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."?

On May 15, 9:57�pm, 1506 wrote:
On May 15, 7:54�am, furnessvale wrote:

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."?

Never heard of that rule of evidence. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

George

"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.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:57:52 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

On May 15, 7:54Â*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.


"(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within
hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or
distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the
words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible
representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside
that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable."

2 out of 3 in the defendant's favour if he was merely taking
photographs ?

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."?

It doesn't count south of Hadrian's Wall.

On May 15, 3:17*pm, furnessvale wrote:
On May 15, 9:57 pm, 1506 wrote:

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

Never heard of that rule of evidence. *Perhaps you can enlighten me?


http://tinyurl.com/rb5sav

On May 15, 3:47*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:57:52 -0700 (PDT), 1506





wrote:
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.

"(3) *It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within
hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or
distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the
words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible
representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside
that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable."

2 out of 3 in the defendant's favour if he was merely taking
photographs ?

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."?

It doesn't count south of Hadrian's Wall.

Once again Scottish Law shows its virtue.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 15:17:04 -0700 (PDT), furnessvale
wrote:

On May 15, 9:57?pm, 1506 wrote:
On May 15, 7:54?am, furnessvale wrote:

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."?

Never heard of that rule of evidence. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

It is a biblical reference from Deuteronomy.

MB wrote:

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.

A Home Office bod even said on the news that the DNA of innocent people
should be kept "in case they offend again".

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

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
--
Roland Perry