David Edgar Forcibly Arrested!
Discussion
gone said:
Ah. I see now where you are coming from.
You have mixed up/confused the roles of those who's task it is to gain evidence to prosecute (The police) and those who's task it is to gain evidence to defend (a legal representative).
Selective quoting I know, but I have to ask,if in the course of your investigation you discover something that Clears the accused, what do you do with it?
I am merely curious, because I have personally witnessed a uniformed serving officer, commit perjury while under oath.
Phil
As regards this case, I'm looking forward to hearing the full details.
Hey Gone!
No doubt this disgusting miscarriage of justice was perpetrated by the smallest, tiniest, minutest minority of corrupt single members of the service.
Then again, is it possible that it would/could have taken the resources of even more than a whole department?
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13355139,00.html
No doubt this disgusting miscarriage of justice was perpetrated by the smallest, tiniest, minutest minority of corrupt single members of the service.
Then again, is it possible that it would/could have taken the resources of even more than a whole department?
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13355139,00.html
IOLAIRE said:
Hi LA,
just packing my bags, fly out tomorrow at 11-30!!!
To the rest of the forum; David Edgar has e-mailled me and he is ok.
The incident happened a couple of months ago, it is authentic, and he will let you know the outcome in due course.
Stop arguing about coppers, nazis and ACPO; they're not worth it!
At some point in the dim and distant past of this thread, you stated that Mr E had done x, y and z... both myself and Rude Girl have asked for links to his works, having found nothing on the Internet; other than stuff by a playwright.
Care to point us in the right direction...?
Any idea when this happened? Has anything been reported in the press? Was David Edgar held in custody?
If he was in custody wouldn't he have been released by now?... unless charged or extended by court, or held under PoT act?
What amazes me, and is likely to reduce any perceived air of credibility, are lack of facts. The fact that his website published information so soon after the event... by whom?... the fact that his solicitors haven't raised the issue or provided better information.
Ted, have you attempted to contact Mr Edgar to get more information?
MC
If he was in custody wouldn't he have been released by now?... unless charged or extended by court, or held under PoT act?
What amazes me, and is likely to reduce any perceived air of credibility, are lack of facts. The fact that his website published information so soon after the event... by whom?... the fact that his solicitors haven't raised the issue or provided better information.
Ted, have you attempted to contact Mr Edgar to get more information?
MC
jaytee368 said:
Hey Gone!
No doubt this disgusting miscarriage of justice was perpetrated by the smallest, tiniest, minutest minority of corrupt single members of the service.
Then again, is it possible that it would/could have taken the resources of even more than a whole department?
<a href="www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13355139,00.html">www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13355139,00.html</a>
Ah ha ... when I heard this on the news last night I knew where there was going to be a reference. How right.
Not going into the rights or wrongs as I have not the Court files but merely mention the fact that after an initial FULL TRIAL and not ONE but TWO APPEALS before we get the result on the THIRD.
What was wrong with the other three Judges?
By christ Plod have been very, very devious?
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 26th May 08:36
Christ no-one has all the facts yet they jump to conclusions with little or no knowledge / experiance of the processes involved. (well some may have)
I would have thought with the amount of spin on this alot of people on here would have at least waited for all the facts before bashing everyone in sight.
I cant see how the IPCC can be called biased as they are answerable to the public and believe me are actualy hell bent on making sure everything is done correctly. Even PSD are like really annoyed rot weilers when they investigate.
Referances to other cases such as the courts see what the police want them to are absolute crap nowadays we now have to disclose all information, stuff that prejudces the police case and stuff that assists the defence.
Alot of people need to get a grip and into the real world, its not the sweeney, its not TV.
And no doubt the truth will out eventually.
Gareth
I would have thought with the amount of spin on this alot of people on here would have at least waited for all the facts before bashing everyone in sight.
I cant see how the IPCC can be called biased as they are answerable to the public and believe me are actualy hell bent on making sure everything is done correctly. Even PSD are like really annoyed rot weilers when they investigate.
Referances to other cases such as the courts see what the police want them to are absolute crap nowadays we now have to disclose all information, stuff that prejudces the police case and stuff that assists the defence.
Alot of people need to get a grip and into the real world, its not the sweeney, its not TV.
And no doubt the truth will out eventually.
Gareth
jaytee368 said:
Hey Gone!
No doubt this disgusting miscarriage of justice was perpetrated by the smallest, tiniest, minutest minority of corrupt single members of the service.
Then again, is it possible that it would/could have taken the resources of even more than a whole department?
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13355139,00.html
Yes, more to the point will there be an extensive two year investigation trawling for complaints from every single criminal these officers have had anything to do with ?
Or will no action be taken at all.
Obvious answer.
gone said:
The Police refuse to provide you with any documentation or anything to allow you to prove statements wrong,usually because they haven't bothered to look.
Do you think you'd have a cat in hell's chance of getting off ?
Well THATS how you treat people like ME. So maybe, yes , I am a little cynical about our wonderful Police.
and an awful lot more
>> Edited by autismuk on Wednesday 25th May 22:07
Ah. I see now where you are coming from.
You have mixed up/confused the roles of those who's task it is to gain evidence to prosecute (The police) and those who's task it is to gain evidence to defend (a legal representative).
That's an interesting definition of what the Police actually *do*.
It's honest, I'll give you that. But then you are clearly an honest man, even if I don't agree with you.
Problems are multiple with this, but most importantly it is not openly acknowledged as far as I can see - in general I mean, not by you.
The Police seem to be expected by courts to be honest, investigators not biased to one side in their evidence collecting.
If this is the case, then Police evidence should be viewed not as "honest" so to speak, but with the same cynicism as any other witness for or against.
Don't you think the Police should when faced with *any* allegation, or claim of crime, actually discover whether the crime took place or not, if the person did it, or not, rather than simply "gain evidence to prosecute" ?
If this is not the case, and the Police are effective prosecutors - which is fine - then doesn't there need to be some kind of financial balance between defence and prosecution ?
gone said:
There are rules of evidence and lots of them!
Disclosure means that both sides must furnish material facts about the repsective case. The defence must furnish their line of attack. The prosecution must furnish everything that is relevant! If the defence are not given disclosure, then the case is usually thrown out by a court.
Well ... only if they find out. And it's quite difficult to find evidence hasn't been given if you don't know it exists, do you ?
And it simply doesn't work. The Police - whose job you think it is to collect prosecution evidence, rather than prosecution *and* defence evidence, control things like "relevant".
(Oh, the case doesn't involve me, just more than one people I know and worked with. The racket is widespread. Results are usually mixed, but the damage is permanent, innocent or guilty, largely because the Police launch big PR offensives at the point of allegation.)
^Slider^ said:
I would have thought with the amount of spin on this alot of people on here would have at least waited for all the facts before bashing everyone in sight.
I cant see how the IPCC can be called biased as they are answerable to the public and believe me are actualy hell bent on making sure everything is done correctly. Even PSD are like really annoyed rot weilers when they investigate.
The IPCC do not do the investigations. The Police do the investigations.
And *how* are the IPCC answerable to the public ?
^Slider^ said:
Referances to other cases such as the courts see what the police want them to are absolute crap nowadays we now have to disclose all information, stuff that prejudces the police case and stuff that assists the defence.
Alot of people need to get a grip and into the real world, its not the sweeney, its not TV.
And no doubt the truth will out eventually.
Yep, after 25 years.
The Police "have to disclose all stuff". But they don't, sometimes laughably maliciously.
How will the defence even know it exists ?
Dwight VanDriver said:
Not going into the rights or wrongs as I have not the Court files but merely mention the fact that after an initial FULL TRIAL and not ONE but TWO APPEALS before we get the result on the THIRD.
What was wrong with the other three Judges?
By christ Plod have been very, very devious?
Not really, the judiciary is notorious for refusing to acknowledge problems with the system (as are the Police themselves), dating back to the old comment about the system being more important than one innocent man.
The problems are manifest ; you can see them here, and the Police are blinkered.
Policemen here keep saying that it's the law that all relevant evidence should be disclosed ; well yes it is, but if the law was obeyed all the time one would have no need for Policemen at all, would we ?
How would the Police feel if the defence had control over what evidence was submitted to court, and what was relevant ?
There's still a lot of polemic, supposition and bias here...quite naturally, I guess.
With regard to the actions of the police:
There are numerous and well-documented cases of miscarriages of justice in this country, many of which seem to focus on inappropriate actions by INDIVIDUAL coppers, and some involving the CPS (either as individuals or a collective - I am not certain which). Further, there are a lot of "stories" of un-proven (in court) actions by individual officers...but given the weight of such stories, I would expect a proportion of them to be true.
So we cannot automatically assume that the police are "right" and anyone arrested "must have done something wrong" - there is enough contrary evidence, and anecdote as well, to allow some doubt.
Having said that, I am still firmly of the belief that MOST officers are honest and decent. And I can quite easily believe the overbearing levels of paperwork and regulation that they now have to work under (partly as a result of previous miscarriages of justice?!?).
As regards David Edgars and the Government:
I believe that the government IS concerned by DE and his actions - here is an intelligent, committed individual who is well aware of the law and how it can be applied, and who seems very determined to take his case as far as it needs to go to get a resolution.
IF DE's case is to be believed, there are some serious procedural and/or legal (human rights?) issues with the current NIP process.
On the other side, here may just be someone who's mis-interpreted some complex law and is just making a whole load of noise for nothing, possibly just to get some attention. But either way he should be given the fullest opportunity to make his case in an open forum, otherwise it gives the appearance of cover-up by the government.
(As an aside, I think most people on here would agree that the NIP process ISN'T equitable - being forced to name a driver under threat of a greater punishment to the car owner is surely not the action of a civilised democracy?!? And the ways in which it can be abused show serious weaknesses in it's operation. Whether it is actually illegal has yet to be determined, but the government has a lot of revenue and a big loss-of-face at risk...and as has been alluded to above, IMAGE is far more important in today's society than SUBSTANCE, especially as far as this government goes.)
With regard to the actions of the police:
There are numerous and well-documented cases of miscarriages of justice in this country, many of which seem to focus on inappropriate actions by INDIVIDUAL coppers, and some involving the CPS (either as individuals or a collective - I am not certain which). Further, there are a lot of "stories" of un-proven (in court) actions by individual officers...but given the weight of such stories, I would expect a proportion of them to be true.
So we cannot automatically assume that the police are "right" and anyone arrested "must have done something wrong" - there is enough contrary evidence, and anecdote as well, to allow some doubt.
Having said that, I am still firmly of the belief that MOST officers are honest and decent. And I can quite easily believe the overbearing levels of paperwork and regulation that they now have to work under (partly as a result of previous miscarriages of justice?!?).
As regards David Edgars and the Government:
I believe that the government IS concerned by DE and his actions - here is an intelligent, committed individual who is well aware of the law and how it can be applied, and who seems very determined to take his case as far as it needs to go to get a resolution.
IF DE's case is to be believed, there are some serious procedural and/or legal (human rights?) issues with the current NIP process.
On the other side, here may just be someone who's mis-interpreted some complex law and is just making a whole load of noise for nothing, possibly just to get some attention. But either way he should be given the fullest opportunity to make his case in an open forum, otherwise it gives the appearance of cover-up by the government.
(As an aside, I think most people on here would agree that the NIP process ISN'T equitable - being forced to name a driver under threat of a greater punishment to the car owner is surely not the action of a civilised democracy?!? And the ways in which it can be abused show serious weaknesses in it's operation. Whether it is actually illegal has yet to be determined, but the government has a lot of revenue and a big loss-of-face at risk...and as has been alluded to above, IMAGE is far more important in today's society than SUBSTANCE, especially as far as this government goes.)
havoc said:
Having said that, I am still firmly of the belief that MOST officers are honest and decent. And I can quite easily believe the overbearing levels of paperwork and regulation that they now have to work under (partly as a result of previous miscarriages of justice?!?).
I agree with much of this.
I think the paperwork is partly Blairism, but a lot of it ; PACE for example is a response to miscarriages of justice, primarily the shambolic prosecutions of "IRA Terrorists".
This will happen whatever. As you say, most officers are honest and decent, some are not. They are human beings. There will *always* be bent coppers, just not very many.
The paperwork appears IMO not because there are miscarriages of justice, but because the Police refuse to do anything about them - the "bad eggs" almost invariably get away with it completely.
There is a culture, I think, of looking the other way to get a result as well.
Gone admits - and kudos to him for saying so, that it is the Police's job to collect evidence for the prosecution and the defence's job to collect it for the defence ; the "different roles". (this is a paraphrase not a quote which I hope is accurate !).
If this is true, then the whole justice system needs a rethink, because this leads towards what I see ; the refusal of Police to collect evidence or pursue lines which may show a person innocent.
This is going to lead to miscarriages of justice, irrespective of the rules of disclosure.
Podie said:
Will a moderator PLEASE put this thread out of its misery...
Disagree Pod - I think some of these recent posts are back to vintage PH - people apparently reading what the 'other side' has to say, and responding intelligently without getting excited. Intelligent discussion instead of a battle of sweeping statements.
I'll be back for another hit when it's coffee time
Rude Girl said:
Will a moderator PLEASE put this thread out of its misery...
Disagree Pod - I think some of these recent posts are back to vintage PH - people apparently reading what the 'other side' has to say, and responding intelligently without getting excited. Intelligent discussion instead of a battle of sweeping statements.
I'll be back for another hit when it's coffee time
Each to their own...
Is the pub open yet...?
philthy said:
Ah. I see now where you are coming from.
You have mixed up/confused the roles of those who's task it is to gain evidence to prosecute (The police) and those who's task it is to gain evidence to defend (a legal representative).
Selective quoting I know, but I have to ask,if in the course of your investigation you discover something that Clears the accused, what do you do with it?
Release them without charge!
Inspectors reviews every 6 hours are the tool that is used to make sure the investigation is running properly and expeditiously. Custody officers actually don't want people in their cells longer than necessary as it clogs up the system!
The longer they are there, the more chance there is of them becoming ill! (many are ill when they arrive). Many cannot be left in a cell without constant supervision which takes yet another uniform off the street!
philthy said:
I am merely curious, because I have personally witnessed a uniformed serving officer, commit perjury while under oath.
Phil
And what did you do about it?
How many defendants also commit perjury? I would hazard a guess an awful lot more than any Police Officers
Philthy said:
As regards this case, I'm looking forward to hearing the full details.
So am I. If we ever get the full details which I doubt
We will only ever get one side of it on this forum 
8Pack said:
Gone, or other BiB's (not fair to pick on Gone).
Is it legal to spray an unarmed man on the landing of his own house (not in free air) with CS gas, dressed in only his shorts after he has gone to bed after a domestic arguement with his (newly found out "gay" son".
1. Were you there when the Police entered?
2. Did you see what happened yourself?
3. How much artisitic licence was used in relating the incident to you? (People hardly admit they acted like complete tossers when they actually have done
) 4. What on earth has the fact his son is gay got to do with your question or his dilemna?
8Pack said:
There's a lot more to this story but it's all true, "I swear"! Police? respect?........ Nah!....... Not now!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Thursday 26th May 04:42
Touche 8 Pack!
And you wonder why Police officers are cynics and usually a good deal sarcastic as well
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 26th May 10:57
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff