David Edgar Forcibly Arrested!
Discussion
autismuk said:
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" ?
They do. Well at least they do at my level. My team deal with their allegations in that very way I make sure they do. I don't want them wasting valuable time investigating something that hasn't happened. In fact I have just such a case going at the moment with one of them. He has investigated a domestic fight which turns out the allegations involved by the female in the dispute are actually untrue. I am now instructing my officer to investigate the possibility of a prosecution against her for
1. Attempting to pervert justice.
2. Wasting Police time.
I will not bore you with the details!
Autismuk said:
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 ?
I think you will find there is. Compensation is often awarded when courts find the Police have been wanting in their investigations!
Autismuk said:
There are rules of evidence and lots of them!
Disclosure means that both sides must furnish material facts about the repsective case.
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 ?
I am afraid that it works both ways!
Ambush of a prosecution by the defence is a common tactic. They should furnish the details of the line of attck they are going to take so prosecution can obtain the evidnce to rebut if there is any!
Autismuk said:
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".
Again it works both ways!
Autismuk said:
(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.)
One of the problems of working in a situation where vulnerable young people are concerned I am afraid!
Teaching and the priesthood tend to attract more than their fair share of those who would exploit young people and children.
Police officers are not excluded from that list either as there are undoubtedly some who indulge that wear a uniform!
jaytee368 said:
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
Self-destruct button, credibility-wise, pressed in the most firmest possible way.
Eh?
Are the officers who investigated the alleged offence and attended the house of DE going to give an explanation of events and evidence on this forum?
I hardly think so!
Therefore only one side comes across on this forum which is inevitable in any case!
Credability in the most firmestor should that be just firmest
? What a silly post! "Stupid boy Pike!" 
gone said:
Release them without charge!
Glad to hear that.
gone 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
My word against his, and who would take my word over a serving police officer? Not a knock gone, thats the way it was/is. I'm sure your right about many people perjuring themselves. Sadly, unless anyone can prove otherwise, these lies will have to be taken as the truth.
Phil
Back to the thread. There is something not quite right about the story.
I happened to take a look at the site www.notsoaccurate.com/ a couple of weeks ago, before this story broke.
The main page was a diary of events, up to 26th May, yet nothing is / was mentioned about his arrest in it. This is now www.notsoaccurate.com/Page%201.htm
Strange then that he should have a meticulous diary of events, up to May 26th then suddenly decide to state he was arrested - which we find out was two months ago.
Just curious ...
>> Edited by reanimate on Thursday 26th May 12:16
I happened to take a look at the site www.notsoaccurate.com/ a couple of weeks ago, before this story broke.
The main page was a diary of events, up to 26th May, yet nothing is / was mentioned about his arrest in it. This is now www.notsoaccurate.com/Page%201.htm
Strange then that he should have a meticulous diary of events, up to May 26th then suddenly decide to state he was arrested - which we find out was two months ago.
Just curious ...
>> Edited by reanimate on Thursday 26th May 12:16
philthy said:
I'm sure your right about many people perjuring themselves. Sadly, unless anyone can prove otherwise, these lies will have to be taken as the truth.
Phil
Been there experienced that! Thankfully ONLY a car-accident case, but the 3P hit me from behind on a D-carriageway (was nearly very nasty!), then took months to fine-tune his story so he accused me of causing it. 2 years later finally gets to court, he shoots himself in the foot when his "sworn testimony" contradicts both his statement AND the laws of physics.
I win, yet nothing happens to him despite him clearly perjuring himself!
With a judicial system like that, no wonder people in this country (both sides of the law) lie, cheat, and generally abuse the system.
lieber gone said:
...... called themselves the "National Socialist German Workers' Party", and were in fact far more socialist than our current Labour Government.
Really!
So burning the Jews was a socialist agenda then! Nothing to do with a Nationalist agenda from the far right.
Und explain why Russian Jews were refugees in USA und Israel. Communist - despite Hitler referring to Bolshevik Jew to justify his actions - also had severe downer on Jews und other religions.
Extreme right wing und exxtreme left wing reach such extremity that they actually come to represent the same ideas, dictatorship und intimindation, Liebchen.
lieber gone said:
Was the work of the Nazis Socialism at all?
Because ist an economic systemin in which means of production, distribution und exchange are owned by the State or collective community - und characterised by production for use und not profit - und government determines the prices.
It was a mixed economy at first - a bit like the Old Labour mit the nationlalised industries - but Hitler also nationalised the newspapers und the film industry. Unions were banned und womem lost whatever voting rights they had - und no make-up was allowed either
(it was 
to wear lippy 
) Und there was only one programme on the radio (Volksempfaenger - People's Show) Und all the newly nationlised industries - all working 1934 towards the war effort und territory expansion prorammes.
But if you disagreed in Nazi und Stasi Germany - you .....und got arrested over trivialities by force....und then you disapeared....
lieber gone said:
I also stated that Stazi are not socialists! They may call themselves socialists but they do not practice socialist doctrines.
Have explained socialist system to you Liebchen. GDR was satellite of UdSSR at time. It was far left und more extreme than UdSSR... und KGB Moscow was not good - but "free" compared to Leipzig under the Stasis. I did a Russian elect module - und did not realise they would send to to Moscow when I signed up for it
in - w-w-winter Ist good job I had a fur hat....Ist only good reason for wearing fur - ist not fashion - ist vital for survival there. Leipzig spell was something different than the student spell. But it was so extreme that they controlled everything und viewed any independent act or opinion as "threat" to way of life. It was the only time perhaps in my life that I was guarded about what I said und when I said it - und about the only time I complied 100% mit a speed limit - but then - if you drove any faster than 25mph the Trabi fell apart
- und it had some funny ideas about corners.... it usually wanted to go where it wanted to... I even took it to bits once to find out the problem (in private und mit a friend keeping a look out as you were not supposed to fiddle und jazz up a car - I could have been "interviewed" over it) ... und it was the naff engineeering... Ist a slight thread hi-jack - but ist all about heavy hands if you rock the system a bit.
But back to this story - if true - ist OTT und if not trues if also OTT.
But miscarriages of justice occur -recent appeal case regarding Paul Blackburn ist one case in point...und his story makes harrowing reading - 25 years for attempted murder at age 15 - und bullied to confess....
It happens..
I respect the police - but I do not see them in rose coloured glasses either. There are some bad apples - und these few bruise the rest in the proverbial fruit bowl..
But miscarriages of justice occur -recent appeal case regarding Paul Blackburn ist one case in point...und his story makes harrowing reading - 25 years for attempted murder at age 15 - und bullied to confess....
It happens..
I respect the police - but I do not see them in rose coloured glasses either. There are some bad apples - und these few bruise the rest in the proverbial fruit bowl..
gone said:
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" ?
They do. Well at least they do at my level. My team deal with their allegations in that very way I make sure they do. I don't want them wasting valuable time investigating something that hasn't happened. In fact I have just such a case going at the moment with one of them. He has investigated a domestic fight which turns out the allegations involved by the female in the dispute are actually untrue. I am now instructing my officer to investigate the possibility of a prosecution against her for
1. Attempting to pervert justice.
2. Wasting Police time.
I will not bore you with the details!
Well, good for you, Gone, but this is actually a pretty rare occurrence as far as I can see. Prosecutions for false allegations are pretty minimal ; largely, I appreciate because it's extremely difficult to prove.
That's the problem with these things. It's effectively impossible to prove anything. The Police's tactics (aided by a rule change in the 1990s) is simply mud-slinging. Throw in dozens of vaguely related allegations, make a big stink, and hope the jury adopts "no smoke without fire", which frequently they do. We have not yet reached the "abused in outer space" conviction level of the US, but we do have a conviction where the complainant lied for an absolute certainty (as he had never actually met the defendant) and was allowed "another go at the story". This I find quite alarming !
gone said:
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 ?
I think you will find there is. Compensation is often awarded when courts find the Police have been wanting in their investigations!
If you can prove it ; if the Police will provide evidence. Frequently they simply refuse to cooperate.
I refer you, for example, to the Isle of Lewis, where the Police and SSD built a massive edifice on the stories of someone they had been told repeatedly and knew from their own records had an extensive history of simply making things up.
Both parties *refuse* to allow those victimised in this witchhunt to have access to their records. And they can, apparently, do this.
gone said:
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 ?
I am afraid that it works both ways!
No it doesn't. The Police have the bulk of the evidence. The Police have all the money. The defence can introduce new evidence, yes, but they cannot censor the evidence in the way the Police can and do.
This is often not helped by giving the defence a fortnight to prepare their defence.
gone said:
Ambush of a prosecution by the defence is a common tactic. They should furnish the details of the line of attck they are going to take so prosecution can obtain the evidnce to rebut if there is any!
Agreed. Do not buy the line though that there is anything other than a massive skew towards the public result. That's where the big financial guns point.
gone said:
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".
Again it works both ways!
Again, no it doesn't. The *public money* goes into the prosecution case. The defenders have to pay up themselves. This is easily used to skew cases by simply dragging them out ; this is about to be made *worse*.
gone said:
(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.)
One of the problems of working in a situation where vulnerable young people are concerned I am afraid!
Teaching and the priesthood tend to attract more than their fair share of those who would exploit young people and children.
Police officers are not excluded from that list either as there are undoubtedly some who indulge that wear a uniform!
True, but trawling is *never* applied to Police Stations, is it ?
At absolute worst there is a witchhunt against individual officers (Dizaei, Stevens are recent examples), but you don't get the Op Care/Op Rose scenario where there are mass countywide suspensions and witchhunts, do you ?
gone said:
They do. Well at least they do at my level. My team deal with their allegations in that very way I make sure they do. I don't want them wasting valuable time investigating something that hasn't happened. In fact I have just such a case going at the moment with one of them. He has investigated a domestic fight which turns out the allegations involved by the female in the dispute are actually untrue. I am now instructing my officer to investigate the possibility of a prosecution against her for
1. Attempting to pervert justice.
2. Wasting Police time.
Interesting. O/T here but as you may know gone, not all forces have such an approach, though perhaps your force shares some of glospol's attitude which is
1. accept every statement as gospel (if it's from a female)
2. carry out no investigation whatsoever
3. push c/assault up to ABH using 'psychological harm' bull5h1t to make it an arrestable offence
4. make the arrest in big flak jacket gung ho mob happy ott stylee
5. press charges in every single case without fail regardless of everything, saying 'let the Courts decide'
6. say "ooops never mind" when it all goes t1ts up cos a daft BFH invented it all
7. attempt to preclude any 'wasting plod time' or perverting justice issues by undertaking the prosecution themselves
Not O/T here, rather than any other option involving computers, is that anything like what this chap might be up against in his force perchance?
For the love of god, why was David Edgar arrested?
Surely if he's a free man he would have updated his website now saying "I was arrested for the dubious allegation of xxxxx .. " "I was charged with xxxx which is a travesty of justice".
He seems happy to document every other minute of this whole affair. So what's going on?
Surely if he's a free man he would have updated his website now saying "I was arrested for the dubious allegation of xxxxx .. " "I was charged with xxxx which is a travesty of justice".
He seems happy to document every other minute of this whole affair. So what's going on?
turbobloke said:
They do. Well at least they do at my level. My team deal with their allegations in that very way I make sure they do. I don't want them wasting valuable time investigating something that hasn't happened. In fact I have just such a case going at the moment with one of them. He has investigated a domestic fight which turns out the allegations involved by the female in the dispute are actually untrue. I am now instructing my officer to investigate the possibility of a prosecution against her for
1. Attempting to pervert justice.
2. Wasting Police time.
Interesting. O/T here but as you may know gone, not all forces have such an approach, though perhaps your force shares some of glospol's attitude which is
1. accept every statement as gospel (if it's from a female)
2. carry out no investigation whatsoever
3. push c/assault up to ABH using 'psychological harm' bull5h1t to make it an arrestable offence
4. make the arrest in big flak jacket gung ho mob happy ott stylee
5. press charges in every single case without fail regardless of everything, saying 'let the Courts decide'
6. say "ooops never mind" when it all goes t1ts up cos a daft BFH invented it all
7. attempt to preclude any 'wasting plod time' or perverting justice issues by undertaking the prosecution themselves
Not O/T here, rather than any other option involving computers, is that anything like what this chap might be up against in his force perchance?
Yep, that's closer to the norm. Largely because IMO rather than decent coppers like the ones we have here making intelligent decisions (I don't agree with gone a lot but I respect him as a BiB) there is a "cover your a**e" mentality.
Though I am not quite sure what 7 means....
deltafox said:Load up the M777 with Raytheon XM982 Excalibur GPS/Inertial Navigation-guided extended-range 155mm projectiles using the Modular Artillery Charge Systems ... and who cares if I'm off target by 10m at 40 klicks? - Streaky
Ignored again..... 
gone 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
Gone, I know these people quite well, and whilst they are a bit "chavish" they are not violent. He has always worked (very hard 12 hr days) and has a nice home. I mentioned his sons "gayness" only to highlight the cause of the ensueing arguement in the household. No violence was commited but yes, quite a bit of noise was made I believe causing the people next door to call the police. By the time the police arrived all was quiet and only the mans wife was downstairs. Upon opening the door to a knock, and not saying a word, she was aked by the black policeman "Do you have a problem with my colour?" They then went upstairs and the womans husband went on to the landing in his shorts to see what was happening, he was sprayed in the face with CS gas, he shouted "No don't, I'm seriously ill!" (both kidneys failing) They ignored him and sprayed him again. He suffered skin burns from the chemical so intense and close was the spraying, He was handcuffed so tightly that he received nerve damage to his hand despite complaining several times and taken to the cells only in his shorts all night, with no medical help for his injuries from the spray or handcuffs. He was NOT charged with any offence and his wife picked him up the following morning and took him to hospital. The doctor who saw his injuries went ballistic and recommended he make a complaint and told him to get photographs immediately. He also provided medical evidence for him.
He won his case and got compensation after a long drawn out investigation and case.
Is that enough for you Gone?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff