Stopped by Gestapo For Putting Hand In Pocket

BonnieDundee · 12-07-2008, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Judges are usually highly intelligent and a lot more reasonable than the police, some indeed are rather impatient with the police and hate their incompetence and the disrepute they bring. That's why you do what looks right to them and you will win and the cop will loose. Then it's off to celebrate!

I wouldn't put money on it. They are better than the police but they are still bad and getting worse.

The Bear · 12-07-2008, 09:27 AM

Let’s take this slice from the article cut & pasted by David H. and look a little deeper into it without commenting on it being apparently yet another example of his homophobia incarnate.

“My puzzlement grew. This chap wasn't really the sort you'd expect to see shouting abuse at police officers at an anti-war demo. He was, after all, a policeman himself - and a high-ranking one at that.

I'd met the police inspector at a party around last Christmas.

The local mayor was there, along with councillors from other parties and journalists. I'd been asked along by a friend.

Later, we went to a local gay club, where I danced with him and a few others until 3.30am. He had a bolshie charm, was cocky and a little manipulative. He was also highly entertaining, bragging about his work in the police and how important he was.”

Let’s not even factor in the source though the Mail does have a certain reputation for ….. that thing that the Mail has a certain reputation for.

It was written by a journalist who had been invited to a party.

“I'd met the police inspector at a party around last Christmas.”

Not a police party, simply a party attended by the “mighty and the good” and that had included in the guest list a number of police officers. Not a police party, that would have been mentioned should it have been the case, simply a party and I can hazard a pretty damm good guess where it was being held and who sponsored it (Where’ve you hidden me trowel and apron THIS time?).

The very fact that the reporter was present at once indicates that many people who were NOT in or even associated with the police were present should also be factored in.

Now this bit

“bragging about his work in the police and how important he was”

Where is there a single shred of evidence that he WAS a member of the police, FAR more likely that if he were he would have kept schtum and FAR more likely that he was spinning a yarn to impress.

To then build on such a weak foundation to spin a story with a high “shock horror” factor is hardly unknown within todays journalist cadre, it gets column inches, it gets the “by line”, and it creates the sense of outrage that keeps people buying the same paper since it tells them what they WANT to read.

Even if that entails steering them into the direction needed to get them to read into a thing that actually either isn’t there or is based on such a weak premise that like this piece it doesn’t cut the mustard.

TannyD · 12-07-2008, 07:29 PM

Best to stay in your own home then...until they come to break the door down to chip and process you...

Baron von Lotsov · 12-07-2008, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

I wouldn't put money on it. They are better than the police but they are still bad and getting worse.

The magistrates are generally not that clued up but if you appeal to the Crown Court you get to speak to someone with a brain. Whether they like you or not is another matter but my first hand experience in these kinds of matters surprised me. They will, normally, properly listen to a reasoned argument, and if the reason is strong they will respect it. That's how the law should be and it's virtually impossible to spin a judge, reasoned arguments are the currency of court cases and if you can put one of those together you can watch the opposition stumble and fall.

Indeed I represented myself in a Crown Court appeal case and I had the opportunity to cross-examine the Department of Transport's barrister. That was fun and the judge very nearly kicked her out of the court after he discovered she was illegally interfering in my case before we went into the court. Naturally I won. Someone's career looked a bit on the rocks though, I'd have to say.

youcanhandlethetruth · 12-07-2008, 07:52 PM

Good on you for that Baron - you're showing people they can stand up and defend themselves without fear.

BonnieDundee · 13-07-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

The magistrates are generally not that clued up but if you appeal to the Crown Court you get to speak to someone with a brain. Whether they like you or not is another matter but my first hand experience in these kinds of matters surprised me. They will, normally, properly listen to a reasoned argument, and if the reason is strong they will respect it. That's how the law should be and it's virtually impossible to spin a judge, reasoned arguments are the currency of court cases and if you can put one of those together you can watch the opposition stumble and fall.

Indeed I represented myself in a Crown Court appeal case and I had the opportunity to cross-examine the Department of Transport's barrister. That was fun and the judge very nearly kicked her out of the court after he discovered she was illegally interfering in my case before we went into the court. Naturally I won. Someone's career looked a bit on the rocks though, I'd have to say.

Interesting experience. Hopefully it stays that way but I wouldn't put too much trust in gov't employees and after all gov't can changes laws.

Juries are the real key. They need to be involved in almost all cases and to uphold their right to nullification if they don't think the law is valid.

youcanhandlethetruth · 14-07-2008, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

Interesting experience. Hopefully it stays that way but I wouldn't put too much trust in gov't employees and after all gov't can changes laws.

Juries are the real key. They need to be involved in almost all cases and to uphold their right to nullification if they don't think the law is valid.

And precisely the reason why we need to protect the right to trial by jury.

Though to be fair, a jury is of course no guarantee of justice, but it's the best and fairest system we have.

Baron von Lotsov · 14-07-2008, 02:53 AM

Juries can be spun to pieces though, and they usually are, and I have seen this happen as well. A jury is made to feel like it has an obligation to uphold the law and deliver the correct verdict, but the type of system they go through can make them think the correct verdict is what the police want. Also juries are not usually very clever and get bored easily. Most don't want to be there and if the case is complex they haven't a hope in hell of understanding it, especially for things like stock market fraud and technical stuff.

I'm of the opinion it can be at its most just when the system of law is rigorously applied since it has to be a self consistent system and there are enough test cases in the past to make it fair. Even if a new law comes out from the government it is sometimes possible to kill it off in the courts if it directly contradicts, but does not override an existing law or set of laws. An interesting example might be the new smoking laws. Technically the law is in force but one place I think it can be challenged is where the landlord is held legally responsible for the actions of another person who is not employed by them or anything. This is not in my opinion enforceable since if it were the consequences would be so fundamentally wide ranging that it can't practically be so. These sorts of things are thrashed out between legal brains and they can produce results. The trouble is though the cost is astronomical.

Smidgey · 14-07-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee

Interesting experience. Hopefully it stays that way but I wouldn't put too much trust in gov't employees and after all gov't can changes laws.

Juries are the real key. They need to be involved in almost all cases and to uphold their right to nullification if they don't think the law is valid.

I completely agree.

Something else that angers me concerning judges is that defence lawyers are not allowed to put the law on trial - the judge will block them from doing so.

If you were a defence advocate/barrister and your client clearly was guilty of, for example, using cannabis, you would be barred - by the judge - from attacking the law and arguing in court for a verdict of jury nulification. Instead you would have to argue for the innocence of your client (unless he/she admits guilt) even if the guilt of your client is never in doubt.

Further, you're not able to argue for jury nulification after a client has entered a plea of guilty. Such a thing should, I believe, be allowed (since most lawyers will never be as reckless to try and get jury nullification for guilt in, say, a murder case)

Baron von Lotsov · 14-07-2008, 07:32 PM

I'm pretty sure that you can still do this but it depends on your defence. You can't state in your defence the law is a bad law and give a load of political reasons, you need to construct your defence very carefully to argue on a point of law. The lower courts wont deal with it, you have to go through the appeal system until you end up in the High Court or the Court of Appeal and only those places and the Law Lords can take a case on a point of law. There is only one place higher than the Law Lords and that is the Privy Council, which is essentially an appeal to Her Majesty.

In practice the lower courts will just find you guilty and you then have to get Leave to Appeal at the court above it. I tried this once but the High Court turned down my application for Leave to Appeal. My barrister was most upset and couldn't believe it and so on, but such is life. It's like trying to get blood out of a stone when you deal with the High Court, they do bend the rules in a most expert way, but you need someone who is just as much an expert on your side. That costs a lot of money.

12-07-2008, 09:27 AM	#12 (permalink)
The Bear Uber Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: East Anglia Posts: 2,178	Let’s take this slice from the article cut & pasted by David H. and look a little deeper into it without commenting on it being apparently yet another example of his homophobia incarnate. “My puzzlement grew. This chap wasn't really the sort you'd expect to see shouting abuse at police officers at an anti-war demo. He was, after all, a policeman himself - and a high-ranking one at that. I'd met the police inspector at a party around last Christmas. The local mayor was there, along with councillors from other parties and journalists. I'd been asked along by a friend. Later, we went to a local gay club, where I danced with him and a few others until 3.30am. He had a bolshie charm, was cocky and a little manipulative. He was also highly entertaining, bragging about his work in the police and how important he was.” Let’s not even factor in the source though the Mail does have a certain reputation for ….. that thing that the Mail has a certain reputation for. It was written by a journalist who had been invited to a party. “I'd met the police inspector at a party around last Christmas.” Not a police party, simply a party attended by the “mighty and the good” and that had included in the guest list a number of police officers. Not a police party, that would have been mentioned should it have been the case, simply a party and I can hazard a pretty damm good guess where it was being held and who sponsored it (Where’ve you hidden me trowel and apron THIS time?). The very fact that the reporter was present at once indicates that many people who were NOT in or even associated with the police were present should also be factored in. Now this bit “bragging about his work in the police and how important he was” Where is there a single shred of evidence that he WAS a member of the police, FAR more likely that if he were he would have kept schtum and FAR more likely that he was spinning a yarn to impress. To then build on such a weak foundation to spin a story with a high “shock horror” factor is hardly unknown within todays journalist cadre, it gets column inches, it gets the “by line”, and it creates the sense of outrage that keeps people buying the same paper since it tells them what they WANT to read. Even if that entails steering them into the direction needed to get them to read into a thing that actually either isn’t there or is based on such a weak premise that like this piece it doesn’t cut the mustard. __________________ I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

12-07-2008, 07:29 PM	#13 (permalink)
TannyD Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Cafe Rene. :D Posts: 842	Best to stay in your own home then...until they come to break the door down to chip and process you... __________________ Ignore/Avoid List: youcanhandlethetruth.

12-07-2008, 07:52 PM	#15 (permalink)
youcanhandlethetruth Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,569	Good on you for that Baron - you're showing people they can stand up and defend themselves without fear. __________________ Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed. cointelpro/halfwits(in order of Porkpies) Clippo,Wowbanger TIP, Akria,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist

14-07-2008, 02:53 AM	#18 (permalink)
Baron von Lotsov Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,135	Juries can be spun to pieces though, and they usually are, and I have seen this happen as well. A jury is made to feel like it has an obligation to uphold the law and deliver the correct verdict, but the type of system they go through can make them think the correct verdict is what the police want. Also juries are not usually very clever and get bored easily. Most don't want to be there and if the case is complex they haven't a hope in hell of understanding it, especially for things like stock market fraud and technical stuff. I'm of the opinion it can be at its most just when the system of law is rigorously applied since it has to be a self consistent system and there are enough test cases in the past to make it fair. Even if a new law comes out from the government it is sometimes possible to kill it off in the courts if it directly contradicts, but does not override an existing law or set of laws. An interesting example might be the new smoking laws. Technically the law is in force but one place I think it can be challenged is where the landlord is held legally responsible for the actions of another person who is not employed by them or anything. This is not in my opinion enforceable since if it were the consequences would be so fundamentally wide ranging that it can't practically be so. These sorts of things are thrashed out between legal brains and they can produce results. The trouble is though the cost is astronomical. __________________ "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

14-07-2008, 07:32 PM	#20 (permalink)
Baron von Lotsov Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,135	I'm pretty sure that you can still do this but it depends on your defence. You can't state in your defence the law is a bad law and give a load of political reasons, you need to construct your defence very carefully to argue on a point of law. The lower courts wont deal with it, you have to go through the appeal system until you end up in the High Court or the Court of Appeal and only those places and the Law Lords can take a case on a point of law. There is only one place higher than the Law Lords and that is the Privy Council, which is essentially an appeal to Her Majesty. In practice the lower courts will just find you guilty and you then have to get Leave to Appeal at the court above it. I tried this once but the High Court turned down my application for Leave to Appeal. My barrister was most upset and couldn't believe it and so on, but such is life. It's like trying to get blood out of a stone when you deal with the High Court, they do bend the rules in a most expert way, but you need someone who is just as much an expert on your side. That costs a lot of money. __________________ "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode