Is the guidance the reason the conviction rate is so low? I would suggest not. The guidance is there to try and ensure that prosecutors consider all the potential evidential difficulties and things the defence will do to put doubt in the minds of the jury, so they can try and determine if the Full Code Test is met. (Whether you agree with the principles of the test is another matter).

Having investigated and reported dozens of rape cases in the last 18 years, I would respectfully suggest that the greatest hurdles are (1) proving to a jury beyond all reasonable doubt that specific aspects of events that are almost never independently witnessed happened, and (2) proving BARD that the perpetrator had a specific mens rea at a specific time.

Is the guidance the reason the conviction rate is so low?

No idea, which is why I didn’t say it was. But what I am suggesting is that men can commit rape in the knowledge that they will almost certainly get away with it.

Fair enough, I thought you were agreeing with the new guidance = de facto legalisation of rape claim.

Indeed, the odds are not favour of victims. The reasons for this are unfortunately not straightforward.

Isn’t the complicating factor here the need for the Police to be seen to not tolerate covid non-compliance?

No the complication is the inability of police commanders to realise that public health offences are not public order offences.

@sandwich are they dealt with differently then? Genuine question.

There was widespread outrage when the force made the claims in a press release on Monday that “a total of 20 officers were assaulted or injured and two of them were taken to hospital after suffering broken bones. One of them also suffered a punctured lung,” the force had said.

But in an updated press release published on Wednesday, the force clarified this was not true, saying: “Thankfully, following a full medical assessment of the two officers taken to hospital, neither were found to have suffered confirmed broken bones.” Around the same time, a BBC reporter said on Twitter that Andy Marsh, the head of the Avon force, had admitted in a press conference that no officer had suffered a punctured lung.

🤔

So no broken bones, no punctured lung, but the narrative is already in place. Wonder what else they ‘got wrong’?

So no broken bones, no punctured lung, but the narrative is already in place. Wonder what else they ‘got wrong’?

Yeah – strange that. Will Priti Vacant come back and correct her statements?

Wonder what else they ‘got wrong’?

That a suspect ‘fell down the stairs’, perhaps?

Will Priti Vacant come back and correct her statements?

If she follows correct protocol for her ilk she’ll have the vacillating coppers ‘liquidated’…

https://twitter.com/UK_UNIFICATION/status/1375523377599877126

Real life Harry Enfield character..

I would like just a tiny bit of what he’s on.

Actual LOLed at that. That’s the best thing I’ve seen all week.

And I honestly don’t what is, and what isn’t real any more. It’s all melded into one.

Meanwhile, in Myanmar….

Meanwhile, in Myanmar….

Are you suggesting that failure to protest against draconian new laws will leave us in a similar predicament?

So no broken bones, no punctured lung, but the narrative is already in place. Wonder what else they ‘got wrong’?

Could’ve been worse – thank god our brave boys in blue didn’t suffer any wasp stings or heat exhaustion like their plucky comrades at Kingsnorth.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/dec/15/kingsnorth-climate-change-environment-police

Seems like no evening of beating helpless people with clubs is complete without a lying report of police casualties.

I once read that the police figures of injuries sustained while on duty include things like falling off your chair and stubbing a toe on the edge of a desk. Incidentally compensation to the tune of thousands accompany these self inflicted ‘accidents’

£3500 if the police dog bites another policeman.

Actual LOLed at that. That’s the best thing I’ve seen all week.

And I honestly don’t what is, and what isn’t real any more. It’s all melded into one.

It’s pretty crap reporting tbh, find a stoner and treat him as representative of something other than a stoner 🙂

Hmm I suppose it’s real when someone’s shoving you with a riot shield on your next peaceful protest in your post Brexit sanctioned police state as you protest at your local hospital being sold off for housing development 🙂

As my mum says ‘they won’t do that’ as I’m explaining they’ve already got a bill to do it nearly thru.

Reality bites as they say.

That’s the best thing I’ve seen all week.

I dunno…the video of the police dog biting another policeman was funnier I reckon.

Kevin Gately, Blair Peach, how long before we get a Georgette Floyd?

As my mum says ‘they won’t do that’ as I’m explaining they’ve already got a bill to do it nearly thru.

My mum said that ‘Boris Johnson as leader would be the end of the Conservative Party’.

I told her it had already ended as it was basically now an English Nationalist Party.

It’ll never happen here etc….

Hmm I suppose it’s real when someone’s shoving you with a riot shield on your next peaceful protest in your post Brexit sanctioned police state as you protest at your local hospital being sold off for housing development

Well that’s what the government are warming up for.

In 6-18 months there is going to be a growing wave of protest as more and more people feel the impact of ‘The Big Lie’.

Setting the them vs us narrative now is just doing your groundwork.

And I wonder – how long before some local beat policing is put in the hands of private security firms hiring ‘locally recruited auxiliaries’ so that the real police can deal with the growing unrest?

And I wonder – how long before some local beat policing is put in the hands of private security firms hiring ‘locally recruited auxiliaries’ so that the real police can deal with the growing unrest?

Ahh no need when you can get em for free- Specials.

Ahh no need when you can get em for free- Specials.

Who predate any of this Tory government, of course.

Police attacking legal observers:

https://www.haldane.org/news/2021/3/29/statement-condemning-the-mpss-arrest-of-four-legal-observers-on-16th-march

It’s quite disturbing how the BBC etc gleefully report on anti-democracy abuses by the Chinese authorities in Hong Kong, for example, yet are silent when similar happens here. It’s an extremely sinister and worrying move by police, to now target those who are there simply to observe that the law is adhered to, particularly by the police. One step closer to fascism…

From the link (The Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers – no agenda there then).

The Legal Observers arrested were dressed in hi-vis jackets

do these legal observers have any credentials or do you just turn up and claim to be legal observers?

Despite being clearly identifiable as legal observers

Does a high vis jacket make you a legal observer?

that the police abuse the Coronavirus regulations to prevent protest

Not sure how the police are abusing the regulations when the regulations have banned gatherings for the time being, regulations that have gone through our democratic process.

If you are genuinely suggesting what has happened recently in the UK with what has happened in Hong Kong you are seriously trivialising the issues in Hong Kong.

We note that three of the four legal observers were from Black, Brown and Racialised Groups.

Not surprising when

four legal observers from Black Protest Legal Support

If there were 20 legal observers, 17 were white who didn’t get arrested then that statement might have legs.

Personally I’d be more impressed if the legal observers were observing the legality of protestors trying to set fire to mini busses and smashing things up.

From the link (The Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers – no agenda there then).

Interesting that you’ve mentioned that. So I’ll throw your own words back at you; no agenda there, then.

do these legal observers have any credentials or do you just turn up and claim to be legal observers?

There is an entire internet out there, for you to do your own research, and enlighten yourself, but I’ll help you out a bit:

https://greenandblackcross.org/guides/what-is-a-legal-observer/

It really was as easy as just typing ‘legal observer’ inot Google. Really that easy. I will pick up one point I think needs clarification though:

“Legal observers are not:.. Lawyers”

They aren’t there in a professional capacity, but they can be actual lawyers, as well as from myriad professions. I personally know a few lawyers who have attended demonstrations as ‘legal observers’; some are barristers, and there’s even a QC or two in there. I also know a black cab driver who’s acted as a ‘legal observer’.

Does a high vis jacket make you a legal observer?

It’s purpose is to distinguish you as a ‘legal observer’, rather than a ‘protestor’, so that police don’t use powers meant to be used for protestors, on them.

Not surprising when

four legal observers from Black Protest Legal Support

Not all people connected with Black Protest Legal Support are people of colour. I know two who are very white. So there you go. It’s often not a good idea to make assumptions.

Not sure how the police are abusing the regulations when the regulations have banned gatherings for the time being, regulations that have gone through our democratic process.

Lots of confusion surround all this, not least from the police themselves, so I’ll forgive you for making that mistake. I’ll point you instead towards the recent High Court ruling on the matter:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/13/police-in-england-using-covid-lockdown-rules-to-halt-any-protests

“Police officers are using coronavirus regulations to break up socially distanced demonstrations even though the country’s largest police force has conceded in a landmark legal case that people have a right to protest during the current national lockdown.

The Metropolitan police admitted in the high court on Friday that it had discretion on how to respond to protests and it could not impose a blanket ban on demonstrations, after the force was challenged by the organisers of the planned vigil to remember Sarah Everard in south London.”

If you are genuinely suggesting what has happened recently in the UK with what has happened in Hong Kong you are seriously trivialising the issues in Hong Kong.

I’m not. I was merely pointing out that the BBC and other ‘mainstream’ media outlets have neglected to mention that ‘legal observers’ were attacked by police. Something that also happened in Hong Kong, which the western media reported on, extensively.

We’ve already seen that the police have lied about injuries to officers, during the protests, and we’ve also seen that it is likely that various media outlets have differing agendas when it comes to reporting facts. It really is worth pointing out that the Sarah Everard vigil was not in fact a protest, and had not been ‘organised’ by anyone as such, so police were in breach of the current emergency legislation.

so police were in breach of the current emergency legislation.

So the emergency legislation allowed more than 2 people to meet up?

I’m not happy with the Policing, but I also don’t see how a gathering like that was legal, unless I’m missing something in the small print. And if the law is being broken, that’s kind of why we have the Police?

I’m not sure which side is trying to have its cake and eat it, probably both.

I notice the report out on the Policing of the vigil criticises the Covid legislation the Police were supposedly enforcing fir being too vague. That I can agree with.

@csb the clue is in the words health (generally no violence involved unless the Met are policing) and order (preventing a breach of the peace and preventing violence (some of the Met’s and Bristol’s finest were in breach of public order).

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

No comment.
Anything asked = No Comment.

99% of people who come to deal with the police hand it all to them by engaging. I know nothing, so am saying nothing. Build yer own case.

EG. It’s like drink driving. Blow in the device and it reads a point over and you’ll have that on the permanent record,affecting your insurance, but refuse to engage and all they can do you for is failing to provide. This is not a drink drive conviction.

@sandwich categorised differently yes, but I asked

@sandwich are they dealt with differently then? Genuine question.

So are infringements under each dealt with differently?

No comment.
Anything asked = No Comment.

99% of people who come to deal with the police hand it all to them by engaging. I know nothing, so am saying nothing. Build yer own case.

99% – I wish!

No Comment will be the best option in some situations, and not the best option in others. Don’t forget about adverse inference. The best thing to do is speak to a solicitor, they will advise the best option for the particular situation.

EG. It’s like drink driving. Blow in the device and it reads a point over and you’ll have that on the permanent record,affecting your insurance, but refuse to engage and all they can do you for is failing to provide. This is not a drink drive conviction.

Not good advice. 1) Failing to provide is much easier to prove, the police are more than happy for you to do that. 2) Insurance companies will wonder how shitfaced were you that failing to provide was the least worst option, just like they do with failing to identify the driver vs speeding offences.

but refuse to engage and all they can do you for is failing to provide. This is not a drink drive conviction.

As I understand it the punishment is the same, and the insurance implications certainly are.

In Scotland, no inference can be drawn from not answering questions during interview.

However, it is not always the best choice…

I am aware of a interviewee who chose to no comment and interview and subsequently received a fraud conviction.

If they had answered the questions, it may have been possible for them to have been considered a witness, rather than an offender.

You’re quite right, that is the legal position, but I’m not convinced that jurors don’t sometimes still draw such an inference.

EG. It’s like drink driving.

It’s not.