Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34552850)

tchh, tchh - I think you will find the term is "Indigenous Briton" ;)

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34553866)

When she gets released (26 months, assuming she was on bail then this time next year) won't she get a council house so she can be re-integrated into the community?

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

A prolific bag snatcher was paid £3,000 by the Government to leave Britain - only to return the very next day and continue his one-man crimewave, a court heard yesterday.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34560963)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eal-again.html



Cracking idea by the government. Instead of just removing them from the country we have to pay them to leave and there isn't anything to stop them getting on the first Eurostar back.

Oh and also today I've found out someone can be jailed for 9 months for a crime committed in February 2008 and be back on the streets in the middle of May.
Prison time now seems to be a 1/3 of the sentence so if anyone feels like a spot of thievery, drug dealing or murder now is the time to do it.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 34561009)

Derek you know you're just creating a fuss about nothing! You realise our resident expert on tabloids will be here in a minute to confirm it's all lies..... plain lies...... :rolleyes: yawn.........

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 34561009)

Derek you know you're just creating a fuss about nothing! You realise our resident expert on tabloids will be here in a minute to confirm it's all lies..... plain lies...... :rolleyes: yawn.........

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34567920)

In the interests of balance sometimes the knife (and sword) carriers get whats coming to them.



And his lawyer goes for the classic defence of it's OK as he was out to avenge his family being attacked. :rolleyes:

Still the streets are safe for 3 years... actually 1 1/2 years... actually about a year once good behaviour, time on remand, home detention etc. are all taken off.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34577669)

13 years for murder... especially kicking and stamping a disabled man to death. Utter ****.

I know its a minimum term but does anyone actually think he'll spend considerably longer inside.

Originally Posted by BBKing (Post 34622066)

OK, let's recap, so you want:

a) fewer people to be prosecuted for fare evasion
b) tough enforcement action against people who break the rules

Can you really not spot the contradiction in this position? TfL really can't win here, throughout the Mayoral election campaign (and since) people have been hammering home the message that goes roughly 'oh, Ken's useless, look at all the fraud on bendy buses, I've never seen anyone touch in on those, they should bring back conductors and put policemen on them to enforce the law', then when they do*, they get attacked for persecuting Joe Public. Are certain people immune from the rules? Why is deterring people from freeloading on public transport (which is associated with anti-social behaviour, by the way) not a worthy cause? Are you coming down on the side of the criminal, Osem? Feeling a bit hypocritical yet?
* it's not enough to have the money on your bloody Oyster, you have to touch in *to actually pay for the journey*. It's not rocket science, the signs are plastered all over the buses and it's part of the deal known as 'using money'. Otherwise you'd put a quid on it and ride free all day, if you knew you'd get off when challenged. Likewise, I wouldn't expect to be able to stick sixty grand in my skyrocket, stroll down to the BMW garage and drive off in a nice new M5, then when the police pulled me over say 'it's OK, I could have paid for it, look, I just didn't know how to pay'.

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34622316)

Law

Common Sense

Not often seen together (imho)

Originally Posted by DaiNasty (Post 34622371)

If the law made sense there would be a lot less profit in it for lawyers.

:dozey:

Originally Posted by punky (Post 34622370)

Wouldn't sending flowers and chocolates to the WPC come under bribing/influcing a witness?

Originally Posted by Lain Andrew (Post 34626449)

I agree with this, about time someone told the truth.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 34640787)

Well they're really getting tough now - this time it's 'community crimefighters' :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 34646402)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7648394.stm

18 months !!!! :mad::mad:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 34646402)

18 months !!!! :mad::mad:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 34646405)

Nice family :erm: :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725066)

Could be worse, at least he was convicted.

Two Police Officers witnessing something with their own eyes isn't enough for a conviction anymore.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...6908-21085458/

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725066)

Could be worse, at least he was convicted.

Two Police Officers witnessing something with their own eyes isn't enough for a conviction anymore.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...6908-21085458/

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 34725107)

not being able to fit some one up will undoubtedly swing the balance in the favour of justice

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725118)

So in your eyes cops shouldn't be allowed to be witnesses then? Obviously everything they see is wrong and any evidence under oath is an attempt to stitch up the law abiding members of the public. :rolleyes:

On one hand in the believability stakes we have two Police officers, do you think they are going to perjure themselves and put their jobs and freedom on the line for a person using a mobile phone whilst driving.

On the other there is a convicted thug with umpteen convictions and an exceptionally dubious ability to own and drive expensive cars without ever having worked.

I know which I'd believe.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725118)

So in your eyes cops shouldn't be allowed to be witnesses then? Obviously everything they see is wrong and any evidence under oath is an attempt to stitch up the law abiding members of the public. :rolleyes:

On one hand in the believability stakes we have two Police officers, do you think they are going to perjure themselves and put their jobs and freedom on the line for a person using a mobile phone whilst driving.

On the other there is a convicted thug with umpteen convictions and an exceptionally dubious ability to own and drive expensive cars without ever having worked.

I know which I'd believe.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 34725124)

having no evidence other than the word of even the most trusted officer is still having no evidence.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725133)

So on your 'logic' then unless someone is caught on camera doing something they can't be convicted.

That would certainly effect the conviction rates. Pretty much all traffic laws would be unenforceable unless the Police were in a car fitted with a camera. People could wander about the streets with weapons and unless caught on CCTV the Police couldn't be trusted to tell the truth that they caught them with a knife etc.

Perhaps you'd like to come up with an idea that isn't so ludicrous. Eyewitness evidence is what 99% of court cases come down to. If two professional witnesses are being discounted in favour of someone proven to be of bad character then its a sad day for 'justice' in my book.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 34725153)

i would rather have a legal system based on fact not hearsay ,and its a sad day for justice when evidence is no longer required .

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725169)

Ok so how would the following be prosecuted without eyewitnesses.

People driving through red-lights.
Someone attacking someone else but is stopped before any lasting injury is caused.
Someone seen breaking into a building and caught inside.

etc. etc.

You quite clearly haven't given your argument any thought whatsoever. In your world there would be no point in anyone going to court and giving evidence as you don't think they can be trusted.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725169)

Ok so how would the following be prosecuted without eyewitnesses.

People driving through red-lights.
Someone attacking someone else but is stopped before any lasting injury is caused.
Someone seen breaking into a building and caught inside.

etc. etc.

You quite clearly haven't given your argument any thought whatsoever. In your world there would be no point in anyone going to court and giving evidence as you don't think they can be trusted.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 34725179)

1-cctv[ static or in car will do]
2cctv-moile phone footage- forensic evidence-finger prints on weapon

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 34725179)

3 caught in the act [with evidence ] is a little different to we saw him with a phone your worships [you can trust me i'm a copper]

Originally Posted by Will21st

That aside,i think the judge was right to throw the case out.There was insufficient evidence,and if that's the case,the defendant should be acquitted.period.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725234)

Ok so you are quite happy for a huge increase in the amount of CCTV cameras and filming taking place at every road junction in the land.
Oh and you can't just pick up forensics out of thin air, there isn't always any lasting evidence.
Fists and feet can be used to assault people, are you going to fingerprint them? :dunce:



How. In the original link two cops saw a driver on a phone. He said he wasn't. Whats the difference to two cops finding someone in a building but when he gets to court he says he wasn't there.


There wasn't insufficient evidence though. Two witnesses both swore, under oath, they saw the accused driving whilst using a phone. Plenty of people are convicted every day in courts on the evidence of two people with no other corroboration. This shouldn't have been any different.

Out of virtually every other road traffic case in the country the evidence is what the Police saw. Not every car is fitted with cameras to record what happens.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 34725179)

answers
1-cctv[ static or in car will do]
2cctv-moile phone footage- forensic evidence-finger prints on weapon
3 caught in the act [with evidence ] is a little different to we saw him with a phone your worships [you can trust me i'm a copper]
you obviously haven't given much thought to your argument, in your world its hearsay to prison. no need for courts /magistrates /judges ,the police are the law judge and jury.. :rofl:

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34725312)

So before we had CCTV we could trust a policeman's word?Or all policemen were lying through their teeth?

Jeeze papa I thought you wanted to put **** bags in prison?:confused:

Originally Posted by Will21st (Post 34725259)

2) He said he was scratching his head.Now,that may be an excuse,but can the judge really accuse him of lying?

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34725501)

Why weren't the phone records checked?

He stated he wasn't on the phone, he was scratching his head - the records could have confirmed/denied if a call took place at that time.

Originally Posted by zinglebarb (Post 34725493)

well in reality 2 coppers could say they saw him using the phone and really only one might have and perhaps their arrest figures needed bumping ;). Anyway isnt it easy to prove if a mobile was being used at the time?

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 34725519)

well having been a telephone engineer since 1979--i would have to say yes its easy

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725488)

Err yes the Judge could have accused him of that.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725488)

When someone drives past you with their hands to their ear you can tell if they have a mobile phone in their hands.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725488)

These two cops both saw the driver using a mobile phone when driving.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725488)

He said he wasn't.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725488)

The judge took his word over the word of two eyewitnesses.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725488)

All this does is make prosecuting cases much harder. There is now nothing to stop people turning up in court and saying.

"I didn't go through that red light, the Police are out to get me"
"I didn't have a phone in my hand, the Police are out to get me"

etc. etc.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 34725358)

no i just want justice to be done to those who deserve it, not those who the police don't like.[and of course Derek] Hence the necessity for evidence opposed to some ones word .

on another point.
i could swear what ever you want on a stack of Bibles i fear no retribution no wrath of God -as far as i'm concerned its all bunkum.. any hoo i could at any time if i did believe be come a catholic convert and be forgiven my sins, so both ends to the game covered as it where

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34725779)

So let me get this straight..even if the two eye witnesses were ordinary members of the public it would not be enough? Or is it just policemen in particular?

Or would it have to be 3,4,5,6 or more witnesses?

Just how far did it have to go before this judge would accept eye witnesses? :confused:

Originally Posted by Will21st (Post 34725763)

Also,interesting how you didn't comment on the hand-set... why would he use the phone?like I said,IMHO the judge made the right choice.

Originally Posted by Will21st (Post 34725763)

Or there was other circumstantial evidence to support the defendants story.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 34725789)

how many good citizens have witnessed acts of witchcraft and burned the innocent in the past caught up in hysteria .
what if 6 people conspire to get a person convicted for a crime they did not commit .
all that that is required here is good solid evidence /and there was none in this case .
and i do not believe that only the police can be guilty of perjury it afflicts all
of society ,this is why we desire the burden of proof before condemning the accused ...

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725813)

Plenty of people have a hands free kit in their car and don't use it. My brother has one fitted but if he gets a phonecall brings up the phone to his ear and talks away (Yes he knows my feelings and I'll be the first to say I told you so when he eventually gets caught)

Roughly a third of the people I've ever stopped for using their phone have had a bluetooth headset or hands-free kit in the car yet still had the phone clamped to the side of their head when talking on it.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34725813)

Such as? What circumstantial evidence is there that you were doing or not doing something whilst enclosed in a glass and metal box with no-one beside you?

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34732359)

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....r_escapes_jail

20. Already been banned for drink driving and has previous convictions for violence.

Performs hand-brake turns on a motorway then attacks a cop by punching him in the face, smashing his glasses and kicking him in the head.

And for this he gets a driving ban and two years conditional discharge.

That'll teach him. I wonder what the judge will say when the mythical Irish job turns out to be a work of fiction.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 34745437)

perhaps if the authorities had been a tad tougher on our knife wielding thug, Rob Knox would still be alive. I wonder what sentence will be imposed this time?....

Originally Posted by The Times

A convicted teenager who refused to wear a high visibility jacket labelled "Community Payback" was today told by a court that he had a "reasonable excuse".
.
“It advertises that you have done something wrong and you don’t want the whole world to know,” he told the court during his trial last month.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34789068)

Remember the plan to get people doing community service to wear jackets so people would know they are doing their punishment?

Well its going about as well as any other plan thats come from the Government in recent years.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6226345.ece

Originally Posted by punky (Post 34789093)

but hopefully jackets (preferably bring pink with pictures of penises on) will be made part of every future "agreement".

Originally Posted by punky (Post 34789093)

but hopefully jackets (preferably bring pink with pictures of penises on) will be made part of every future "agreement".

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 34789109)

:tu:

Gets my vote :)