MILLIONAIRE Tory Cabinet minister refers to police as " plebs " - Police fabricate evidence

Personally, I'm delighted that someone with evident disdain for those of a lesser standing has been given a boot in the clems by a judge and equally delighted that a police officer took the decision to do something about it - which I doubt he'd have done if it was fabricated.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Personally, I'm delighted that someone with evident disdain for those of a lesser standing has been given a boot in the clems by a judge and equally delighted that a police officer took the decision to do something about it - which I doubt he'd have done if it was fabricated.
Click to expand...

Talking of justice, why are you not banned for posting the Video with swearing in last night? I see the whole Thread has been removed. Rules for one and not others? ;)
 
Yeah, I'm surprised by the decision, given what Mitchelll has admitted to all along and the obvious dubiousness of the officers involved. Mind boggling to be honest.

Edit: Can only think that despite all that, fundamentally it's about a police officer's word versus a member of the public.
 
[TW]Fox;27271352 said:
I genuinely have no idea how the judge could decide that. Isn't it basically one mans word against another?
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's how consistent and believable their version of events are; how much deviates from what is agreed by both parties and what evidence supports each account. In civil law it's just to prove something happened in the balance of probabilities.
 
so did the officer who falsified evidence get fired?

cause surely that makes him completely unreliable to do his job ever again?
 
doofer said:
Talking of justice, why are you not banned for posting the Video with swearing in last night? I see the whole Thread has been removed. Rules for one and not others? ;)
Click to expand...

You don't get banned/ suspended for such a word in a video (unless the poster does it several times) and it is edited/removed only with words of advice which I have duly received.

While editing I clicked delete thread instead of post in error and I was forthcoming in that error to other mods. What would be gained by deleting the thread intentionally.

Nothing has or has not happened to me that hasn't to others. Justice, and mocking, has been done.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
All three sections cover disorderly behaviour in a way.

Section 5 covers harassment, alarm or distress. Section 4a covers intentional harassment, alarm and distress and Section 4 is fear or provocation of violence.
Click to expand...

If someone was to accuse you of something you were not doing (trespassing) and then got out of the car menacingly, to which you told them to **** off and squared up to them by jumping over a wall and approaching them (after which they retreat hastily). Who would be at fault? Both parties or the initial party?
 
haha! great news. what a ****ing idiot. i look forward to his lifestyle now falling off a cliff and the government finally realising this country is victim of a class system.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
All three sections cover disorderly behaviour in a way.

Section 5 covers harassment, alarm or distress. Section 4a covers intentional harassment, alarm and distress and Section 4 is fear or provocation of violence.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what wording of the law covers what he did, as I wouldn't define calling a policeman a mild name as alarming or distressful.
 
Section 5 is harassment, alarm and distress and covers insulting words or behaviour - it would all come down to the copper's perception or how he felt. It has been held that police officers can be victims of Section 5 - DPP v Orum.

Section 5 states ....

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening [or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [or abusive],
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."
The words "or abusive" were substituted for the words ", abusive or insulting", in both places they occurred,[1] on 1 February 2014.[2]

This offence has the following statutory defences:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom