Posts by Mad Mike

Re: Irrelevant and rubbish law

Not at all. The issue with money is that it's traceable and there are loads of laws around it. Bung him $50k and you'll probably get caught under this legislation because you've been silly enough to use something traceable.

Obvious answer, just take care of him and his relatives for free for the duration of the contract. Much harder to prove, especially when you bill them, but the bills are simply rather lower than one might think. After all, who says what something should cost.

There are ways round anything in this area and all the laws in world just make people more imaginative. Just imagine this minister gets a nice directorship from the company when he leaves politics!! Now, that's never happened, has it!!

There's a whole profession based on getting around laws etc., they're called accountants. They've been finding ways of moving money around legally for dubious reasons for years. They're very good at it and stay ahead of the laws easily as George Osborne and HMRC have found out recently. You'll never stop this.

Re: You don't have to PROVE your innocence!

I know what you mean. People do tend to believe the innocent don't run/avoid things. This is the same argument put around about internet monitoring, especially the new proposals and things like search warrants. I mean, what's the point of a search warrant? If a policeman turns up at your house and asks to have a look around and you refuse, you're clearly guilty of something!! Why should the policeman need to get a warrant? You don't let him, guilty. You do, well he finds out.

It's all about due process and a large section of the population don't really believe it that. They believe in kangaroo courts. Problem is, this leads to all sorts of miscarriages of justice, in both directions.

I remember that just after the Tony Martin case, a couple of lads in Peterborough found a burglar in their house at night. They proceeded to not only stop and detain him, but from all reporting, pretty much have him a right good going over. They were charged with using excessive force or some such. The jury was never, ever going to find them guilty. After the Tony Martin case, they were going to be found innocent regardless. That was clear.

I'm not saying Tony Martin wasn't wrong to do what he did, but it swung public opinion so much that other trials were seriously prejudiced by the juries not finding on the evidence presented, but by other cases and that's wrong.

Re: Ok...

I spoke to a barrister once and he went through the various legal systems in the world. According to him, there are basically only 2 different legal systems (in terms of how they work), although the individual laws and penalities obviously vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

I think it also depends on the circumstances of the engagement. If they wanted to come over here and simply speak to him, he was quite willing to do this. Equally by phone or whatever. The only time jurisdiction comes into it, is when the conversation has to have legal meaning, which it doesn't necessarily have to have. In this case, the facts of the case seem reasonably fixed. Nobody denies the sex took place. The issue of the condom seems pretty much agreed. So, the question seems to be over the test.

Bearing in mind the passing of time and what the outcomes could be, the test is also pretty academic now. If he has AIDS, either it was passed on or not and they can be tested themselves for that now. if it's any other sexually transmitted disease, it would have come out by now and therefore, again, they could be tested.

It all rather seems people are persuing this just to make a point rather than for any practical purpose or end.

Re: A great incentive to live a crime-free life

I'm sure each jury varies and some will be very good and some very bad. I might even suggest that it may depend to some extent on the area etc. I can understand the bias to acquit as most people don't like the responsiblity of potentially finding someone guilty and don't like the partial responsibility for the sentence, especially in serious cases where the sentence could be long/large.

As I said, I've never served on a jury, so can't offer first hand testimony. However, the people I've spoken to that have, pretty much to a man, were dissatisfied in some way with at least some of the jurors attitudes. I live in hope that they're the exception, but I have grave doubts this is the case.

Re: Ok...

This argument seems a little off, especially given the number of times British police go abroad to question witnesses or suspects. They're always jetting off to faraway or sunny places for a chat with someone or another. The latest one is those investigating the Fletcher case going to Libya. So, saying it's a question of jurisdiction and a legal minefield and such doesn't seem to apply to our cops.

Or, of course, maybe it's just an excuse for a jolly...........

Just look at him.

Yep.....absolutely. I mean, you only have to look at him. Eyes too close together. He just looks like a wrong un. Let's not worry about keeping an open mind. In fact, let's not even worry about a trial. Let's just hang him right now.

Good to know that many hundreds of years of legal due process hasn't got rid of the lynch mob!!

And people wonder why jury trial is not all its cracked up to be, when some of the commentors on here are on the jury. If I wanted someone to try me impartially, I'd choose a trained, impartial judge every time. If I was guilty and wanted to pull the wool over peoples eyes, I'd choose a jury comprised of some people on here, dress in a suit and appear very eloquent etc. and be guaranteed a not guilty regardless of the facts.

Re: Huh? wuz Bradley Manning

'What war?'

Good question. The USofA can hardly invoke laws designed and stipulated for wartime when they can't even be bothered to declare war!! Of course, Britain also did that in the Falklands 'conflict'. Looks like a war, feels like a war, but somehow isn't!!

Re: Wow.

What I don't really understand is how you can insist on the person being checked afterwards. Morally, perhaps he should and it's just the 'right' thing to do. But, to be able to enforce it in law? Very weird. Does that mean a man can insist on a woman being checked? Also, in this country at least, you can't be forced to undergo a medical procedure against your wishes unless declared incapable for some reason and therefore a 'guardian' of some description makes the decision for you. So, if he refuses a medical procedure (which the doctor can't do against his will.......their oath etc.), he's guilty of a crime? All in all, a very weird system.

Re: @nexsphil -- Bradley Manning

@Graham Wilson.

'In another age and time, as with Giordano Bruno whose burned ashes still stink the Campo de' Fiori square in Rome, Bradley Manning will probably be revered and martyred for having had the guts to do what so few others have ever done--that's to take on the secretive, unaccountable diplomatic network knowing full well that to be caught would be essentially the end of life as he once knew it.'

Yes, very true. There are fewer and fewer people willing to 'do the right thing' regardless of impact on themselves. I guess Bradley Manning may not have appreciated just how much trouble he would be in, but I'm sure he knew it would be bad. That's how governments, politicians etc. get away with it all the time. They bully people and know most people these days won't do anything. Same happens with companies. In many, it's every person for themselves and one employee won't stand up for another. very sad and very bad for the human race in general.

Re: @Velv

@David Wilson.

I agree it's a very difficult area and there is genuine fear of putting off real victims, but there is without doubt a lot of bias here. Not long ago, a male Oxford (I think) student was prosecuted and very rapidly cleared of rape in the most dubious of situations. I guess his career prospects are now pretty bad. Quite often, even if the supposed 'victim' is ultimately prosecuted for lying, the smear remains on the not guilty defendant. They can never get away from the stigma. Something needs to be done about it. although I'm not sure it's exactly clear what. Similarly, there are other areas of the law that have clear and obvious bias between the sexes, not just sex crimes.

'Well, remember that adults *are* charged and convicted of sexual offences without being publicly identified in some situations, where identifying them would also identify an alleged [underage] victim, so there's no absolute bar in UK law on the identity of defendants being kept unpublicised.'

It's not impossible to prosecute someone for perjury (likely charge) when bringing false accusations, but it is very rare, even when they clearly lied. Yes, for some offences, the defendants identify can be kept confidential, but again this is rare. The big issue is that judges are very loathed to remove the accusers anonymity (although it has happened) in rape cases where lying has been established. The circumstances basically have to be absolutely overwhelming. However, even in these cases, it is remarkably rare for a perjury prosecution to occur.

This is obviously made worse by a lot of rape accusations happening in circumstances where it might be quite reasonable for each party to have different recollections of the event. For instance, when drunk. The 'victim' doesn't remember giving consent and the defendant believes it was given. Probably nobody knows the real answer. It might also be a case of each taking a different view on the circumstances. I can understand there are circumstances where the victim genuinely believes they have been raped and yet looking at the exact circumstances as an independent, people could take a different interpretation. Not because of malice from either party, but simply the impact of drink or drugs etc.leading to impairment of the senses etc.

Re: @Velv

@Vishal Vashisht.

I agree at one level, but anonymity never really happens. The immediate community know full well what's going on and the inability of the press to publish names doesn't stop them becoming public knowledge, certainly in the close community.

The issue here is that the accuser is not necessarily lying and maybe they were raped, but the evidence wasn't strong enough. The not guilty verdict means anything from didn't do it to not enough evidence to prove guilt. This is the issue.

It's a rather interesting position of CRB checks, especially enhanced ones. Not sure if they directly check previous accusations or not guilty verdicts, but they're allowed to use heresay within reason, so wouldn't surprise me. You wouldn't believe how many jobs now require a CRB.........

Re: @Velv

@jpswer.

I don't think I ever suggested anonymity of the accuser should be removed. I merely pointed out the inequity. I would also ask how many cases of the accuser being prosecuted for making up rape allegations you know of? I'd bet on none. The reason is simple. You can't bring a charge against them as the anonymity would have to be broken to do so and this has precedence.

The bias is clear cut; what to do about it is not. There's an obvious answer of allowing anonymity to the accused until found guilty, but this has issues as well and won't always work.

There is also an element of simple logic here. Sexual relations and rape tend to happen in private. Therefore, no matter what you do, proof becomes difficult, as it's normally one persons word against another. Generally, this is difficult to get round and exactly how you make one persons word worth more than another is a very difficult area. So, whilst I agree we should do nothing to stop people coming forward, we also have to accept prosecutions and guilty verdicts will be lower for this sort of crime than others due to the nature of the circumstances. Biasing the law to increase conviction rates just means more scope for false accusations and people wrongly found guilty.

I don't like the thought of people getting away with these crimes, but it's a natural result of requiring evidence in a court case. Often there isn't a lot. Yes, sex took place. Often provable. The circumstances etc., very difficult to prove. Making it on the word of the victim (supposed) doesn't make it fairer.

From what I can make out, the Swedish system seems pretty silly and that results in the penalties being much lower. I have no problem with attaching conditions (like using a condom) to sex, but being able to change your mind after the act, seems rather odd. I don't know the exact ins and outs (pardon the pun) of the Swedish law on this, but that's how it comes across from the press coverage. Maybe the press is wrong, but the low penalities for some types of 'rape' in Sweden would suggest they are either degrading the crime, or the word 'rape' is being used to mean lots of things other than non-consensual sex.

Whilst not having a test for the women might make Assange heartless, a twat and maybe morally wrong, I think it would be rather difficult to implement laws for it. Apart from anything else, it contradicts the medical oath as doctors would be unable to do anything without his consent.

Re: @Occams_Cat

'Well just so you know, there's plenty of people besides you who think that sex crimes against women are trivial and should just be ignored.'

@AC.

I don't think the posting you're referring to stated that sex crimes were trivial. Equally, he never said they should be ignored. Making up stuff doesn't improve the validity of your argument.

Re: Better budgetting method?

Funny this is, they're not shovelling money at the greenies. They're subsidising 'green' generation methods (solar pv etc.) that are totally uneconomic and the majority benefactors are companies setup to exploit them. Energy companies are making fortunes through subsidies on wind farms etc. Other companies are giving people 'free' solar pv and them pocketing the subsidy and making lots of money themselves. Very little of this is going to consumers/greenies and most into company executives and shareholders.