A Police Invitation for a Voluntary Interview

[Nibbles_bits]

So R3G you're saying that this Police Officer -

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/hero...

Shouldn't have been arrested because there was "no evidence "??

[markjmd]

r3g said:

Nibbles_bits said:

r3g said:

Nibbles_bits said:

r3g said:

NRG1976 said:

Nibbles_bits said:

zarjaz1991 said:

Nibbles_bits said:

There has to be some evidence of a crime for it to be a crime.

You won't be interviewed unless there's some suspicion you're involved in a crime.

Unless the copper decides to “make something up”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-5...

‘In the clip, a young man is shown telling the officer: "You're arresting me? What for? I've done nothing wrong."
The officer responds: "I'll lock you up.... We'll make something up… who are they going to believe, me or you?"’

How reassuring.

Was anyone arrested?

Why, if no one was arrested does that make the officers behaviour acceptable?

It's really quite eye-opening to read the posts and responses by the police in this thread. Every time one of them chimes in it just further exposes how corrupt they are and the entire organisation. They see absolutely no issue whatsoever with lying and making up stories to stitch you up and see you do jail time as an innocent person.

Who got stitched up in this case??

The young kid on the receiving end of the bent copper saying he's going to lie and make some st up to do him.

But nothing happened.

He didn't get arrested, interviewed, charged and chucked in prison.

He had the word "arrested" said to him. Hardly a "stitch up" is it.

Oh well that makes it alright then ! Nothing to see here folks, move along now, yes we know we said we were going to lie and stitch him up for a crime he didn't actually commit, but we never actually went through with it, so it's all good !

You seem to be struggling with the concept of an allegation meeting the criteria of "a piece of evidence" vs that allegation meeting the criteria of "all the evidence that's going to be needed to both decide to pursue a prosecution, and find a person guilty in court".
Do you really not understand the difference between these two things?

[Cat]

r3g said:

EVIDENCE
definition: 1. facts, documents, etc. that give reason to believe that something is true.

One person saying another person did something is not "facts" nor evidence. It is simply one person saying another person did something. It only becomes evidence when there are (for example) facts or documents to support or prove whatever the allegation is. Until that point, there is no evidence and it is just one person's word vs. another.

Even by your usual standards this is spectacularly off the mark.

Cat

Edited by Cat on Wednesday 3rd April 18:33

[r3g]

Nibbles_bits said:

So R3G you're saying that this Police Officer -

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/hero...

Shouldn't have been arrested because there was "no evidence "??

I can see your very obvious trap laid out here.

That aside, given the recent posts from your cohort where apparently none of you have any issue with stitching people up to get the result you want, it wouldn't surprise me if he was actually guilty of doing it but mysteriously all the evidence got lost and the tapes/CCTV footage strangely got corrupted and then she was stitched up by the copper to teach her a lesson.

[Greendubber]

r3g said:

Nibbles_bits said:

So R3G you're saying that this Police Officer -

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/hero...

Shouldn't have been arrested because there was "no evidence "??

I can see your very obvious trap laid out here.

That aside, given the recent posts from your cohort where apparently none of you have any issue with stitching people up to get the result you want, it wouldn't surprise me if he was actually guilty of doing it but mysteriously all the evidence got lost and the tapes/CCTV footage strangely got corrupted and then she was stitched up by the copper to teach her a lesson.

Please look at the scenarios I asked you about earlier and stop deliberately avoiding them, we'd all love to hear what you think of them.

[The Gauge]

r3g said:

EVIDENCE
definition: 1. facts, documents, etc. that give reason to believe that something is true.

One person saying another person did something is not "facts" nor evidence. It is simply one person saying another person did something. It only becomes evidence when there are (for example) facts or documents to support or prove whatever the allegation is. Until that point, there is no evidence and it is just one person's word vs. another.

You are confused between evidence and proof. They are two separate things.

In your own words - evidence can be something 'that gives reason to believe that something is true'. So a persons allegation can be evidence (but not proof) which then causes someone (the police) to believe something happened.

So an allegation can be evidence. Lots of things can be evidence, which the court then uses to determine if relevant. Evidence doesn't have to be proof. How can it? Evidence is presented at court before anything is proved.

Believing and knowing are also two separate things, but that's for another day. Maybe just concentrate on learning the above first?

[r3g]

Greendubber said:

Please look at the scenarios I asked you about earlier and stop deliberately avoiding them, we'd all love to hear what you think of them.

There is nothing to discuss or debate. You posted a load of strawman nonsense. None of it is relevant as - for the 5th? time now - an allegation (ie. one person's word vs another) is not evidence of any wrongdoing nor of any crime/offence having been committed.

I'm sorry, I'm out of crayons now as I've worn them all out responding to you in previous posts.

[Nibbles_bits]

r3g said:

Nibbles_bits said:

So R3G you're saying that this Police Officer -

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/hero...

Shouldn't have been arrested because there was "no evidence "??

I can see your very obvious trap laid out here.

That aside, given the recent posts from your cohort where apparently none of you have any issue with stitching people up to get the result you want, it wouldn't surprise me if he was actually guilty of doing it but mysteriously all the evidence got lost and the tapes/CCTV footage strangely got corrupted and then she was stitched up by the copper to teach her a lesson.

Again...who's been stitched up?

[Greendubber]

r3g said:

Greendubber said:

Please look at the scenarios I asked you about earlier and stop deliberately avoiding them, we'd all love to hear what you think of them.

There is nothing to discuss or debate. You posted a load of strawman nonsense. None of it is relevant as - for the 5th? time now - an allegation (ie. one person's word vs another) is not evidence of any wrongdoing nor of any crime/offence having been committed.

I'm sorry, I'm out of crayons now as I've worn them all out responding to you in previous posts.

Yes there is, there are scenarios that I'd like your opinion on?

You won't answer them though as you know full well you'll have to fall on your sword and admit you're absolutely incorrect, which has been pointed out by numerous posters.

I think we'll leave it there as the vast majority of folks still bothering to read this thread can see you have zero idea what you're talking about.

[r3g]

The Gauge said:

In your own words - evidence can be something 'that gives reason to believe that something is true'. So a persons allegation can be evidence (but not proof) which then causes someone (the police) to believe something happened.

So it's not facts then is it !! It's one person's word vs another and that =/= facts. That is not evidence. Read the definition. For it to be evidence there needs to be facts to support it. As I've said 6 times now, until that point there is no evidence. It has to be proven that the facts or claims are true for it to be evidence. The police can believe what they want but they can't go around charging people willy nilly simply on the word of some random in the street otherwise everyone in the country would be in jail . It's the police' job to investigate the allegation to see if there are any facts / proof and if there is then they have evidence of a crime / offence having been committed.

[Greendubber]

r3g said:

The Gauge said:

In your own words - evidence can be something 'that gives reason to believe that something is true'. So a persons allegation can be evidence (but not proof) which then causes someone (the police) to believe something happened.

So it's not facts then is it !! It's one person's word vs another and that =/= facts. That is not evidence. Read the definition. For it to be evidence there needs to be facts to support it. As I've said 6 times now, until that point there is no evidence. It has to be proven that the facts or claims are true for it to be evidence. The police can believe what they want but they can't go around charging people willy nilly simply on the word of some random in the street otherwise everyone in the country would be in jail . It's the police' job to investigate the allegation to see if there are any facts / proof and if there is then they have evidence of a crime / offence having been committed.

And in the examples you're refusing to acknowledge from earlier on a verbal allegation could be used as evidence in the absence of anything else.

[LosingGrip]

r3g said:

There is nothing to discuss or debate. You posted a load of strawman nonsense. None of it is relevant as - for the 5th? time now - an allegation (ie. one person's word vs another) is not evidence of any wrongdoing nor of any crime/offence having been committed.

I'm sorry, I'm out of crayons now as I've worn them all out responding to you in previous posts.

What is evidence then?

If I give a statement saying you've punched me. Is that evidence? Yes of course it is. Is it enough for a charge? Depends. Is there supporting evidence? CCTV/other witness statements would support my statement.

[Forester1965]

r3g said:

So it's not facts then is it !! It's one person's word vs another and that =/= facts. That is not evidence. Read the definition. For it to be evidence there needs to be facts to support it. As I've said 6 times now, until that point there is no evidence. It has to be proven that the facts or claims are true for it to be evidence. The police can believe what they want but they can't go around charging people willy nilly simply on the word of some random in the street otherwise everyone in the country would be in jail . It's the police' job to investigate the allegation to see if there are any facts / proof and if there is then they have evidence of a crime / offence having been committed.

Someone provides a witness statement of what they say happened to them. It's admitted in evidence and used in court. One person's word against another, in documentary form; evidence. Facts can be whatever a witness alleges. In the absence of any counter evidence, all things being equal, the court's entitled to believe them and convict if the thresholds are met.

If you were right, there would be no way of convicting many historic sexual assaults or a myriad of other crimes where the only people present were the accused and the victim with no lasting, corroborating evidence.

[ConnectionError]

r3g :- it’s getting embarrassing now.

Sometimes it is best to stop digging and admit you are out of your depth and wrong.

Local villages used to have a term for people such as you!

[MrBogSmith]

r3g said:

I ring Dubber up and say that Merkin has just bum-raped me. Dubber then says "ok sorry to hear that. As you've said he's done it then that's the evidence we need. We'll go arrest him now, charge him and chuck him in the slammer for you".

Does that sound reasonable to you? No of course it fking doesn't . Hence why his stupid post warranted the LOL response. There is no evidence of anything. It's simply one bloke saying another bloke did something which happens thousands of time a day coming from pathetic little sniffling snowflakes who get their ikkle feelings hurt and so go crying to the police with made up BS stories just like Glassman's story here:

That's exactly what would happen with an allegation of rape.

You should relax a bit - not good for your health, is it?

[The Gauge]

r3g said:

The Gauge said:

In your own words - evidence can be something 'that gives reason to believe that something is true'. So a persons allegation can be evidence (but not proof) which then causes someone (the police) to believe something happened.

So it's not facts then is it !! It's one person's word vs another and that =/= facts. That is not evidence. Read the definition. For it to be evidence there needs to be facts to support it. As I've said 6 times now, until that point there is no evidence. It has to be proven that the facts or claims are true for it to be evidence. The police can believe what they want but they can't go around charging people willy nilly simply on the word of some random in the street otherwise everyone in the country would be in jail . It's the police' job to investigate the allegation to see if there are any facts / proof and if there is then they have evidence of a crime / offence having been committed.

It's not the job of the police to prove anything, the courts do that. The police simply gather evidence. At this stage evidence isn't necessarily regarded as being factual, and doesn't have to be. So....

A victim provides a written statement alleging they have been assaulted. That statement is classed as evidence.
The suspect is interviewed and the CD recording of the interview becomes an exhibit, given an exhibit number and classed as evidence.
The clothing worn by both the victim and suspect is recovered, and exhibited as evidence.
CCTV is recovered from the scene and exhibited as evidence.
Witness statements are obtained, and exhibited as evidence.
The police officers involved provide their written statements, which are exhibited as evidence.

None of those exhibits need to be facts, and usually aren't regarded as so, yet they are evidence which can be used to assist the police and CPS in deciding whether to charge, and can then be presented to the court as evidence for them to decide an outcome.

r3g said:

I ring Dubber up and say that Merkin has just bum-raped me. Dubber then says "ok sorry to hear that. As you've said he's done it then that's the evidence we need. We'll go arrest him now, charge him and chuck him in the slammer for you".

Does that sound reasonable to you? No of course it fking doesn't . Hence why his stupid post warranted the LOL response. There is no evidence of anything. It's simply one bloke saying another bloke did something which happens thousands of time a day coming from pathetic little sniffling snowflakes who get their ikkle feelings hurt and so go crying to the police with made up BS stories just like Glassman's story here.

Some bloke saying another bloke did something =/= evidence.

Yep, for a rape allegation he would be arrested/interviewed etc and evidence would be gathered. The starting point for rape allegations is that accuser is believed. The cops themselves might not believe them, but that's irrelevant, the investigation starts with belief that the rape happened and subsequent evidence can hep confirm if it did or didn't.

Edited by The Gauge on Wednesday 3rd April 18:52

[MrBogSmith]

Very PH, one or two weirdos doubling-down and digging ever-greater holes.

Perhaps a long winter has made them especially grumpy.

Summer awaits with long days and drives in nice cars!

[The Gauge]

MrBogSmith said:

Very PH, one or two weirdos doubling-down and digging ever-greater holes.

Perhaps a long winter has made them especially grumpy.

Summer awaits with long days and drives in nice cars!

I reckon even those on this thread who have absolutely no knowledge of the law or police procedures are now able to form an opinion of those 'one or two weirdos'. It's clear to see that at least 'one' of them actually doesn't know anything about the law or procedures.

[Hants PHer]

ConnectionError said:

r3g :- it’s getting embarrassing now.

Sometimes it is best to stop digging and admit you are out of your depth and wrong.

Local villages used to have a term for people such as you!

Many of you are attempting to reason with r3g and show him the error of his ways. That's your prerogative of course, but my advice is that you're wasting your time. This is someone who doesn't think Covid exists, and believes that Covid vaccines are causing a tidal wave of illness including heart conditions and cancer. See the Covid thread in NP&E for, err, evidence.

He's probably on a wind up and should be treated accordingly, because for him to actually believe the nonsense he posts would mean he was, frankly, unhinged.

[Zeeky]

Forester1965 said:

r3g said:

So it's not facts then is it !! It's one person's word vs another and that =/= facts. That is not evidence. Read the definition. For it to be evidence there needs to be facts to support it. As I've said 6 times now, until that point there is no evidence. It has to be proven that the facts or claims are true for it to be evidence. The police can believe what they want but they can't go around charging people willy nilly simply on the word of some random in the street otherwise everyone in the country would be in jail . It's the police' job to investigate the allegation to see if there are any facts / proof and if there is then they have evidence of a crime / offence having been committed.

Someone provides a witness statement of what they say happened to them. It's admitted in evidence and used in court....

Witness statements used in evidence in criminal proceedings?