HMService

Resident Members
  • Content count

    346
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

HMService last won the day on August 21

HMService had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

177 Excellent

1 Follower

About HMService

  • Rank
    Training

Previous Fields

  • Police Force
    Herts

Recent Profile Visitors

451 profile views
  1. This criminal has besmirched the reputation of all of us. I hope he does the maximum possible time and I despair that this truly reprehensible person was ever a Police Officer. Utter human trash. HMS
  2. Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, said: "Personally, I can't envisage circumstances where I would have authorised payment to someone convicted of rape. "I can't imagine how you could have control mechanisms in place with an informant of that type that you were going to task that would give reassurance that they still didn't represent a risk to young and vulnerable women." No doubt Mr Gamble. But should you ever find yourself out of that ivory tower and doing some Police work in that space that exists between the Devil and the deep you may see things more clearly.
  3. As I said elsewhere in another thread- if you don't understand the foundations of a thing and are motivated by emotional ire ..... None of these posts of yours are about Policing... They are all about you, your grievances, your bike, your case, your habits. I don't mind talking about the Police or why we do things to someone who has a genuine interest in the subjective issues, but you are all about you. You are aggrieved and seem to fuel that grievance with issues that disrupt you and your personal sense of fairness for you without thought of anyone else. I could go on about road safety, priority crime or collateral public intrusion when utilising stop search tactics.But it doesn't matter- essentially I'm thinking about what's best for the wider community, and you are thinking about what's inconvenient or best for you. We are on different planes objectively. I hope you will understand why I don't bother trying to answer you much more. It's not why I'm here.
  4. Next you will be complaining about other tactical uses of resources at strategic times- perhaps you could complain about the yearly Xmas drink drive campaign? I'm guessing that like the surge of motorcycle deaths in hot weather, the alcohol related deaths over public holidays should not be accounted for or combatted? We have limited resources, we have to tactically redeploy then as demand changes.... Can you please try to switch some thought on in your critiques. Right now it's just so knee jerky and simplistic it's no use to anyone... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  5. And again....pontifications without thought or evidence.... You are just snapping up any perceived opportunity to criticise the Police in the furtherance of your own grievances. Pursuing helmetless criminals frequently gets them killed. The public and media have been very clear they don't want us doing this- it gets portrayed as 16 year old boy chased to his death by Police etc. Then the officer gets personally prosecuted and convicted. Someone has rationalised that motorists killing pedal cyclists leads to a lot more deaths than helmetless muggers cause which are fraught with risks that the public have forbidden us from taking. In other words don't complain at the Police when political interference is the issue.
  6. Nope. That's someone commenting who once again is doing so without any background knowledge of what they are commenting on.
  7. Ran away.Tried to swallow something. Racist murdering police. Same old same old. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  8. 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
  9. 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......
  10. ........... Just can't admit it can you. Let it go.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. The photos like other signs and material are contextually considered-You don't understand the law.
  14. 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.
  15. 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