Visit to Police Station. Advice please...
Discussion
La Liga said:
Centurion07 said:
To be fair to Eclassy, do people tend to randomly stop their cars in the middle of the road like that, blocking traffic so they can have a calm, reasonable discussion?
I think you and I both know the answer to that, regardless of what the CPS can and can't prove.
Eclassy does talk a lot of b
ks on here (sorry dude, but you do), but I also happen to think his original post about that guy in the video & the whole situation is somewhat underplayed by the BiB on here due to the way he posts. IMHO.
The bloke is probably a dick and that stop doesn't put him in a good light. He may have committed an offence at some point (before or after that video). However, it fundamentally appears to be one word against the other, with a short corroborative video that does as much to paint the man as calm and reasonable as it does anything untoward. I think you and I both know the answer to that, regardless of what the CPS can and can't prove.
Eclassy does talk a lot of b
ks on here (sorry dude, but you do), but I also happen to think his original post about that guy in the video & the whole situation is somewhat underplayed by the BiB on here due to the way he posts. IMHO.The end goal is beyond reasonable doubt. The police are going to have to get much better at 'cutting losers' if they want to keep their heads above the water and not waste time on things that aren't going anywhere. This sounds like one of those necessary decisions.
Personally I have a massive amount of support for the police force in general and though unfortunately I have found some dealings with individual officers less than pleasant over the years, it doesn't lessen my respect for the job they have to do.
I had a comical episode with a plainclothes officer in an unmarked car when I was driving a lotus elise; short stretch of inner city dual carriageway, both of us doing well under the 40mph limit. He slowed right down then bizarrely tried to brake test me, which was unsuccessful given as I had dropped right back when he started to slow. I was bemused by his behaviour rather that angry which with hind sight was clearly the intent. I subsequently went straight on from the left lane at a roundabout while he sat stationary in the right lane. As soon as we cleared the roundabout he pulled me over and said 'now I'd undertaken him he could have me now'. His references to my 'little plastic car' just underlined that it was a grudge stop but I did/said the right things and eventually passed his attitude test. I was left off with 'just wisen up' warning and a grin at my wife. Presumably my crime was of being middle aged in a lotus. Not sure but I sucked it up and felt sorry for his inadequacies. My point is however if he'd tried to stick some BS S59 on me, I'd have been apoplectic.
Unlike some I don't think this represents a morally corrupt police force, I think it's just that a lot of officers spend so much time mixing with scrotes that they forget that there is a generally law abiding majority out there...
offshorematt2 said:
I had a comical episode with a plainclothes officer in an unmarked car when I was driving a lotus elise; short stretch of inner city dual carriageway, both of us doing well under the 40mph limit. He slowed right down then bizarrely tried to brake test me, which was unsuccessful given as I had dropped right back when he started to slow. I was bemused by his behaviour rather that angry which with hind sight was clearly the intent. I subsequently went straight on from the left lane at a roundabout while he sat stationary in the right lane. As soon as we cleared the roundabout he pulled me over and said 'now I'd undertaken him he could have me now'. His references to my 'little plastic car' just underlined that it was a grudge stop but I did/said the right things and eventually passed his attitude test. I was left off with 'just wisen up' warning and a grin at my wife. Presumably my crime was of being middle aged in a lotus. Not sure but I sucked it up and felt sorry for his inadequacies. My point is however if he'd tried to stick some BS S59 on me, I'd have been apoplectic.
I wonder how much of the problems are due to officers pursuing a personal agenda, or wanting to make a point and abuse their powers?How many can resist the temptation to misuse their powers? It's no different from many crooks or people in positions of power be it dodgy Doctors or shady Councillors?
offshorematt2 said:
Unlike some I don't think this represents a morally corrupt police force, I think it's just that a lot of officers spend so much time mixing with scrotes that they forget that there is a generally law abiding majority out there...
There seems to be a 'them and us' attitude. I think there could be multiple reasons for a 'them and us' attitude. Is that due to mixing with ne-erdowells? But not everyone they mix or work with are ne'erdowells are they?An officer once said to me 'You can usually find some dirt on everyone'. I think if an officer wants to get someone for whatever reason, they'll either engineer a way to get their way or they'll dig long enough and hard enough to get some dirt they can use, even if that's just to discredit and smear.
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 31st December 19:49
PLEASEDELETE said:
Three National Crime Agency officers rock up to a business. They tell the proprietor they want him to sign a statement against two individuals. He refuses, and tells them he has neither met nor even heard of the individuals and he has no intention of signing the statement. They threaten him that if he doesn't do what they want, they'll destroy his business. He tells them he will be immediately contacting his solicitor and that he wants them off his premises. He does contact his solicitor, and later makes a witness statement to a solicitor representing one of the individuals they had attempted to intimidate him into signing a statement against that he had not made.
When the case goes to trial, and this businessman's evidence is heard, what is likely to happen re the witness intimidation and the attempt to pervert the course of justice by obtaining a false statement ?
What happens next depends entirely on what the scriptwriter decides should happen in the fantasy world you've just described. When the case goes to trial, and this businessman's evidence is heard, what is likely to happen re the witness intimidation and the attempt to pervert the course of justice by obtaining a false statement ?
Possibly the officers get convicted and sentenced to hang by the neck until they are dead, or maybe they're eaten by a dinosaur recreated from DNA found in a local Chinese takeaway's sweet & sour pork balls. In real life either are about as likely as the scenario itself
Variomatic said:
What happens next depends entirely on what the scriptwriter decides should happen in the fantasy world you've just described.
Possibly the officers get convicted and sentenced to hang by the neck until they are dead, or maybe they're eaten by a dinosaur recreated from DNA found in a local Chinese takeaway's sweet & sour pork balls. In real life either are about as likely as the scenario itself
Possibly the officers get convicted and sentenced to hang by the neck until they are dead, or maybe they're eaten by a dinosaur recreated from DNA found in a local Chinese takeaway's sweet & sour pork balls. In real life either are about as likely as the scenario itself
He provided a 'statement' to one of the defendant's legal team, who presumably hasn't thought to raise the minor issue of three of the key witnesses / investigators committing extremely serious crimes with the IPCC / CPS / other relevant bodies.
Perhaps the NCA officers visited him / her too, and threatening to destroy their business as well.
La Liga said:
laugh:
He provided a 'statement' to one of the defendant's legal team, who presumably hasn't thought to raise the minor issue of three of the key witnesses / investigators committing extremely serious crimes with the IPCC / CPS / other relevant bodies.
Perhaps the NCA officers visited him / her too, and threatening to destroy their business as well.
No, he just wants to spring it in court Rumpole-of-the-(too much)-Baileys style rather than have the case dropped before it gets there - much better for his reputation and for his fees, and sod doing the best for his client.He provided a 'statement' to one of the defendant's legal team, who presumably hasn't thought to raise the minor issue of three of the key witnesses / investigators committing extremely serious crimes with the IPCC / CPS / other relevant bodies.
Perhaps the NCA officers visited him / her too, and threatening to destroy their business as well.
Cos all solicitors are just as bent as all police doncha know.....
PLEASEDELETE said:
[...] And counsel certainly hasn't raised the matter with any authorities. Why would he? His job isn't to make allegations or raise reports against policemen. His job's to successfully defend his client. So he'll 'raise the minor issue' in the course of the trial.
But making complaint, especially with 4 independent reports of such behaviour, and making sure that the CPS were aware would be part of defending his client.Four independent complaints of attempted witness tampering / evidence falsification against the officers involved in the case would make their entire testimonly unreliable. And THAT would be defending his client - in fact, it could easily be enough to have the case dropped before court.
Is this the prosecutor?
He's just going to say, "Surprise, motherfkers!" and spring a key part of the 'defence statement' out of no where is he? The CPS and NCA will have no idea, will they? The first time the court will have heard of the four statements is when one of the prosecution witnesses is in the box, is that right? Is that the image you have in your head? Do you know anything about disclosure? Have you even heard of it?
The judge will sentence him there and then by banging a gavel made of cheese, because he won't care about procedures since he'll be letting the defence ignore the CPIA as they so wish, so he may as well join the party.
He's just going to say, "Surprise, motherf
kers!" and spring a key part of the 'defence statement' out of no where is he? The CPS and NCA will have no idea, will they? The first time the court will have heard of the four statements is when one of the prosecution witnesses is in the box, is that right? Is that the image you have in your head? Do you know anything about disclosure? Have you even heard of it? PLEASEDELETE said:
That's why I was asking what YOU think? You do THINK don't you?
You want the stupid question answering below? Ok. PLEASEDELETE said:
When the case goes to trial, and this businessman's evidence is heard, what is likely to happen re the witness intimidation and the attempt to pervert the course of justice by obtaining a false statement?
He's highly likely to be sentenced to death because him providing a statement under duress from the conspiring authorities will be the foundation of his own trial The judge will sentence him there and then by banging a gavel made of cheese, because he won't care about procedures since he'll be letting the defence ignore the CPIA as they so wish, so he may as well join the party.
Why have you deleted your posts?
PLEASEDELETE said:
Three National Crime Agency officers rock up to a business. They tell the proprietor they want him to sign a statement against two individuals. He refuses, and tells them he has neither met nor even heard of the individuals and he has no intention of signing the statement. They threaten him that if he doesn't do what they want, they'll destroy his business. He tells them he will be immediately contacting his solicitor and that he wants them off his premises. He does contact his solicitor, and later makes a witness statement to a solicitor representing one of the individuals they had attempted to intimidate him into signing a statement against that he had not made.
When the case goes to trial, and this businessman's evidence is heard, what is likely to happen re the witness intimidation and the attempt to pervert the course of justice by obtaining a false statement?
When the case goes to trial, and this businessman's evidence is heard, what is likely to happen re the witness intimidation and the attempt to pervert the course of justice by obtaining a false statement?
PLEASEDELETE said:
Yes the businessman provided a statement to the solicitor's office who are instructing counsel for the defendant. (In fact It's one of 4 separate statements from 4 different witnesses which attest wrongdoing on the part of the police in the part of their operation which relates to this defendant. The question for the NCA to ask itself is how on earth the defence came to discover all this stuff). And counsel certainly hasn't raised the matter with any authorities. Why would he? His job isn't to make allegations or raise reports against policemen. His job's to successfully defend his client. So he'll 'raise the minor issue' in the course of the trial.
Want to come? Wear your uniform. It'll be packed with upscale plod and you do want to make the right impression, don't you?
And what DO you think'll happen when it all comes tumbling out? Counsel won't be doing anything in respect of it….certainly not until part 3 of the saga where he (or one of his chums) allege 'malicious and motivated activity' in a different court.
Do you think plod will admit it on the witness stand or deny it and be proved liars? It really did happen and there really isn't a 3rd option. Oddly enough, a prosecutor's office are also part of the corroboration that it happened. Remember, there are 3 of them, and as they don't know the defence know (which they obviously would do if counsel was as stupid as you and started reporting the matter etc) they aren't going to have any time or opportunity to fabricate any counter story. In short, they're fked. How important an impact it'll have on the case isn't really of huge interest to counsel.
And why would NCA plod want to threaten a solicitor? Like normal plod they pick their victims. Don't think victimising a prominent criminal solicitor's a good idea do you?
(What counsel will likely do is, at trial, ask the bendy plods 'Don't you think you were being a trifle over zealous'? That's much more the style, and leaves the jury to expand on the euphemism).
Personally I think it'll damage an already "wafer thin" and "poorly prepared" case. But it'll be left up to everyone apart from the defence to take any post trial action over if indeed it results in any action at all. That's why I was asking what YOU think? You do THINK don't you?
Want to come? Wear your uniform. It'll be packed with upscale plod and you do want to make the right impression, don't you?
And what DO you think'll happen when it all comes tumbling out? Counsel won't be doing anything in respect of it….certainly not until part 3 of the saga where he (or one of his chums) allege 'malicious and motivated activity' in a different court.
Do you think plod will admit it on the witness stand or deny it and be proved liars? It really did happen and there really isn't a 3rd option. Oddly enough, a prosecutor's office are also part of the corroboration that it happened. Remember, there are 3 of them, and as they don't know the defence know (which they obviously would do if counsel was as stupid as you and started reporting the matter etc) they aren't going to have any time or opportunity to fabricate any counter story. In short, they're f
ked. How important an impact it'll have on the case isn't really of huge interest to counsel. And why would NCA plod want to threaten a solicitor? Like normal plod they pick their victims. Don't think victimising a prominent criminal solicitor's a good idea do you?
(What counsel will likely do is, at trial, ask the bendy plods 'Don't you think you were being a trifle over zealous'? That's much more the style, and leaves the jury to expand on the euphemism).
Personally I think it'll damage an already "wafer thin" and "poorly prepared" case. But it'll be left up to everyone apart from the defence to take any post trial action over if indeed it results in any action at all. That's why I was asking what YOU think? You do THINK don't you?
PLEASEDELETE said:
Hmmm…..would you like an invite to the trial? It's in late March if you're free.
The business guy's really pretty spooked and it's felt he's going to need some court backed reassurance that these officers and/or their cronies will be somehow prevented from carrying out their threats against him.
The business guy's really pretty spooked and it's felt he's going to need some court backed reassurance that these officers and/or their cronies will be somehow prevented from carrying out their threats against him.
PLEASEDELETE said:
Yes the businessman provided a statement to the solicitor's office who are instructing counsel for the defendant. (In fact It's one of 4 separate statements from 4 different witnesses which attest wrongdoing on the part of the police in the part of their operation which relates to this defendant. The question for the NCA to ask itself is how on earth the defence came to discover all this stuff). And counsel certainly hasn't raised the matter with any authorities. Why would he? His job isn't to make allegations or raise reports against policemen. His job's to successfully defend his client. So he'll 'raise the minor issue' in the course of the trial.
Want to come? Wear your uniform. It'll be packed with upscale plod and you do want to make the right impression, don't you?
And what DO you think'll happen when it all comes tumbling out? Counsel won't be doing anything in respect of it….certainly not until part 3 of the saga where he (or one of his chums) allege 'malicious and motivated activity' in a different court.
Do you think plod will admit it on the witness stand or deny it and be proved liars? It really did happen and there really isn't a 3rd option. Oddly enough, a prosecutor's office are also part of the corroboration that it happened. Remember, there are 3 of them, and as they don't know the defence know (which they obviously would do if counsel was as stupid as you and started reporting the matter etc) they aren't going to have any time or opportunity to fabricate any counter story. In short, they're fked. How important an impact it'll have on the case isn't really of huge interest to counsel.
And why would NCA plod want to threaten a solicitor? Like normal plod they pick their victims. Don't think victimising a prominent criminal solicitor's a good idea do you?
(What counsel will likely do is, at trial, ask the bendy plods 'Don't you think you were being a trifle over zealous'? That's much more the style, and leaves the jury to expand on the euphemism).
Personally I think it'll damage an already "wafer thin" and "poorly prepared" case. But it'll be left up to everyone apart from the defence to take any post trial action over if indeed it results in any action at all. That's why I was asking what YOU think? You do THINK don't you?
Want to come? Wear your uniform. It'll be packed with upscale plod and you do want to make the right impression, don't you?
And what DO you think'll happen when it all comes tumbling out? Counsel won't be doing anything in respect of it….certainly not until part 3 of the saga where he (or one of his chums) allege 'malicious and motivated activity' in a different court.
Do you think plod will admit it on the witness stand or deny it and be proved liars? It really did happen and there really isn't a 3rd option. Oddly enough, a prosecutor's office are also part of the corroboration that it happened. Remember, there are 3 of them, and as they don't know the defence know (which they obviously would do if counsel was as stupid as you and started reporting the matter etc) they aren't going to have any time or opportunity to fabricate any counter story. In short, they're f
ked. How important an impact it'll have on the case isn't really of huge interest to counsel. And why would NCA plod want to threaten a solicitor? Like normal plod they pick their victims. Don't think victimising a prominent criminal solicitor's a good idea do you?
(What counsel will likely do is, at trial, ask the bendy plods 'Don't you think you were being a trifle over zealous'? That's much more the style, and leaves the jury to expand on the euphemism).
Personally I think it'll damage an already "wafer thin" and "poorly prepared" case. But it'll be left up to everyone apart from the defence to take any post trial action over if indeed it results in any action at all. That's why I was asking what YOU think? You do THINK don't you?
mph1977 said:
yet another immature idiot who thinks he knows it all ... and puts 2 and 2 together to get aobut 7 and a third...
are you not aware of the existance of Custody Visitors , and how st scared Supts and ACPO grade officers are of them ... becasue they will not hold back in criticising the (lackof) support given to front line officers ( most of the PCs - Inspectors are only scared of them if they are of the tiny minority of officers who are working bent) .
http://icva.org.uk/
What's any of that got to do with what I posted?are you not aware of the existance of Custody Visitors , and how s
t scared Supts and ACPO grade officers are of them ... becasue they will not hold back in criticising the (lackof) support given to front line officers ( most of the PCs - Inspectors are only scared of them if they are of the tiny minority of officers who are working bent) . http://icva.org.uk/
PLEASEDELETE said:
Oh, and are you taking up the invite to the trial? (sorta 'put your money' etc challenge
I might. I've got some leave I need to use, so I'd consider it. If you tell us when/where/who it is. A "sorta 'put your money' etc challenge"...Do telll.
Edited by Dibble on Thursday 1st January 08:11
PLEASEDELETE said:
Dibble said:
PLEASEDELETE said:
Oh, and are you taking up the invite to the trial? (sorta 'put your money' etc challenge
I might. I've got some leave I need to use, so I'd consider it. If you tell us when/where/who it is. A "sorta 'put your money' etc challenge"...Do telll.
Edited by Dibble on Thursday 1st January 08:11
Post the details here, or PM them to me. I'm obviously not going to post my personal details here, because they are just that, personal. Trials are public record, so you should have no problem posting the details.
PLEASEDELETE said:
Dibble said:
I'm obviously not going to post my personal details here, because they are just that, personal.
What happened to 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' ? But if you ARE afraid, pm them to me (that's what you're suggesting I do, after all).I'm not posting my personal details on the Internet for a variety of reasons. If you can't work out what they may be, that's your problem, I'm afraid. Similarly, if you think I'm going to PM you, and can't work out why I wouldnt, again, your problem.
Court cases are matters of public record (in most instances). So feel free to post the link/information here. Failing that, post up some links when it's all done and dusted and the businessman has "won". I shan't hold my breath.
Feel free to send me the details to n e w d I b b l e (a) g m a i l d o t c o m
I've just added a new account to PH, I know, against the rules, but when did they ever apply to the Police, right? Once I can send you a PM from there, I will do.
Or you know, you could just post the public record stuff here...
I've just added a new account to PH, I know, against the rules, but when did they ever apply to the Police, right? Once I can send you a PM from there, I will do.
Or you know, you could just post the public record stuff here...
If you had evidence of serious and systemic bad faith on behalf of the investigating officers, you'd be making an abuse of process application (on the basis it would not be fair to try the defendant). If you had the evidence in hand prior to trial, the application would be heard beforehand (no jury is required for an abuse hearing).
Seeming the result of a successful abuse application can be that the case is stayed, never to be reinstated, never to be tried, it's not the kind of thing you would sit on until trial.
Seeming the result of a successful abuse application can be that the case is stayed, never to be reinstated, never to be tried, it's not the kind of thing you would sit on until trial.
PLEASEDELETE said:
Dibble said:
Please point me in the direction of where I've ever said that?
I'm not posting my personal details on the Internet for a variety of reasons. If you can't work out what they may be, that's your problem, I'm afraid. Similarly, if you think I'm going to PM you, and can't work out why I wouldnt, again, your problem.
Court cases are matters of public record (in most instances). So feel free to post the link/information here. Failing that, post up some links when it's all done and dusted and the businessman has "won". I shan't hold my breath.
Dibble, chap, are you seriously saying you're soliciting a private message from someone from whom you want to conceal your identity? Humour me here. Please show me you've nothing to hide. What possible reason would you have NOT to reveal, especially by PM? Would you conceal your identity from someone contacting you about buying a car, or inviting you to a party? What sinister threat do you think lurks here? Out with it, man! I won't consider it a libel. You can speak freely. It's only a chat after all. Goodness! Given your reaction, how would you think Joe Public should react to an offer to 'come to the station for a chat'? You see some kind of threat in revealing your identity as a public official in PRIVATE message. Can of worms there, methinks. Especially as, like your colleague, you seem to want to be clear that you're a policeman. I'm not posting my personal details on the Internet for a variety of reasons. If you can't work out what they may be, that's your problem, I'm afraid. Similarly, if you think I'm going to PM you, and can't work out why I wouldnt, again, your problem.
Court cases are matters of public record (in most instances). So feel free to post the link/information here. Failing that, post up some links when it's all done and dusted and the businessman has "won". I shan't hold my breath.
Oh and by the way, it's probably been a bit difficult to follow, but the businessman's a (albeit intimidated and for that reason reluctant) witness, not a defendant. And -even hypothetically, given as we all know such circumstances could never happen in real life so it's all a fantasy anyway, eh - how do you think this poor guy should be reassured that his witness role WON'T lead to retribution from the cops whose conduct he's witnessing against? I mean his reluctance (which won't, as you know, take a serious court 10 seconds to ascertain as genuine) is itself highly corroborative of his evidence of intimidatory conduct.
k me you're a bit special aren't you...Delete? You shouldn't be allowed near crayons never mind a keyboard.
PLEASEDELETE, I've offered you a few options for posting the details of the trial, with which you seem so intimately acquainted. You've declined to do so, and obviously have no intention of doing so, so I'll leave it there.
Similarly, I don't intend to justify my decision NOT to publish my details on the Internet or send you a PM from my usual email account. As I said, if you can't work out the reasons why, that's your issue.
Similarly, I don't intend to justify my decision NOT to publish my details on the Internet or send you a PM from my usual email account. As I said, if you can't work out the reasons why, that's your issue.
PLEASEDELETE said:
Y'see making these applications, or complaints, or anything else, REGARDLESS of the strength of evidence to reinforce them doesn't necessarily guarantee any positive outcome for counsel's client. The plea here is Not Guilty. No 'deals', no 'compromises', and every wish on the defendant's part to move the matter to hearing. The malicious police conduct isn't even a hugely significant part of the defence. The prosecution case has been described as 'so wafer thin it is almost invisible'. And whilst there are no guarantees in the matter, IF any misconducts are to have serious impact on the case the trial or their outcome then they will have no less impact if they are revealed DURING trial. Defence isn't for one moment suggesting charges should be dropped or the trial shouldn't go ahead. If it happens that the bench decides to halt the trial because of issues which arise during it then so be it. But as far as counsel's concerned, cases which have involved the same officers from the same operational team have frequently involved what he terms 'embellishment' of evidence, and police misconduct which emerges during trials is a commonplace. Ironically it strengthens defence cases.
To be fair to you, it doesn't sound like you have access to the full facts, as a competent criminal barrister wouldn't act in the way you describe if they had the evidence you say they have in hand.PLEASEDELETE said:
WinstonWolf said:
fk me you're a bit special aren't you...
Delete? You shouldn't be allowed near crayons never mind a keyboard.
As good an argument as any I could make to encourage rather than resist the deletions. You should report me to The Allowers or The Preventers.k me you're a bit special aren't you...Delete? You shouldn't be allowed near crayons never mind a keyboard.
king hell, how have I not seen you before? 
You do realise you can't delete on PH, you merely hide what you say from public view.
Have they let you out for the holidays?
PLEASEDELETE said:
Three National Crime Agency officers rock up to a business. They tell the proprietor they want him to sign a statement against two individuals. He refuses, and tells them he has neither met nor even heard of the individuals and he has no intention of signing the statement. They threaten him that if he doesn't do what they want, they'll destroy his business. He tells them he will be immediately contacting his solicitor and that he wants them off his premises. He does contact his solicitor, and later makes a witness statement to a solicitor representing one of the individuals they had attempted to intimidate him into signing a statement against that he had not made.
When the case goes to trial, and this businessman's evidence is heard, what is likely to happen re the witness intimidation and the attempt to pervert the course of justice by obtaining a false statement?
I've read many a 'my Uncle's, brother's, aunty's, friend's, cousin told me' in the past on PH, but this has to be right up there at the top as utter, utter crock. You wouldn't even get something that far fetched on the a twenty year old episode of the Bill. When the case goes to trial, and this businessman's evidence is heard, what is likely to happen re the witness intimidation and the attempt to pervert the course of justice by obtaining a false statement?
PLEASEDELETE said:
I'm not anti-police. In fact in one of my roles I'm fairly frequently called on to help them gather investigatory evidence.
Amazing the number of people who turn up on PH claiming to 'help gather evidence'. PLEASEDELETE said:
A fairly senior lawyer friend of mine, now elevated to the judiciary,
There also seems to be a lot of people who know Judges and the like. Have a word with him, he might bring it up when he speaks to your other mate the Chief Constable.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff