Beaker

Resident Members
  • Content count

    259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Beaker last won the day on June 18

Beaker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

43 Reputable

About Beaker

  • Rank
    Training
  • Birthday 14/01/77

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Preston

Previous Fields

  • Police Force
    Lancashire

Recent Profile Visitors

249 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. *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.
  3. *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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Shift management app. You use something else?
  9. It has the basics, the directory suggests messaging is in the pipeline.
  10. Works ok. Messages would be nice, but can't have everything at once.
  11. I think a lot of it is team dynamic, and who regularly works with who. I'm fairly easy going, and even I'll admit I don't get on with everyone. I just want to get signed off for IP as quickly as practical, and I'm willing to do whatever I need to for that to happen. Reg SGT the other day told me to give him a list of what I need to do, and he'll help that along. He just wants usable IP bodies ASAP.
  12. Can I add a slightly controversial one? If possible find out which regs don't like working with Specials, not to punish them in any way, but to save both them and any SC you might pair them up with from having a crap time. Met a couple who obviously hate having an SC along, but most seem happy for an extra body in the van.
  13. http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/news/187/15/Stop-and-search-and-knife-crime-in-London-what-we-know-and-what-we-don-t One source there. Look at the graph. Need more data relating to national stats, but it tracks closely.
  14. No, they were trained to the regulations. I'm also informed by someone pre-PACE that functionally they didn't change much until the mid 90s when they were given stricter rules to work to. So 20 years is more accurate. They used to be able to justify a suspicion search until then, weakly admittedly but they could. You appear to think we WANT to search someone, and that we WANT to find things. To be honest I'd prefer not yo search people. As I have to then I'd not mind searching 1000 people with suitable grounds, and found nothing at all. A friend of mine hates S&S, thinks it's unwarranted under any circumstances. However he'll go way further than I could take anyone to being searched so he can go in to a gig.
  15. I don't think he cares to be honest. I expect if he ever ended up in Crown Court he'd demand it has a gold trimmed flag.