is it illegal for police to tell press of a raid etc?
Discussion
XCP said:
What do you mean by 'incontestable evidence'?
Evidence that cannot be contested as to its veracity and relevance. Such as forensic, photographic record, independent corroborative witness/s to the specific incident. That'll do for now but I daresay there are others. Pointing to a pattern, which emerges as a result of possible bandwagon activity, is hardly sufficient to satisfy 'beyond reasonable doubt' standards in my view and probably would not get past CPS scrutiny in other investigations. The 'offence' can either be proven or assumed to be so to attract a guilty verdict? Seems like a diminution and dilution of evidential standards to me. Hue and Cry stuff of nightmares. Sometimes you just have to go with the evidence that you have and test it properly. Cases involving very recent offences may generate no evidence except one person's word against another's. CSI is fiction, and there are not always bundles of scientific evidence. Consider also a case such as a Concentration Camp guard identified by one of his victims seventy years on.
LoonR1 said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: In the age of Wikileaks and Snowden and Tor and god knows what other means of leaking info to the point where nobody is likely to be able to trace it back to you, if your friend feels sufficiently confident that they have enough evidence but are being told to turn a blind eye, why doesn't he/she do something about it then?
Oh yeah. Totally anonymous. Zeeky said:
La Liga said:
...2) Each of these independent person from different times has managed to come up with the same MO. This is either from coincidence or conspiracy.
Are they coming up with the same MO? Or is the case that there are some similarities?The threshold for admission nowadays is so low that the probative value of any similarities is, arguably, outweighed by the prejudice of having a handful of independent allegations of the same type of offence being considered at the same trial.
What do you mean by "nowadays" - when did corroboration go from being "strong" to "weak"? What changed to make it so?
The strength of corroboration is related to the amount of similarity.
A 'striking' similarity would be strong evidence. Some similarity would be much weaker.
The similarity should be sufficient for its probative value to outweigh the obvious prejudicial effect of having a handful of separate complainants having their allegations heard at the same time.
I think we are probably as close as we can get without offending the above rule and possibly too close for complete comfort.
A 'striking' similarity would be strong evidence. Some similarity would be much weaker.
The similarity should be sufficient for its probative value to outweigh the obvious prejudicial effect of having a handful of separate complainants having their allegations heard at the same time.
I think we are probably as close as we can get without offending the above rule and possibly too close for complete comfort.
Thanks for the clarity of those learned replies. However, as an obvious lay person, it is much too close for comfort. There is far too much reliance on grey areas. The notion of 'proof' is bastardised (hope that does not offend filters) into guesswork and impressions - very far from actual proof. I often feel that this kind of obfuscation is artifice to provide sufficient wriggle room for voluble lawyers to gain chargeable time and is contrary to the notion of Justice. Just my view, having had no experience of the law from any angle but old enough to have developed a healthy cynicism of anything to do with hierarchy. It seems to exist only for lawyers. Oh, and the extremely rich who can pay for them. Accused persons should not have to bankrupt themselves to mount an effective defence when there is no convincing evidence against them.
[quote=Breadvan72]Sometimes you just have to go with the evidence that you have and test it properly. Cases involving very recent offences may generate no evidence except one person's word against another's. te]
That's exactly the point. If there is no evidence at the time of the offence it is hardly likely (other than progressive scientific developments) that evidence will mysteriously reveal itself 40 years on. I've not yet heard a convincing argument in support of the status quo other than crossed fingers in hope. On the other hand, I do have an open mind and await a new dawn where the scales on the dome of the Bailey are actually in equilibrium.
That's exactly the point. If there is no evidence at the time of the offence it is hardly likely (other than progressive scientific developments) that evidence will mysteriously reveal itself 40 years on. I've not yet heard a convincing argument in support of the status quo other than crossed fingers in hope. On the other hand, I do have an open mind and await a new dawn where the scales on the dome of the Bailey are actually in equilibrium.
Thorodin said:
Evidence that cannot be contested as to its veracity and relevance. Such as forensic, photographic record, independent corroborative witness/s to the specific incident. That'll do for now but I daresay there are others. Pointing to a pattern, which emerges as a result of possible bandwagon activity, is hardly sufficient to satisfy 'beyond reasonable doubt' standards in my view and probably would not get past CPS scrutiny in other investigations. The 'offence' can either be proven or assumed to be so to attract a guilty verdict? Seems like a diminution and dilution of evidential standards to me. Hue and Cry stuff of nightmares.
All those types of evidence you have listed can be contested. Particularly forensic evidence. Even admissions can often be contested. What do you think happens during not guilty hearings? Do you think that the defence just accept these types of evidence or do you think that they often contest them?Breadvan72 said:
Indeed, but it seems a common misconception here that the testimony of one person isn't evidence.
Sorry BV, but that's classic misdirection! I admitted I have no legal knowledge and am sure I have neither misconceived nor confused testimony with evidence! I've looked at my posts and reject your opinion on that. It's rather pathetic of you to disdainfully dismiss an opinion with a crooked interpretation of a post. I was merely calling for testimony about an alleged 40 year old incident to be backed up by proof. The 'testimony' of the alleged victim comprising the 'evidence' in such cases is in my view inadequate and falls short of 'proof'. The later complainants' 'testimony' should not be taken as definitive 'proof' of the former and nor should it be taken into account as it did not occur at the same time.
Your reluctance to accept albeit untutored observations in the spirit in which they are offered kind of makes the point. I've no intention of arguing with you, you would undoubtedly win with your depth of knowledge, and I'm not saying my views are as it is in the real world. Merely saying how I think it should be, given reasonable thought. It does sound like the threshold of proof is deliberately lowered and that is unjust.
You have just done the very thing you said that you weren't doing. You are classifying the testimony of the complainant as not being proof. It is proof if the testimony is believed. You may take the policy view that the law should require corroboration, but in most instances it doesn't.
Test your approach this way. A ten year old boy could be buggered by a teacher. No one else is present. Thirty years later the still traumatised victim, now an adult, is finally listened to by a policeman. In your world the teacher could never be convicted. Is that just?
Test your approach this way. A ten year old boy could be buggered by a teacher. No one else is present. Thirty years later the still traumatised victim, now an adult, is finally listened to by a policeman. In your world the teacher could never be convicted. Is that just?
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 17th August 18:00
Breadvan72 said:
Test your approach this way. A ten year old boy could be buggered by a teacher. No one else is present. Thirty years later the still traumatised victim, now an adult, is finally listened to by a policeman. In your world the teacher could never be convicted. Is that just?
But how can the teacher possibly defend himself after this length of time? How is he to remember whether or not young Jenkins was one of the boys he buggered (or just heard the rumours - including details - at the time and wants attention now) when there were so many that one boy or another would hardly stand out? How can he possibly say for certain whether he was buggering this particular boy or not?Variomatic said:
But how can the teacher possibly defend himself after this length of time? How is he to remember whether or not young Jenkins was one of the boys he buggered (or just heard the rumours - including details - at the time and wants attention now) when there were so many that one boy or another would hardly stand out? How can he possibly say for certain whether he was buggering this particular boy or not?
Good luck running that defence. Variomatic said:
Breadvan72 said:
Test your approach this way. A ten year old boy could be buggered by a teacher. No one else is present. Thirty years later the still traumatised victim, now an adult, is finally listened to by a policeman. In your world the teacher could never be convicted. Is that just?
But how can the teacher possibly defend himself after this length of time? How is he to remember whether or not young Jenkins was one of the boys he buggered (or just heard the rumours - including details - at the time and wants attention now) when there were so many that one boy or another would hardly stand out? How can he possibly say for certain whether he was buggering this particular boy or not?Variomatic said:
But how can the teacher possibly defend himself after this length of time? How is he to remember whether or not young Jenkins was one of the boys he buggered (or just heard the rumours - including details - at the time and wants attention now) when there were so many that one boy or another would hardly stand out? How can he possibly say for certain whether he was buggering this particular boy or not?
That is brilliant. I bummed a load of kids, but I don't think I bummed him. Can I go now?
agtlaw said:
Good luck running that defence.
Ok, it might need a bit of development (unlike the students by all accounts) 
But I'd suggest that the underlying point is valid. Lots of people can't remember all their sexual partners over the years and, just because bumming a schoolboy would stand out for most of us, it might not for the accused.
The law really isn't meant to find you guilty of a particular offence just because you admit you've been involved in similar ones in the past.
Breadvan72 said:
It is proof if the testimony is believed
The testimony of the complainant should not be considered as proof of the charge. It may well be so at the moment and that is what is wrong. Many false accusations are made; how many of us hated our teachers because of some perceived slight? Some complaints are made out of malice many years later when a bandwagon has started to roll and others jump on board. Those additional complainants should not add weight to the original complaint just because a pattern emerges.
.
Test your approach this way. A ten year old boy could be buggered by a teacher. No one else is present. Thirty years later the still traumatised victim, now an adult, is finally listened to by a policeman. In your world the teacher could never be convicted. Is that just?
ootnote]Edited by Breadvan72 on Sunday 17th August 18:00[/footnote]
So your victim is now 40. What happened to him when he was 18? 25? 35? Why did he wait all those years to complain? It is now too late to establish the truth to a satisfactory level and, sadly for him, too late to complain. That the teacher may never be convicted is a travesty that might have been avoided if complained about earlier. As it is, the chance has gone. No, that is obviously not just. Neither is 'secondary' complainants being believed because they had the same teacher and have the same hatred of him for different reasons. Since when have courts unerringly handed down 'just' verdicts and sentences? An awful lot of bad stuff happens to people on the way to maturity, who knows what residual damage is done that can surface under a false premise?The testimony of the complainant should not be considered as proof of the charge. It may well be so at the moment and that is what is wrong. Many false accusations are made; how many of us hated our teachers because of some perceived slight? Some complaints are made out of malice many years later when a bandwagon has started to roll and others jump on board. Those additional complainants should not add weight to the original complaint just because a pattern emerges.
.
Test your approach this way. A ten year old boy could be buggered by a teacher. No one else is present. Thirty years later the still traumatised victim, now an adult, is finally listened to by a policeman. In your world the teacher could never be convicted. Is that just?
ootnote]Edited by Breadvan72 on Sunday 17th August 18:00[/footnote]
Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 17th August 21:32
Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 17th August 21:36
Thorodin said:
Breadvan72 said:
It is proof if the testimony is believed
The testimony of the complainant should not be considered as proof of the charge. It may well be so at the moment and that is what is wrong. Many false accusations are made; how many of us hated our teachers because of some perceived slight? Some complaints are made out of malice many years later when a bandwagon has started to roll and others jump on board. Those additional complainants should not add weight to the original complaint just because a pattern emerges.
.
Test your approach this way. A ten year old boy could be buggered by a teacher. No one else is present. Thirty years later the still traumatised victim, now an adult, is finally listened to by a policeman. In your world the teacher could never be convicted. Is that just?
ootnote]Edited by Breadvan72 on Sunday 17th August 18:00[/footnote]
So your victim is now 40. What happened to him when he was 18? 25? 35? Why did he wait all those years to complain? It is now too late to establish the truth to a satisfactory level and, sadly for him, too late to complain. That the teacher may never be convicted is a travesty that might have been avoided if complained about earlier. As it is, the chance has gone. No, that is obviously not just. Neither is 'secondary' complainants being believed because they had the same teacher and have the same hatred of him for different reasons. Since when have courts unerringly handed down 'just' verdicts and sentences? An awful lot of bad stuff happens to people on the way to maturity, who knows what residual damage is done that can surface under a false premise?The testimony of the complainant should not be considered as proof of the charge. It may well be so at the moment and that is what is wrong. Many false accusations are made; how many of us hated our teachers because of some perceived slight? Some complaints are made out of malice many years later when a bandwagon has started to roll and others jump on board. Those additional complainants should not add weight to the original complaint just because a pattern emerges.
.
Test your approach this way. A ten year old boy could be buggered by a teacher. No one else is present. Thirty years later the still traumatised victim, now an adult, is finally listened to by a policeman. In your world the teacher could never be convicted. Is that just?
ootnote]Edited by Breadvan72 on Sunday 17th August 18:00[/footnote]
Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 17th August 21:32
Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 17th August 21:36
Most of the people I've come into contact with would rather the earth opened up and swallowed them than tell someone else. None of them thought anyone would believe them and certainly in past era's who would believe a childs story over an adult?.
The difficulty in coming forward, telling someone and potentially having to relive it all in front of a court shouldn't be underestimated and there is no guarantee that a prosecution will follow anyway even after they have come forward.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff