| The biggest gang in London.... 08:03 - Sep 25 with 12430 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
...really don't like it when one of their own is threatened. |  |
| |  |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 18:46 - Sep 25 with 2662 views | Zx1988 |
I dare say that the objective has been achieved, though.
The Home Secretary has spoken out in defense of the officers in question, and the Met has received the message loud and clear: "look how f**ked you'd be without us". |  |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 18:52 - Sep 25 with 2643 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 17:13 - Sep 25 by lowhouseblue |
that second para is exactly as it has been reported in the press. easy to find online - eg the report in the independent ffs. |
Aka....the police take! | |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 18:52 - Sep 25 with 2642 views | lowhouseblue |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 17:20 - Sep 25 by bluelagos |
From after the charges? Really? |
even wikipedia has that same basic version of the events matching that in the national press.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Chris_Kaba
it is in the public domain, is a simple statement of known facts, and doesn't relate to anyone's guilt or innocence. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 18:54 - Sep 25 with 2630 views | lowhouseblue |
"which could in any way prejudice" | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 19:00 - Sep 25 with 2616 views | bluelagos |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 18:54 - Sep 25 by lowhouseblue |
"which could in any way prejudice" |
You've picked a hell of a hill to die on...
Repeating an unproven line, from the police, that will no doubt be presented as evidence in court - absolutely could prejudice a case.
And for clarity - the full statement says
“It is extremely important there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-authorises-murder-charge-against-police-offi
You or anyone else wish to go down the route of repeating details of the case, clearly against the CPS and IOPC comments - that is your call. |  |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 19:07 - Sep 25 with 2581 views | LankHenners |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 18:52 - Sep 25 by lowhouseblue |
even wikipedia has that same basic version of the events matching that in the national press.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Chris_Kaba
it is in the public domain, is a simple statement of known facts, and doesn't relate to anyone's guilt or innocence. |
That basic version of events is a bit different to what the poster said though isn't it, even if you think it's splitting hairs.
Think people are losing the focus of this a bit which is whether the firearms officer was within their right to fire a shot at someone's head - what happened, exactly what happened, is absolutely critical to establish and not really for someone to give a slightly exaggerated, sympathetic to the police slant to. |  |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 19:11 - Sep 25 with 2563 views | lowhouseblue |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 19:00 - Sep 25 by bluelagos |
You've picked a hell of a hill to die on...
Repeating an unproven line, from the police, that will no doubt be presented as evidence in court - absolutely could prejudice a case.
And for clarity - the full statement says
“It is extremely important there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”
https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-authorises-murder-charge-against-police-offi
You or anyone else wish to go down the route of repeating details of the case, clearly against the CPS and IOPC comments - that is your call. |
so you think nothing at all can be said about the facts of the incident - including everything that has been very widely reported in all news sources, remains available online, hasn't been disputed, and is extensively in the public domain. that's a ridiculous interpretation of the court rules. can i say that there was a single shot? or that he was stopped while driving? or the location? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 19:29 - Sep 25 with 2527 views | DJR |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 19:11 - Sep 25 by lowhouseblue |
so you think nothing at all can be said about the facts of the incident - including everything that has been very widely reported in all news sources, remains available online, hasn't been disputed, and is extensively in the public domain. that's a ridiculous interpretation of the court rules. can i say that there was a single shot? or that he was stopped while driving? or the location? |
You ought to be aware that the Guardian halted comments about five hours ago because they could regarded as prejudicing the case.
This is their holding message.
"Hi,
Comments have been closed to mitigate potential legal risk."
Similar rules apply to TWTD.
It also strikes me that public comments by both Mark Rowley and Suella Braverman are unwise because they could be regarded as indicating to potential jurors that the prosecution should not have gone ahead.
EDIT: I see I am not alone with regard to my concerns. This is what a Nazir Afzal, a former Chief Crown Prosecutor, has said on Twitter.
"This is the HOME SECRETARY intervening in an ongoing prosecution. There is no justification for doing so. Would briefing police representatives privately not have sufficed? No, she has to publicly interfere & potentially, adversely, impact the case." [Post edited 25 Sep 2023 19:55]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The biggest gang in London.... on 19:57 - Sep 25 with 2476 views | lowhouseblue |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 19:29 - Sep 25 by DJR |
You ought to be aware that the Guardian halted comments about five hours ago because they could regarded as prejudicing the case.
This is their holding message.
"Hi,
Comments have been closed to mitigate potential legal risk."
Similar rules apply to TWTD.
It also strikes me that public comments by both Mark Rowley and Suella Braverman are unwise because they could be regarded as indicating to potential jurors that the prosecution should not have gone ahead.
EDIT: I see I am not alone with regard to my concerns. This is what a Nazir Afzal, a former Chief Crown Prosecutor, has said on Twitter.
"This is the HOME SECRETARY intervening in an ongoing prosecution. There is no justification for doing so. Would briefing police representatives privately not have sufficed? No, she has to publicly interfere & potentially, adversely, impact the case." [Post edited 25 Sep 2023 19:55]
|
do you think that people are allowed to refer to evidence which has previously been accepted by a court? the coroner's court? can we refer to previous proceedings in the coroner's court? | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:04 - Sep 25 with 2447 views | bluelagos |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 19:29 - Sep 25 by DJR |
You ought to be aware that the Guardian halted comments about five hours ago because they could regarded as prejudicing the case.
This is their holding message.
"Hi,
Comments have been closed to mitigate potential legal risk."
Similar rules apply to TWTD.
It also strikes me that public comments by both Mark Rowley and Suella Braverman are unwise because they could be regarded as indicating to potential jurors that the prosecution should not have gone ahead.
EDIT: I see I am not alone with regard to my concerns. This is what a Nazir Afzal, a former Chief Crown Prosecutor, has said on Twitter.
"This is the HOME SECRETARY intervening in an ongoing prosecution. There is no justification for doing so. Would briefing police representatives privately not have sufficed? No, she has to publicly interfere & potentially, adversely, impact the case." [Post edited 25 Sep 2023 19:55]
|
Charlie Faulkner was also very vocal on this earlier. Home Sec, Police Fed and Rowley are all treading coals imho.
Suspect they will all keep quiet now and let the legal case go forward without comment. | |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:07 - Sep 25 with 2424 views | pointofblue |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 19:29 - Sep 25 by DJR |
You ought to be aware that the Guardian halted comments about five hours ago because they could regarded as prejudicing the case.
This is their holding message.
"Hi,
Comments have been closed to mitigate potential legal risk."
Similar rules apply to TWTD.
It also strikes me that public comments by both Mark Rowley and Suella Braverman are unwise because they could be regarded as indicating to potential jurors that the prosecution should not have gone ahead.
EDIT: I see I am not alone with regard to my concerns. This is what a Nazir Afzal, a former Chief Crown Prosecutor, has said on Twitter.
"This is the HOME SECRETARY intervening in an ongoing prosecution. There is no justification for doing so. Would briefing police representatives privately not have sufficed? No, she has to publicly interfere & potentially, adversely, impact the case." [Post edited 25 Sep 2023 19:55]
|
Doesn't she have a track record of this? Swear she said something relating to a live case before. | |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:10 - Sep 25 with 2394 views | DJR |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 19:57 - Sep 25 by lowhouseblue |
do you think that people are allowed to refer to evidence which has previously been accepted by a court? the coroner's court? can we refer to previous proceedings in the coroner's court? |
My understanding is that the burden on proof in the coroner's court is the lesser one of "balance of probabilities", rather than the criminal one of "beyond reasonable doubt", so I don't believe a finding in a coroner's court will have any bearing in a subsequent criminal case.
So, whilst there is nothing stopping you searching the internet, I think in the interests of justice, it would be much better not to make any public comment on the case. | | | |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:11 - Sep 25 with 2380 views | DJR |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:04 - Sep 25 by bluelagos |
Charlie Faulkner was also very vocal on this earlier. Home Sec, Police Fed and Rowley are all treading coals imho.
Suspect they will all keep quiet now and let the legal case go forward without comment. |
But will any jury now convict, given the furore? | | | |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:13 - Sep 25 with 2370 views | lowhouseblue |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:10 - Sep 25 by DJR |
My understanding is that the burden on proof in the coroner's court is the lesser one of "balance of probabilities", rather than the criminal one of "beyond reasonable doubt", so I don't believe a finding in a coroner's court will have any bearing in a subsequent criminal case.
So, whilst there is nothing stopping you searching the internet, I think in the interests of justice, it would be much better not to make any public comment on the case. |
the question is would it be prejudicial? do you think that just referring to previous evidence presented in the coroner's court - the burden of proof is irrelevant - would be prejudicial? stopping people reporting on or commenting on previous court proceedings would be really quite extreme. [Post edited 25 Sep 2023 20:14]
| |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:23 - Sep 25 with 2348 views | bluelagos |
Doh. That's what I should have linked! | |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:27 - Sep 25 with 2334 views | pointofblue |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:23 - Sep 25 by bluelagos |
Doh. That's what I should have linked! |
I did wonder when I opened the first link. Thanks, I knew potential contempt of court rang a bell. [Post edited 25 Sep 2023 20:27]
| |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:39 - Sep 25 with 2319 views | DJR |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:07 - Sep 25 by pointofblue |
Doesn't she have a track record of this? Swear she said something relating to a live case before. |
Despite being a lawyer, she has absolutely no respect for the rule of law, which is a rather scary state of affairs.
To take an example, her (and other Tory) attacks on "lefty" lawyers has led to condemnation by both the Bar Council and the Law Society, but they also have real world consequences.
https://www.ft.com/content/7a98b644-7257-43b7-aa99-fabe618fa894
"Since UK immigration lawyer Jacqueline McKenzie was singled out by the ruling Conservative party, she has received a torrent of death threats, hate mail and racist abuse."
I might add that I have heard stories about her lack of ability, this being from Joshua Rosenberg about her time as Attorney General.
"There are signs that colleagues are beginning to doubt Braverman’s legal advice." | | | |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:46 - Sep 25 with 2280 views | DJR |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 20:13 - Sep 25 by lowhouseblue |
the question is would it be prejudicial? do you think that just referring to previous evidence presented in the coroner's court - the burden of proof is irrelevant - would be prejudicial? stopping people reporting on or commenting on previous court proceedings would be really quite extreme. [Post edited 25 Sep 2023 20:14]
|
Now that proceedings have been commenced, the press will not be reporting such things, so I would have thought it best to follow suit on the comments section of TWTD.
That's not to say that such things can't be found on the internet, but if you were to be a juror in the case, you shouldn't really be searching the internet for such stuff. [Post edited 25 Sep 2023 21:06]
| | | |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 21:47 - Sep 25 with 2214 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 09:25 - Sep 25 by WeWereZombies |
Even then, as we know from the case of Dalian Atkinson, a taser can be fatal. Difficult to argue for patience, containment and justice being seen to be done as well as actually being done these days. Difficult but necessary for the British way of life to continue. |
Apologies if already covered as I haven't read through the whole thread, but you cannot use the Atkinson case as an argument for the proper use of a taser being fatal (other cases might do) but the court decided the taser was misused in conjunction with the kick to the head that in combination caused his murder.
Interestingly, the girlfriend whose 6 blows at him with her baton were not murder was found guilty of misconduct for excessive use of force ... and kept her job. |  |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 17:36 - Oct 30 with 1473 views | Zx1988 |
Seems strange to have a three-month delay before which he can be named.
I assume that they're anticipating some sort of appeal against the ruling? | |
| |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 17:39 - Oct 30 with 1463 views | bluelagos |
| The biggest gang in London.... on 17:36 - Oct 30 by Zx1988 |
Seems strange to have a three-month delay before which he can be named.
I assume that they're anticipating some sort of appeal against the ruling? |
No idea. Read the Met statement earlier and they don't mention one. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
