrisp in the first gulf war, that was all over the papers. that wasn't publish so as not to offend the relatives . this isn't a made up event to gross people, it was a resl picture of a real event. That really shouldnt be censored. there seem a good case that they didn't want the picture published, tp prevent a wide spread out break of anger, and that's the ptb protecting themselves through censorship
  24. Would a picture of your deceased mother/father/son in the immediate aftermath of a disaster while you are bereaved be grossly offensive not only to you but potentially to all those bereaved connected to the disaster? For most people I'd say yes... Grossly offensive. Attempting to write this off as of no more offence than a medical cadaver or historic war picture is just disingenuous. Why not follow your conscience and ask these questions of yourself instead of blindly pursuing your anti police agenda? As for the guilty plea...If there had been no case to answer it would have been kicked out before plea. I will reiterate- Once again there is only a very small minority(I only know of you) that thinks otherwise.
  25. well as we,said above, its difficult to say either way when someone has gone guilty but a look at the cps guidelines, revised after the police kept bringing silly cases to court. Say the message must be grossly offensive, not in very bad taste, not just very offensive. but GROSSLY offensive, further more the sender must intend it to be offensive or at least know it to be so. so is a picture of a dead body grossly offensive. Well no, not in the general scheme of things, I've seen countless pictures of badly burnt bodies on the evening news and in news papers. You cant claim this to be grossly offensive just because he isn't a journalist or a main stream news organisation. Ether pictures of badly burnt bodies are grossly offensive or they are not.
  26. One suggestion for an addition; DVSA - Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency.
  1. Load more activity