Turn on thread page Beta

returning for bail tomorrow! watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by facedrop)
    lol. Why do I need taking down? And with the many fragrent abuses of PACE which I have already mentioned, me and my brief are already getting ready to sue the constabulary my case is out of their hands.

    P.S. If anyone wants to know about complaining to the police PM me. I can tell you how to word it in such a way that professional standards have to take seriously and it will cause the officer a real headache!
    Mostly because your arrogance is truly astounding. You think you can walk into the offices of the law, blind CID with glitz and glamour, and walk out again untouched?

    If they've dragged you in for something as serious as money laundering, I suspect they have their reasons. I relish your imminent ego implosion.

    Oh yes - here's a tip. A No Comment interview has never looked good in court. Just saying.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ttocserp)
    Yeah i should have added not the vague criminal offences, What are you alleged to have stolen? What proof do they have of this?
    Really sorry mate not a chance in hell. Not giving out that sort of information on here to someone I don't know. They have some... but tbh what they have adds together like a patchwork quilt. I mean you would have to get really into it if you wanted to understand it. So no smoking gun. Hoping CPS will think there is not enough juice for the squeeze and refuse charge.

    I will have the biggest smirk if that happens - "better look next time" and just walk off.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Frankly, I wish Gene Hunt was real sometimes.
    Oh God yeah!! :mmm:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Oh yes - here's a tip. A No Comment interview has never looked good in court. Just saying.
    Really... so which of the list are you:

    1) Criminal defence lawyer,
    2) Police officer,
    3) Judge,
    4) Prosecutor
    5) Prat who thinks the world is black and white, and who probs reads the gaurdian.

    No comment interviews mean VERY little. The prosecution can ASK for an inference to be drawn, however they are very rarely used (because it makes it very very easy for a defence to bring in police misconduct). Things like not enough disclosure etc... muddies the water, and confuses a jury (or mag). You then blame brief for advice, who then delights in spending 5 minutest attacking the police making you look like a saint!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by facedrop)
    Really... so which of the list are you:

    1) Criminal defence lawyer,
    2) Police officer,
    3) Judge,
    4) Prosecutor
    5) Prat who thinks the world is black and white, and who probs reads the gaurdian.

    No comment interviews mean VERY little. The prosecution can ASK for an inference to be drawn, however they are very rarely used (because it makes it very very easy for a defence to bring in police misconduct). Things like not enough disclosure etc... muddies the water, and confuses a jury (or mag).
    I'm closest to #5, except that I read a multiplicity of news sources from across the political spectrum.

    However, if you're innocent, I ask why be so defensive? Why harp on with that line about the world not being black and white? There are different shades of black, and there are different shades of white - but there is a line. That line is the law.

    No comment interviews, whether they have an influence in the courtroom or not, will not weigh up well with the jury behind closed doors - of that you can be relatively certain. As impartial and as neutral as a jury tries to be, some factors will always work against you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by facedrop)
    Really... so which of the list are you:

    1) Criminal defence lawyer,
    2) Police officer,
    3) Judge,
    4) Prosecutor
    5) Prat who thinks the world is black and white, and who probs reads the gaurdian.

    No comment interviews mean VERY little. The prosecution can ASK for an inference to be drawn, however they are very rarely used (because it makes it very very easy for a defence to bring in police misconduct). Things like not enough disclosure etc... muddies the water, and confuses a jury (or mag). You then blame brief for advice, who then delights in spending 5 minutest attacking the police making you look like a saint!
    Yeah but I think what he was trying to say was, if you are innocent and have nothing to hide then you wouldn't be "no comment"ing, I sure wouldn't. No comment makes them think you have something to hide that you won't tell them. Especially when you say it "with a smirk on (your) face with a wink". Suspicious much??
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    I'm closest to #5, except that I read a multiplicity of news sources from across the political spectrum.

    However, if you're innocent, I ask why be so defensive? Why harp on with that line about the world not being black and white? There are different shades of black, and there are different shades of white - but there is a line. That line is the law.

    No comment interviews, whether they have an influence in the courtroom or not, will not weigh up well with the jury behind closed doors - of that you can be relatively certain. As impartial and as neutral as a jury tries to be, some factors will always work against you.
    I would agree with you, but here is the thing. The prosecution will not mention it. They won't bring it up in trial. If they do it invaryably means they have a terribly weak case - and you are right, it might make most people think what has he got to hide, but it only needs 2 too say I would do the same if told to by my solicitor and you are walking.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HaNzY)
    Yeah but I think what he was trying to say was, if you are innocent and have nothing to hide then you wouldn't be "no comment"ing, I sure wouldn't. No comment makes them think you have something to hide that you won't tell them. Especially when you say it "with a smirk on (your) face with a wink". Suspicious much??
    But it isnt put to a jury or mag like that. Its more like "my client was terrified, he had never been arrested before - as the only person who was supporting him I advised him to answer questions no comment, the reasons for this are..., I feel anyone put in this terryfying situation would have taken the advice of the one expert who was there to protect them". They then add in some crap about you being vulnerable and intimidated by the officers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by facedrop)
    I would agree with you, but here is the thing. The prosecution will not mention it. They won't bring it up in trial. If they do it invaryably means they have a terribly weak case - and you are right, it might make most people think what has he got to hide, but it only needs 2 too say I would do the same if told to by my solicitor and you are walking.
    Are you actually guilty though?? If so I think you should accept the consequences of your actions. Your whole attitude is making me suspicious of you so I don't know what you will be like in court tomorrow!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by facedrop)
    They then add in some crap about you being vulnerable and intimidated by the officers.
    But you make it sound like such a lie. You weren't scared when you were smirking and winking at them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HaNzY)
    But you make it sound like such a lie. You weren't scared when you were smirking and winking at them.
    Who will know that? They arnt going to bring that up - a judge would never allow it. It brings unfair inferences (who's to say it isnt a nervous thing I do). Smiling isn't evidence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HaNzY)
    Are you actually guilty though?? If so I think you should accept the consequences of your actions. Your whole attitude is making me suspicious of you so I don't know what you will be like in court tomorrow!
    I'm not in court. It's police bail. I'm going back to the station to be either: charges, re-intervied, told the police they are taking no further action. Thats why I am nervous, I have no control at this point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by facedrop)
    I'm not in court. It's police bail. I'm going back to the station to be either: charges, re-intervied, told the police they are taking no further action. Thats why I am nervous, I have no control at this point.
    So you are guilty since you avoided the question? If you are innocent, good luck, if you aren't, you deserve whatever action they take.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Realism)
    God you're thick. This whole segment here reeks of 'I'm guilty'.

    With skills like that I think you should think of a career in CID, they want people with your intelligence. Of course that is after you have got your degree in media studies.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Mostly because your arrogance is truly astounding. You think you can walk into the offices of the law, blind CID with glitz and glamour, and walk out again untouched?

    If they've dragged you in for something as serious as money laundering, I suspect they have their reasons. I relish your imminent ego implosion.

    Oh yes - here's a tip. A No Comment interview has never looked good in court. Just saying.
    A no comment interview is exactly what you should be doing in the first interview no matter what.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuppenny)
    Three piece or just the sofa?

    I'm sorry, I have nothing constructive to add, but I couldn't resist.
    haha
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Realism)
    Fail logic, I'm currently doing English Literature, History & Geography attaining A (88%), A(89%), A(93%) & a B in Business & Economics at AS.

    What are you doing with your life apart from being arrested?
    Congrats on the AS results. I have a degree (first class) in physics and currently work for myself doing consultancy and run an educational tuition company. Mate do me a favour, start preaching to me about life when you have lived some.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gueirguiy)
    A no comment interview is exactly what you should be doing in the first interview no matter what.
    Mate, I think people on here will only realise that when they have been in our shoes. When they have been abused by the police verbally and physically. When they have been put in a cell with blood all over the walls. When they have had the police go out and maliciously spread lies about them.

    Until then they will see the police as people who wear a halo who are their to save them from evil people and go a great job. Admittedly my experience is limited, and I am sure that most officers are decent but the ones I have dealt with are about on par with pedophiles when it comes to decency.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Realism)
    Oh wait, now you've realised that I'm not doing media studies your trying to belittle me in another way? You don't need to prove anything to me mate, I'm not the judge. Nor am I the woman you're trying to get one over on, in the same way you've demonstrated on me.

    Get down off of your high horse and grow a pair.
    That post is rubbish. You use alot of words and say nothing. Now please go away and leave my thread alone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im sorry but some the stories im reading here are utter lies, if police where to act in the way people are claiming they be shooting themselves in the foot and risking the case being thrown out on technicalities. Read up on PACE, and its code of practise! Also if these are true get a proper solicitor!
 
 
 
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.