5 Filters

BBC uses Trojan horse story to break new political ground

War and conflict
#21

Hi @LocalYokel , quite agree. Was this well publicised 6 months ago when it was posted on YT? If not, then could it be used in an appeal ( if an appeal is possible at his stage ) as new evidence to challenge the judge’s legal interpretation of what a reasonable man would think was behind the use of the para image? Or could such an appeal jeapordise the decision to give them conditional discharges.

A conditional discharge still leaves these people guilty of the offence, which means they will be blacklisted forever in all their dealings with residency, travel and interaction with UK agencies!

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/types-of-sentence/discharges/

cheers

1 Like
#22

It was publicised well enough that speculation was made that Khamas gained inspiration for their attack after the minister made his historical flight.

It is too late most likely. There is the risk that the punishment is changed accordingly. Most people aren’t aware of their rights and are intimidated by the legal system in all its guises, so they will have made statements and these are difficult to retract later. Silence is still your best option when ending up like the ladies mentioned above. You have a legal right to say nothing. Feel free to say no comment to accelerate an interview.

If questioned later in court, you’d be fully entitled to say that you were upset/angry etc because of your perceived innocence. It’s very unlikely they will, even though the plod love to warn you that it’ll jeopardise you etc etc. They changed the caution wording due to the power of no comment. It’s still your right.

So that leaves you free to assemble your defence whilst the gather their evidence against you.

2 Likes
#23

Is ignorance of the law really no excuse? If someone lacks the capacity to understand how a particular action would be unlawful that might not prevent them from being guilty of an offence, technically speaking, but surely they wouldn’t be punished? I’m thinking of a case where someone was able to argue that they killed another person while sleepwalking. Their state of consciousness was such that they couldn’t comprehend what actions they were carrying out, even when the wrong was so obvious.

c.f. Jules Lowe case, 2005

But your point is a good one: these laws are drafted in such a way as to construct new offences.

1 Like
#24

Very good advice. I shan’t go into the details but I answered “no comment” at least two dozen times on the only occasion I’ve been interviewed under caution. There were some provocatively worded questions to try and bait me but…

3 Likes
#25

I think where criminal laws require a guilty mind as well as a guilty action a person without the requisite mental capacity would not be found guilty - criminal law was never my best subject I was more into jurisprudence and I’m going back over 50 years so there will be loads of changes I haven’t kept up with. It may be even possible to avoid “strict offences” ( which only require the guilty act and do not require a guilty mind) through lack of mental capacity where they had no knowledge of the acts that constituted the offence.
I think all these cases are valid but they must be tiny compared to the numbers who would not be found guilty if prior knowledge of the existence of an offence was a fundamental requirement of the offence - apart from fundamental 10 commandment type laws I would guess 100% of “offenders” would be not guilty by reason of ignorance of the law.
Given that so-called law makers regularly state that this new law or that new offence with x number of years in gaol is justified so as to deter people from committing those offences, why would this be even possible if 99.9% of people are not aware of the offence or the penalty! The place for most of these new laws is the bin, imo.

cheers

2 Likes
#26

The plot thickens…or something.

From the EpochTimes today:

"…But on Wednesday it emerged Judge Ikram had apparently liked a post on LinkedIn by a barrister accused of promoting a theory that Israel had allowed the Oct. 7 attack.

Judge’s Account Liked ‘Israeli Terrorist’ Post

A screen grab shared on social media appeared to show the judge’s account had liked the post by Sham Uddin, which read: “Free Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist both in the United Kingdom, the United States, and of course Israel you can run, you can bomb but you cannot hide, justice will be coming for you.”

Downing Street referred the case to Attorney General Victoria Prentis, and said the case was “deeply troubling.”

But on Thursday the Attorney General’s Office said, in an email to The Epoch Times: “We have received a number of referrals regarding this case. Having reviewed this, we have determined that the sentences are not eligible under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.”
…
…"

Guess who isn’t happy.

"But Claudia Mendoza, chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, said the sentence was “woefully inadequate,” and described Judge Ikram’s remarks as “extremely surprising.”
A spokesman for the Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “We are sharing our findings with the Crown Prosecution Service, which may wish to appeal the verdict, and we are considering various legal options. We are also submitting a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.” "

So, only judges that do not think Palestine should not be occupied (and, presumably, who do not think that its people should not be bombed relentlessly) are acceptable.

Looks like it may have been Israeli pressure that got Downing Street to (ostensibly) refer the case back to the AG. As if the government would leave that outcome to chance!

Does the pro-Israeli sleuthery allegation outweigh the knowledge the government would have had before selecting Judge Ikram? I doubt it.

2 Likes
#27

“I mean, we don’t have all the facts, we should be cautious.” Manchester mayor Andy Burnham.

image

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUJ7RQ3bgiA&feature=youtu.be
Story: New Manchester Airport video shows violent scenes before man 'kicked' in head by GMP officer - Manchester Evening News

Hm…okay…

The guy had been throwing punches at police officers. They may have been trying to arrest him after some kind of fracas. To that extent Burnam is right - you can’t form a final judgement on the whole incident without knowing what led up to it.

But there are some facts that seem clear from the footage.

The guy - in a pale blue hoodless top - had been throwing punches immediately prior to the kick in the head. When he was kicked in the head he had fallen along with a cop and suddenly seemed unconscious on the ground.

When I saw this a day or two ago it seemed clear that he was then tasered before being (obviously) kicked in the head. The taser tended not to be mentioned.

At the start of the footage - there may have been another incident prior - the man, while standing looking at a drinks machine(?) and flanked by another man, was approached from behind by two police who immediately try to put him in what looks like a hold from behind. Probably successfully, but the other man - who is dressed in grey - comes round and confronts one of the cops (the only male of the three). It takes off very quickly after that. Punching starts between them at about the same time. The first punch appears to come from the cop, it appears to me this was against the guy in blue who is obscured, being held downwards in the police hold.
This cop and the guy in grey continue fighting, with the grey guy punching the same cop several times (who had been fighting back unsuccessfully). The cop breaks free and uses his taser.

Meanwhile the guy in blue, who may have got in a kick while being held, is now free and tries to get back involved, seems to be kicking. The two other officers, apparently female, are trying to restrain him; they don’t throw any punches, though they had held the man in blue while he may have been punched by the male cop. He starts punching them, and they both fall.

Back in the corner the male cop seems to be tasering away at the man in grey. The guy in blue then goes to his aid, punching the cop who somehow continues firing the taser at the guy in grey, getting in at least four of these in total. The guy in grey lands several blows on the cop, who seems indestructible, and doesn’t stop tasering. The blue guy pulls the cop away and they both fall.But the guy in blue is suddenly comatose (was he tased as they fell?). The cop has got up and tases the guy on the ground at least once, then kicks his head.

So, what facts are there.

Though the male officer had defintitely taken some punishment, the kick in the head was wholly unnecessary, the guy in blue was out of it. Likewise the taser that preceded it. (As I say it looks as though he was maybe also tased in the scuffle).
Mayor Burnham should have had the guts to say that.

The two men could argue they had a right to self defense as the police chose to start what should have been a calm arrest.by a physical assault/head lock from behind (?) with apparently no warning.

The use of the taser on someone lying unconscious on the ground is obviously a breach. They could have got handcuffs on him just as easily.

I don’t know if there was a prequel to what was shown here. But it looks as if the police believe they have the right to initially commit assault on the public, and then use tasers if they get the worse of the resulting fracas.

And this doesn’t depend on the ‘full story’. Burnham seems to be wanting to keep alive the old copbrained movie response “They had it coming”.

Any thoughts?

2 Likes
#28

This is at approximately 20-21 seconds in. The man in blue has been shot with a taser by one of the filth on the right. This is why he goes down unnaturally. If you slow the film, as he is lying face down, he pivots strangely. He is clearly incapacitated.

This sort of behaviour is only going to be more common too.

1 Like
#29

I’ve seen two videos, sadly on the lying BBC. The first clearly shows a police officer kicking an unmoving man in the head and the stamping on his head. The second video, which appeared to come to light a little after the furor, shows the fracas where men are attacking the police. This video was poor quality and its later appearance smacks to me of more BS. So many false flags in the past have “video evidence” which is always of very poor quality I can’t help but question the provenance of this video.

Andy Burnham is like every other politician. Covering his derriere. If the police officer who kicked and stamped was a member of the public, he would be behind bars facing a GBH charge. One rule for us, and …

1 Like
#30

Thanks PatB I hadn’t seen the stamp - clearly the video I saw had been stopped after the kick.
Hadn’t seen the BBC piece.

“## ‘Truly shocking’
There was a “clear risk” their weapons could be taken from them, the police spokesman said, adding all three had been taken to hospital, one with a broken nose.”

This amazing statement is a clear reason why tasers should not be routinely issued. A weapon has to be used because the person might take it from the police?

Admittedly the police statement is complete BS, to mask the reality of the new police MO which is to begin an attempted arrest with a blind assault from behind, then blame the person for their reaction.

Someone has to say the police started or at least provoked the violence by grabbing someone from behind.and putting them in a hold.

If there was prior (and I don’t think there was any prior violence involving the police, or they would have made sure they were mob handed) they should have made an attempt at a normal arrest rather than start by trying to physically disable the person before they even know what is happening. It’s not as if the man could have gotten away.

Cheers

1 Like