HMService

Resident Members
  • Content count

    332
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

HMService last won the day on July 1

HMService had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

171 Excellent

1 Follower

About HMService

  • Rank
    Training

Previous Fields

  • Police Force
    Herts

Recent Profile Visitors

408 profile views
  1. His arguments are borne of anger toward the judiciary rather than evidence based- in reality it's his own case he's protesting about because he feels aggrieved. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  2. As I keep saying if you don't know how the law works...... The legislation makes no distinction between photos and words it just says "a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character." The case law which is DPP V Collins 2006 which I cite above lays out guidelines as to how "a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" is to be tested, i.e. in context. It doesn't differentiate between words and pictures and indeed it can't because that would indicate that Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 would have to be repealed or amended to deal with different methods of communicating grossly offensive messages. In other words it would all have to be re-written, presumably to explain that the courts were to treat words in context to the wider situation but not photographs which should be treated objectively. It is of course utter nonsense and you just hanging onto the last ditch desperate hope that you can salvage some sort of "I was right" out of this. It's not just me saying this.....The whole point of this is it's just been tested in Court and you don't like the result. But if you knew what you were talking about I wouldn't have to explain this......
  3. ........... Just can't admit it can you. Let it go.
  4. This is getting boring...First you wanted the Act and section of the case now you want relevant case law....Ok but after this I'm done- I don't think you are even a special anymore so I'm trying to teach someone who just wants ammunition to disparage the Police with anyway but I digress.... From DPP V Collins 2006 Guidance and test for an offence under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 "It was for the Justices to find as a matter of fact whether the messages were grossly offensive and in doing so they must apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society taking account of the context of the words and all relevant circumstances remaining mindful of the fact that sensitivities and word usage change over time. The test is whether a message is liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates. Further, for an offence to be made out under section 127(a) of the 2003 Act the accused must intend for the words to be grossly offensive to whom they relate or must be aware that they may be taken as such." Can we stop this now?
  5. Look I'm sorry... You are arguing about a field in which you need to get some training. In order to continue with this you need to understand how the adversarial justice system works. But in very much "brief" the threshold of "grossly offensive" is something that is decided contextually by the court. It might be an issue such as this on which a trial runs. In pornography matters it may be expert evidence is tendered in order to grade images- Things like this are only covered in the broad outlines in the legislation....the judiciary test these matters. You feel the picture of the dead victim was not grossly offensive because there are pictures of dead bodies everywhere that aren't. The court took into consideration the context of this case and found it was grossly offensive and most people agree. You don't. That's fine you are entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make you right. If you are really interested in this maybe do a course in criminal law or something but there are too many basic concepts you don't understand and as you consider my view of the judiciary naïve I am not anyone who can instruct you.
  6. The photos like other signs and material are contextually considered-You don't understand the law.
  7. As a matter of interest the burden of proof is "beyond all reasonable doubt". There are very few trials where the defence case is impossible as it helps no one to run an impossible defence...least of all the defendant.
  8. See it's about you rather than the issue at hand. All this emotionally driven opinioneering is going to make your views significantly different to everyone else's and in some cases bizarre sounding. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  9. Possible? Anything is possible but under circs like this highly unlikely. Too many barriers and flukes would be required. He was guilty and pretty much everyone thinks he should be which is the test of justice. Do your peers think you guilty? His peers do and so does he. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  10. I'm angry about things it's done too. But project that anger into another situation and your judgement gets skewed. It becomes more about justifying your anger and showing other people how bad a particular system is than objectively judging the matter at issue. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  11. The point was it wasn't the issue and you never said it. I just projected a straw man argument . Which is what you keep doing - it makes talking about anything onerous as it just keeps sidetracking all the time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. That's yet another projection of an opinion I haven't expressed yet. Most of the people using this site seem aware of the straw man methodology of argument- it's great for between idiots in the pub but pretty boring for most of us. But for fun I'll do you... Ok so you think it's ok to defile the corpses of the dead by digging them up and taking selfies of yourself playing with them so you can send them to their families- you must be sick ..... See boring isn't it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  13. You aren't qualified to judge me. My interactions with the judicial system far exceed yours. I'm afraid you just don't know enough about the things you are expressing opinions upon. My view of the court system is borne of many years of seeing the best and worst of it. Touchingly simplistic? A feeble attempt to belittle an opinion different to yours. The more I hear from you the more I suspect you have fallen foul of the law and the only way you can justify what happened is to say the law must be wrong. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  14. Well, a court of law disagrees, and I guess there endeth the lesson.
  15. 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.