"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.uk...
MB wrote:
"1506" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 7:54 am, furnessvale wrote:
On May 15, 3:24 pm, MIG wrote:





On 15 May, 15:17, Alistair Gunn wrote:
Theo Markettos twisted the electrons to say:
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w...0_15/05/2009_1...
Interestingly it's claimed that he deleted the photos before the
Police
ever got involved ... So where's the actual evidence to prove his
"crime" actually occured?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
The evidence is the distress.
So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.
Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.

George

what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
matter shall be confirmed."?

---------------------------------


Haven't you noticerd, everyone is now guilty unless proved innocent and
even then still considered probably a criminal.

Don't a lot of people who follow rules like the one above believe that
everyone born *is* guilty, by definition?

Some of the interviews with police and Home Office people about the
keeping of DNA records of innocent people were illuminating. They just
did not understand the concept, one even admitted that he would have to
look up in the dictionary. One aspect was that if you are innocent of
most crimes they want to keep your DNA for six years but if you are
innocent of a more serious crime then they want to keep it for twelve
years.

Radio 4 recently had a minister(?) saying they had to keep your DNA
because even if you are found not guilty you might offend *again*. They
gave him a couple of explicit opportunities to correct this, but he was
quite clear that anyone arrested is guilty, even if a mere court finds
them not guilty.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK




There is the other recent case where the police found some money in a house
and are keeping it unless the owner can prove where he got it. I don't
think most people have any objection to criminal's money being confiscated
but you would expect at least some evidence that it was obtained through
criminal activities.

On May 16, 10:36*am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
10:05:38 on Sat, 16 May 2009, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

Radio 4 recently had a minister(?) saying they had to keep your DNA
because even if you are found not guilty you might offend *again*. They
gave him a couple of explicit opportunities to correct this, but he was
quite clear that anyone arrested is guilty, even if a mere court finds
them not guilty.

Vernon Coaker, the police minister, it seems.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...sutcliffe/tom-
sutcliffe-innocentish-ndash-an-essential-part-of-justice-1683146.html


Interesting piece!

On May 16, 12:36�pm, Mizter T wrote:
On May 16, 10:36�am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
10:05:38 on Sat, 16 May 2009, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

Radio 4 recently had a minister(?) saying they had to keep your DNA
because even if you are found not guilty you might offend *again*. They
gave him a couple of explicit opportunities to correct this, but he was
quite clear that anyone arrested is guilty, even if a mere court finds
them not guilty.

Vernon Coaker, the police minister, it seems.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...sutcliffe/tom-
sutcliffe-innocentish-ndash-an-essential-part-of-justice-1683146.html

Interesting piece!

A side effect of taking DNA has been the fact that some close
relatives of innocent DNA sample givers have been caught due to the
relative giving a sample.

George

In article
..com, 1506 writes


The evidence is the distress.

So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.

Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.


But who, other than the distressed person, can possibly testify as
to whether he or she was indeed distressed? Any other person's
opinion would be just that - an opinion, not testimony on a matter
of fact.

--
Bill Borland

"furnessvale" wrote in message
...
On May 16, 12:36?pm, Mizter T wrote:
On May 16, 10:36?am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
10:05:38 on Sat, 16 May 2009, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

Radio 4 recently had a minister(?) saying they had to keep your DNA
because even if you are found not guilty you might offend *again*.
They
gave him a couple of explicit opportunities to correct this, but he
was
quite clear that anyone arrested is guilty, even if a mere court finds
them not guilty.

Vernon Coaker, the police minister, it seems.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...sutcliffe/tom-
sutcliffe-innocentish-ndash-an-essential-part-of-justice-1683146.html

Interesting piece!

A side effect of taking DNA has been the fact that some close
relatives of innocent DNA sample givers have been caught due to the
relative giving a sample.

George



---------------------------



And in at least one case innocent close relatives were very nearly
convicted of murder, I would not be surprised if there are other cases
where the people were convicted.

I think it was David Davies who suggested that it might be more profitable
if they first collected DNA from people who had previously been convicted
of offences especially ones who were released early and so the authorities
can probably force them to do so.

I just dread the number of false matches there are going to be if they ever
get their way and have DNA from the whole population. We all know this
government's record with large databases.

MB wrote

There is the other recent case where the police found some money in a
house
and are keeping it unless the owner can prove where he got it. I
don't
think most people have any objection to criminal's money being
confiscated
but you would expect at least some evidence that it was obtained
through
criminal activities.

Depends on the size of the sum in question. Given that no legal job or
business existed an inference that criminal activities were the source
seems rational.

If the police found £100,000 in the bread-bin, would you as a juryman
vote to convict, assuming no explanation ?

£1,000,000 ?

£5,000,000 ?

|| A man who was cleared of drugs charges last year has two flats and a
Rolex watch seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4563603.stm

|| A woman who claims she funded a lavish lifestyle with bingo and a
"penny
pinching" husband is convicted of possessing criminal property.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/3962259.stm


--
Mike D

On May 16, 4:31*pm, Bill Borland wrote:
The evidence is the distress.

So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.

Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.

But who, other than the distressed person, can possibly testify as
to whether he or she was indeed distressed? *Any other person's
opinion would be just that - an opinion, not testimony on a matter
of fact.

Surely the test is 'could reasonably be expected to have caused
distress', not 'actually did cause distress'?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On May 15, 3:19*pm, "MB" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...
On May 15, 7:54 am, furnessvale wrote:





On May 15, 3:24 pm, MIG wrote:

On 15 May, 15:17, Alistair Gunn wrote:

Theo Markettos twisted the electrons to say:

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w...0_15/05/2009_1...

Interestingly it's claimed that he deleted the photos before the
Police
ever got involved ... So where's the actual evidence to prove his
"crime" actually occured?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

The evidence is the distress.

So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.

Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.

George

what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
matter shall be confirmed."?

---------------------------------

Haven't you noticerd, everyone is now guilty unless proved innocent and
even then still considered probably a criminal. *Some of the interviews
with police and Home Office people about the keeping of DNA records of
innocent people were illuminating. *They just did not understand the
concept, one even admitted that he would have to look up in the dictionary.
One aspect was that if you are innocent of most crimes they want to keep
your DNA for six years but if you are innocent of a more serious crime then
they want to keep it for twelve years.

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
better.

In the wider context, photography in the streets has been acceptable
for decades. Indeed it is a normal activity for tourists. I dislike
the notion that somehow that has ceased to be the case.

If it is so, prepare for lots of incidents involving tourists,
especially those from Japan.

"1506" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 3:19 pm, "MB" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...
On May 15, 7:54 am, furnessvale wrote:





On May 15, 3:24 pm, MIG wrote:

On 15 May, 15:17, Alistair Gunn wrote:

Theo Markettos twisted the electrons to say:

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w...0_15/05/2009_1...

Interestingly it's claimed that he deleted the photos before the
Police
ever got involved ... So where's the actual evidence to prove his
"crime" actually occured?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

The evidence is the distress.

So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.

Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.

George

what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
matter shall be confirmed."?

---------------------------------

Haven't you noticerd, everyone is now guilty unless proved innocent and
even then still considered probably a criminal. Some of the interviews
with police and Home Office people about the keeping of DNA records of
innocent people were illuminating. They just did not understand the
concept, one even admitted that he would have to look up in the
dictionary.
One aspect was that if you are innocent of most crimes they want to keep
your DNA for six years but if you are innocent of a more serious crime
then
they want to keep it for twelve years.

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
better.

In the wider context, photography in the streets has been acceptable
for decades. Indeed it is a normal activity for tourists. I dislike
the notion that somehow that has ceased to be the case.

If it is so, prepare for lots of incidents involving tourists,
especially those from Japan.



------------------------------



Depends on the circumstances where the child was photographed.

There have been cases where any children have been in the background but
someone has complained and of course the classic case of a lady being
prevented taking a picture of an empty paddling pool because there could be
children in the distance.

I have taken pictures of friends' children when other children have been
around and no one had bothered but people are being brainwashed into
believing that you cannot even do that or even "take pictures of children".

1506 wrote:
On May 15, 3:19 pm, "MB" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...
On May 15, 7:54 am, furnessvale wrote:





On May 15, 3:24 pm, MIG wrote:
On 15 May, 15:17, Alistair Gunn wrote:
Theo Markettos twisted the electrons to say:
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w...0_15/05/2009_1...
Interestingly it's claimed that he deleted the photos before the
Police
ever got involved ... So where's the actual evidence to prove his
"crime" actually occured?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
The evidence is the distress.
So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.
Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.
George
what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
matter shall be confirmed."?

---------------------------------

Haven't you noticerd, everyone is now guilty unless proved innocent and
even then still considered probably a criminal. Some of the interviews
with police and Home Office people about the keeping of DNA records of
innocent people were illuminating. They just did not understand the
concept, one even admitted that he would have to look up in the dictionary.
One aspect was that if you are innocent of most crimes they want to keep
your DNA for six years but if you are innocent of a more serious crime then
they want to keep it for twelve years.

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable.


But why? Simply because a tabloid told you anyone with a camera is a
peeedo/terrorist/MP/insert hate figure of the month?

Does that mean no more CCTV?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK