|
I always thought Thatcher got rid of the right to silence? Maybe that's what I get for learning politics from the into to Oi Polloi songs.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Prince John posted:Would you mind elaborating please? I was under the blissfully ignorant position of thinking I still had the right to remain silent. The rule was changed from quote:You have the right to remain silent, but anything you do say will be taken down and may be used in evidence. to quote:You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. But that was under thatcher, in 1984, and has nothing to do with Labour, and it hasn't changed since.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
I could have sworn it went "anything you say can and will be used against you"
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:The rule was changed from 94, under Major, but still Tory. (Technically you still have a right to silence - i.e. you cannot be compelled to make a statement other than in certain narrow circumstances - but courts may assume the worst if you choose not to do so. Of course, particularly in jury trials, that was actually what happened anyway, but kicking away that particular fig leaf was still a big thing).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:The rule was changed from It was in 1994, which is probably why I was misremembering it as Labour. I do accept though that it was the Tories.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
e: No idea why this was posted twice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:I could have sworn it went "anything you say can and will be used against you" The wording of the caution isn't actually set in stone (or in law), and there are differences between forces and over time, and even between individual officers. As long as the basic elements of the caution (that statements can be used in evidence against you, and (since CJA) that courts may draw adverse inference from you refusing to disclose information you later use in your defence) are present it's fine, legally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
How useful a guide for British people is that American video encouraging you to remain silent at all costs? It still seems like a good idea in the sense that you're not giving the police extra ammunition to use against you? fake edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc this video.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:How useful a guide for British people is that American video encouraging you to remain silent at all costs? It still seems like a good idea in the sense that you're not giving the police extra ammunition to use against you? Depends on the circumstances (much as it does in the US). If there's even the vaguest hint you could be in some sort of trouble keeping quiet until you have legal representation is a good idea, but if - to pick a slightly silly example - if you're walking down a street and a copper says "Did you see someone running down the street in a black and white sweater with a big bag marked "SWAG" over his shoulder?" and you clam up or shout back "NO COMMENT, I AM EXERCISING MY RIGHT TO SILENCE" then they'll probably get arsey and find some way of making your day slightly shittier. Now of course in an ideal world this wouldn't be the case (in either direction - you could be free to say what you want to Plod knowing they won't fit you up, and also you could be free to take the piss and they'd just walk away) but when you're kept waiting around for two hours while they "make enquiries" being in the right won't make you not late for work...
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
I've seen that American police video before, and while I accept the principle of not giving the police ammo to use against yourself, it does seem to go over the top. NEVER talk to police? What about if you're a witness to a crime? What about if you have to report a crime? What if they ask you a non-threatening non-incriminating question that you don't mind answering? I also really enjoy the way the speaker pulls the old "How did you know he was shot, I never mentioned a shooting?" (or whatever) routine with the class, as if Hollywood's depiction of policework and their favoured way of tripping up criminals is actually completely legit...
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Depends on the circumstances (much as it does in the US). If there's even the vaguest hint you could be in some sort of trouble keeping quiet until you have legal representation is a good idea, but if - to pick a slightly silly example - if you're walking down a street and a copper says "Did you see someone running down the street in a black and white sweater with a big bag marked "SWAG" over his shoulder?" and you clam up or shout back "NO COMMENT, I AM EXERCISING MY RIGHT TO SILENCE" then they'll probably get arsey and find some way of making your day slightly shittier. Cool, I'm still confused with silence being incriminating whether not saying things to prevent self-incrimination on laws you may not even be aware of is still a reasonable approach. I suppose it being very difficult for innocent citizens to know how best to behave is the point though. Squalitude posted:I've seen that American police video before, and while I accept the principle of not giving the police ammo to use against yourself, it does seem to go over the top. NEVER talk to police? What about if you're a witness to a crime? What about if you have to report a crime? What if they ask you a non-threatening non-incriminating question that you don't mind answering? I also really enjoy the way the speaker pulls the old "How did you know he was shot, I never mentioned a shooting?" (or whatever) routine with the class, as if Hollywood's depiction of policework and their favoured way of tripping up criminals is actually completely legit... From the tone of the video it is pretty clear he specifically means when you appear to be a suspect. If you skip to the last twenty minutes or so a former cop explains all the ways he set out to trip people up if you're interested in that aspect of things. That is out of date now though as MIRANDA warnings have been judicially undermined to the point you now have to specifically ask whether you're being detained for it to apply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Cool, I'm still confused with silence being incriminating whether not saying things to prevent self-incrimination on laws you may not even be aware of is still a reasonable approach. I suppose it being very difficult for innocent citizens to know how best to behave is the point though. Silence itself isn't incriminating. If a police officer asks you "Have you murdered someone?" and you don't say anything, they can't say "HAHA! GUILTY!" and pack you off to the Scrubs. The specific situation (which is explicitly laid out in the warning) is that you can't refuse to give information to the police and then use that same information in court. So if they ask you "Where were you at 11PM on the night of the murder?" and you give no comment but then, a year later at trial, you provide a bunch of witnesses who saw you all twenty miles away healing little sick birdies that night, the court can direct the jury to make an adverse inference that maybe, just maybe, these witnesses are people you've persuaded to give you an alibi. There is a slightly different version of the right to silence in trials - you have the right not to give testimony and previously the judge had to direct that no inference can be made from that refusal to testify in your own defence, now the judge can direct that the jury can draw their own conclusions about why you refused to testify. Like i say, in both these cases - unless the defence were really on their toes - juries would make those adverse inferences anyway, this just sort of codified that because there's no way around it, but it's still a pretty big symbolic break with tradition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:From the tone of the video it is pretty clear he specifically means when you appear to be a suspect. If you skip to the last twenty minutes or so a former cop explains all the ways he set out to trip people up if you're interested in that aspect of things. That is out of date now though as MIRANDA warnings have been judicially undermined to the point you now have to specifically ask whether you're being detained for it to apply. Well, watch the first 30 seconds of the video, he categorically states he will NEVER talk to ANY police officer under ANY circumstances. He does later talk about suspects, but he's pretty adamant about never talking to police. Plus, you may not know you're a suspect before any rights are read. I wouldn't say it's "pretty clear", as his overall message contradicts his blanket statement. But you can probably work it out, if you ignore his actual words. (Of course, he does talk to the police officer later on in the video, so, his blanket statement isn't really valid)
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Squalitude posted:Well, watch the first 30 seconds of the video, he categorically states he will NEVER talk to ANY police officer under ANY circumstances. I imagine this attitude is somewhat influenced by the existence of the prison industrial complex.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Squalitude posted:Well, watch the first 30 seconds of the video, he categorically states he will NEVER talk to ANY police officer under ANY circumstances. He does later talk about suspects, but he's pretty adamant about never talking to police. Plus, you may not know you're a suspect before any rights are read. I wouldn't say it's "pretty clear", as his overall message contradicts his blanket statement. But you can probably work it out, if you ignore his actual words. Yeah his whole approach is basically that the police will gently caress you over, and that any interaction with them where you don't have legal representation present is inviting serious trouble. It may be fine, but if it's not for whatever reason, you're at serious risk of being dragged into something big, where what you said or implied is what the cops say you said or implied. So he's saying it's safest not to say or imply anything at all, without a lawyer present anyway I think his point is more about awareness than anything, he and the cop aren't there to say 'never call or help the police under any circumstances'
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
If you're being detained by the police and you think you might have committed a crime (E. G. You get in a scrap, you're clearly defending yourself, but they didn't see the start of the fight so it's dicey) then do NOT speak to them, but this doesn't mean keeping completely quiet. Be compliant and polite, and simply request a lawyer. Don't try to explain yourself or justify or whatever, wait for the lawyer. They can only prevent access to a lawyer after I think a few hours if they think you're an organised criminal whose lawyer is going to tip off accomplices or hide evidence. Acab, sure, but they are human beings. If you're not a complete poo poo they usually won't go out of their way to be arses to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Human beings are very often arses though 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Lord Twisted posted:If you're being detained by the police and you think you might have committed a crime (E. G. You get in a scrap, you're clearly defending yourself, but they didn't see the start of the fight so it's dicey) then do NOT speak to them, but this doesn't mean keeping completely quiet. Be compliant and polite, and simply request a lawyer. Don't try to explain yourself or justify or whatever, wait for the lawyer. They can prevent access to a lawyer for as long as they have you detained (because good luck proving whether or not they bothered to try to contact your chosen solicitor) but you're allowed to refuse to talk to them without legal representation (and at court there can be no adverse inference if you do keep shtum).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Yeah, that's what I figure/how I've played it myself. My household has had its dealings with the police quite a few times since I've been living here (3 years), we've had police with machineguns almost open fire on our dog, I've had to
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Squalitude posted:Yeah, that's what I figure/how I've played it myself. My household has had its dealings with the police quite a few times since I've been living here (3 years), we've had police with machineguns almost open fire on our dog, I've had to  Normal stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Maybe his brother in law is Batman? That's normal for Batman, stop judging him. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
what I am taking away from the Rotherham sexual abuse inquiry is that the relevant protective services need a better answer besides "remove the kid to another neighbourhood" during edge cases where arrests are not possible
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Didn't you even see the news? The correct course of action is not let brown people near children ever again! Easy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Well, thank heavens for that, we can all stop worrying now. Big Nige selected at South Thannet hustings 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:Didn't you even see the news? The correct course of action is not let brown people near children ever again! Easy. Joking aside it's very lovely that people think they can't even tell the right people/authorities about these things because they think they'll be labelled as racist. I don't know what we can do about that but it's crappy. Edit: Boris AND Farage? loving hell it's the end of days.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Yeah, it's poo poo that thousands of kids have been abused because of that, but with the number of people, even cops, who knew about it, I think there may be more going on. Something coverup-ey. Was pretty weird seeing the reporter saying we need to focus on the ethnic background of the perpetrators, like the Catholic Church/BBC isn't in the middle of a massive paedophilia scandal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Joking aside it's very lovely that people think they can't even tell the right people/authorities about these things because they think they'll be labelled as racist. I don't know what we can do about that but it's crappy. Could it have anything to do with a drip-feed of media stories about how CRAZY PC COUNCILS ARE BANNING CHRISTMAS AND TOILETS AND BACON? Nah, that's crazy talk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Honestly, you should read the report from front to back. It is an incredible document that has it all. Incompetent management, bad practices, chronic under funding, and there are some seriously dark overtones of collusion with the predators by the police and corruption of the Rotherham Council with regard to following up on leads. The impression I got from the report is that the author is heavily winking and nudging towards one aspect of Rotherham in particular as worthy of investigation, but he cant make a formal recommendation to that effect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
there does seem to be a cultural problem in the Pakistani community's non-response to organized sexual abuse and intimidation, which the South Yorkshire police seem unable to get a grip on the report mentions several families whose parents were unwilling to cooperate with investigations, preferring silence and letting the child continue to be victimized. or: quote:11.14 One of the local Pakistani women's groups described how Pakistani-heritage girls were targeted by taxi drivers and on occasion by older men lying in wait outside school gates at dinner times and after school. They also cited cases in Rotherham where Pakistani landlords had befriended Pakistani women and girls on their own for purposes of sex, then passed on their name to other men who had then contacted them for sex. The women and girls feared reporting such incidents to the Police because it would affect their future marriage prospects... this is not a situation that English rape investigations are normally prepared to deal with quote:The UK Muslim Women's Network produced a report on CSE in September 2013 which drew on 35 case studies of women from across the UK who were victims, the majority of whom were Muslim. It highlighted that Asian girls were being sexually exploited where authorities were failing to identify or support them. They were most vulnerable to men from their own communities who manipulated cultural norms to prevent them from reporting their abuse. It described how this abuse was being carried out. 'Offending behaviour mostly involved men operating in groups . . . The victim was being passed around and prostituted amongst many other men. Our research also showed that complex grooming ‘hierarchies’ were at play. The physical abuse included oral, anal and vaginal rape; role play; insertion of objects into the vagina; severe beatings; burning with cigarettes; tying down; enacting rape that included ripping clothes off and sexual activity over the webcam.' to speak glibly, this strikes me as a gang problem exploiting a weakly defended niche, only the gang specializes in raping members of its own ethnic community rather than extracting liquid funds - quote:Dr Heal, in her 2003 report, stated that 'In Rotherham the local Asian community are reported to rarely speak about them [the perpetrators].' The subject was taboo and local people were probably equally frightened of the violent tendencies of the perpetrators as the young women they were abusing. In her 2006 report she described how the appeal of organised sexual exploitation for Asian gangs had changed. In the past, it had been for their personal gratification, whereas now it offered 'career and financial opportunities to young Asian men who got involved’. She also noted that Iraqi Kurds and Kosovan men were participating in organised activities against young women. exacerbated by quote:There was too much reliance by agencies on traditional community leaders such as elected members and imams as being the primary conduit of communication with the Pakistani-heritage community. The Inquiry spoke to several Pakistani-heritage women who felt disenfranchised by this and thought it was a barrier to people coming forward to talk about CSE. Others believed there was wholesale denial of the problem in the Pakistani-heritage community in the same way that other forms of abuse were ignored. Representatives of women's groups were frustrated that interpretations of the Borough's problems with CSE were often based on an assumption that similar abuse did not take place in their own community and therefore concentrated mainly on young white girls. to whom sexual abuse of women is effectively invisible or deserved by the women, because of aforementioned cultural roadblocks none of this seems like issues which cannot be resolved by increasing engagement with Pakistani women and increasing patrols with the perceived consent of the community, but until there develops a greater willingness to complain to the police about literal gang-perpetrated gang rape when such rape happens, removing children is all the state can do and it does seem like the council has precious few safe areas within Rotherham to evacuate children towards
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Joking aside it's very lovely that people think they can't even tell the right people/authorities about these things because they think they'll be labelled as racist. I don't know what we can do about that but it's crappy. Is that why people aren't doing anything? With all the stuff that has come out about Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc. it seems that people in general just... aren't that bothered about child abuse and are more than happy to turn a blind eye.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
at this point it also seems relevant to remember the report earlier this year that girl gangs in London itself developed their own culture of institutionalized gang rape
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
ANYTHING YOU SOW posted:Is that why people aren't doing anything? Sure as hell makes me suspicious about what Iain Banks had in mind when he was writing Player of Games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:Sure as hell makes me suspicious about what Iain Banks had in mind when he was writing Player of Games. I have no idea what you mean by this please don't ruin my favourite book 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Meaning that he was writing about the usurption of an incredibly sadistic upper class that used rape, murder and torture for its own amusement by The Culture. What if instead of being something he dreamed up, it was based rather more literally on reality? 
Plasmafountain fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
ronya posted:at this point it also seems relevant to remember the report earlier this year that girl gangs in London itself developed their own culture of institutionalized gang rape Uhhhhh where does it say that. All that report says is that girls who were members of gangs were raped and made to take part in institutionalised rape Also while we're on the subject, let's all take a minute to remember that the privatisation of children's homes has led to a concentration of them in areas with lower property values, meaning kids are taken out of their support networks and away from their social workers who know their case, and shipped across the country to where they're basically alone and vulnerable http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10304547/Breaking-the-wall-of-silence-map-shows-locations-of-childrens-care-homes.html Privatisation - it works 
baka kaba fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Aug 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
It seems pretty clear that we need to stop blaming specific cultures and races. The solution is obvious: chemically castrate all men, create a state monopoly on reproduction in laboratories, and raise children in communal state owned crèches.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Uhhhhh where does it say that. All that report says is that girls who were members of gangs were raped and made to take part in institutionalised rape oo, wrong report. I was mixing together some earlier reports that got passed around a bit: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-real-bad-girls--extraordinary-insight-into-londons-female-gang-culture-8748938.html http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/feb/18/being-raped-by-gang-normal there was at least one report that explicitly noted that snitches (of girl gangs) are arranged to be raped but I cannot find it, snitches are only tangentially mentioned to be punished with rape in the Independent report.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Lord Twisted posted:If you're being detained by the police and you think you might have committed a crime (E. G. You get in a scrap, you're clearly defending yourself, but they didn't see the start of the fight so it's dicey) then do NOT speak to them, but this doesn't mean keeping completely quiet. Be compliant and polite, and simply request a lawyer. Don't try to explain yourself or justify or whatever, wait for the lawyer. Unless you're not white. Or trans. Or gay. Or a sex worker. Or a woman. Or homeless. Or some combination of the above. Really, "don't talk to the cops, the chance they will try to use their power to gently caress you up is significant and not work the risk" is only news to people that don't really need the advice anyway, since polite white kids aren't typically going to be taught that the police have extraordinary power and willingness to use it. Unless they go to a demo maybe. Don't talk to the cops anyway, they aren't nice people and it makes their job easier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Joking aside it's very lovely that people think they can't even tell the right people/authorities about these things because they think they'll be labelled as racist. I don't know what we can do about that but it's crappy. I had a good laugh at imagining people uncovering a child sex conspiracy and then biting their fingernails as they realised that charging them might make them look racist! Well lads, hands are tied. Yeah, I'm sure that's what happened. Authorities paralysed by the mighty social justice warriors, rather than political connections, or incompetence, or officers were colluding, or anything else that would much more plausibly explain it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:Meaning that he was writing about the usurption of an incredibly sadistic upper class that used rape, murder and torture for its own amusement by The Culture. What if instead of being something he dreamed up, it was based rather more literally on reality? Complicity also makes similar references now that you mention it, including a pretty pivotal one later on: the copper that raped the 2nd person protagonist when he was a kid. I've been thinking about this recently, I brought up Red Riding in the other thread and coincidentally I read the Godfather novel a few weeks back and the horse head studio exec is a paedophile in that and there are a few other references to actors liking "very young girls". Which of course is all probably dramatic license but when Jerry Sadowitz was openly calling Saville a paedophile for years you do wonder if novelists are trying to point towards the truth more obliquely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 22:12
|
|