Quote:
Originally Posted by HamsterWheel
I suspect that what Alex will tell us about the City of London police is something like this :
They've confirmed they've got it, but have far too many cases of international fraud involving substantial amounts of money being stolen etc to devote any meaningful resources to a case where no-one appears to have lost any money or suffered any real harm.
They are stretched, I had dealings with the Serious Fraud Office about 10 years ago and at that point they could not allocate any personnel to crimes where less than £1m had been purloined.
I suspect things have not improved in that time and that your case will be just chucked on a pile and left to gather dust.
Personally i think that is the approach they should take. I know I will be in the minority here !
Far happier for the police who's salaries I pay through my taxes to concentrate on real crime.
|
well thankfully, the courts and the bench are the people that are best qualifyed to Judge on the question of suffering and harm, not you as a private person.
the judges have reams of documents and ruleings going back centurys to help them come to a reasonable and ballanced view based on justice, not how much money you the victim have.
as for the "
they could not allocate" that again seems to be taken out of context as it seems clear they chose not to allocate personel in your case, but given enough words in the righ ears they surely would have allocated personel to any case that serves the public interest and justice on the wide scale.
you chose not to accept that this case has effected a large section of the public and private firms world wide and that is your right.
as for your stance that only the rich people and faceless companys in a position to be able to have 1million riped off in the first place, get access to justice, while others that will never even see anything like that 1million+ written down in their books cant, stinks, but again you are entitaled to have that minority view if you so wish.
OC you also make the obvious wrong assumption that these faceless compays when they break our laws cant also be held accountable, and more to the point, the real people inside them can and ARE able to be held accountable for their unlawful actions, as can be seen in the likes of the top Uk executive stansford case.
being a high ranking executive inside a company that can afford to keep 1million+ in the bank doesnt help you
when your stood infront of the judge that got his BT BB line wiretapped (and there are sure to be a lot of them given the No.s and areas covered in the trials), and the court ordered findings of facts point to you directly as the person in charge that authorised these unlawful RIPA etc wiretaps and related offences does it.
OC it doesnt, that just makes the effected sitting judge and his peers look that much harder at the existing case law and rules/guidence to make sure you serve the right longest term and recompense for your crimes as any other rich or poor person might expect in a court of law.