Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'OT (OFF Topic) Forums' started by glojo, Sep 21, 2008.
I thought this might light the proverbial!
Hm - error in evidence procedures results in a policeman being let off. Difficult to be anything other than cynical.
Makes me sick reading articles like that..
Yep, let's put that on the list of 'what made Britain Great?'
Certainly looks pretty damn poor.
My only thought would have to be that this article is as much about what is not said.
There are two paragraphs, that between them move us towards a particular conclusion;
The second paragraph suggests to us that the reason for the "legal reasons" was an error by Police collecting evidence.
But the CPS felt the evidence was compelling enough and the public interest sufficient, that the case should be brought to Court (and they will have believed that they had a greater than 75% chance of conviction).
But you can be 100% certain that the BRAKE spokesman was not in Court that day and no where else in the article does it say what the legal reasons were.
If the legal reason was that the two samples of blood taken from the Off-Duty Officer gave blood-alcohol readings with a difference of more than 10% (but both were over the limit) then it would be normal for the Court to dismiss the evidence, particularly if the lower reading was very close to the legal limit.
But the article does not tell us why or how it happened, just the conclusion.
And so stevesey is left feeling it was clearly incompetence by the investigating Cop. (Which well it might have been).
Now, from my ramble above you might come to the conclusion I am in some way trying to defend the Officer.
I am not.
Because, like the spokesman from BRAKE, and quite possibly the journo who wrote this article, I wasn't in Court to hear the evidence either.
If you are driving whilst under the influence of drink, drugs (or too tired) and you choose to share the road with decent people, you deserve the book throwing at you. No matter how nice a person you are.
I'd love to put forward a conspiracy theory, most times they get their convictions and evidence gathered properly, so is it just back luck as it was one of their own or more than co-incidence.
Don't expect justice.
A CPS spokesman said: "This case followed standard practice where a serving police officer is accused of an offence.
For standard Practice Read Let Them Off.LOL
*** has just said it all respect them LOL
What really ghouls me is how I maintain a stance over the injustice of people 'walking' when they appeal against conviction and get let off on a technicality.
Folks here have been extremely vocal on so called miscarriages of justice and how corrupt the system is in persecuting these 'innocent folks' We have been discussing a case quite recently of how someone was convicted, actually found guilty, appealed, had the appeal dismissed and then eventually decided on a different course and put a slight doubt on one section of evidence and a convicted murderer walked free. Instead of suggesting the system was corrupt we say it was a miscarriage of justice.
I have no idea of what happened in this specific case but what I do know is that members of this forum continually advice about using a lawyer who specialises in getting clients off of motoring offences by using loop-holes or a failure by the police to follow procedures.
If we in one breath advice this then we CANNOT object when we read of cases like this. We are either for or against our judicial system. We are either for defendants getting off on technicalities, or we are against it.
Whether folks accept it or not, they are quite clearly bias in their thought processes, in fact in my opinion it is quiet offencive and perhaps even a type of mild racism!!!!!!
"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."
Instead of using the word 'race' let us say section of society. We are showing a continued vendetta against one section of our society.
How many of these protesters have highlighted the guilty getting away with murder???? Is not murder more serious than speeding or perish the thought.... drink driving? I don't want to hear these folks prattle on about how serious drink driving is; we know how serious this behaviour is, but I tend to think a murderer or bomber getting away on a mere technicality is worse?
No one here seems to accept that once again, it was the police that put this man before the court, it was the CPS that decided there was a case that had a good chance of prosecution. It was the CPS that decided the papers were all in order, It was the CPS that decided the evidence was correct, it was the CPS that argued the case. It is now down to the CPS to decide if there should be a retrial.
The officer was arrested in one area of the county and prosecuted in another, there has not been any reports of what went wrong, but I do know that if there was ANY collusion, then arrests will DEFINITELY follow. My thoughts are that we watch too much television and are too easily influenced by the media, our TV screens are full of programs about bent coppers, and other fictional behaviour, but the reality is our police are really no more than paper pushers that have to follow very strict guidelines and I doubt they would put their jobs on the line for a drink driver who has allegedly caused a traffic accident . A mistake may have been made and another guilty person might be laughing at the court, but to suggest there was collusion is sick, objectionable and totally wrong.
I have been 100% consistent with my opinions regarding the law and if there has been a technical breach then my own thoughts are that the breach should be heard, and common sense prevail on whether this technicality would have a genuine effect on any conviction.
Two read outs, blood results or whatever tests were carried out should be heard and a decision taken. If procedural guidelines have been breached then those that breached them should be answerable, but should that effect ANY court case? I have NO idea on the ins and outs of this specific case and my thoughts are perhaps in regard to a fictitious case.
If this officer had been convicted and he then appealed.... How many here would have supported it and screamed 'Miscarriage of Justice' when he got off? How many of us would congratulate him? How many of us would say, "I always thought he was innocent"
If this was a murderer and not a police officer, and the defence said there might have been a procedural error, who here would scream foul if the defendant then walked?
The problem with newspaper reports, because of ongoing proceedings, they are unable to publish the complete story and only publish, effectively, the conclusions, from which we write our opinions on here. It annoys me when a criminal "gets away with it" but, we should really form our opinions when all the facts are known.
This letter may prove interesting, although it only covers one Police Authority (Manchester).
The thing I found interesting was that of 64 charges/summonses over the period for traffic offenses, only 4 did not result in a conviction - a 93.75% conviction rate.
Totally agree but we never get both sides, instead we have folks that read an article that by law has to be very careful in what it reports, we have folks that believe TV soaps and we have folks that believe very one sided documentaries.
I hope there is a re-trial, and I hope justice prevails but I hope this justice is equal and just. How many celebrities avoid conviction or jail, be they drug crazed pop singers, or speed mad football stars. A fair society and an equal society.
I thoroughly recommend a day in the public gallery at Crown Court (and perhaps compare what you see with what gets reported - you may not recognise it as the same trial...!).
It is a travesty that a drink driver got off on a technicality.
His profession is neither here nor there.
I don't know what it's like for your police, of course.
Over here, as an officer, you'd be under much worse from your organization and co-workers for DUI than you would be from the court system.
Nonetheless, John, your outrage's footing is sound as Gibraltar.