http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm

Shaun wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm



Brilliant news!  -  which goes to prove, once again, that a Jury is 
essential in these matters.

As for PC Ommibongo....er, Onnibomi...er   (hang on, I'll check the 
spelling) Onwugbonu, I take it that he *will* be facing a charge of 
attempting to pervert the course of justice?

Shaun wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm

His version was almost certainly true. You can't account for juries

On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, shaun.jameson.s...@ntlwolrd.com (Shaun) wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm

Said the jury spokesperson...

"We 'aint havin' no nigger putting down two of our boys".

WM

Nigel Oldfield wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, shaun.jameson.s...@ntlwolrd.com (Shaun) wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>
> Said the jury spokesperson...
>
> "We 'aint havin' no nigger putting down two of our boys".

Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that police 
officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries (which is 
nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are acquitted, all the 
police haters are still not satisfied and assume the jury is thick or 
biased.

The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you lot would be 
satisfied with would be a lynch mob.

Kev

On 3 Nov, 20:45, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Nigel Oldfield wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, shaun.jameson.s...@ntlwolrd.com (Shaun) wrote:
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>
> > Said the jury spokesperson...
>
> > "We 'aint havin' no nigger putting down two of our boys".
>
> Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that police
> officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries (which is
> nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are acquitted, all the
> police haters are still not satisfied and assume the jury is thick or
> biased.
>
> The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you lot would be
> satisfied with would be a lynch mob.
>

And 3 weeks ago uk.legal predicted the result:-

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_frm/thread/d730a133dfaa2eb9/9e3e78d3bfdc38b7?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=Onwugbonu#

On Nov 3, 8:45 pm, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Nigel Oldfield wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, shaun.jameson.s...@ntlwolrd.com (Shaun) wrote:
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>
> > Said the jury spokesperson...
>
> > "We 'aint havin' no nigger putting down two of our boys".
>
> Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that police
> officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries (which is
> nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are acquitted, all the
> police haters are still not satisfied and assume the jury is thick or
> biased.
>
> The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you lot would be
> satisfied with would be a lynch mob.
>
> Kev

Read the stories fully and then see if you are so sure (although I
hold out for little change in your position).

WM

On Nov 3, 8:33 pm, The gods have made us mad 
wrote:
> Shaun wrote:
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>
> Brilliant news!  -  which goes to prove, once again, that a Jury is
> essential in these matters.
>
> As for PC Ommibongo....er, Onnibomi...er   (hang on, I'll check the
> spelling) Onwugbonu, I take it that he *will* be facing a charge of
> attempting to pervert the course of justice?

There is no way of knowing whether Onwugbonu lied or not!

The fact that a jury finds a defendant not guilty is not in itself
proof that any witness lied.

6 officers plus the alleged victim were in the van. 5 of them were
charged the 6th. gave  evidence for the prosecution. It therefore
boils down to the word of one "independent" witness against 5 for whom
an acquittal was in their personal  interests.

The jury were apparently  unable to resolve this dilemma and hence
find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As instructed, they found not
guilty.

The question of Onwugbonu's testimony remains open. To charge him with
an attempt to pervert the course it would have to be shown beyond
reasonable doubt that he lied. A second jury would be presented with
exactly the same dilemma with probably the same result.

That is why Onwugbonu is unlikely to be so charged.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:25:57 +0000, Shaun wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm

mr umbongo like in da congo...

yeah, well you are welcome to fuck off back there...

Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:33 pm, The gods have made us mad 
> wrote:
>> Shaun wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>> Brilliant news!  -  which goes to prove, once again, that a Jury is
>> essential in these matters.
>>
>> As for PC Ommibongo....er, Onnibomi...er   (hang on, I'll check the
>> spelling) Onwugbonu, I take it that he *will* be facing a charge of
>> attempting to pervert the course of justice?
> 
> There is no way of knowing whether Onwugbonu lied or not!
> 
> The fact that a jury finds a defendant not guilty is not in itself
> proof that any witness lied.
> 
> 6 officers plus the alleged victim were in the van. 5 of them were
> charged the 6th. gave  evidence for the prosecution. It therefore
> boils down to the word of one "independent" witness against 5 for whom
> an acquittal was in their personal  interests.


Doubtless, making the accusation was very *much* in Omnibomni's interest!

Irrespective of the outcome of the rial, Omnimbomni will almost 
certainly now take extended 'sick leave', during which he will engage 
the services of the Black Plod's Association to press the matter of the 
racially motivated shunning that has taken place since Omnibomni 
courageously stood up against corrupt and racist fellow officers.

Result?, a very handsome out of court financial settlement, and a 
delighted Mr Omnibomi ginning from ear to ear...

Money for old rope.

On Nov 3, 9:29 pm, The gods have made us mad 
wrote:

> Irrespective of the outcome of the rial, Omnimbomni will almost
> certainly now take extended 'sick leave', during which he will engage
> the services of the Black Plod's Association to press the matter of the
> racially motivated shunning that has taken place since Omnibomni
> courageously stood up against corrupt and racist fellow officers.

Why should he ?

He's not entitled to any recompense. He has not been damaged in any
way. His account of what happened was neither been vindicated nor
otherwise. Of all cases that are prosecuted about 1 in 10 actually go
to trial. Of those roughly half result in acquittal. It's simply not
the case that in 5%  of prosecutions an attempt has been made to
pervert the course of justice.

It is the case that in one case in twenty the case against the
defendant is found insufficiently strong to convince a jury beyond
reasonable doubt which in a criminal trial is the final test.

One other thing, if Omnibomni did have cause for grievance over this
or any other matter, then he would not be represented by the BPOA Just
like any other other Metropolitan Police Officer in similar
circumstances he would be advised and represented by the Metropolitan
Police Federation of which he is a member as a condition of his
employment.

Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Nov 3, 9:29 pm, The gods have made us mad 
> wrote:
> 
>> Irrespective of the outcome of the rial, Omnimbomni will almost
>> certainly now take extended 'sick leave', during which he will engage
>> the services of the Black Plod's Association to press the matter of the
>> racially motivated shunning that has taken place since Omnibomni
>> courageously stood up against corrupt and racist fellow officers.
> 
> Why should he ?

If you *really* need that explaining, then this discussion is truly lost!

Suffice it to say, I very much doubt if Mr O is on many Christmas card 
lists this year...

> 
> He's not entitled to any recompense. He has not been damaged in any
> way.<

You must be deliberately misunderstanding me, surely.

If Mr O has made himself a less than popular figure among his peers, 
it's quite likely that he will suffer some sort of breakdown and take 
himself off on extended sick leave.

It's inconceivable, if that happens, that Mr O will not ascribe his 
mental anguish to the actions of his colleagues - and, as is the way of 
these things, suggest that he is being victimised.

>One other thing, if Omnibomni did have cause for grievance over this
> or any other matter, then he would not be represented by the BPOA Just
> like any other other Metropolitan Police Officer in similar
> circumstances he would be advised and represented by the Metropolitan
> Police Federation of which he is a member as a condition of his
> employment.


Are you kidding?!!,  a black officer being victimised - and the BPOA 
standing idly by?  LOL!

More chance of Santa bringing me that Ferrari that I keep asking him 
for, I think!

In message 
, Mel 
Rowing  writes

>
>There is no way of knowing whether Onwugbonu lied or not!
>
>The fact that a jury finds a defendant not guilty is not in itself
>proof that any witness lied.
>
>6 officers plus the alleged victim were in the van. 5 of them were
>charged the 6th. gave  evidence for the prosecution. It therefore
>boils down to the word of one "independent" witness against 5 for whom
>an acquittal was in their personal  interests.
>
>The jury were apparently  unable to resolve this dilemma and hence
>find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As instructed, they found not
>guilty.
>
>The question of Onwugbonu's testimony remains open. To charge him with
>an attempt to pervert the course it would have to be shown beyond
>reasonable doubt that he lied. A second jury would be presented with
>exactly the same dilemma with probably the same result.
>
>That is why Onwugbonu is unlikely to be so charged.

I had repeated experience of the TSG when I was in practice. In the 
light of that experience, I have no doubt at all that Onwugbonu was 
telling the truth. But I can understand why a jury without that prior 
experience would have sufficient doubt to acquit.
-- 
Richard Miller

In message , Ret. 
<xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>Nigel Oldfield wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, shaun.jameson.s...@ntlwolrd.com (Shaun) wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>>
>> Said the jury spokesperson...
>>
>> "We 'aint havin' no nigger putting down two of our boys".
>
>Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that 
>police officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries 
>(which is nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are 
>acquitted, all the police haters are still not satisfied and assume the 
>jury is thick or biased.
>
>The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you lot 
>would be satisfied with would be a lynch mob.
>

And what do you make of the fact that on this occasion it was a police 
officer who said that the police officers were behaving criminally?

What I would have expected to see on this group is support for a rare 
copper who was prepared to stand up and be counted rather than looking 
the other way while his colleagues were abusing their position and 
breaking the law.

The jury was entitled to reach their verdict. That does not mean that 
those officers acted lawfully.
-- 
Richard Miller

In message , FrereTuck 
 writes
>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:25:57 +0000, Shaun wrote:
>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>
>mr umbongo like in da congo...
>
>yeah, well you are welcome to fuck off back there...

Yeah, what's it coming to when our police aren't allowed to beat the 
crap out of anyone they like without these uppity foreigners demanding 
that they be called to account for it?
-- 
Richard Miller

On Nov 3, 10:49 pm, The gods have made us mad
 wrote:
> Mel Rowing wrote:

> >> Irrespective of the outcome of the rial, Omnimbomni will almost
> >> certainly now take extended 'sick leave', during which he will engage
> >> the services of the Black Plod's Association to press the matter of the
> >> racially motivated shunning that has taken place since Omnibomni
> >> courageously stood up against corrupt and racist fellow officers.
>
> > Why should he ?
>
> If you *really* need that explaining, then this discussion is truly lost!

> Suffice it to say, I very much doubt if Mr O is on many Christmas card
> lists this year...
>
>
>
> > He's not entitled to any recompense. He has not been damaged in any
> > way.
>
> You must be deliberately misunderstanding me, surely.

No you are being deliberately obtuse and can clearly add anything
further of substance to the discussion which is therefore at an end.

Richard Miller  wrote in news:b
$WTQioDKL8KFwCr@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:

> 
> I had repeated experience of the TSG when I was in practice.

Surely - when you were in practice you had repeated experience of assisting 
criminals caught by the TSG. Not quite the same thing. ;-)

Regards,

P

> In the 
> light of that experience, I have no doubt at all that Onwugbonu was 
> telling the truth. But I can understand why a jury without that prior 
> experience would have sufficient doubt to acquit.



-- 

Regards,


Periander

On Nov 3, 10:45 pm, Richard Miller 
wrote:

> >That is why Onwugbonu is unlikely to be so charged.
>
> I had repeated experience of the TSG when I was in practice. In the
> light of that experience, I have no doubt at all that Onwugbonu was
> telling the truth. But I can understand why a jury without that prior
> experience would have sufficient doubt to acquit.

But that inexperience is an integral part of the test of guilt or
innocence isn't it?

The accused does not have to prove his innocence. The prosecution has
to prove its case to the satisfaction of ordinary folk.

That's the very reason that we don't have juries made up of police
officers, lawyers or even judges.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:35:03 +0000, Harold 
wrote:

>Shaun wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>
>His version was almost certainly true. You can't account for juries
>
And if its true some foul mouthed yobs got a good slap.

Whats the problem ?

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:45:57 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that police 
>officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries (which is 
>nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are acquitted, all the 
>police haters are still not satisfied and assume the jury is thick or 
>biased.
>
>The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you lot would be 
>satisfied with would be a lynch mob.

Well, in this case, Kev, you have a binary choice as to what you want
to believe, because unlike most of the either/or questions *you* put
to the group, in this case it *is* a binary situation with no
plausible 3rd option.

Either the 5 officers behaved thuggishly and committed criminal
assault, or the single officer made a malicious allegation and
committed perjury.

So which of the two do you believe is the case?  Or can you dream up a
3rd option that will exonerate all of the officers?

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:14:51 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing
 wrote:

>That's the very reason that we don't have juries made up of police
>officers, lawyers or even judges.

Except that those people are no longer excluded - another Labour
"justice" initiative.

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:07:19 GMT, Periander
<ulm@.4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:

>> I had repeated experience of the TSG when I was in practice.

>Surely - when you were in practice you had repeated experience of assisting 
>criminals caught by the TSG. Not quite the same thing. ;-)

I expect he also assisted innocent suspects as well (though I realise
that you do not believe in such things).

Not that having a criminal conviction is any reason to think that a
person is more likely to tell lies than a police officer in any case.
They are just less likely to get away with it.

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:48:19 +0000, Richard Miller
 wrote:

>In message , Ret. 
><xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>Nigel Oldfield wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, shaun.jameson.s...@ntlwolrd.com (Shaun) wrote:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>>>
>>> Said the jury spokesperson...
>>>
>>> "We 'aint havin' no nigger putting down two of our boys".
>>
>>Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that 
>>police officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries 
>>(which is nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are 
>>acquitted, all the police haters are still not satisfied and assume the 
>>jury is thick or biased.
>>
>>The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you lot 
>>would be satisfied with would be a lynch mob.
>>
>
>And what do you make of the fact that on this occasion it was a police 
>officer who said that the police officers were behaving criminally?
>
>What I would have expected to see on this group is support for a rare 
>copper who was prepared to stand up and be counted rather than looking 
>the other way while his colleagues were abusing their position and 
>breaking the law.
>
Meanwhile in the real world:

No one cares if some mouthy yobs get a clip round the ear.

This would NEVER of come to court if the the wistleblower and the
alledged victims were White. Of course if the yobs were White and the
officers were Black it would be the yobs that were charged with a
racially aggravated offence.

In fact there should be no such thing a racially aggravated offence.
This is just adding an extra charge of thought crime to a physical
one.

To me this speaks volumes for the mentality of all concerned. These
big bad men in blue uniforms see a group of kids mouthing obscenities
at them, so instead of ignoring them they arrest them. Then when these
wankers face a bit of name calling themselves they start screaming
about racist oppression. What a total waste of human resources and
taxpayers' money.




On 3 Nov, 20:45, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Nigel Oldfield wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, shaun.jameson.s...@ntlwolrd.com (Shaun) wrote:
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>
> > Said the jury spokesperson...
>
> > "We 'aint havin' no nigger putting down two of our boys".
>
> Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that police
> officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries (which is
> nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are acquitted, all the
> police haters are still not satisfied and assume the jury is thick or
> biased.
>
> The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you lot would be
> satisfied with would be a lynch mob.
>
> Kev

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:14:51 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing
 wrote:

>On Nov 3, 10:45=A0pm, Richard Miller 
>wrote:
>
>> >That is why Onwugbonu is unlikely to be so charged.
>>
>> I had repeated experience of the TSG when I was in practice. In the
>> light of that experience, I have no doubt at all that Onwugbonu was
>> telling the truth. But I can understand why a jury without that prior
>> experience would have sufficient doubt to acquit.
>
>But that inexperience is an integral part of the test of guilt or
>innocence isn't it?
>
>The accused does not have to prove his innocence. The prosecution has
>to prove its case to the satisfaction of ordinary folk.
>
>That's the very reason that we don't have juries made up of police
>officers, lawyers or even judges.
>
Tell that to the magistrate

It doesn't take much courage when the worse that can happen is you
claim racism, get several weeks paid holiday and several grand in
cash.

Cynic  wrote in
news:j4g1f55o52q52n82cna31o07kih185rib8@4ax.com: 

> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:07:19 GMT, Periander
> <ulm@.4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>>> I had repeated experience of the TSG when I was in practice.
> 
>>Surely - when you were in practice you had repeated experience of
>>assisting criminals caught by the TSG. Not quite the same thing. ;-)
> 
> I expect he also assisted innocent suspects as well (though I realise
> that you do not believe in such things).

Really? I'd wager that there are a lot more innocent people wandering the 
streets without a stain to their character entirely due to me than you'd 
suppose.
 
> Not that having a criminal conviction is any reason to think that a
> person is more likely to tell lies than a police officer in any case.
> They are just less likely to get away with it.

Whatever

-- 

Regards,


Periander

Mel Rowing wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:33 pm, The gods have made us mad 
> wrote:
>> Shaun wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>> Brilliant news!  -  which goes to prove, once again, that a Jury is
>> essential in these matters.
>>
>> As for PC Ommibongo....er, Onnibomi...er   (hang on, I'll check the
>> spelling) Onwugbonu, I take it that he *will* be facing a charge of
>> attempting to pervert the course of justice?
> 
> There is no way of knowing whether Onwugbonu lied or not!
> 
> The fact that a jury finds a defendant not guilty is not in itself
> proof that any witness lied.
> 
> 6 officers plus the alleged victim were in the van. 5 of them were
> charged the 6th. gave  evidence for the prosecution. It therefore
> boils down to the word of one "independent" witness against 5 for whom
> an acquittal was in their personal  interests.
> 
> The jury were apparently  unable to resolve this dilemma and hence
> find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As instructed, they found not
> guilty.
> 
> The question of Onwugbonu's testimony remains open. To charge him with
> an attempt to pervert the course it would have to be shown beyond
> reasonable doubt that he lied. A second jury would be presented with
> exactly the same dilemma with probably the same result.
> 
> That is why Onwugbonu is unlikely to be so charged.

You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons were guilty.

But they were not guilty.

Mel Rowing  wrote in news:eace9489-59b7-4170-
ba5f-ade4a736d8d1@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com:

> 
> One other thing, if Omnibomni did have cause for grievance over this
> or any other matter, then he would not be represented by the BPOA Just
> like any other other Metropolitan Police Officer in similar
> circumstances 

I don't know, the BPA has a very good track record of protecting and 
defending criminals and malcontents based on only on their ethnicity.

> he would be advised and represented by the Metropolitan
> Police Federation of which he is a member as a condition of his
> employment.

No it's not, federation membership is entirely "opt in".

-- 

Regards,


Periander

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:45:23 +0000, Richard Miller
 wrote:

>In message 
>, Mel 
>Rowing  writes
>

>>6 officers plus the alleged victim were in the van. 5 of them were
>>charged the 6th. gave  evidence for the prosecution. It therefore
>>boils down to the word of one "independent" witness against 5 for whom
>>an acquittal was in their personal  interests.

Guilt is not proven because any number of people accused of something
claim innocence! What a stupid assertion you posted!

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:08:50 GMT, shaun.jameson.spam@ntlwolrd.com
(Shaun) wrote:

>
>It doesn't take much courage when the worse that can happen is you
>claim racism, get several weeks paid holiday and several grand in
>cash.

In the land of the deluded, that is courage!

"Periander" <ulm@.4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:Xns9CB96974AC6Dulmbritwarcouk@69.16.176.253...
> Mel Rowing  wrote in news:eace9489-59b7-4170-
> ba5f-ade4a736d8d1@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> One other thing, if Omnibomni did have cause for grievance over this
>> or any other matter, then he would not be represented by the BPOA Just
>> like any other other Metropolitan Police Officer in similar
>> circumstances
>
> I don't know, the BPA has a very good track record of protecting and
> defending criminals and malcontents based on only on their ethnicity.
>
Isn't that what the Police Federation do, apart from for black people who 
need their own protection?

"Mr X"  wrote in
news:hcqinu$l3i$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk: 

> 
> "Periander" <ulm@.4rubbish.britwar.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9CB96974AC6Dulmbritwarcouk@69.16.176.253...
>> Mel Rowing  wrote in
>> news:eace9489-59b7-4170- 
>> ba5f-ade4a736d8d1@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com: 
>>
>>>
>>> One other thing, if Omnibomni did have cause for grievance over this
>>> or any other matter, then he would not be represented by the BPOA
>>> Just like any other other Metropolitan Police Officer in similar
>>> circumstances
>>
>> I don't know, the BPA has a very good track record of protecting and
>> defending criminals and malcontents based on only on their ethnicity.
>>
> Isn't that what the Police Federation do, apart from for black people
> who need their own protection? 

Actually no, the federation as part of it's membership give access to 
legal services. This is provided by a third party entirely independent 
of the federation. The BPS have an entirely different system whereby 
anyone black is assumed innocent and anyone white is assumed to be a 
rabid racist and will put their own money in to proving the case.

Unsurprisingly quite a few black officers refuse to join the BPA.

-- 

Regards,


Periander

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:49:25 +0000, Richard Miller
 wrote:

>In message , FrereTuck 
> writes
>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:25:57 +0000, Shaun wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>>
>>mr umbongo like in da congo...
>>
>>yeah, well you are welcome to fuck off back there...
>
>Yeah, what's it coming to when our police aren't allowed to beat the 
>crap out of anyone they like without these uppity foreigners demanding 
>that they be called to account for it?

Mmm you have just set yourself up to be sued for slander and
defamation.  You'd better hope none of these fine officers get to read
your statement  - or else we look forward to seeing your case reported
here. They were found innocent remember! You seem to have forgotten
that already. Or do you only remember such things when there is a
colour aspect to it that is non-white? 

btw The whole thing was a complete waste of taxpayers money brought
about by the infestation of anti-white racist influences.

In message , Periander 
<ulm@?.4rubbish.britwar.co.uk.invalid> writes
>Richard Miller  wrote in news:b
>$WTQioDKL8KFwCr@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
>
>>
>> I had repeated experience of the TSG when I was in practice.
>
>Surely - when you were in practice you had repeated experience of assisting
>criminals caught by the TSG. Not quite the same thing. ;-)
>

One of the main cases I am thinking of is the mother of a young woman 
who created a disturbance due to mental illness. The mother regularly 
passed information to the police, and she was well liked and respected. 
Her friends among the regular police apologised to her for the fact 
that, despite being small, weak and terminally ill with cancer, she was 
sprayed with CS by TSG.
-- 
Richard Miller

In message , Shaun 
 writes
>
>It doesn't take much courage when the worse that can happen is you
>claim racism, get several weeks paid holiday and several grand in
>cash.

At the cost of the vocation you wanted to follow? No, I don't think that 
is a good deal at all.
-- 
Richard Miller

In message , JNugent 
 writes
>
>You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons were guilty.
>
>But they were not guilty.

Legally, yes. Factually, who knows?

I can never understand why people have trouble with that distinction.
-- 
Richard Miller

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , Ret.
> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>> Nigel Oldfield wrote:
>>> On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, shaun.jameson.s...@ntlwolrd.com (Shaun) wrote:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>>>
>>> Said the jury spokesperson...
>>>
>>> "We 'aint havin' no nigger putting down two of our boys".
>>
>> Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that
>> police officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries
>> (which is nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are
>> acquitted, all the police haters are still not satisfied and assume
>> the jury is thick or biased.
>>
>> The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you lot
>> would be satisfied with would be a lynch mob.
>>
>
> And what do you make of the fact that on this occasion it was a police
> officer who said that the police officers were behaving criminally?

Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim that all 
police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume that this particular 
officer is not?


>
> What I would have expected to see on this group is support for a rare
> copper who was prepared to stand up and be counted rather than looking
> the other way while his colleagues were abusing their position and
> breaking the law.

See above.
>
> The jury was entitled to reach their verdict. That does not mean that
> those officers acted lawfully.

Nor does it mean that they didn't.

Kev

On Nov 4, 12:41 am, jake  wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:45:23 퍍, Richard Miller
>
>  wrote:
> >In message
> >, Mel
> >Rowing  writes
>
> >>6 officers plus the alleged victim were in the van. 5 of them were
> >>charged the 6th. gave  evidence for the prosecution. It therefore
> >>boils down to the word of one "independent" witness against 5 for whom
> >>an acquittal was in their personal  interests.
>
> Guilt is not proven because any number of people accused of something
> claim innocence! What a stupid assertion you posted!

In the eyes of the jury which is what matters guilt clearly was not
proved. That's the very point. That's why the jury had to find "Not
guilty" whether O spoke the truth or not.

I was simply trying to give some impression of the problem the jury
was faced with.

"Richard Miller"  wrote in message 
news:T3eRSIuioS8KFwTJ@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message , JNugent 
>  writes
>>
>>You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons were 
>>guilty.
>>
>>But they were not guilty.
>
> Legally, yes. Factually, who knows?
>
> I can never understand why people have trouble with that distinction.

Because the distinction always becomes blurred in this group depending on 
who the accused was, or what occupation he had at the time.

On 3 Nov, 22:45, Richard Miller 
wrote:
> In message
> , Mel
> Rowing  writes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >There is no way of knowing whether Onwugbonu lied or not!
>
> >The fact that a jury finds a defendant not guilty is not in itself
> >proof that any witness lied.
>
> >6 officers plus the alleged victim were in the van. 5 of them were
> >charged the 6th. gave  evidence for the prosecution. It therefore
> >boils down to the word of one "independent" witness against 5 for whom
> >an acquittal was in their personal  interests.
>
> >The jury were apparently  unable to resolve this dilemma and hence
> >find guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As instructed, they found not
> >guilty.
>
> >The question of Onwugbonu's testimony remains open. To charge him with
> >an attempt to pervert the course it would have to be shown beyond
> >reasonable doubt that he lied. A second jury would be presented with
> >exactly the same dilemma with probably the same result.
>
> >That is why Onwugbonu is unlikely to be so charged.
>
> I had repeated experience of the TSG when I was in practice. In the
> light of that experience, I have no doubt at all that Onwugbonu was
> telling the truth. But I can understand why a jury without that prior
> experience would have sufficient doubt to acquit.

TSG = Special Patrol Group (for those of us with a memory long
enough ...)

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:58:25 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing
 wrote:

>On Nov 3, 10:49 pm, The gods have made us mad
> wrote:

>> You must be deliberately misunderstanding me, surely.

>No you are being deliberately obtuse and can clearly add anything
>further of substance to the discussion which is therefore at an end.

The one who's mental condition is the fault of the gods is quite right
and he shows far greater insight and understanding in this matter than
you do.

Constable BongoBongos life will now be a misery, but he does have an
ace up his sleeve, or rather in his pigmentation and it will not
surprise me if he is soon on sick leave and looking forwards to lorry
loads of compensation.

Svenne

Svenne wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:58:25 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 3, 10:49 pm, The gods have made us mad
>>  wrote:
> 
>>> You must be deliberately misunderstanding me, surely.
> 
>> No you are being deliberately obtuse and can clearly add anything
>> further of substance to the discussion which is therefore at an end.
> 
> The one who's mental condition is the fault of the gods is quite right
> and he shows far greater insight and understanding in this matter than
> you do.
> 
> Constable BongoBongos life will now be a misery, but he does have an
> ace up his sleeve, or rather in his pigmentation and it will not
> surprise me if he is soon on sick leave and looking forwards to lorry
> loads of compensation.

Oh get real.

They're coppers...

As soon as the complaint was made everyone's career was dead dead dead...

Everyone concerned will now probably be home on sick leave from stress 
and all will probably now be looking to retire on medical grounds on a 
full pension.

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:01:00 -0800 (PST), thedarkman
 wrote:

>To me this speaks volumes for the mentality of all concerned. These
>big bad men in blue uniforms see a group of kids mouthing obscenities
>at them, so instead of ignoring them they arrest them. Then when these
>wankers face a bit of name calling themselves they start screaming
>about racist oppression. What a total waste of human resources and
>taxpayers' money.

Behaviour that I might tolerate from an ignorant teenage schoolboy
would be completely unacceptable in a trained adult police officer.

Perhaps you would like the police to behave like adolescents?

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:49v2f513m1fmqfr199tc4ig1o92j70698t@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:01:00 -0800 (PST), thedarkman
>  wrote:
>
>>To me this speaks volumes for the mentality of all concerned. These
>>big bad men in blue uniforms see a group of kids mouthing obscenities
>>at them, so instead of ignoring them they arrest them. Then when these
>>wankers face a bit of name calling themselves they start screaming
>>about racist oppression. What a total waste of human resources and
>>taxpayers' money.
>
> Behaviour that I might tolerate from an ignorant teenage schoolboy
> would be completely unacceptable in a trained adult police officer.
>
> Perhaps you would like the police to behave like adolescents?

Yet if the Officer had sex with two schoolgirls, you'd be defending him.

On Nov 4, 1:05 pm, Svenne  wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:58:25 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing
>
>  wrote:
> >On Nov 3, 10:49 pm, The gods have made us mad
> > wrote:
> >> You must be deliberately misunderstanding me, surely.
> >No you are being deliberately obtuse and can clearly add anything
> >further of substance to the discussion which is therefore at an end.
>
> The one who's mental condition is the fault of the gods is quite right
> and he shows far greater insight and understanding in this matter than
> you do.
>
> Constable BongoBongos life will now be a misery, but he does have an
> ace up his sleeve, or rather in his pigmentation and it will not
> surprise me if he is soon on sick leave and looking forwards to lorry
> loads of compensation.

I think it can be taken for granted that he will be deployed to a
different relief. It can almost be taken for granted that the entire
TSG unit will be broken up. Both of those actions  would be sensible.

He is a trained police officer and is capable of duties other than
TSG.

Whether he leaves the MP or not will be a matter for him. There is no
reason why he should not seek employment with another force. It
happens all the time.

If he falls ill then he will be entitled to exactly the same
considerations that would be enjoyed by any other officer in
accordance with his his conditions of service.

If he becomes ill to the point that he is not able to continue his
police career then he will become entitled to be considered for
premature retirement just as would any other police officer in a
similar position. If it came to that he would have to go through all
sorts of checks, medical examinations etc.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that the award of a premature
pension has tax implications for persons under the age of 50. Pension
contributions are granted full tax relief only on condition that the
money is put to the purpose fro which it is intended. If it transpires
that anyone has unjustifiably been allowed premature access to is
pension before the age of 50 then all rebates on contributions become
payable plus interest. Similar considerations apply if a person leaves
pensionable employment and decides to withdraw his pension
contributions.

He will not receive any compensation since there is no reason why he
should. He has been a prosecution witness in a case that the CPS lost.
There is not a policeman in service who has not suffered that. When
you talk of compensation you are talking public money. Public money
has to be accounted for to public auditors. If therefore compensation
has to be paid, then it has to be on the basis of a court award or the
likelihood of such.

I don't know why you find it useful to make these weak bald points.
You know full well that nobody will ever be able to substantiate your
"forecast" We shall be unlikely ever to hear of O again.

You simply cannot resist a cheap shot!

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:42:39 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"
 wrote:

>> Behaviour that I might tolerate from an ignorant teenage schoolboy
>> would be completely unacceptable in a trained adult police officer.

>> Perhaps you would like the police to behave like adolescents?

>Yet if the Officer had sex with two schoolgirls, you'd be defending him. 

That appears to be the sort of thing that dominates your thoughts.
You come across as a disgusting pervert.

-- 
Cynic

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , JNugent
>  writes
>>
>> You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons were
>> guilty. But they were not guilty.
>
> Legally, yes. Factually, who knows?
>
> I can never understand why people have trouble with that distinction.

Neither can I, but many of these posts on this thread confirm everything I 
have argued during the many debates we have had on this NG about police 
shootings. People demand that officers be put on trial but, in fact, they 
will never ever be satisfied because even if the officers are found NG, then 
they wont accept the result!

Kev

Cynic wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:45:57 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>> Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that
>> police officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries
>> (which is nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are
>> acquitted, all the police haters are still not satisfied and assume
>> the jury is thick or biased.
>>
>> The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you lot
>> would be satisfied with would be a lynch mob.
>
> Well, in this case, Kev, you have a binary choice as to what you want
> to believe, because unlike most of the either/or questions *you* put
> to the group, in this case it *is* a binary situation with no
> plausible 3rd option.
>
> Either the 5 officers behaved thuggishly and committed criminal
> assault, or the single officer made a malicious allegation and
> committed perjury.
>
> So which of the two do you believe is the case?  Or can you dream up a
> 3rd option that will exonerate all of the officers?

The jury have heard all the evidence and clearly decided that they did not 
believe the evidence given by the coloured officer.

Kev

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , FrereTuck
>  writes
>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:25:57 +0000, Shaun wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>>
>> mr umbongo like in da congo...
>>
>> yeah, well you are welcome to fuck off back there...
>
> Yeah, what's it coming to when our police aren't allowed to beat the
> crap out of anyone they like without these uppity foreigners demanding
> that they be called to account for it?

Which officers are these? I thought they had been found not guilty of the 
allegations?

Kev

Richard Miller wrote:

> In message , Shaun
>  writes
> > 
> > It doesn't take much courage when the worse that can happen is you
> > claim racism, get several weeks paid holiday and several grand in
> > cash.
> 
> At the cost of the vocation you wanted to follow? No, I don't think
> that is a good deal at all.

How do you know it is a vocation he wants to follow? Do you know the
guy, or are you assuming "every" copper wants to continue doing the job?

--

Ret. wrote:

> Richard Miller wrote:
> > In message , JNugent
> > writes
> > > 
> > > You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons
> > > were guilty. But they were not guilty.
> > 
> > Legally, yes. Factually, who knows?
> > 
> > I can never understand why people have trouble with that
> > distinction.
> 
> Neither can I, but many of these posts on this thread confirm
> everything I have argued during the many debates we have had on this
> NG about police shootings. People demand that officers be put on
> trial but, in fact, they will never ever be satisfied because even if
> the officers are found NG, then they wont accept the result!

Because they are never taken to court?
All they are asking is that plod are treated the same as civvies.


--

Harold wrote:

> Shaun wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
> 
> His version was almost certainly true. You can't account for juries

Almost certainly? I wonder why the courts bother, they should just ask
you after giving you a few short sentences about the case.



--

joe parkin wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>> In message , JNugent
>>>  writes
>>>>
>>>> You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons
>>>> were guilty. But they were not guilty.
>>>
>>> Legally, yes. Factually, who knows?
>>>
>>> I can never understand why people have trouble with that
>>> distinction.
>>
>> Neither can I, but many of these posts on this thread confirm
>> everything I have argued during the many debates we have had on this
>> NG about police shootings. People demand that officers be put on
>> trial but, in fact, they will never ever be satisfied because even if
>> the officers are found NG, then they wont accept the result!
>
> Because they are never taken to court?
> All they are asking is that plod are treated the same as civvies.

And they have been in this case, and they have been found not guilty, but 
are the police haters satisfied?

Kev

joe parkin wrote:
> Harold wrote:
> 
>> Shaun wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>> His version was almost certainly true. You can't account for juries
> 
> Almost certainly? I wonder why the courts bother, they should just ask
> you after giving you a few short sentences about the case.
> 
> 
> 
Well put SIR well put:-)

In message 
, Mel 
Rowing  writes
>On Nov 3, 10:45 pm, Richard Miller 
>wrote:
>
>> >That is why Onwugbonu is unlikely to be so charged.
>>
>> I had repeated experience of the TSG when I was in practice. In the
>> light of that experience, I have no doubt at all that Onwugbonu was
>> telling the truth. But I can understand why a jury without that prior
>> experience would have sufficient doubt to acquit.
>
>But that inexperience is an integral part of the test of guilt or
>innocence isn't it?

Not convinced. Is the prosecution's case plausible? If you think the TSG 
are decent coppers, you might think so. If like me you know that they 
are frequently accused by people with no axe to grind of being a bunch 
of violent thugs, you might not. Why is it improper for the jury to know 
that, far from being the aberration they wrongly believe it to be, the 
defendant's behaviour is par for the course?

I would like to know why this officer's previous was not put to the 
jury, given that in most cases now, the police and prosecution seek to 
have such material put before the jury.

>
>The accused does not have to prove his innocence. The prosecution has
>to prove its case to the satisfaction of ordinary folk.
>
>That's the very reason that we don't have juries made up of police
>officers, lawyers or even judges.
>

Except we do now.
-- 
Richard Miller

In message , Ret. 
<xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>Richard Miller wrote:
>> In message , Ret.
>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>> Nigel Oldfield wrote:
>>>> On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, shaun.jameson.s...@ntlwolrd.com (Shaun) wrote:
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>>>>
>>>> Said the jury spokesperson...
>>>>
>>>> "We 'aint havin' no nigger putting down two of our boys".
>>>
>>> Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that
>>> police officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries
>>> (which is nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are
>>> acquitted, all the police haters are still not satisfied and assume
>>> the jury is thick or biased.
>>>
>>> The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you lot
>>> would be satisfied with would be a lynch mob.
>>>
>>
>> And what do you make of the fact that on this occasion it was a police
>> officer who said that the police officers were behaving criminally?
>
>Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim that all 
>police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume that this 
>particular officer is not?

Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of their 
behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from people with no 
axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to me. The defendant's is 
not.
-- 
Richard Miller

On Nov 4, 7:19 pm, Richard Miller 
wrote:

> I would like to know why this officer's previous was not put to the
> jury, given that in most cases now, the police and prosecution seek to
> have such material put before the jury.

First AIUI the officer concerned never faced previous charges in
connection with Babar Ahmad incident.

Second is it not a rule in court that the prosecution should not
attempt to discredit a defendant by reference to his past  reputation
unless the defence attempts to discredit a prosecution witness ?

In message 
, Mel 
Rowing  writes
>On Nov 4, 7:19 pm, Richard Miller 
>wrote:
>
>> I would like to know why this officer's previous was not put to the
>> jury, given that in most cases now, the police and prosecution seek to
>> have such material put before the jury.
>
>First AIUI the officer concerned never faced previous charges in
>connection with Babar Ahmad incident.

That is irrelevant. It was clear evidence of bad character.

>
>Second is it not a rule in court that the prosecution should not
>attempt to discredit a defendant by reference to his past  reputation
>unless the defence attempts to discredit a prosecution witness ?

No. That rule was abolished a few years ago.
-- 
Richard Miller

On 4 Nov, 19:21, Richard Miller 
wrote:
> In message , Ret.
> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >Richard Miller wrote:
> >> In message , Ret.
> >> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
> >>> Nigel Oldfield wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, shaun.jameson.s...@ntlwolrd.com (Shaun) wrote:
> >>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>
> >>>> Said the jury spokesperson...
>
> >>>> "We 'aint havin' no nigger putting down two of our boys".
>
> >>> Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that
> >>> police officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries
> >>> (which is nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are
> >>> acquitted, all the police haters are still not satisfied and assume
> >>> the jury is thick or biased.
>
> >>> The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you lot
> >>> would be satisfied with would be a lynch mob.
>
> >> And what do you make of the fact that on this occasion it was a police
> >> officer who said that the police officers were behaving criminally?
>
> >Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim that all
> >police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume that this
> >particular officer is not?
>
> Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of their
> behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from people with no
> axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to me. The defendant's is
> not.
> --
> Richard Miller- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The TSG was the result of a rebranding of the notorious SPG - "Special
Patrol Group", who basically roamed London in their Transits and meted
out ferocious "justice" where they felt it was needed. It got so bad,
it became a national joke (for those who have ever watched "the young
ones" and wondered why Vivan called his pet hamster "SPG", you now
know the joke ...).

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:6fff4da6-8e43-4fb3-9596-a2a7a05e0282@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> The TSG was the result of a rebranding of the notorious SPG - "Special
> Patrol Group", who basically roamed London in their Transits and meted
> out ferocious "justice" where they felt it was needed. It got so bad,
> it became a national joke (for those who have ever watched "the young
> ones" and wondered why Vivan called his pet hamster "SPG", you now
> know the joke ...).
>
Mostly it involved beating up black men, didn't it?

On 5 Nov, 10:09, "Mr X"  wrote:
> "Jethro"  wrote in message
>
> news:6fff4da6-8e43-4fb3-9596-a2a7a05e0282@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...> The TSG was the result of a rebranding of the notorious SPG - "Special
> > Patrol Group", who basically roamed London in their Transits and meted
> > out ferocious "justice" where they felt it was needed. It got so bad,
> > it became a national joke (for those who have ever watched "the young
> > ones" and wondered why Vivan called his pet hamster "SPG", you now
> > know the joke ...).
>
> Mostly it involved beating up black men, didn't it?

Constable savage ....

"Jethro"  wrote in message 
news:d86bf6cf-6535-4bca-9a80-ffc3695ab177@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Nov, 10:09, "Mr X"  wrote:
>> "Jethro"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:6fff4da6-8e43-4fb3-9596-a2a7a05e0282@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...> 
>> The TSG was the result of a rebranding of the notorious SPG - "Special
>> > Patrol Group", who basically roamed London in their Transits and meted
>> > out ferocious "justice" where they felt it was needed. It got so bad,
>> > it became a national joke (for those who have ever watched "the young
>> > ones" and wondered why Vivan called his pet hamster "SPG", you now
>> > know the joke ...).
>>
>> Mostly it involved beating up black men, didn't it?
>
> Constable savage ....
I think I remember that sketch.  Was it the one with the black lad having a 
driving lesson and the PC racially abusing him?

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , Ret. 
> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>> In message , Ret.
>>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>> Nigel Oldfield wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 3, 8:25 pm, shaun.jameson.s...@ntlwolrd.com (Shaun) wrote:
>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> Said the jury spokesperson...
>>>>>
>>>>> "We 'aint havin' no nigger putting down two of our boys".
>>>>
>>>> Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that
>>>> police officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries
>>>> (which is nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are
>>>> acquitted, all the police haters are still not satisfied and assume
>>>> the jury is thick or biased.
>>>>
>>>> The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you lot
>>>> would be satisfied with would be a lynch mob.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And what do you make of the fact that on this occasion it was a police
>>> officer who said that the police officers were behaving criminally?
>>
>> Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim that all 
>> police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume that this 
>> particular officer is not?
> 
> Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of their 
> behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from people with no 
> axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to me. The defendant's is 
> not.

So you choose to work from  basis of pure prejudice, rather than treating 
cases on their merits.

Do you apply that to all cases, or just those involving the police?

Richard Miller wrote:

> JNugent  writes:

>> You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons were 
>> guilty.
>> But they were not guilty.

> Legally, yes. Factually, who knows?

The jury?

"Legally not guilty" is merely a different way of saying that the jury think 
they didn't do it (ie, that they were factually not guilty).

> I can never understand why people have trouble with that distinction.

Funny you should say that.

Cynic wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:01:00 -0800 (PST), thedarkman
>  wrote:
> 
>> To me this speaks volumes for the mentality of all concerned. These
>> big bad men in blue uniforms see a group of kids mouthing obscenities
>> at them, so instead of ignoring them they arrest them. Then when these
>> wankers face a bit of name calling themselves they start screaming
>> about racist oppression. What a total waste of human resources and
>> taxpayers' money.
> 
> Behaviour that I might tolerate from an ignorant teenage schoolboy
> would be completely unacceptable in a trained adult police officer.

Behaviour I might not challenge from an ignorant teenage schoolboy (for 
various reasons) might well be exactly what I *expect* the police to challenge.

It's what we pay them for.

In message <hcua3s$qgp$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>, Mr X 
 writes
>
>"Jethro"  wrote in message
>news:d86bf6cf-6535-4bca-9a80-ffc3695ab177@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On 5 Nov, 10:09, "Mr X"  wrote:
>>> "Jethro"  wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:6fff4da6-8e43-4fb3-9596-a2a7a05e0282@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...>
>>> The TSG was the result of a rebranding of the notorious SPG - "Special
>>> > Patrol Group", who basically roamed London in their Transits and meted
>>> > out ferocious "justice" where they felt it was needed. It got so bad,
>>> > it became a national joke (for those who have ever watched "the young
>>> > ones" and wondered why Vivan called his pet hamster "SPG", you now
>>> > know the joke ...).
>>>
>>> Mostly it involved beating up black men, didn't it?
>>
>> Constable savage ....
>I think I remember that sketch.  Was it the one with the black lad having a
>driving lesson and the PC racially abusing him?
>
No.
Until recently, the 'Not the Nine o'Clock News' classic "Constable 
Savage" sketch was on YouTube. It now seems to have been removed. 
However, it is still available here:
<http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=201
4034509>
-- 
Ian

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:36:21 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>The jury have heard all the evidence and clearly decided that they did not 
>believe the evidence given by the coloured officer.

They were not convinced BRD that it was the truth - which is not
*quite* the same thing.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:36:21 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>> The jury have heard all the evidence and clearly decided that they
>> did not believe the evidence given by the coloured officer.
>
> They were not convinced BRD that it was the truth - which is not
> *quite* the same thing.

As you know, I have often remarked that I have no faith in the UK justice 
system. It is a game played between solicitors. The number of clearly guilty 
drivers who get away with things after consulting Nick Freeman is a perfect 
example. He doesn't get them off because they are innocent - he gets them 
off because he finds a loophole in the law to exploit. The whole system is a 
joke quite frankly.

Kev

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:17:10 +0000, JNugent
 wrote:

>"Legally not guilty" is merely a different way of saying that the jury think 
>they didn't do it (ie, that they were factually not guilty).

No, it really doesn't mean that at all.

A jury may well believe that the defendent probably is guilty, yet
still deliver a verdict of "not guilty" because they are not *certain
beyond reasonable doubt* of his guilt.

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:22:28 +0000, JNugent
 wrote:

>>> To me this speaks volumes for the mentality of all concerned. These
>>> big bad men in blue uniforms see a group of kids mouthing obscenities
>>> at them, so instead of ignoring them they arrest them. Then when these
>>> wankers face a bit of name calling themselves they start screaming
>>> about racist oppression. What a total waste of human resources and
>>> taxpayers' money.
>> 
>> Behaviour that I might tolerate from an ignorant teenage schoolboy
>> would be completely unacceptable in a trained adult police officer.
>
>Behaviour I might not challenge from an ignorant teenage schoolboy (for 
>various reasons) might well be exactly what I *expect* the police to challenge.

Challenge, sure.  But not emulate.

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:42:41 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>Cynic wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:36:21 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> The jury have heard all the evidence and clearly decided that they
>>> did not believe the evidence given by the coloured officer.
>>
>> They were not convinced BRD that it was the truth - which is not
>> *quite* the same thing.
>
>As you know, I have often remarked that I have no faith in the UK justice 
>system. It is a game played between solicitors. The number of clearly guilty 
>drivers who get away with things after consulting Nick Freeman is a perfect 
>example. He doesn't get them off because they are innocent - he gets them 
>off because he finds a loophole in the law to exploit. The whole system is a 
>joke quite frankly.
>

Yet you are happy for anyone other than a police officer to be subject
to the system you think is a joke

Cynic wrote:

> "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>> The jury have heard all the evidence and clearly decided that they did not 
>> believe the evidence given by the coloured officer.

> They were not convinced BRD that it was the truth - which is not
> *quite* the same thing.

A. They weren't convinced it was the truth.

B. They didn't believe it.

Spot the difference (if there is one).

Ret. wrote:

> Cynic wrote:
>> "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>>> The jury have heard all the evidence and clearly decided that they
>>> did not believe the evidence given by the coloured officer.

>> They were not convinced BRD that it was the truth - which is not
>> *quite* the same thing.

> As you know, I have often remarked that I have no faith in the UK 
> justice system. It is a game played between solicitors. The number of 
> clearly guilty drivers who get away with things after consulting Nick 
> Freeman is a perfect example. He doesn't get them off because they are 
> innocent - he gets them off because he finds a loophole in the law to 
> exploit. The whole system is a joke quite frankly.

I agree with your last sentence.

Motoring law (in its full breadth, including parking and C&U regulations) is 
so complicated - and, frankly, so bureaucratically oppressive - that even an 
individual who does his/her best to keep within the law cannot help the 
occasional infraction. That cannot be right.

Law that makes offenders out of people who are generally trying not to commit 
offences *is* a "joke" (played on the general public). And given that 
motoring law is so technical (deliberately so in order to give little leeway 
for a NG verdict, even where there was no intent to transgress and none could 
ever be shown), it seems entirely fitting that finding "loopholes" in the law 
(pointing out that the law doesn't actually people think it says) is a 
transparent blow for liberty.

If my livelihood and the welfare of my family were threatened, I would seek 
the assistance of someone like Mr Freeman. And so would you if yours were.

"JNugent"  wrote in message 
news:0qqdnVoDDrdh_m7XnZ2dnUVZ7oVi4p2d@pipex.net...
> Cynic wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:17:10 +0000, JNugent
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> "Legally not guilty" is merely a different way of saying that the jury 
>>> think they didn't do it (ie, that they were factually not guilty).
>>
>> No, it really doesn't mean that at all.
>>
>> A jury may well believe that the defendent probably is guilty, yet
>> still deliver a verdict of "not guilty" because they are not *certain
>> beyond reasonable doubt* of his guilt.
>
> You are assuming that. You cannot know it.
>
> All you can know is that they don't think he did it (maybe by a majority).
No.
What Cynic said is the only way to interpret it.  I personally think that 
most defendants in criminal cases are guilty.  However, I'm not sure that 
they are all BRD (certainly they weren't in the cases I've seen in court, 
although I still believe they probably were guilty).

Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:17:10 +0000, JNugent
>  wrote:
> 
>> "Legally not guilty" is merely a different way of saying that the jury think 
>> they didn't do it (ie, that they were factually not guilty).
> 
> No, it really doesn't mean that at all.
> 
> A jury may well believe that the defendent probably is guilty, yet
> still deliver a verdict of "not guilty" because they are not *certain
> beyond reasonable doubt* of his guilt.

You are assuming that. You cannot know it.

All you can know is that they don't think he did it (maybe by a majority).

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:47:08 +0000, JNugent
 wrote:

>Cynic wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:17:10 +0000, JNugent
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> "Legally not guilty" is merely a different way of saying that the jury think 
>>> they didn't do it (ie, that they were factually not guilty).
>> 
>> No, it really doesn't mean that at all.
>> 
>> A jury may well believe that the defendent probably is guilty, yet
>> still deliver a verdict of "not guilty" because they are not *certain
>> beyond reasonable doubt* of his guilt.
>
>You are assuming that. You cannot know it.
>
>All you can know is that they don't think he did it (maybe by a majority).

Or that the prosecution had not proved their case BRD. 
I know of a case where the jury thought it probable the defendant was
guilty but the prosecution had made such a hash of the case there was
doubt enough to bring in a not guilty verdict. It happens. Sometimes
the guilty go free and sometimes the innocent suffer. The system isn't
perfect. 

However that is immaterial in this particular case since the doubts
about the verdict only surfaced after the accused's previous record
became public.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:42:41 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>As you know, I have often remarked that I have no faith in the UK justice 
>system. It is a game played between solicitors. The number of clearly guilty 
>drivers who get away with things after consulting Nick Freeman is a perfect 
>example. He doesn't get them off because they are innocent - he gets them 
>off because he finds a loophole in the law to exploit. The whole system is a 
>joke quite frankly.

You cannot compare absolute offences with any other type of crime.
IMO absolute offences should not exist, because any criminal act
should involve either deliberate intent or unreasonable carelessness
or recklessness.  Speeding and the like could be fined *outside* the
criminal system, just as companies are fined for breaking certain
rules.  Grossly inappropriate speeding could be charged as dangerous
or reckless driving, where intent is required.

When the lawbreaking itself involves technicalities rather than
anything highly likely to cause harm to others, it is quite right that
the prosecution must show that the smallest detail necessary to make
out the offence is present.

YWF that in the UK, technical defences do not work with non-absolute
offences, and that very glaring and deliberate rule-breaking by the
authoroties is ignored by the court.

-- 
Cynic

AlanG wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:42:41 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>> Cynic wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:36:21 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The jury have heard all the evidence and clearly decided that they
>>>> did not believe the evidence given by the coloured officer.
>>>
>>> They were not convinced BRD that it was the truth - which is not
>>> *quite* the same thing.
>>
>> As you know, I have often remarked that I have no faith in the UK
>> justice system. It is a game played between solicitors. The number
>> of clearly guilty drivers who get away with things after consulting
>> Nick Freeman is a perfect example. He doesn't get them off because
>> they are innocent - he gets them off because he finds a loophole in
>> the law to exploit. The whole system is a joke quite frankly.
>>
>
> Yet you are happy for anyone other than a police officer to be subject
> to the system you think is a joke.

No I'm not actually. I'm not happy for *anyone* to go through a system that 
is so deeply flawed that the chances of real justice are a lottery.

Kev

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 18:02:55 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>AlanG wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:42:41 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:36:21 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The jury have heard all the evidence and clearly decided that they
>>>>> did not believe the evidence given by the coloured officer.
>>>>
>>>> They were not convinced BRD that it was the truth - which is not
>>>> *quite* the same thing.
>>>
>>> As you know, I have often remarked that I have no faith in the UK
>>> justice system. It is a game played between solicitors. The number
>>> of clearly guilty drivers who get away with things after consulting
>>> Nick Freeman is a perfect example. He doesn't get them off because
>>> they are innocent - he gets them off because he finds a loophole in
>>> the law to exploit. The whole system is a joke quite frankly.
>>>
>>
>> Yet you are happy for anyone other than a police officer to be subject
>> to the system you think is a joke.
>
>No I'm not actually. I'm not happy for *anyone* to go through a system that 
>is so deeply flawed that the chances of real justice are a lottery.
>
Yet you spent your career putting people through it. 

FWIW I think the justice system *was* heading towards being one of the
fairest and best in the world but is now after the interferences from
the last 30 years of government heading to the  level of some third
world dictatorship. In Europe even France seems a better hole to go
to.

AlanG wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 18:02:55 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>> AlanG wrote:
>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:42:41 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:36:21 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The jury have heard all the evidence and clearly decided that
>>>>>> they did not believe the evidence given by the coloured officer.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were not convinced BRD that it was the truth - which is not
>>>>> *quite* the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> As you know, I have often remarked that I have no faith in the UK
>>>> justice system. It is a game played between solicitors. The number
>>>> of clearly guilty drivers who get away with things after consulting
>>>> Nick Freeman is a perfect example. He doesn't get them off because
>>>> they are innocent - he gets them off because he finds a loophole in
>>>> the law to exploit. The whole system is a joke quite frankly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet you are happy for anyone other than a police officer to be
>>> subject to the system you think is a joke.
>>
>> No I'm not actually. I'm not happy for *anyone* to go through a
>> system that is so deeply flawed that the chances of real justice are
>> a lottery.
>>
> Yet you spent your career putting people through it.
>
> FWIW I think the justice system *was* heading towards being one of the
> fairest and best in the world but is now after the interferences from
> the last 30 years of government heading to the  level of some third
> world dictatorship. In Europe even France seems a better hole to go
> to.

I have always thought our justice system was flawed, from my very early 
experiences of it. I can remember when drunk drivers were getting off 
because the legislation referred to a 'police officer in uniform' having to 
adminster the breath test - and some case deciding that a police officer who 
was in full uniform - but not wearing his cap - was not in fact in uniform.

When guilty people get off for ludicrous loopholes like that - then no-one 
can call it justice.

When guilt is decided, not on whether the driver was drunk, or had been 
driving while drunk, but because the 'letter of the law' required a police 
officer to be wearing his cap, then the whole system becomes a joke.  I 
wonder if a drunk driver could have got off because an officer had put on 
brown socks in the morning rather than his regulation black socks? It would 
be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Kev

In message , JNugent 
 writes
>Richard Miller wrote:
>
>> JNugent  writes:
>
>>> You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons were 
>>>guilty.
>>> But they were not guilty.
>
>> Legally, yes. Factually, who knows?
>
>The jury?

Nope. They know the evidence they heard. They didn't know at the time 
they reached their verdict that this plod had a record of similar racist 
assaults in the past, which heavily tips the balance against him being 
factually innocent.
-- 
Richard Miller

In message , JNugent 
 writes
>Richard Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim that 
>>>all police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume that this 
>>>particular officer is not?
>>  Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of their 
>>behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from people with 
>>axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to me. The defendant's 
>>is not.
>
>So you choose to work from  basis of pure prejudice, rather than 
>treating cases on their merits.

I use my pre-existing knowledge to help me decide where truth lies. If 
you do not do that, it is not possible to function in the real world.
-- 
Richard Miller

In message , Ret. 
<xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>AlanG wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Yet you are happy for anyone other than a police officer to be subject
>> to the system you think is a joke.
>
>No I'm not actually. I'm not happy for *anyone* to go through a system 
>that is so deeply flawed that the chances of real justice are a lottery.
>

So what would you replace it with? People being convicted based on the 
police having investigated and decided they are guilty?
-- 
Richard Miller

In message , Ret. 
<xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>AlanG wrote:
>>>
>> Yet you spent your career putting people through it.
>>
>> FWIW I think the justice system *was* heading towards being one of the
>> fairest and best in the world but is now after the interferences from
>> the last 30 years of government heading to the  level of some third
>> world dictatorship. In Europe even France seems a better hole to go
>> to.
>
>I have always thought our justice system was flawed, from my very early 
>experiences of it. I can remember when drunk drivers were getting off 
>because the legislation referred to a 'police officer in uniform' 
>having to adminster the breath test - and some case deciding that a 
>police officer who was in full uniform - but not wearing his cap - was 
>not in fact in uniform.
>
>When guilty people get off for ludicrous loopholes like that - then 
>no-one can call it justice.

That result came about for good reasons. Cynic has already outlined one. 
Here are a couple of others.

The police have the right to interfere in people's lives and deny them 
their freedoms, up to and including killing them. To require them to 
comply very precisely with all rules when interfering in people's lives 
is entirely reasonable for two reasons. First, it helps to ensure that 
the police do not overstep the bounds by treating laws applying to them 
as optional. Secondly, it enables the individual to be (reasonably) sure 
that the person who is interfering with their freedoms is a genuine 
police officer.
-- 
Richard Miller

In message , JNugent 
 writes
>Cynic wrote:
>
>> "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>>> The jury have heard all the evidence and clearly decided that they 
>>>did not  believe the evidence given by the coloured officer.
>
>> They were not convinced BRD that it was the truth - which is not
>> *quite* the same thing.
>
>A. They weren't convinced it was the truth.
>
>B. They didn't believe it.
>
>Spot the difference (if there is one).

Blimey! Are you seriously claiming you *can't* see a difference between 
the two?

<Imagines Victor Meldrew saying "I am not convinced it is the truth>
-- 
Richard Miller

Ret. wrote:
> Cynic wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:36:21 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> The jury have heard all the evidence and clearly decided that they
>>> did not believe the evidence given by the coloured officer.
>>
>> They were not convinced BRD that it was the truth - which is not
>> *quite* the same thing.
> 
> As you know, I have often remarked that I have no faith in the UK 
> justice system. It is a game played between solicitors. The number of 
> clearly guilty drivers who get away with things after consulting Nick 
> Freeman is a perfect example. He doesn't get them off because they are 
> innocent - he gets them off because he finds a loophole in the law to 
> exploit. The whole system is a joke quite frankly.
> 

It depends on what you view the purpose of the justice system is. If you 
regard its purpose as to correctly attribute absolute objective guilt or 
innocence you are probably correct.

If you see the justice system as a tool to positively influence the 
society we live in you probably aren't correct.

For what it is worth I feel that both police corruption and motor 
offences are particular areas that would benefit from increased general 
population monitoring, using reliable and trustworthy evidence gathering 
mechanisms. Unfortunately both the police and motoring organisations are 
bitterly opposed to this.

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , Ret.
> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>> AlanG wrote:
>>>>
>>> Yet you spent your career putting people through it.
>>>
>>> FWIW I think the justice system *was* heading towards being one of
>>> the fairest and best in the world but is now after the
>>> interferences from the last 30 years of government heading to the level 
>>> of some third world dictatorship. In Europe even France seems
>>> a better hole to go to.
>>
>> I have always thought our justice system was flawed, from my very
>> early experiences of it. I can remember when drunk drivers were
>> getting off because the legislation referred to a 'police officer in
>> uniform' having to adminster the breath test - and some case
>> deciding that a police officer who was in full uniform - but not
>> wearing his cap - was not in fact in uniform.
>>
>> When guilty people get off for ludicrous loopholes like that - then
>> no-one can call it justice.
>
> That result came about for good reasons. Cynic has already outlined
> one. Here are a couple of others.
>
> The police have the right to interfere in people's lives and deny them
> their freedoms, up to and including killing them. To require them to
> comply very precisely with all rules when interfering in people's
> lives is entirely reasonable for two reasons. First, it helps to
> ensure that the police do not overstep the bounds by treating laws
> applying to them as optional. Secondly, it enables the individual to
> be (reasonably) sure that the person who is interfering with their
> freedoms is a genuine police officer.

Then why, very shortly after these ludicrous incidents, was it further 
decided that lack of cap did *not* invalidate a breath test?

Kev

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , Ret.
> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>> AlanG wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet you are happy for anyone other than a police officer to be
>>> subject to the system you think is a joke.
>>
>> No I'm not actually. I'm not happy for *anyone* to go through a
>> system that is so deeply flawed that the chances of real justice are
>> a lottery.
>
> So what would you replace it with? People being convicted based on the
> police having investigated and decided they are guilty?

Of course not - but a little more common sense in the justice system might 
go a long way to improving things.

Kev

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:38:55 +0000, Richard Miller
 wrote:

>In message , JNugent 
> writes
>>Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim that 
>>>>all police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume that this 
>>>>particular officer is not?
>>>  Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of their 
>>>behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from people with 
>>>axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to me. The defendant's 
>>>is not.
>>
>>So you choose to work from  basis of pure prejudice, rather than 
>>treating cases on their merits.
>
>I use my pre-existing knowledge to help me decide where truth lies. If 
>you do not do that, it is not possible to function in the real world.

Comment in today's Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/06/police-tsg-compaints-procedure-ipcc

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:39:54 +0000, Richard Miller
 wrote:

>In message , Ret. 
><xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>AlanG wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet you are happy for anyone other than a police officer to be subject
>>> to the system you think is a joke.
>>
>>No I'm not actually. I'm not happy for *anyone* to go through a system 
>>that is so deeply flawed that the chances of real justice are a lottery.
>>
>
>So what would you replace it with? People being convicted based on the 
>police having investigated and decided they are guilty?

You mean that isn't how it happens now?

In message , Ret. 
<xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>Richard Miller wrote:
>> In message , Ret.
>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>> AlanG wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Yet you spent your career putting people through it.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW I think the justice system *was* heading towards being one of
>>>> the fairest and best in the world but is now after the
>>>> interferences from the last 30 years of government heading to the 
>>>>level  of some third world dictatorship. In Europe even France seems
>>>> a better hole to go to.
>>>
>>> I have always thought our justice system was flawed, from my very
>>> early experiences of it. I can remember when drunk drivers were
>>> getting off because the legislation referred to a 'police officer in
>>> uniform' having to adminster the breath test - and some case
>>> deciding that a police officer who was in full uniform - but not
>>> wearing his cap - was not in fact in uniform.
>>>
>>> When guilty people get off for ludicrous loopholes like that - then
>>> no-one can call it justice.
>>
>> That result came about for good reasons. Cynic has already outlined
>> one. Here are a couple of others.
>>
>> The police have the right to interfere in people's lives and deny them
>> their freedoms, up to and including killing them. To require them to
>> comply very precisely with all rules when interfering in people's
>> lives is entirely reasonable for two reasons. First, it helps to
>> ensure that the police do not overstep the bounds by treating laws
>> applying to them as optional. Secondly, it enables the individual to
>> be (reasonably) sure that the person who is interfering with their
>> freedoms is a genuine police officer.
>
>Then why, very shortly after these ludicrous incidents, was it further 
>decided that lack of cap did *not* invalidate a breath test?
>

You are confusing two questions.

The first question is, what are the rules? Once we have an answer to 
that question, we know what the police must comply with, and the 
reasoning above applies.

The second question is, what should the rules be? Evidently, in this 
instance, someone decided that the answer to this question was different 
from the answer to the first question, and changed them accordingly. All 
of the above now applies with equal force to the new rules.
-- 
Richard Miller

In message , Ret. 
<xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>Richard Miller wrote:
>> In message , Ret.
>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>> AlanG wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yet you are happy for anyone other than a police officer to be
>>>> subject to the system you think is a joke.
>>>
>>> No I'm not actually. I'm not happy for *anyone* to go through a
>>> system that is so deeply flawed that the chances of real justice are
>>> a lottery.
>>
>> So what would you replace it with? People being convicted based on the
>> police having investigated and decided they are guilty?
>
>Of course not - but a little more common sense in the justice system 
>might go a long way to improving things.
>

Vague platitudes like that are pathetic after you have said 
categorically you are not happy for anyone to go through our current 
system.

What would you replace it with?
-- 
Richard Miller

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , Ret.
> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>> In message , Ret.
>>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>> AlanG wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you spent your career putting people through it.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW I think the justice system *was* heading towards being one of
>>>>> the fairest and best in the world but is now after the
>>>>> interferences from the last 30 years of government heading to the
>>>>> level  of some third world dictatorship. In Europe even France
>>>>> seems a better hole to go to.
>>>>
>>>> I have always thought our justice system was flawed, from my very
>>>> early experiences of it. I can remember when drunk drivers were
>>>> getting off because the legislation referred to a 'police officer
>>>> in uniform' having to adminster the breath test - and some case
>>>> deciding that a police officer who was in full uniform - but not
>>>> wearing his cap - was not in fact in uniform.
>>>>
>>>> When guilty people get off for ludicrous loopholes like that - then
>>>> no-one can call it justice.
>>>
>>> That result came about for good reasons. Cynic has already outlined
>>> one. Here are a couple of others.
>>>
>>> The police have the right to interfere in people's lives and deny
>>> them their freedoms, up to and including killing them. To require
>>> them to comply very precisely with all rules when interfering in
>>> people's lives is entirely reasonable for two reasons. First, it
>>> helps to ensure that the police do not overstep the bounds by
>>> treating laws applying to them as optional. Secondly, it enables
>>> the individual to be (reasonably) sure that the person who is
>>> interfering with their freedoms is a genuine police officer.
>>
>> Then why, very shortly after these ludicrous incidents, was it
>> further decided that lack of cap did *not* invalidate a breath test?
>>
>
> You are confusing two questions.
>
> The first question is, what are the rules? Once we have an answer to
> that question, we know what the police must comply with, and the
> reasoning above applies.
>
> The second question is, what should the rules be? Evidently, in this
> instance, someone decided that the answer to this question was
> different from the answer to the first question, and changed them
> accordingly. All of the above now applies with equal force to the new
> rules.

And this is why I claim that our criminal justice system is a joke. No judge 
should ever have decided that a police in full uniform but for his cap was 
not 'a police officer in uniform'.  The questions he should have addressed 
were:

Was the defendent driving?
Was the level of alcohol in his blood above the prescribed limit?
Was there any doubt that the person administering the breath test was a 
police officer?

(Bearing in mind that the next step after a positive road-side breath test 
is a visit to the police station for a further test on the Lion Intoximeter, 
I would have thought that was pretty obvious).

TBH, I cannot see any reason why a breath test cannot be administered by a 
CID officer in plain clothes - so long as he properly identifies himself. If 
a plain clothes officer can arrest you for a crime, why can he not 
administer a breath test? (Not that any CID officer would wish to "lower" 
himself to do any such thing!).

Kev

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , Ret.
> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>> In message , Ret.
>>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>> AlanG wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you are happy for anyone other than a police officer to be
>>>>> subject to the system you think is a joke.
>>>>
>>>> No I'm not actually. I'm not happy for *anyone* to go through a
>>>> system that is so deeply flawed that the chances of real justice
>>>> are a lottery.
>>>
>>> So what would you replace it with? People being convicted based on
>>> the police having investigated and decided they are guilty?
>>
>> Of course not - but a little more common sense in the justice system
>> might go a long way to improving things.
>>
>
> Vague platitudes like that are pathetic after you have said
> categorically you are not happy for anyone to go through our current
> system.
>
> What would you replace it with?

I have given an example elsewhere on the thread as to how the judge who 
decided that a police officer in full uniform, but without his cap, *should* 
have approached the case.

I am not happy for anyone to go through our current system because it is 
riddled with inconsistencies and ludicrous decisions that anyone with an 
ounce of common sense would not have allowed to happen.

Is the aim to find guilty people guilty and innocent people innocent - or is 
it examine every word and item of punctuation in a piece of legislation to 
extract loopholes to confound the process of justice?  My view is that it 
should be the former, not the latter. What do you think?

Kev

AlanG wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:38:55 +0000, Richard Miller
>  wrote:
>
>> In message , JNugent
>>  writes
>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim that
>>>>> all police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume that
>>>>> this particular officer is not?
>>>>  Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of their
>>>> behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from people
>>>> with axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to me. The
>>>> defendant's is not.
>>>
>>> So you choose to work from  basis of pure prejudice, rather than
>>> treating cases on their merits.
>>
>> I use my pre-existing knowledge to help me decide where truth lies.
>> If you do not do that, it is not possible to function in the real
>> world.
>
> Comment in today's Guardian
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/06/police-tsg-compaints-procedure-ipcc

Whilst there certainly seems to be some cause for concern here, it must be 
borne in mind that the very nature of the types of incident that the TSG are 
deployed to will inevitably result in higher numbers of complaints than 
'normal' policing incidents.

The Territorial Support Group (TSG) has three main tasks

Provides an anti-terrorism and domestic extremism capability.
Provide an immediate response to spontaneous disorder anywhere in London.
Reducing priority crime.

Whenever there is disorder, there are very often cases of resisting arrest 
and consequent forceful detention. Often, for example, forcing violently 
resisting prisoners onto the ground, and placing rigid handcuffs on them, 
can cause injuries. It is more or less standard practice for such injured 
prisoners to make complaints about their injuries - but which are, in 
effect, self-inflicted.

The fact is that if prisoners resist arrest, then force must be used - and 
that force can result in injuries. Complaints are then made - but not 
substantiated because the injuries would not have occurred if the prisoners 
had not attempted to resist arrest.

Because the TSG are involved in more public disorder situations than other 
groups of officers, it is hardly surprising that they attract a higher 
number of such complaints.

Kev

Ret. wrote:
> AlanG wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:38:55 +0000, Richard Miller
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> In message , JNugent
>>>  writes
>>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim that
>>>>>> all police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume that
>>>>>> this particular officer is not?
>>>>>  Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of their
>>>>> behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from people
>>>>> with axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to me. The
>>>>> defendant's is not.
>>>>
>>>> So you choose to work from  basis of pure prejudice, rather than
>>>> treating cases on their merits.
>>>
>>> I use my pre-existing knowledge to help me decide where truth lies.
>>> If you do not do that, it is not possible to function in the real
>>> world.
>>
>> Comment in today's Guardian
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/06/police-tsg-compaints-procedure-ipcc 
>>
> 
> Whilst there certainly seems to be some cause for concern here, it must 
> be borne in mind that the very nature of the types of incident that the 
> TSG are deployed to will inevitably result in higher numbers of 
> complaints than 'normal' policing incidents.
> 
> The Territorial Support Group (TSG) has three main tasks
> 
> Provides an anti-terrorism and domestic extremism capability.
> Provide an immediate response to spontaneous disorder anywhere in London.
> Reducing priority crime.
> 
> Whenever there is disorder, there are very often cases of resisting 
> arrest and consequent forceful detention. Often, for example, forcing 
> violently resisting prisoners onto the ground, and placing rigid 
> handcuffs on them, can cause injuries. It is more or less standard 
> practice for such injured prisoners to make complaints about their 
> injuries - but which are, in effect, self-inflicted.
> 
> The fact is that if prisoners resist arrest, then force must be used - 
> and that force can result in injuries. Complaints are then made - but 
> not substantiated because the injuries would not have occurred if the 
> prisoners had not attempted to resist arrest.
> 
> Because the TSG are involved in more public disorder situations than 
> other groups of officers, it is hardly surprising that they attract a 
> higher number of such complaints.
> 
> Kev

You don't half come out with some crap.

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:12:51 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:

>AlanG wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:38:55 +0000, Richard Miller
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> In message , JNugent
>>>  writes
>>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim that
>>>>>> all police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume that
>>>>>> this particular officer is not?
>>>>>  Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of their
>>>>> behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from people
>>>>> with axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to me. The
>>>>> defendant's is not.
>>>>
>>>> So you choose to work from  basis of pure prejudice, rather than
>>>> treating cases on their merits.
>>>
>>> I use my pre-existing knowledge to help me decide where truth lies.
>>> If you do not do that, it is not possible to function in the real
>>> world.
>>
>> Comment in today's Guardian
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/06/police-tsg-compaints-procedure-ipcc
>
>Whilst there certainly seems to be some cause for concern here, it must be 
>borne in mind that the very nature of the types of incident that the TSG are 
>deployed to will inevitably result in higher numbers of complaints than 
>'normal' policing incidents.
>
>The Territorial Support Group (TSG) has three main tasks
>
>Provides an anti-terrorism and domestic extremism capability.
>Provide an immediate response to spontaneous disorder anywhere in London.
>Reducing priority crime.
>
>Whenever there is disorder, there are very often cases of resisting arrest 
>and consequent forceful detention. Often, for example, forcing violently 
>resisting prisoners onto the ground, and placing rigid handcuffs on them, 
>can cause injuries. It is more or less standard practice for such injured 
>prisoners to make complaints about their injuries - but which are, in 
>effect, self-inflicted.

That's the best one you've come up with yet.  The equivalent of "He
stabbed himself in the back 15 times then got rid of the knife"

>
>The fact is that if prisoners resist arrest, then force must be used - and 
>that force can result in injuries. Complaints are then made - but not 
>substantiated because the injuries would not have occurred if the prisoners 
>had not attempted to resist arrest.
>
>Because the TSG are involved in more public disorder situations than other 
>groups of officers, it is hardly surprising that they attract a higher 
>number of such complaints.
>

Apologist for thugs and murderers

In message , Ret. 
<xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>Richard Miller wrote:
>> In message , Ret.
>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>> In message , Ret.
>>>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>>> AlanG wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet you are happy for anyone other than a police officer to be
>>>>>> subject to the system you think is a joke.
>>>>>
>>>>> No I'm not actually. I'm not happy for *anyone* to go through a
>>>>> system that is so deeply flawed that the chances of real justice
>>>>> are a lottery.
>>>>
>>>> So what would you replace it with? People being convicted based on
>>>> the police having investigated and decided they are guilty?
>>>
>>> Of course not - but a little more common sense in the justice system
>>> might go a long way to improving things.
>>>
>>
>> Vague platitudes like that are pathetic after you have said
>> categorically you are not happy for anyone to go through our current
>> system.
>>
>> What would you replace it with?
>
>I have given an example elsewhere on the thread as to how the judge who 
>decided that a police officer in full uniform, but without his cap, 
>*should* have approached the case.
>
>I am not happy for anyone to go through our current system because it 
>is riddled with inconsistencies and ludicrous decisions that anyone 
>with an ounce of common sense would not have allowed to happen.
>
>Is the aim to find guilty people guilty and innocent people innocent - 
>or is it examine every word and item of punctuation in a piece of 
>legislation to extract loopholes to confound the process of justice? 
>My view is that it should be the former, not the latter. What do you 
>think?
>

What I think is that that is platitudinous bullshit. It is a statement 
of the ideal outcomes you would like to see from the system. It is not 
an answer to the practical question I asked. How would you devise a 
system to achieve such outcomes without causing more problems than you 
solve?
-- 
Richard Miller

AlanG wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:12:51 -0000, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>
>> AlanG wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:38:55 +0000, Richard Miller
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message , JNugent
>>>>  writes
>>>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim
>>>>>>> that all police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume
>>>>>>> that this particular officer is not?
>>>>>>  Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of
>>>>>> their behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from
>>>>>> people with axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to
>>>>>> me. The defendant's is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you choose to work from  basis of pure prejudice, rather than
>>>>> treating cases on their merits.
>>>>
>>>> I use my pre-existing knowledge to help me decide where truth lies.
>>>> If you do not do that, it is not possible to function in the real
>>>> world.
>>>
>>> Comment in today's Guardian
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/06/police-tsg-compaints-procedure-ipcc
>>
>> Whilst there certainly seems to be some cause for concern here, it
>> must be borne in mind that the very nature of the types of incident
>> that the TSG are deployed to will inevitably result in higher
>> numbers of complaints than 'normal' policing incidents.
>>
>> The Territorial Support Group (TSG) has three main tasks
>>
>> Provides an anti-terrorism and domestic extremism capability.
>> Provide an immediate response to spontaneous disorder anywhere in
>> London. Reducing priority crime.
>>
>> Whenever there is disorder, there are very often cases of resisting
>> arrest and consequent forceful detention. Often, for example,
>> forcing violently resisting prisoners onto the ground, and placing
>> rigid handcuffs on them, can cause injuries. It is more or less
>> standard practice for such injured prisoners to make complaints
>> about their injuries - but which are, in effect, self-inflicted.
>
> That's the best one you've come up with yet.  The equivalent of "He
> stabbed himself in the back 15 times then got rid of the knife"

No - just a genuine assessment of the reality of policing today.  I had some 
three complaints made against me during my career. One was a neighbour 
dispute where I (quite rightly) took the side of the neighbour who was being 
complained about. The other two involved 'resisting arrest' scenarios. One 
was a driver I breathalysed at the road-side and who, when he realised it 
was positive, ran off. I chased him, made a dive for his legs, and he went 
face down into the pavement breaking his nose.  The other was a 'Friday 
night violent drunk' who did not want to be arrested and who had to be 
wrestled to the ground before we could get rigid cuffs on him. Rigid cuffs 
are specifically and deliberately designed to force compliance via the 
application of pain. If the prisoner ceases struggling then there is little 
or no pain. If he continues to struggle then there can be great pain due to 
the design of the rigid link between the two cuffs. All three complaints 
against me were unsubstantiated.  In the case of the forceful arrests, the 
injuries the prisoners received were indeed self inflicted.

The problem with you Alan is that you simply cannot recognise the realities 
of policing today. Prisoners today are far far more likely to attempt to 
resist arrest than they were 38 years ago when I first joined the police. 
Police groups who are specifically tasked with responding to disorder will 
unavoidably face more such situations and hence are far more likely to be on 
the receiving end of complaints. Most of which, like mine, will be 
unsubstantiated.

>
>>
>> The fact is that if prisoners resist arrest, then force must be used
>> - and that force can result in injuries. Complaints are then made -
>> but not substantiated because the injuries would not have occurred
>> if the prisoners had not attempted to resist arrest.
>>
>> Because the TSG are involved in more public disorder situations than
>> other groups of officers, it is hardly surprising that they attract
>> a higher number of such complaints.
>>
>
> Apologist for thugs and murderers

If you cannot accept the reality of policing today then I feel sorry for 
you.  Your responses remind me of the old crack about teachers: "Those who 
can, - do. Those who can't, - teach."  In your case it's: "Those who 
can't, - bleat."  You wouldn't have the guts to out in a police uniform in a 
major city on a weekend night would you?

Kev

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , Ret.
> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>> In message , Ret.
>>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>> In message , Ret.
>>>>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>>>> AlanG wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet you are happy for anyone other than a police officer to be
>>>>>>> subject to the system you think is a joke.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I'm not actually. I'm not happy for *anyone* to go through a
>>>>>> system that is so deeply flawed that the chances of real justice
>>>>>> are a lottery.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what would you replace it with? People being convicted based on
>>>>> the police having investigated and decided they are guilty?
>>>>
>>>> Of course not - but a little more common sense in the justice
>>>> system might go a long way to improving things.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Vague platitudes like that are pathetic after you have said
>>> categorically you are not happy for anyone to go through our current
>>> system.
>>>
>>> What would you replace it with?
>>
>> I have given an example elsewhere on the thread as to how the judge
>> who decided that a police officer in full uniform, but without his
>> cap, *should* have approached the case.
>>
>> I am not happy for anyone to go through our current system because it
>> is riddled with inconsistencies and ludicrous decisions that anyone
>> with an ounce of common sense would not have allowed to happen.
>>
>> Is the aim to find guilty people guilty and innocent people innocent
>> - or is it examine every word and item of punctuation in a piece of
>> legislation to extract loopholes to confound the process of justice?
>> My view is that it should be the former, not the latter. What do you
>> think?
>>
>
> What I think is that that is platitudinous bullshit. It is a statement
> of the ideal outcomes you would like to see from the system. It is not
> an answer to the practical question I asked. How would you devise a
> system to achieve such outcomes without causing more problems than you
> solve?

Perhaps Judges ought to be trained to use common sense?  Perhaps defence 
solicitors should be told that outrageous defences that attempt to achieve 
acquittal via dubious loopholes will no longer be permitted. What should be 
important is guilt or innocence - not nit-picking about whether an officer 
is wearing a cap, or whether the officer quoted the verbal caution in the 
wrong order. (There was an acquittal in a case where the officer 
inadvertently gave the 'old' verbal caution rather than the revised one - 
how ridiculous is that?)

Going back to the first few breathalyser cases, if a defence solicitor 
attempted to suggest that police officer not wearing his cap was 'not in 
uniform', the Judge should have just told him not to be so bloody 
ridiculous. That is what I mean by bringing some common sense into our 
justice system.  If there is something that is seriously defective in the 
prosecution's case - then no-one would complain about a direction to acquit. 
But when such directions are a result of silly minor matters - then the law 
is truly an ass.

Kev

Geoff wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>> AlanG wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:38:55 +0000, Richard Miller
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message , JNugent
>>>>  writes
>>>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim
>>>>>>> that all police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume
>>>>>>> that this particular officer is not?
>>>>>>  Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of
>>>>>> their behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from
>>>>>> people with axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to
>>>>>> me. The defendant's is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you choose to work from  basis of pure prejudice, rather than
>>>>> treating cases on their merits.
>>>>
>>>> I use my pre-existing knowledge to help me decide where truth lies.
>>>> If you do not do that, it is not possible to function in the real
>>>> world.
>>>
>>> Comment in today's Guardian
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/06/police-tsg-compaints-procedure-ipcc
>>>
>>
>> Whilst there certainly seems to be some cause for concern here, it
>> must be borne in mind that the very nature of the types of incident
>> that the TSG are deployed to will inevitably result in higher
>> numbers of complaints than 'normal' policing incidents.
>>
>> The Territorial Support Group (TSG) has three main tasks
>>
>> Provides an anti-terrorism and domestic extremism capability.
>> Provide an immediate response to spontaneous disorder anywhere in
>> London. Reducing priority crime.
>>
>> Whenever there is disorder, there are very often cases of resisting
>> arrest and consequent forceful detention. Often, for example, forcing
>> violently resisting prisoners onto the ground, and placing rigid
>> handcuffs on them, can cause injuries. It is more or less standard
>> practice for such injured prisoners to make complaints about their
>> injuries - but which are, in effect, self-inflicted.
>>
>> The fact is that if prisoners resist arrest, then force must be used
>> - and that force can result in injuries. Complaints are then made -
>> but not substantiated because the injuries would not have occurred
>> if the prisoners had not attempted to resist arrest.
>>
>> Because the TSG are involved in more public disorder situations than
>> other groups of officers, it is hardly surprising that they attract a
>> higher number of such complaints.
>>
>> Kev
>
> You don't half come out with some crap.

So what don't you accept about the above?  Do you think that all arrestees 
today offer up their wrists for handcuffing and say: "It's a fair cop guv." 
?

Which groups of people do you think are most likely to attempt to resist 
arrest?  Do you think it might be shoplifters - or do you think it could be 
people who are already indulging in disorder - or who are committing serious 
crime and know they are facing long terms of imprisonment if arrested?  If 
the latter, do you think that those groups (in the Met area) are more likely 
to be facing arrest at the hands of the TSG or at the hands of the local 
bobby?

Who do you think is more likely to make a complaint following arrest - the 
shoplifter - or the person who resisted arrest and who now has angry red 
wheals around his wrists from the rigid cuffs?

Kev

Ret. wrote:
> Geoff wrote:
>> Ret. wrote:
>>> AlanG wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:38:55 +0000, Richard Miller
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message , JNugent
>>>>>  writes
>>>>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim
>>>>>>>> that all police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume
>>>>>>>> that this particular officer is not?
>>>>>>>  Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of
>>>>>>> their behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from
>>>>>>> people with axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to
>>>>>>> me. The defendant's is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you choose to work from  basis of pure prejudice, rather than
>>>>>> treating cases on their merits.
>>>>>
>>>>> I use my pre-existing knowledge to help me decide where truth lies.
>>>>> If you do not do that, it is not possible to function in the real
>>>>> world.
>>>>
>>>> Comment in today's Guardian
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/06/police-tsg-compaints-procedure-ipcc 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Whilst there certainly seems to be some cause for concern here, it
>>> must be borne in mind that the very nature of the types of incident
>>> that the TSG are deployed to will inevitably result in higher
>>> numbers of complaints than 'normal' policing incidents.
>>>
>>> The Territorial Support Group (TSG) has three main tasks
>>>
>>> Provides an anti-terrorism and domestic extremism capability.
>>> Provide an immediate response to spontaneous disorder anywhere in
>>> London. Reducing priority crime.
>>>
>>> Whenever there is disorder, there are very often cases of resisting
>>> arrest and consequent forceful detention. Often, for example, forcing
>>> violently resisting prisoners onto the ground, and placing rigid
>>> handcuffs on them, can cause injuries. It is more or less standard
>>> practice for such injured prisoners to make complaints about their
>>> injuries - but which are, in effect, self-inflicted.
>>>
>>> The fact is that if prisoners resist arrest, then force must be used
>>> - and that force can result in injuries. Complaints are then made -
>>> but not substantiated because the injuries would not have occurred
>>> if the prisoners had not attempted to resist arrest.
>>>
>>> Because the TSG are involved in more public disorder situations than
>>> other groups of officers, it is hardly surprising that they attract a
>>> higher number of such complaints.
>>>
>>> Kev
>>
>> You don't half come out with some crap.
> 
> So what don't you accept about the above?  Do you think that all 
> arrestees today offer up their wrists for handcuffing and say: "It's a 
> fair cop guv." ?
> 
> Which groups of people do you think are most likely to attempt to resist 
> arrest?  Do you think it might be shoplifters - or do you think it could 
> be people who are already indulging in disorder - or who are committing 
> serious crime and know they are facing long terms of imprisonment if 
> arrested?  If the latter, do you think that those groups (in the Met 
> area) are more likely to be facing arrest at the hands of the TSG or at 
> the hands of the local bobby?
> 
> Who do you think is more likely to make a complaint following arrest - 
> the shoplifter - or the person who resisted arrest and who now has angry 
> red wheals around his wrists from the rigid cuffs?
> 
> Kev

A bit of shoplifting does not give plod the right to beat three bells of 
shit out of a person.

Ret. wrote:
> All three complaints against me 
> were unsubstantiated. 
> 
> Kev

Cor, now there's a suprise!

Ret. <xxx@?.?.invalid> posted
>The problem with you Alan is that you simply cannot recognise the 
>realities of policing today. Prisoners today are far far more likely to 
>attempt to resist arrest than they were 38 years ago when I first 
>joined the police.

I wonder what has caused that change. I expect you will say it is 
something to do with public morality, but equally it could be a result 
of changes in police behaviour.

We know that officers are much more ready to arrest ("because we have to 
in order to interview a suspect") than they used to be. We know that the 
consequences of being arrested are much more serious that they used to 
be, in terms of the DNA database,  and enhanced CRB checks destroying 
careers.

Perhaps it's time for the police to wonder whether some of the blame 
lies with themselves rather than (or as well as) with the public.

-- 
Les
If creating a police state saves just one child, then it will all have been
worthwhile.

In message , Ret. 
<xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>Richard Miller wrote:
>>
>> What I think is that that is platitudinous bullshit. It is a statement
>> of the ideal outcomes you would like to see from the system. It is not
>> an answer to the practical question I asked. How would you devise a
>> system to achieve such outcomes without causing more problems than you
>> solve?
>
>Perhaps Judges ought to be trained to use common sense?

They are trained to use the law.

Where do you intend that they should get this "common sense" from? You? 
Me? The Daily Mail? The Morning Star?

>  Perhaps defence solicitors should be told that outrageous defences 
>that attempt to achieve acquittal via dubious loopholes will no longer 
>be permitted.

We can only go by what the law actually says. If it does not say what 
politicians intended, they shouldn't have passed it. If it does, on 
whose say-so should we decide that the law is not to be followed 
according to what it actually says?

> What should be important is guilt or innocence - not nit-picking about 
>whether an officer is wearing a cap, or whether the officer quoted the 
>verbal caution in the wrong order. (There was an acquittal in a case 
>where the officer inadvertently gave the 'old' verbal caution rather 
>than the revised one - how ridiculous is that?)

Given that what a suspect says or does not say can be used to try to 
persuade the Court that they must be guilty, it is not ridiculous in the 
slightest.

>
>Going back to the first few breathalyser cases, if a defence solicitor 
>attempted to suggest that police officer not wearing his cap was 'not 
>in uniform', the Judge should have just told him not to be so bloody 
>ridiculous. That is what I mean by bringing some common sense into our 
>justice system.  If there is something that is seriously defective in 
>the prosecution's case - then no-one would complain about a direction 
>to acquit. But when such directions are a result of silly minor matters 
>- then the law is truly an ass.

Then Parliament should not have said that, should they?
-- 
Richard Miller

Geoff wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>> Geoff wrote:
>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>> AlanG wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:38:55 +0000, Richard Miller
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message , JNugent
>>>>>>  writes
>>>>>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim
>>>>>>>>> that all police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume
>>>>>>>>> that this particular officer is not?
>>>>>>>>  Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of
>>>>>>>> their behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from
>>>>>>>> people with axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to
>>>>>>>> me. The defendant's is not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you choose to work from  basis of pure prejudice, rather than
>>>>>>> treating cases on their merits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I use my pre-existing knowledge to help me decide where truth
>>>>>> lies. If you do not do that, it is not possible to function in
>>>>>> the real world.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comment in today's Guardian
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/06/police-tsg-compaints-procedure-ipcc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whilst there certainly seems to be some cause for concern here, it
>>>> must be borne in mind that the very nature of the types of incident
>>>> that the TSG are deployed to will inevitably result in higher
>>>> numbers of complaints than 'normal' policing incidents.
>>>>
>>>> The Territorial Support Group (TSG) has three main tasks
>>>>
>>>> Provides an anti-terrorism and domestic extremism capability.
>>>> Provide an immediate response to spontaneous disorder anywhere in
>>>> London. Reducing priority crime.
>>>>
>>>> Whenever there is disorder, there are very often cases of resisting
>>>> arrest and consequent forceful detention. Often, for example,
>>>> forcing violently resisting prisoners onto the ground, and placing
>>>> rigid handcuffs on them, can cause injuries. It is more or less
>>>> standard practice for such injured prisoners to make complaints
>>>> about their injuries - but which are, in effect, self-inflicted.
>>>>
>>>> The fact is that if prisoners resist arrest, then force must be
>>>> used - and that force can result in injuries. Complaints are then
>>>> made - but not substantiated because the injuries would not have
>>>> occurred if the prisoners had not attempted to resist arrest.
>>>>
>>>> Because the TSG are involved in more public disorder situations
>>>> than other groups of officers, it is hardly surprising that they
>>>> attract a higher number of such complaints.
>>>>
>>>> Kev
>>>
>>> You don't half come out with some crap.
>>
>> So what don't you accept about the above?  Do you think that all
>> arrestees today offer up their wrists for handcuffing and say: "It's
>> a fair cop guv." ?
>>
>> Which groups of people do you think are most likely to attempt to
>> resist arrest?  Do you think it might be shoplifters - or do you
>> think it could be people who are already indulging in disorder - or
>> who are committing serious crime and know they are facing long terms
>> of imprisonment if arrested?  If the latter, do you think that those
>> groups (in the Met area) are more likely to be facing arrest at the
>> hands of the TSG or at the hands of the local bobby?
>>
>> Who do you think is more likely to make a complaint following arrest
>> - the shoplifter - or the person who resisted arrest and who now has
>> angry red wheals around his wrists from the rigid cuffs?
>>
>> Kev
>
> A bit of shoplifting does not give plod the right to beat three bells
> of shit out of a person.

Oh dear - did you actually read the above?  Your comprehension skills are 
sadly lacking I'm afraid...

Kev

Geoff wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>> All three complaints against me
>> were unsubstantiated.
>>
>> Kev
>
> Cor, now there's a suprise!

It's not a surprise at all. The majority of complaints against the police 
are malicious and intended purely to detract from the offences committed by 
the complainant.

Kev

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , Ret.
> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> What I think is that that is platitudinous bullshit. It is a
>>> statement of the ideal outcomes you would like to see from the
>>> system. It is not an answer to the practical question I asked. How
>>> would you devise a system to achieve such outcomes without causing
>>> more problems than you solve?
>>
>> Perhaps Judges ought to be trained to use common sense?
>
> They are trained to use the law.
>
> Where do you intend that they should get this "common sense" from?
> You? Me? The Daily Mail? The Morning Star?

Where do you get *your* common sense from Richard?

>
>>  Perhaps defence solicitors should be told that outrageous defences
>> that attempt to achieve acquittal via dubious loopholes will no
>> longer be permitted.
>
> We can only go by what the law actually says. If it does not say what
> politicians intended, they shouldn't have passed it. If it does, on
> whose say-so should we decide that the law is not to be followed
> according to what it actually says?

On common sense - it's as simple as that.

>
>> What should be important is guilt or innocence - not nit-picking
>> about whether an officer is wearing a cap, or whether the officer
>> quoted the verbal caution in the wrong order. (There was an
>> acquittal in a case where the officer inadvertently gave the 'old'
>> verbal caution rather than the revised one - how ridiculous is that?)
>
> Given that what a suspect says or does not say can be used to try to
> persuade the Court that they must be guilty, it is not ridiculous in
> the slightest.

So are you suggesting that everyone who was convicted under the 'old' 
caution should be pardoned as their conviction was unsafe? In reality, in 
these days of numerous police programmes on the TV, plus movies, I don't 
believe that there can be a single person in the UK who does not know that 
'They are not obliged to say anything...' etc. Do you?

>
>>
>> Going back to the first few breathalyser cases, if a defence
>> solicitor attempted to suggest that police officer not wearing his
>> cap was 'not in uniform', the Judge should have just told him not to
>> be so bloody ridiculous. That is what I mean by bringing some common
>> sense into our justice system.  If there is something that is
>> seriously defective in the prosecution's case - then no-one would
>> complain about a direction to acquit. But when such directions are a
>> result of silly minor matters - then the law is truly an ass.
>
> Then Parliament should not have said that, should they?

The legislation merely stated: 'A police officer in uniform'. It did *not* 
state: "A police officer in 'full' uniform."  Perhaps there should have been 
a codicil to the legislation which stated in detail the shade of black the 
uniforms were to be manufactured from? The fact that any officer wearing a 
pair of socks other than black would be considered not to be in uniform?

I suspect that when legislators prepare a new law, they expect people within 
the justice system to interpret them with common sense. They do not expect 
solicitors and judges to pore over every word and every punctuation mark in 
an attempt to defy the aim of the legisation. The judge who decided that an 
officer not wearing his cap was not in uniform was not using his common 
sense - he was an idiot and a perfect example of why people despair about 
the justice system. It is obvious to anyone but a half-wit that the aim of 
the legislation was to ensure that breath tests were only administered by 
uniformed officers - and not by officers in plain clothes. When the defence 
raised this ludicrous argument, they should have been sent packing.

Kev

On 9 Nov, 08:30, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
> Richard Miller wrote:
> > In message , Ret.
> > <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
> >> Richard Miller wrote:
>
> >>> What I think is that that is platitudinous bullshit. It is a
> >>> statement of the ideal outcomes you would like to see from the
> >>> system. It is not an answer to the practical question I asked. How
> >>> would you devise a system to achieve such outcomes without causing
> >>> more problems than you solve?
>
> >> Perhaps Judges ought to be trained to use common sense?
>
> > They are trained to use the law.
>
> > Where do you intend that they should get this "common sense" from?
> > You? Me? The Daily Mail? The Morning Star?
>
> Where do you get *your* common sense from Richard?
>
>
>
> >>  Perhaps defence solicitors should be told that outrageous defences
> >> that attempt to achieve acquittal via dubious loopholes will no
> >> longer be permitted.
>
> > We can only go by what the law actually says. If it does not say what
> > politicians intended, they shouldn't have passed it. If it does, on
> > whose say-so should we decide that the law is not to be followed
> > according to what it actually says?
>
> On common sense - it's as simple as that.
>
>
>
> >> What should be important is guilt or innocence - not nit-picking
> >> about whether an officer is wearing a cap, or whether the officer
> >> quoted the verbal caution in the wrong order. (There was an
> >> acquittal in a case where the officer inadvertently gave the 'old'
> >> verbal caution rather than the revised one - how ridiculous is that?)
>
> > Given that what a suspect says or does not say can be used to try to
> > persuade the Court that they must be guilty, it is not ridiculous in
> > the slightest.
>
> So are you suggesting that everyone who was convicted under the 'old'
> caution should be pardoned as their conviction was unsafe? In reality, in
> these days of numerous police programmes on the TV, plus movies, I don't
> believe that there can be a single person in the UK who does not know that
> 'They are not obliged to say anything...' etc. Do you?
>
>
>
> >> Going back to the first few breathalyser cases, if a defence
> >> solicitor attempted to suggest that police officer not wearing his
> >> cap was 'not in uniform', the Judge should have just told him not to
> >> be so bloody ridiculous. That is what I mean by bringing some common
> >> sense into our justice system.  If there is something that is
> >> seriously defective in the prosecution's case - then no-one would
> >> complain about a direction to acquit. But when such directions are a
> >> result of silly minor matters - then the law is truly an ass.
>
> > Then Parliament should not have said that, should they?
>
> The legislation merely stated: 'A police officer in uniform'. It did *not> state: "A police officer in 'full' uniform."  Perhaps there should have been
> a codicil to the legislation which stated in detail the shade of black the
> uniforms were to be manufactured from? The fact that any officer wearing a
> pair of socks other than black would be considered not to be in uniform?
>
> I suspect that when legislators prepare a new law, they expect people within
> the justice system to interpret them with common sense. They do not expect
> solicitors and judges to pore over every word and every punctuation mark in
> an attempt to defy the aim of the legisation. The judge who decided that an
> officer not wearing his cap was not in uniform was not using his common
> sense - he was an idiot and a perfect example of why people despair about
> the justice system. It is obvious to anyone but a half-wit that the aim of
> the legislation was to ensure that breath tests were only administered by
> uniformed officers - and not by officers in plain clothes. When the defence
> raised this ludicrous argument, they should have been sent packing.
>
> Kev- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No wonder this country is in the state it is, if the police go around
thinking the law is what they *think* it should be, rather than what
is written down in black and white.

Sadly, it seems the police (who I would have though might be expected
to take a professional interest in such things) appear to be as wooly
(and therefore as surprised) as Joe Public, when it comes to how the
UK constitution "works" (my quotes, because I would argue the value of
"works").

I have no idea of the exact case being discussed here, but I know that
Parliament would have issued a bill, which became law, with a certain
form of words. Clearly, subsequent to that, the intention of those
words became central to the outcome of a case prosecuted under that
bill. At which point the Judiciary became involved (as is their role)
and provided an interpretation of those words. As the case reached a
higher court, that interpretation set a precedent, and is now used by
lower courts, until such time as (a) parliament amends, repeals,
replaces the original bill, or (b) another case is pursued to the
higher courts who re-examine the form of words and possibly amend, or
issue new guidance, possibly as a result of a change in (a)
technology, (b) social policy, (c) acknowledging the original
interpretation was misguided.

*That* is how the system *should* work, and if it did, it would be
peachy ... almost a Newtonian approach to justice ... set a law in
motion, and it continues forever, unless acted on by another force.

However in practice, we have been saddled over time, with the most
incompetent, mendacious, ineffective, corrupt bunch of self-serving
power-crazed MPs in living memory. Despite the fact (or maybe because
of it) the legal profession is amply represented in government, they
seem incapable of drafting or scrutinising basic leglislation. As a
result we have had a slew of bad laws, which have left far too much
open to question or interpretation. The worst offenders are the anti-
terror laws, which have effectively given the police carte blanche to
decide what is or isn't an offence, leaving the citizenry (a word we
should use more !) powerless to object to.

To comment on the case above, why did parliament bother mentioning "in
uniform" at all ? Why not say "policeman" ? Clearly the "in uniform"
was *intentional* and *deliberate*. It therefore fell to the judicairy
to interpret this as "full unifom", with the learned justices deciding
that a police officer was not in uniform without his cap. And I would
not be surprised to learn they used the forces own procedures for
attending parade to decide this.

That is the way the system works, and has done for many many years.

Ret. wrote:
> Geoff wrote:
>> Ret. wrote:
>>> All three complaints against me
>>> were unsubstantiated.
>>>
>>> Kev
>>
>> Cor, now there's a suprise!
> 
> It's not a surprise at all. The majority of complaints against the 
> police are malicious and intended purely to detract from the offences 
> committed by the complainant.
> 
> Kev

Don't you read anything? The BENT COPPER was caught on CCTV STEALING 
games. You say this is a malicous complaint!

You're all bent. Every single one.

Geoff wrote:
> Ret. wrote:
>> Geoff wrote:
>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>> All three complaints against me
>>>> were unsubstantiated.
>>>>
>>>> Kev
>>>
>>> Cor, now there's a suprise!
>>
>> It's not a surprise at all. The majority of complaints against the
>> police are malicious and intended purely to detract from the offences
>> committed by the complainant.
>>
>> Kev
>
> Don't you read anything? The BENT COPPER was caught on CCTV STEALING
> games. You say this is a malicous complaint!
>
> You're all bent. Every single one.

And you are as thick as two planks. The bent copper you are referring to is 
not on this thread. And the matter is not a 'complaint against the police' - 
this is a crime committed by a police officer.
For you to allege that all police officers are bent is not only outrageous - 
it simply demonstrates your inate stupidity.

Kev

Jethro wrote:
> On 9 Nov, 08:30, "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>> In message , Ret.
>>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>
>>>>> What I think is that that is platitudinous bullshit. It is a
>>>>> statement of the ideal outcomes you would like to see from the
>>>>> system. It is not an answer to the practical question I asked. How
>>>>> would you devise a system to achieve such outcomes without causing
>>>>> more problems than you solve?
>>
>>>> Perhaps Judges ought to be trained to use common sense?
>>
>>> They are trained to use the law.
>>
>>> Where do you intend that they should get this "common sense" from?
>>> You? Me? The Daily Mail? The Morning Star?
>>
>> Where do you get *your* common sense from Richard?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Perhaps defence solicitors should be told that outrageous defences
>>>> that attempt to achieve acquittal via dubious loopholes will no
>>>> longer be permitted.
>>
>>> We can only go by what the law actually says. If it does not say
>>> what politicians intended, they shouldn't have passed it. If it
>>> does, on whose say-so should we decide that the law is not to be
>>> followed according to what it actually says?
>>
>> On common sense - it's as simple as that.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> What should be important is guilt or innocence - not nit-picking
>>>> about whether an officer is wearing a cap, or whether the officer
>>>> quoted the verbal caution in the wrong order. (There was an
>>>> acquittal in a case where the officer inadvertently gave the 'old'
>>>> verbal caution rather than the revised one - how ridiculous is
>>>> that?)
>>
>>> Given that what a suspect says or does not say can be used to try to
>>> persuade the Court that they must be guilty, it is not ridiculous in
>>> the slightest.
>>
>> So are you suggesting that everyone who was convicted under the 'old'
>> caution should be pardoned as their conviction was unsafe? In
>> reality, in these days of numerous police programmes on the TV, plus
>> movies, I don't believe that there can be a single person in the UK
>> who does not know that 'They are not obliged to say anything...'
>> etc. Do you?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Going back to the first few breathalyser cases, if a defence
>>>> solicitor attempted to suggest that police officer not wearing his
>>>> cap was 'not in uniform', the Judge should have just told him not
>>>> to be so bloody ridiculous. That is what I mean by bringing some
>>>> common sense into our justice system. If there is something that is
>>>> seriously defective in the prosecution's case - then no-one would
>>>> complain about a direction to acquit. But when such directions are
>>>> a result of silly minor matters - then the law is truly an ass.
>>
>>> Then Parliament should not have said that, should they?
>>
>> The legislation merely stated: 'A police officer in uniform'. It did
>> *not* state: "A police officer in 'full' uniform." Perhaps there
>> should have been a codicil to the legislation which stated in detail
>> the shade of black the uniforms were to be manufactured from? The
>> fact that any officer wearing a pair of socks other than black would
>> be considered not to be in uniform?
>>
>> I suspect that when legislators prepare a new law, they expect
>> people within the justice system to interpret them with common
>> sense. They do not expect solicitors and judges to pore over every
>> word and every punctuation mark in an attempt to defy the aim of the
>> legisation. The judge who decided that an officer not wearing his
>> cap was not in uniform was not using his common sense - he was an
>> idiot and a perfect example of why people despair about the justice
>> system. It is obvious to anyone but a half-wit that the aim of the
>> legislation was to ensure that breath tests were only administered
>> by uniformed officers - and not by officers in plain clothes. When
>> the defence raised this ludicrous argument, they should have been
>> sent packing.
>>
>> Kev- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> No wonder this country is in the state it is, if the police go around
> thinking the law is what they *think* it should be, rather than what
> is written down in black and white.
>
> Sadly, it seems the police (who I would have though might be expected
> to take a professional interest in such things) appear to be as wooly
> (and therefore as surprised) as Joe Public, when it comes to how the
> UK constitution "works" (my quotes, because I would argue the value of
> "works").
>
> I have no idea of the exact case being discussed here, but I know that
> Parliament would have issued a bill, which became law, with a certain
> form of words. Clearly, subsequent to that, the intention of those
> words became central to the outcome of a case prosecuted under that
> bill. At which point the Judiciary became involved (as is their role)
> and provided an interpretation of those words. As the case reached a
> higher court, that interpretation set a precedent, and is now used by
> lower courts, until such time as (a) parliament amends, repeals,
> replaces the original bill, or (b) another case is pursued to the
> higher courts who re-examine the form of words and possibly amend, or
> issue new guidance, possibly as a result of a change in (a)
> technology, (b) social policy, (c) acknowledging the original
> interpretation was misguided.
>
> *That* is how the system *should* work, and if it did, it would be
> peachy ... almost a Newtonian approach to justice ... set a law in
> motion, and it continues forever, unless acted on by another force.

Why would you describe as 'peachy',  a system whereby judges, many lacking 
in any common sense, can apply their own personal prejudices and beliefs 
into an interpretation that confounds the original intention of the 
legislation?

>
> However in practice, we have been saddled over time, with the most
> incompetent, mendacious, ineffective, corrupt bunch of self-serving
> power-crazed MPs in living memory. Despite the fact (or maybe because
> of it) the legal profession is amply represented in government, they
> seem incapable of drafting or scrutinising basic leglislation. As a
> result we have had a slew of bad laws, which have left far too much
> open to question or interpretation. The worst offenders are the anti-
> terror laws, which have effectively given the police carte blanche to
> decide what is or isn't an offence, leaving the citizenry (a word we
> should use more !) powerless to object to.
>
> To comment on the case above, why did parliament bother mentioning "in
> uniform" at all ? Why not say "policeman" ? Clearly the "in uniform"
> was *intentional* and *deliberate*. It therefore fell to the judicairy
> to interpret this as "full unifom", with the learned justices deciding
> that a police officer was not in uniform without his cap. And I would
> not be surprised to learn they used the forces own procedures for
> attending parade to decide this.

And yet, the interpretation was promptly overturned and a more sensible 
interpretation introduced which demonstrated that the original decision was 
ludicrous.
>
> That is the way the system works, and has done for many many years.

And that, my friend, is the problem - and why so many people regard our 
justice system as ineffectual and a complete ass.

Kev

Ret. wrote:
> Geoff wrote:
>> Ret. wrote:
>>> Geoff wrote:
>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>> All three complaints against me
>>>>> were unsubstantiated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kev
>>>>
>>>> Cor, now there's a suprise!
>>>
>>> It's not a surprise at all. The majority of complaints against the
>>> police are malicious and intended purely to detract from the offences
>>> committed by the complainant.
>>>
>>> Kev
>>
>> Don't you read anything? The BENT COPPER was caught on CCTV STEALING
>> games. You say this is a malicous complaint!
>>
>> You're all bent. Every single one.
> 
> And you are as thick as two planks. 

A sure sign that you lost that one. 'There but for the grace of god...' 
eh kev?

In message , Ret. 
<xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>Richard Miller wrote:
>> In message , Ret.
>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What I think is that that is platitudinous bullshit. It is a
>>>> statement of the ideal outcomes you would like to see from the
>>>> system. It is not an answer to the practical question I asked. How
>>>> would you devise a system to achieve such outcomes without causing
>>>> more problems than you solve?
>>>
>>> Perhaps Judges ought to be trained to use common sense?
>>
>> They are trained to use the law.
>>
>> Where do you intend that they should get this "common sense" from?
>> You? Me? The Daily Mail? The Morning Star?
>
>Where do you get *your* common sense from Richard?

Quite clearly a different place from you.

Which is kind of the point.

>
>>
>>>  Perhaps defence solicitors should be told that outrageous defences
>>> that attempt to achieve acquittal via dubious loopholes will no
>>> longer be permitted.
>>
>> We can only go by what the law actually says. If it does not say what
>> politicians intended, they shouldn't have passed it. If it does, on
>> whose say-so should we decide that the law is not to be followed
>> according to what it actually says?
>
>On common sense - it's as simple as that.
>
>>
>>> What should be important is guilt or innocence - not nit-picking
>>> about whether an officer is wearing a cap, or whether the officer
>>> quoted the verbal caution in the wrong order. (There was an
>>> acquittal in a case where the officer inadvertently gave the 'old'
>>> verbal caution rather than the revised one - how ridiculous is that?)
>>
>> Given that what a suspect says or does not say can be used to try to
>> persuade the Court that they must be guilty, it is not ridiculous in
>> the slightest.
>
>So are you suggesting that everyone who was convicted under the 'old' 
>caution should be pardoned as their conviction was unsafe?

Why on earth should someone who was given the correct caution for the 
system as it was at the time their caution was administered be let off 
just because someone who was given the wrong caution which gave them 
false information as to their rights was? Where on earth are you coming 
from?

I know where you are going to. You are a complete waste of space with 
your specious arguments and straw men. I let you out of the killfile but 
you are going back in.
-- 
Richard Miller

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , Ret.
> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>> In message , Ret.
>>> <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What I think is that that is platitudinous bullshit. It is a
>>>>> statement of the ideal outcomes you would like to see from the
>>>>> system. It is not an answer to the practical question I asked. How
>>>>> would you devise a system to achieve such outcomes without causing
>>>>> more problems than you solve?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps Judges ought to be trained to use common sense?
>>>
>>> They are trained to use the law.
>>>
>>> Where do you intend that they should get this "common sense" from?
>>> You? Me? The Daily Mail? The Morning Star?
>>
>> Where do you get *your* common sense from Richard?
>
> Quite clearly a different place from you.
>
> Which is kind of the point.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>  Perhaps defence solicitors should be told that outrageous defences
>>>> that attempt to achieve acquittal via dubious loopholes will no
>>>> longer be permitted.
>>>
>>> We can only go by what the law actually says. If it does not say
>>> what politicians intended, they shouldn't have passed it. If it
>>> does, on whose say-so should we decide that the law is not to be
>>> followed according to what it actually says?
>>
>> On common sense - it's as simple as that.
>>
>>>
>>>> What should be important is guilt or innocence - not nit-picking
>>>> about whether an officer is wearing a cap, or whether the officer
>>>> quoted the verbal caution in the wrong order. (There was an
>>>> acquittal in a case where the officer inadvertently gave the 'old'
>>>> verbal caution rather than the revised one - how ridiculous is
>>>> that?)
>>>
>>> Given that what a suspect says or does not say can be used to try to
>>> persuade the Court that they must be guilty, it is not ridiculous in
>>> the slightest.
>>
>> So are you suggesting that everyone who was convicted under the 'old'
>> caution should be pardoned as their conviction was unsafe?
>
> Why on earth should someone who was given the correct caution for the
> system as it was at the time their caution was administered be let off
> just because someone who was given the wrong caution which gave them
> false information as to their rights was? Where on earth are you
> coming from?
>
> I know where you are going to. You are a complete waste of space with
> your specious arguments and straw men. I let you out of the killfile
> but you are going back in.

Up to you. I wasn't aware that you had ever kf'd me. But if you know where I 
am going to then kf'ing me may be a way of avoiding the point don't you 
think?  Either the 'old' verbal caution was satisfactory, or it wasn't. If 
it was a satisfactory warning for arrestees prior to the 'new' caution 
coming into force - why does it suddenly become an inadequate warning for 
arrestees following the introduction of the 'new' caution?

Kev

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , Ret.

> I know where you are going to. You are a complete waste of space with
> your specious arguments and straw men. I let you out of the killfile
> but you are going back in.

It occurs to me, reference the above, that whilst you find it perfectly ok 
for everyone to criticise the police - you don't like it when I criticise 
the ludicrous and frequently stupid justice system that you make your living 
from?

Kev

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , JNugent 
>  writes
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent  writes:
>>
>>>> You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons were 
>>>> guilty.
>>>> But they were not guilty.
>>
>>> Legally, yes. Factually, who knows?
>>
>> The jury?
> 
> Nope. They know the evidence they heard. They didn't know at the time 
> they reached their verdict that this plod had a record of similar racist 
> assaults in the past, which heavily tips the balance against him being 
> factually innocent.

Translation:

The jury, who have merely heard the evidence and tried the case, don't know 
whether the accused were guilty.

But Richard Miller knows all and is always in a posotion to decide guilt or 
innocence in a way that is beyond other mortals.

Or at least, when the defendant is a police officer, he/she *must* be guilty 
and Richard Miller will abuse anyone who dares to venture a contrary opinion.

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , JNugent 
>  writes
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim that 
>>>> all police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume that this 
>>>> particular officer is not?
>>>  Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of their 
>>> behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from people with 
>>> axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to me. The defendant's 
>>> is not.
>>
>> So you choose to work from  basis of pure prejudice, rather than 
>> treating cases on their merits.
> 
> I use my pre-existing knowledge to help me decide where truth lies. If 
> you do not do that, it is not possible to function in the real world.

"Pre-existing knowledge"?

You mean prejudice?

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , JNugent 
>  writes
>> Cynic wrote:
>>
>>> "Ret." <xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> The jury have heard all the evidence and clearly decided that they 
>>>> did not  believe the evidence given by the coloured officer.
>>
>>> They were not convinced BRD that it was the truth - which is not
>>> *quite* the same thing.
>>
>> A. They weren't convinced it was the truth.
>>
>> B. They didn't believe it.
>>
>> Spot the difference (if there is one).
> 
> Blimey! Are you seriously claiming you *can't* see a difference between 
> the two?

What is the difference?

If I am not convinced of the truth of a proposition (eg, "these men are 
guilty"), I think it is a false proposition.

If I think it is false, I don't believe it.

> <Imagines Victor Meldrew saying "I am not convinced it is the truth>

You watch too much TV.

Richard Miller wrote:

> Ret. <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>> Ret. <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>> Nigel Oldfield wrote:
>>>>> shaun.jameson.s...@ntlwolrd.com (Shaun) wrote:

>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm

>>>>> Said the jury spokesperson...
>>>>> "We 'aint havin' no nigger putting down two of our boys".

>>>> Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that
>>>> police officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries
>>>> (which is nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are
>>>> acquitted, all the police haters are still not satisfied and assume
>>>> the jury is thick or biased.
>>>> The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you lot
>>>> would be satisfied with would be a lynch mob.

>>> And what do you make of the fact that on this occasion it was a police
>>> officer who said that the police officers were behaving criminally?

>> Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim that all 
>> police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume that this 
>> particular officer is not?

> Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of their 
> behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from people with no 
> axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to me. The defendant's is 
> not.

My Lord, ladies and gentleman of the jury, I invite you to find the defendant 
guilty of the burglary charge without my having to present any ervidence. 
This is because the charge is entirely consistent with and typical of his 
antecedent history; there can be no other verdict than "guilty".

I want you to put aside anything you might have heard about trying cases on 
their merits and on the strength and credibility of the evidence. The great 
legal authority, Richard Miller himself, put that sort of touchy-feely 
nonsensefirmly beyond question in one of his famous learned Usenet posts.

JNugent wrote:
> Richard Miller wrote:
>> In message , JNugent
>>  writes
>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent  writes:
>>>
>>>>> You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons
>>>>> were guilty.
>>>>> But they were not guilty.
>>>
>>>> Legally, yes. Factually, who knows?
>>>
>>> The jury?
>>
>> Nope. They know the evidence they heard. They didn't know at the time
>> they reached their verdict that this plod had a record of similar
>> racist assaults in the past, which heavily tips the balance against
>> him being factually innocent.
>
> Translation:
>
> The jury, who have merely heard the evidence and tried the case,
> don't know whether the accused were guilty.
>
> But Richard Miller knows all and is always in a posotion to decide
> guilt or innocence in a way that is beyond other mortals.
>
> Or at least, when the defendant is a police officer, he/she *must* be
> guilty and Richard Miller will abuse anyone who dares to venture a
> contrary opinion.

And if you dare to begin criticising our patently defective justice system 
(you know - the one he makes his living from) - he takes umbrage and 
threatens to kf you!

Kev

JNugent wrote:
> Richard Miller wrote:
> 
>> Ret. <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>> Ret. <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes
>>>>> Nigel Oldfield wrote:
>>>>>> shaun.jameson.s...@ntlwolrd.com (Shaun) wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8340634.stm
> 
>>>>>> Said the jury spokesperson...
>>>>>> "We 'aint havin' no nigger putting down two of our boys".
> 
>>>>> Amazing isn't it? Time after time after time I get complaints that
>>>>> police officers are 'above the law' and never have to face juries
>>>>> (which is nonsense of course). But then, when they do, and are
>>>>> acquitted, all the police haters are still not satisfied and
>>>>> assume the jury is thick or biased.
>>>>> The police just cannot win can they? I think the only thing you
>>>>> lot would be satisfied with would be a lynch mob.
> 
>>>> And what do you make of the fact that on this occasion it was a
>>>> police officer who said that the police officers were behaving
>>>> criminally? 
> 
>>> Bearing in mind that it often suits uk.legal posters to claim that
>>> all police officers are lying bastards. Why do you assume that this
>>> particular officer is not?
> 
>> Because I have experience of the TSG, and his description of their
>> behaviour is entirely typical of the stories I heard from people
>> with no axe to grind. His story is inherently credible to me. The
>> defendant's is not.
> 
> My Lord, ladies and gentleman of the jury, I invite you to find the
> defendant guilty of the burglary charge without my having to present
> any ervidence. This is because the charge is entirely consistent with
> and typical of his antecedent history; there can be no other verdict
> than "guilty". 
> 
> I want you to put aside anything you might have heard about trying
> cases on their merits and on the strength and credibility of the
> evidence. The great legal authority, Richard Miller himself, put that
> sort of touchy-feely nonsensefirmly beyond question in one of his
> famous learned Usenet posts. 

LOL!

Kev

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:28:51 +0000, JNugent
 wrote:

>Richard Miller wrote:
>> In message , JNugent 
>>  writes
>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent  writes:
>>>
>>>>> You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons were 
>>>>> guilty.
>>>>> But they were not guilty.
>>>
>>>> Legally, yes. Factually, who knows?
>>>
>>> The jury?
>> 
>> Nope. They know the evidence they heard. They didn't know at the time 
>> they reached their verdict that this plod had a record of similar racist 
>> assaults in the past, which heavily tips the balance against him being 
>> factually innocent.
>
>Translation:
>
>The jury, who have merely heard the evidence and tried the case, don't know 
>whether the accused were guilty.

Not so. 
The jury has heard *some* of the evidence. Whether they decided the
accused were not guilty or that the prosecution had failed to prove a
case is immaterial to the verdict which will be the same for both
reasons. 

>
>But Richard Miller knows all and is always in a posotion to decide guilt or 
>innocence in a way that is beyond other mortals.

He, like others, has made his decision on the guilt based on evidence
not produced at the trial.

>
>Or at least, when the defendant is a police officer, he/she *must* be guilty 
>and Richard Miller will abuse anyone who dares to venture a contrary opinion.

I see no abuse except from those who would defend police thuggery

In message , JNugent 
 writes
>Richard Miller wrote:
>> In message , JNugent 
>> writes
>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> JNugent  writes:
>>>
>>>>> You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons 
>>>>>were  guilty.
>>>>> But they were not guilty.
>>>
>>>> Legally, yes. Factually, who knows?
>>>
>>> The jury?
>>  Nope. They know the evidence they heard. They didn't know at the 
>>time  they reached their verdict that this plod had a record of 
>>similar racist  assaults in the past, which heavily tips the balance 
>>against him being  factually innocent.
>
>Translation:
>
>The jury, who have merely heard the evidence and tried the case, don't 
>know whether the accused were guilty.
>
>But Richard Miller knows all and is always in a posotion to decide 
>guilt or innocence in a way that is beyond other mortals.
>
>Or at least, when the defendant is a police officer, he/she *must* be 
>guilty and Richard Miller will abuse anyone who dares to venture a 
>contrary opinion.

I am not the one in this debate who has resorted to ad hominem attacks. 
All I did was argue that using all available evidence, including my own 
personal experience, in order to judge where truth lies in a disputed 
story is a normal part of existence.

It is disappointing that your response to your disagreement with my 
proposition is to resort to entirely unprovoked personal abuse, based on 
lies about what my position actually is.
-- 
Richard Miller

AlanG wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>> JNugent  writes
>>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>> JNugent  writes:

>>>>>> You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons were 
>>>>>> guilty.

>>>>>> But they were not guilty.

>>>>> Legally, yes. Factually, who knows?

>>>> The jury?

>>> Nope. They know the evidence they heard. They didn't know at the time 
>>> they reached their verdict that this plod had a record of similar racist 
>>> assaults in the past, which heavily tips the balance against him being 
>>> factually innocent.

>> Translation:

>> The jury, who have merely heard the evidence and tried the case, don't know 
>> whether the accused were guilty.

> Not so. 
> The jury has heard *some* of the evidence. Whether they decided the
> accused were not guilty or that the prosecution had failed to prove a
> case is immaterial to the verdict which will be the same for both
> reasons. 

Please identify some of this evidence that you say the jury didn't see or hear.

>> But Richard Miller knows all and is always in a posotion to decide guilt or 
>> innocence in a way that is beyond other mortals.

> He, like others, has made his decision on the guilt based on evidence
> not produced at the trial.

"Evidence"?

Do you know what evidence (in the context of a criminal trial) is?

>> Or at least, when the defendant is a police officer, he/she *must* be guilty 
>> and Richard Miller will abuse anyone who dares to venture a contrary opinion.

> I see no abuse except from those who would defend police thuggery.

Stick around and watch RM at work.

Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , JNugent 
>  writes
>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>> In message , JNugent 
>>>  writes
>>>> Richard Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JNugent  writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> You managed to make that sound as though the acquitted persons 
>>>>>> were  guilty.
>>>>>> But they were not guilty.
>>>>
>>>>> Legally, yes. Factually, who knows?
>>>>
>>>> The jury?
>>>  Nope. They know the evidence they heard. They didn't know at the 
>>> time  they reached their verdict that this plod had a record of 
>>> similar racist  assaults in the past, which heavily tips the balance 
>>> against him being  factually innocent.
>>
>> Translation:
>>
>> The jury, who have merely heard the evidence and tried the case, don't 
>> know whether the accused were guilty.
>>
>> But Richard Miller knows all and is always in a posotion to decide 
>> guilt or innocence in a way that is beyond other mortals.
>>
>> Or at least, when the defendant is a police officer, he/she *must* be 
>> guilty and Richard Miller will abuse anyone who dares to venture a 
>> contrary opinion.
> 
> I am not the one in this debate who has resorted to ad hominem attacks. 
> All I did was argue that using all available evidence, including my own 
> personal experience, in order to judge where truth lies in a disputed 
> story is a normal part of existence.

Your "personal experience" is irrelevant and is *not* evidence.

> It is disappointing that your response to your disagreement with my 
> proposition is to resort to entirely unprovoked personal abuse, based on 
> lies about what my position actually is.

You're doing it now, just as predicted.

When are you going to admit that your prejudices (only some of which are 
known to us) are not evidence?

Richard Miller wrote:

> Ret. <xxx@?.?.invalid> writes:

[ ... ]

Ret:
>>>> What should be important is guilt or innocence - not nit-picking
>>>> about whether an officer is wearing a cap, or whether the officer
>>>> quoted the verbal caution in the wrong order. (There was an
>>>> acquittal in a case where the officer inadvertently gave the 'old'
>>>> verbal caution rather than the revised one - how ridiculous is that?)

RM:
>>> Given that what a suspect says or does not say can be used to try to
>>> persuade the Court that they must be guilty, it is not ridiculous in
>>> the slightest.

Ret:
>> So are you suggesting that everyone who was convicted under the 'old' 
>> caution should be pardoned as their conviction was unsafe?

RM:
> Why on earth should someone who was given the correct caution for the 
> system as it was at the time their caution was administered be let off 
> just because someone who was given the wrong caution which gave them 
> false information as to their rights was? Where on earth are you coming 
> from?
> I know where you are going to. You are a complete waste of space with 
> your specious arguments and straw men. I let you out of the killfile but 
> you are going back in.

Weren't you complaining about (imaginary) ad hominems a few posts back?