Comments on: It wouldn’t happen to me

By: Von Spreuth

Von Spreuth — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:29:05 +0000

Na THAT should be easy. He seems like a RIGHT tosser.

By: Constantly Furious

Constantly Furious — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:57:21 +0000

You do have one, don’t you?.

I suspect not. Methinks ‘Dan’ is the blog equivalent of a restaurant critic.

He knows exactly what should and should not be done, and is more than happy to share this wisdom at great and tedious length, but can he chop an onion? Oh no.

Prove us wrong, Dan. Toss us a salad…

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:09:08 +0000

Last post from me, which means you’ll inevitably have the last word J…
Look, I’m not claiming any special credibility, I’m just saying – for the last time – let’s try and find out the facts before jumping to outraged conclusions.
What’s difficult about that?

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:29:31 +0000

“Credibility is strong with this one.”

Remind us of your own claims to credibility..?

*crickets*

“…can we try to establish the full facts before we all start squealing and firing up the outrage bus.”

Oh, but it’s such a big bus, and there so much room.

But still, let’s see what he gets, eh? It better not be longer than 16 months. After all, this commenter points out at ‘Inspector Gadget’s, that that’s what you get for actually FIRING a loaded shotgun in public, while having numerous convictions.

Not that he served that, though; they’ll take off the 4 months he spent on remand and get an automatic half-sentence cut. So he’ll be out in March….

The justice system. Great, isn’t it?

“I’ve read your own blog: it consists of fisking the Daily Mail while talking about how terrible the ‘MSM’ is…”

That’s hardly all it consists of, so I guess you just managed to read the one post. Sorry, Dan, I’ll try to make the words a little shorter for your next visit.

Or you could show us all how its done? Point us to your own blog?

You do have one, don’t you?

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:27:55 +0000

Ah. So you’re commenting on other people’s comments in one local paper… You didn’t even read the original ’source’.
You should have said.
(Credibility is strong with this one.)
I’m not stamping my feet, though; I’m just pointing out that you have nada in the way of evidence for your contention that this is Big Brother grinding his boot into a human face. I don’t have any that it isn’t, but then I’ve never said I have – all I’ve said is there are serious unanswered questions on both sides of the argument and can we try to establish the full facts before we all start squealing and firing up the outrage bus.
I’ve read your own blog: it consists of fisking the Daily Mail while talking about how terrible the ‘MSM’ is – but you have never, so far as I can recall, ever found anything out for yourself (read ‘broken a story’). You should try it – you seem to have enough time on your hands! But then, ‘commentary’ is so much easier I guess.

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:17:20 +0000

“It seems you’re just commenting on something you read about in the ‘MSM’…”

Yup, that’s right. I confined myself to reading the established media. I didn’t read any blogs or formus, oh dear me no. How’d I get here again?

“How many times with you people, FFS?”

Gosh, it must be awfully galling to you when people don’t just fall into line and believe what you tell them to believe, eh? Why don’t you stamp your feet? You never know, that might do the trick…

By: Von Spreuth

Von Spreuth — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:18:21 +0000

But the police decide what goes on the collators report.

And a suspicion of a fire arms offence will red flag his file for the rest of his life.

Do NOT mistake “The ways and means act” for anything resembling a prosecution.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:08:48 +0000

‘Let the police go off half-cocked’? So I take it you have some inside knowledge of the ca…

Ah. No.

It seems you’re just commenting on something you read about in the ‘MSM’ (which you normally affect to despise, amusingly).

Once again, for the really hard of thinking:

1. The CPS decide on charge, not the police. (And if the evidence isn’t there, the CPS really don’t like to charge.)

2. The court decides on guilt, not the police.

How many times with you people, FFS?

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:45:40 +0000

“It may also be that the police would like a firearms conviction on his record as they have intelligence about him, to which we’re not privy, which makes this desirable.”

I expect they would. Buit surely you aren’t arguing that the safest thing for society is to let the police go off half-cocked and use a poorly-drawn up law to get something on h…

Oh. I see you are: “This is a guy with convictions after all; a suspended sentence with conditions, or monitoring of some sort might make sense.”

*sigh*

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:44:45 +0000

David Weber said: “(W)we have to trust the police, rather than the courts, to work out unpleasant details such as whether a person was actually guilty of criminally procuring a firearm or not.”

That’s not the case: your lack of understanding is astonishing.

The police don’t even decide whether to charge – this is a decision made by the CPS after they receive a file sent to them by the police.

Beyond that, it is the jury (in indictable cases) which decides ‘guilt’, not the police OR the CPS.

Ironically, police officers will tell you how frustrated they are by the regular rejection of what they view as sound cases by CPS lawyers, who are labouring under a target as to convictions – so it’s not even the case that juries get to decide innocence; often this decision is de facto made by the CPS at the point where a given CPS lawyer decides not to charge on the basis that, in his or her opinion, there in insufficient chance of a conviction at trial.