Well, Andy ...Originally Posted by andy222
... the way things appear to be heading for the pair we're discussing here ... they're currently looking at the very real prospect of being locked up for 24 years - never mind 24/7!
Well, Andy ...
@ ... John Car
John ... according to Messrs Gilbert & Sullivan's comic operetta, 'Pirates of Penzance', "a policeman's lot is not an 'appy one". Here, then, is 'a little'in an attempt to restore your sense of humour and defuse any undue "heated tension"
between you and a number of your fellow members here.
QUESTION
... what d'you imagine
colleagues of a former Spanish detective who's relegated to "pounding the beat" might call him?
ANSWER
Carlos!
That's an awful lot of decoys Joe. Must of been an awful lot of smack getting throughi've read somewhere that 250 drug smugglers were arrested at that airport last year, so maybe the sniffer dogs are there all the time
I wonder if the dogs have been trained to let the majority of smugglers through unhindered
These slappers aren't posing for pics and looking smug now
Some posters may find this, about libel, interesting:-
(NB Publishing includes the internet )
Quote:
Published defamation -- called libel -- for example a newspaper article or television broadcast. Pictures as well as words can be defamatory.
Anything that injures a person's reputation can be defamatory. If a comment brings a person into contempt, disrepute or ridicule, it is likely to be defamatory.
You tell your friends that the boss is unfair. That's slander of the boss.
You write a letter to the newspaper saying a politician is corrupt. That's libel of the politician, even if it's not published.
You say on television that a building was badly designed. That's libel due to the imputation that the architect is professionally incompetent, even if you didn't mention any names.
You sell a newspaper that contains defamatory material. That's spreading of a defamation.
http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2012/11...n-prosecutors/
and
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/c...dia/index.html
New Guidelines: 4 categories
The CPS has said that an initial assessment of the content of the communications should be made to distinguish between:
1. Communications which may constitute credible threats of violence to the person or damage to property.
2. Communications which specifically target an individual or individuals and which may constitute harassment or stalking within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
3. Communications which may amount to a breach of a court order.
4. Communications which do not fall into any of the categories above and fall to be considered separately (see below): i.e. those which may be considered grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false.
The guidance states that communications falling within paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above should be prosecuted, providing they satisfy the two-stage test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. However, the guidance suggests that it may not be in the public interest to prosecute cases which fall into paragraph 4.
In the document, the CPS have provided guidance on what is deemed to fall within paragraphs 1-4, above.
The need for caution
The document also expresses the need for caution in prosecuting these types of offences, stating that there is the potential for a “chilling effect” on free speech. It highlights the case of Paul Chambers, where the Lord Chief Justice stated:
“… a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside [section 127(i)(a)], for the simple reason that the message lacks menace.…Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127 of the Communications Act 2003].“
It also highlights Art.10 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers …“
As well as the case of Sunday Times v UK (No 2) [1992] 14 EHRR 123:
“Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society … it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also as to those that offend, shock or disturb …“
And the case of DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40:
“There can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context. The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates.“
The document also details the public interest test in deciding whether to prosecute. It confirms that a prosecution is unlikely to be both necessary and proportionate where:
1. The suspect has expressed genuine remorse;
2. Swift and effective action has been taken by the suspect and/or others for example, service providers, to remove the communication in question or otherwise block access to it;
3. The communication was not intended for a wide audience, nor was that the obvious consequence of sending the communication; particularly where the intended audience did not include the victim or target of the communication in question; or
4. The content of the communication did not obviously go beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in an open and diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression.
It also touches upon the potential prosecutions of young people, and how prosecutions of such individuals will not usually be in the public interest.
http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2013/06...-social-media/
The High Court has previously ruled that defamation on internet bulletin boards is akin to slander rather than libel.
Mr Justice Eady stated that posts on bulletin boards "are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out...Those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."
As such "When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions...People do not often take a 'thread' and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it."
Mr Justice Eady said that the comments were likely to be considered as 'fair comment' i.e. they cannot be considered as defamatory if they are posted without malice and represent the posters honest views: "I referred to common themes in the postings, such as that of 'bullying' other users and making 'threatening demands' for money. That is classic fair comment territory and, in the light of the modern authorities, it is inconceivable that a jury would find any of those who expressed such a view 'malicious' let alone all of them...Opinions may be expressed in exaggerated and strident terms; the only requirement is that they be honestly held. It is fanciful to suppose that any of these people did not believe what they were saying. Even if they reached their conclusions in haste, or on incomplete information, or irrationally, the defence would still avail them."
Defamation has always been notoriously difficult to prove in court.
Courts generally agree that an opinion, no matter how malicious, is not the same as a stated fact.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Now, where were we ?
Dunno, Graham ... putting the boxing gloves
Now, where were we ?away, perhaps.
That cake eating session seems a long time ago nowThese slappers aren't posing for pics and looking smug now
The penny has finally dropped for these 2 !
the problem is they said they were told it was 100% sure that they wouldn't get caught.
but maybe they had a backup plan if they did
Yesterday, they faced further questions about their version of events when photographs emerged of them sipping beer and posing on a hotel balcony in Peru.
They claimed they were told to take photos of themselves at tourist spots to back up the cover story they would use at customs.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...t-in-handcuffs
were they having a good time or did they fear for their lives
The two women had been working on the Spanish island of Ibiza, where they say they were snared by a drug cartel, robbed of their passports and phones and followed as they travelled on separate flights from Spain to Peru.
The 31-year-old, who lived on the island with Ms McCollum Connolly, told the Daily Mirror that traffickers would loiter near bars and nightclubs and get teenagers hooked on drugs before forcing them to become dealers and drug mules after they racked up large debts.
Mr Garcia, who works in Amsterdam Bar in San Antonio, told the newspaper: "I've seen British guys come into the bar to try and recruit girls. They get them hooked on coke, on all sorts of things, and then make them do terrible things.
"They become low-level dealers at first. The gangs use the girls who work in clubs and bars to sell drugs to punters. That's how it starts. In return they get money and drugs on credit."
Colonel Tito Perez Arrascue, of the National Police of Peru said the woman were not expected to be formally charged until Monday or Tuesday.
He said: "We have to take care. It's not a simple process, we have to investigate the case piece by piece. They will stay here for 15 days while we investigate."
Ms Reid and Ms McCollum Connolly could be held pre-charge for up to 30 days and then could spend up to three years in prison before a trial.
If convicted, they could face lengthy sentences in an overcrowded Peruvian prison where they will have to pay for everything, including food and bedding.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/422...ocaine-smuggle
At least they've got a photo pictured next to Ricky Gervais.These slappers aren't posing for pics and looking smug now
Accused drug girl in 'taped' drug call
COPS in Peru have a recording of a phone call telling an Irish girl arrested over a €1.7million cocaine haul how to smuggle drugs, it emerged yesterday.
Prosecutors have said the call will form part of the case against accused 20-year-olds Michaella McCollum Connolly and Melissa Reid.
The recording is allegedly of Michaella, from Dungannon, Northern Ireland, being told exactly what to do.
read more here .. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...drug-call.html
The father who went over there thinks that they should plead guilty
He thinks their defense case is slim
Plead guilty and try plea bargaining might be a better way forward for them
WORLD EXCLUSIVE Our real story, by Ibiza drug mules: Incredible account girls gave to police published IN FULL ... so judge for yourself whether they were terrified stooges or calculated criminals
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2d5L57Q00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Nice one Jamie
Those girls look like they could be kid sisters of the stricken 2
Im surprised The Mail gave it the time of day...must of been short of stories
They've had their 15 minutes..i say leave them to it
Brilliant Jamie!
Deleted because of insults
So in summary, someone being charged with an alleged crime that happened many years ago has exactly what to do with this thread
I'm not the judge and certainly not the jury in this case, but as with other people who have contributed, I am expressing an opinion based on the facts we have been given. Hopefully that isn't against the law now.
I agree Simon...I can't help thinking all that white powder found in their luggage isn't going to help them one iotaSo in summary, someone being charged with an alleged crime that happened many years ago has exactly what to do with this thread
I'm not the judge and certainly not the jury in this case, but as with other people who have contributed, I am expressing an opinion based on the facts we have been given. Hopefully that isn't against the law now.
Hardly a comparision to the ''Kevin Webster'' case.
The women in Peru have admitted having drugs in their possesion. They are claiming mitigating circumstances.
Deleted because of insults
Calm down John we're just a bunch of people with a lifetimes experience expressing our views on a couple of slappers who got caught with suitcases filled with drugs in a country on the other side of the world.
You obviously come with a wealth of experience representing a profession that managed to secure convictions against
The Birmingham 6, The Guilford 4, The McGuire 7, The Bridgwater4, The Cardiff 3, Stefan Kizko, Judith Ward, The M25 3, Barry George, The Cardiff newsagent 3, Sally Clark and many many more. We're not harming anybody by expressing our views and let's be grateful that Kevin Webster/Michael Le Vell wasn't investigated by the infamous West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad because he'd probably be just starting a 25 stretch
Love itCalm down John we're just a bunch of people with a lifetimes experience expressing our views on a couple of slappers who got caught with suitcases filled with drugs in a country on the other side of the world.
You obviously come with a wealth of experience representing a profession that managed to secure convictions against
The Birmingham 6, The Guilford 4, The McGuire 7, The Bridgwater4, The Cardiff 3, Stefan Kizko, Judith Ward, The M25 3, Barry George, The Cardiff newsagent 3, Sally Clark and many many more. We're not harming anybody by expressing our views and let's be grateful that Kevin Webster/Michael Le Vell wasn't investigated by the infamous West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad because he'd probably be just starting a 25 stretch
BTW...I sent you a rep for that..brilliant!
Im not happy about the new payment system here..before you cld just enter your any old card number and pay what you like..now we got to use paypal...not happy with that
Just a thought
Bigmarco you seem have to missed my post where I said,
If it was that cut and dried everyone charged with an offence would be found guilty. I don’t have that sort of confidence in the abilities of all police officers !
I am the one (maybe the only one) who is defending the right of people that they should be considered innocent until proven guilty. If some here had their way, all of those who you quote would have been convicted (even without the juries who decided to find them guilty) without any right to appeal.
Johncar54 it seems that you have missed everyone else's point with your:-
1. Have you any idea who I was
2. I used to do this for a living
3. I know what I'm talking about
4. Don't you dare express an opinion which differs from mine
5. Did I mention I was in the force?
attitude
We, as a public forum quite often discuss what's happening in the world, but when it comes to anything legal YOU are the expert and portray your opinions in a belittling and arrogant manner. In this case you bring to your defence something totally irrelevant to the subject to try and reinforce your statement.
Until we have all the facts all we can base our opinion on is what has been reported in the press, and no-one has said they're guilty, but that's what a lot of people think (again given the information we have been given).
I for one will be happy to say I was wrong in my opinion if they are proven innocent, but I have to wonder if you will be as happy to say you were wrong if they are proven guilty
Please don't stoop so low as to send me a personal message as you have in the past if you disagree with me, just say what you want to so everyone can read it.
.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Quote Reply
