|
Can't stop laughing a tragedy Maybe if the Brooks' didn't want police not telling them they'd be showing up, they shouldn't allegedly dispose of a bunch of evidence the day of their last visit? The sympathy push has begun and I bet not one juror buys it.
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Right, but what makes it incriminating with regards to the Hackgate allegations? It just seems like a case of consulting your boss about an important political decision. Rebekah Brooks sent an extremely important work email from that laptop. The only defence they have against conspiracy to pervert the court of justice is that these are not work laptops, these are Charlie's personal angry birds and porn laptops. That they don't have any evidence juicier than alleged alluded horse porn is irrelevant: these are evidence, as they are used for work. Therefore they're about to be crucified for trying to dispose of them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Ah, I get it. So it's less that this specifically is bad and more that they've been caught lying about it. Being caught destroying evidence is a one way ticket to prison no matter who you are. It's not for laughs that those videos got leaked: someone wants to make absolutely sure the public understand what's happened, so there's no chance to slime their way out. I would be utterly shocked if they get anything less than contempt of court, it would imply the whole legal system is admitting it just gives no fucks. What we can hope for is bestiality charges on top of it, that'd be a nice one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Is expecting people to remember every detail of a conversation that happened half a decade ago (would you say it was a half moon, or a gibbous moon? Were you wearing a tie clip? I have surveillance camera footage proving that you weren't!) actually a valid legal strategy? You prove they recalled something wrong and therefore they're a filthy liar. It's extremely effective, people assume any mistruth means you're untrustworthy. The jury system is utterly worthless.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
That's fairly easy to worm out of though, since being negligent of your own rules isn't a crime in itself.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:I am very worried about news desk's spending, what is going on? It's a disciplinary situation. How am I going to make myself any clearer? I'm pretty sure quite a lot of the western world know she's guilty as a dog sitting next to a poo poo on your carpet, so it doesn't change much. At the moment I'm not too sure that the phrasing "tell me when you're spending" is a smoking gun in the way that "Tell me what you're spending it on" would be. The bigger deal would be if she said she had no reason to know, in which case she's flatly contradicted herself under oath from october 2013. BM if I just broke the law let me know and I'll change it, I don't know how this works given I didn't watch the proceedings and thus no leaks from court are happening that I can think of.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Unless you're sitting in the jury for the Trial from hell and are forced to go on strike, and therefore bring down a two year, £14m trial. The defence barristers made out like bandits, whereas the jury suffered financial troubles. Juries have absolutely no business in cases like that tbh. In fact juries have no business in anything ever, as "pick 12 people off the street" is an utterly terrible method at determining anything. When are we scrapping the idiotic system and letting actual legally trained professionals figure out if someone's done something wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:It should be noted it was just one of 15 of the green books he had in his possession when they arrested him. Diana was forgetful seatbelt joke?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
This incredible attempt at spin on c4 right now is amazing. No admission of guilt, no admission of a coverup, "mistakes" and all, "acceptance" of most of the general public not having sympathy. 18 months is "harsh". And now Krishnan is pissed and attacking the deputy editor.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
JoylessJester posted:So uh. Anyone other concerned parties that might die of old age before this inquiry? Do you mean are there any ill people involved, or do you mean are we waiting on anyone else to stop battering journalists with superinjunctions regarding their rape of children? The answer to the second is "yes". Always yes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
General corruption, anyone? guess what? The cops are infallible and Duggan DEFINITELY had a gun and note that it'd be helpful if you don't shoot your own radio next time, that looks well dodgy. Glad that's sorted.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
jre posted:Counterpoint , he was a drug dealer who'd just picked up a gun so he could kill someone and they were totally justified in shooting him ? What? Even the IPCC say he had no gun. We've got video of the cop shooting his own radio, we've got video of them planting the gun. We don't have any evidence that he threw it. Their stories changed repeatedly. Bloody hell man, even if you think he was a drug dealer who was going to shoot someone, they killed an unarmed man and then bullshitted and lied and changed testimony several times, and you think no action is the appropriate response?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
jre posted:The unarmed man who'd just collected a gun and ammunition from a gun dealer ? it's right there in the article, unarmed. e; I will accept tho that him going to a gun dealer and making sudden movements isn't a great way to not get shot. So can we skip that? I feel it's not relevant. The police have been cleared of all wrongdoing despite discharging their own weapons into their own radios and claiming they were shot at. Their story changed multiple times. Do you feel this is fit and proper behaviour for a police officer? Spangly A fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:No he's right we shouldn't hold police officers to a higher moral standard than drug dealers; they should be totally unaccountable to the law and free to execute anyone that may or may not have a gun. That they shot Duggan isn't my point. If you have reasonable belief that someone has a gun, the police have to intervene. If they genuinely believed he was pulling a gun, they have to react. They are trained to shoot, I don't see this as an issue when the belief is they are about to be shot at. The way they behaved afterwards should have cost everyone involved their jobs, and they're cleared of all wrongdoing. So an initial reaction to make a coverup for what is, on grounds of evidence, correct procedure is disturbing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
jre posted:There is no mention of unarmed in the article you linked at all, mainly because someone who has just collected a gun isn't unarmed. They found his gun outside the car, he wasn't armed, they believed he was. It is absolutely correct to say he did not have a gun when he did not have a gun. It's entirely defensible to say "yeah, we shot him, found the gun, fuckup, lets investigate this properly". And not discharge into a radio. Your article: Informed Met Source, apparently posted:One informed Met source said: "It was death by a thousand fuckups." Is the best surmation. jre posted:However I do think that the met firearm unit have a long history of being horrendously trigger happy and covering each others arses , but this wasn't exactly walking down the street with a table leg. No, it wasn't. I don't take the angle Duggan was an innocent victim. But if armed officers can't do their jobs without being able to corroborate their stories before a court, then they shouldn't have those jobs. Lawful killing is the correct verdict. No wrongdoing by means of no evidence is bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
willie_dee posted:Correct me if I'm wrong but that doesn't mean Ben Fellows didn't do it but it's not beyond reasonable doubt that it's made up. It's possible yeah, but Ken Clarke's defence is now to pray for insanity.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
hitchensgoespop posted:There was talk in the media yesterday of a list of 28 that was being circulated on social media. Good luck finding it and I hope nobody is stupid enough to post it here. I have the list. Ive worked with victims. I even recently asked BM what I could do about getting a story across for one, but they changed their mind out of fear of reprisals. Perhaps rightly so, they were pretty sure someone somewhere is loving with them I cant even go any further, I think. From what happened to them, I guess they were right. I have no idea what I can say on SA. I have no idea how much the coverup is continuing in terms of organised violence, but theres a lot of information suppression. I couldnt say, for example, that any recent libel proceedings were a kangaroo court, even if they were. But SA is not the place to discuss it before court orders. David Cameron was handed part of it on live TV. I'm not sure if its fully accurate, I promise you its partially accurate. I understand that a lot of this post is nonsense, but we are talking about people who weaponise legal actiom, and to whom the courtroom is a first step. Its a lot of hassle.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
Yo if someone can demonstrate a similar case where the US has told the UK to gently caress off on a national security libel issue, then I'll post everything I can dig up that wont jeapordise any of the victims. Some things will out them by their very nature, like bank records, and I won't post those without being certain they're determined.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Either way, the self-censorship is legit freaky. Britain, you have some lovely laws. They sent James Bond after any social worker trying to stop it. It's not just legality here, I could care less about courtroom appearences.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Actually yeah I was talking about the Schofield one. Everything else Ive seen is witness related, and that doesnt include names as they didn't often leave business cards. Part of the problem is the victims are going to need to go through psych evaluations and give as explicit testimoney as they can to figure out who exactly theyre talking about. Which is why the bank statements are a problem; its transfers between pimps and the children, which immediately exposes them without immediately exposing the main guilty parties. If it wasnt as such, then obviously theyd be posted and to hell with the conseauences, as by doing that there would be no point in a coverup.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Child prostitutes have to commute too, you know.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
Jedit posted:"Commute" implies they go back again. White people from kent can't disappear into the night forever. Then someone might notice.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 19:18
|
|