martine wrote:Sometimes 'technicalities' are better described as 'loopholes' - as in: they are exploited against what most would consider true justice. Occasionally it is obvious for all to see that someone is guilty and I find it abhorent that sometimes the defendent goes free due to procedural errors or simply poor law.
And it is your perogative to do so even if it might not be consistent with your duty to the Court to apply the law as it is.Martine wrote:The right to silence is an interesting one and if I were on a jury I would consider it very strange behaviour and it wouldn't count in their favour!
Martine wrote:Clearly getting the balance right between protecting against false imprisionment and letting a criminal go free is tricky but sometimes I think the balance is too far towards the former.
The Thinker wrote:With regards about the police hat. From a legal point of view how would you recognise a police officer. I wouldn't want to give information or follow orders from any old tom dick or harry.
7db wrote:rlmr wrote:And not intending to upset 7db... there are fundemental differences between English & Scots Law - fact
But we've been trying to civilise your nation since 1603...
rlmr wrote:Awe... I liked the bit about English history when you drowned folk to make sure they were not witches... or burnt them.
rlmr wrote:I can't quite recall when England started their new fangled idea of innocent till proven guilty... was that after you stopped hanging 6 year olds for stealing bread to feed their families or just after you deported everyone to Australia..
rlmr wrote:Hence the origin of such quaint English phrases as "just as well being hung for a sheep as a lamb"
rlmr wrote:I am afraid I can only comment of Scot's Law, which has had the innocent till proven guilty ethos for some time, even though I believe we drowned a few innocent non-witches as well . Suffice it to say whilst it was not perfect, I policed under the "innocent till proven guilty" system and would not have had it any other way... even though it is not a perfect system.
marcw06 wrote:if an alleged sex offender who paid to view illegal images over the internet got off the charge because he claimed that it wasn't him using his credit card - we'd all be much less sympathetic
SammyTheSnake wrote:If you think about it, the more serious the crime (and the more serious the potential punishment) the more important it is that we don't convict the wrong person!
A very good question. I no longer have access to the statutes in the Force Library and its a long time since I had to know the ins and outs of the Scottish Criminal Law Manual so no doubt some other better qualified participant in this forum can answer you, However...
I think the image of the traditional UK Bobby was pretty well known around the world, be it the Dixon of Dock Green or Fancy Smith from Z-Cars image. Now we have a more modern image with kit more suited to the task in hand. But black Lycra cycling tops with a Force Crest or a High Vis yellow jacket... there are so many variations from Force to Force. I suppose the common thread is the word POLICE adorning the new style uniforms whereas there were never such ID marks n the traditional uniforms. Also the word Police is known in most languages whilst Constabulary is quite unfamiliar to the non Brits.
We are now all too familiar with armed cops wearing flack jackets and baseball caps wandering about our Airports... times change and the thin blue line changes to meet the challenges it faces on our behalf.
The Thinker wrote:I was more concerned about unmarked police cars, or actors from the bill between takes. I seem to remember (Princess) Fergie getting a few headlines about impersonating a police officer.
rlmr wrote:It is certainly illegal to impersonate a police officer and blue lights or anything resembling a blue light canNOT be fitted to a motor vehicle.
The Thinker wrote:(Princess) Fergie
Return to Announcements, Improvements and Forum Help
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests