What a complete joke

jaysay

jaysay

Resting in Peace
Overlooker
A burglary suspect with a birthmark on his face will not have to show it in an ID parade, TO PROTECT HIS HUMAN RIGHTS:eek::eek::eek:
A witness Tracy Ryan so a man steal £300 in charity donations from a dog sanctuary where she works, but because witness have to be shown 12 photos before they identify a suspect, and they couldn't find 12 photos of people with birthmarks so it could not be use, now everybody on a forthcoming ID parade will have to cover that part of their face, because it would be against the suspects HUMAN RIGHTS, it could only happen in Britain :mad::mad:
 
jaysay said:
A burglary suspect with a birthmark on his face will not have to show it in an ID parade, TO PROTECT HIS HUMAN RIGHTS:eek::eek::eek:
A witness Tracy Ryan so a man steal £300 in charity donations from a dog sanctuary where she works, but because witness have to be shown 12 photos before they identify a suspect, and they couldn't find 12 photos of people with birthmarks so it could not be use, now everybody on a forthcoming ID parade will have to cover that part of their face, because it would be against the suspects HUMAN RIGHTS, it could only happen in Britain :mad::mad:
Click to expand...

Just when you think you.ve heard it all, this is so stupid, the one outstanding feature has to be covered up :(.....and they wonder why we have no confidence in the law :(
 
hmmm im a bit touchy about my fingerprints so if i decide to burgal a house can i claim it is an infraction on my human rights to have my finger prints used to identify me ?

edit:

im pretty sure a rapists was once idetified by a birthmark on his dinkle as he was masked when he did it so does this mean the convicted rapist can now appeal and get his sentance quashed on teh grounds that this guy got it passed that using a birthmark was against his human rights ?
 
Last edited:
This isn't new. I managed an ID Suite and anything which would be obvious was always covered. I remember sticking plasters on faces, sticking false tashes on nine blokes so that the offender wouldn't stand out. It has to be considered fair and I agree that it always leans towards the criminal's side but there you go.

The solicitor of the defendant is always present and if he doesn't agree with the line up......no parade, no video ID and lack of evidence in court. Therefore, the Police just have to do their best.

Had it been where I worked I'm sure that we would have hired an artist to paint blemishes on the volunteers' faces if the crime had warranted it. Don't laugh, we did worse!!
 
Similar reason why lots of Police have moustaches , they'll shave them off when up on brutality charges , making identification more difficult
 
I think I'll make the unpopular point that it is not only the suspect's human rights that are being protected, it's everyone's human rights. The reason that justice is portrayed as being blindfolded is .... well that one is a no brainer.
 
jaysay said:
A burglary suspect with a birthmark on his face will not have to show it in an ID parade, TO PROTECT HIS HUMAN RIGHTS:eek::eek::eek:
A witness Tracy Ryan so a man steal £300 in charity donations from a dog sanctuary where she works, but because witness have to be shown 12 photos before they identify a suspect, and they couldn't find 12 photos of people with birthmarks so it could not be use, now everybody on a forthcoming ID parade will have to cover that part of their face, because it would be against the suspects HUMAN RIGHTS, it could only happen in Britain :mad::mad:
Click to expand...

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but we are talking here about a burglary "suspect", someone who has not yet had the opportunity to confront his accusers before a judge and a jury of his peers ... in other words, we are looking at someone who is innocent ... I presume that you guys still operate under the "presumption of innocence" like we do. But, on the basis of what evidence, a newspaper article? an item on the news? Jaysay seems to have already decided his guilt:eek: And from that, he moves on to an implied condemnation of the government: "it could only happen in Britain":rolleyes: I think that his political prejudice, always close to the surface, has erupted here. We all know that tories tout a "get tough on crime" policy; it's a cheap, albeit and inefective way of dealing with social problems. And it makes good slogans. We are all of us lucky to live as free people in democratic societies; and one of the bases of that freedom is a system of law before which all are equal.
 
Eric said:
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but we are talking here about a burglary "suspect", someone who has not yet had the opportunity to confront his accusers before a judge and a jury of his peers ... in other words, we are looking at someone who is innocent ... I presume that you guys still operate under the "presumption of innocence" like we do. But, on the basis of what evidence, a newspaper article? an item on the news? Jaysay seems to have already decided his guilt:eek: And from that, he moves on to an implied condemnation of the government: "it could only happen in Britain":rolleyes: I think that his political prejudice, always close to the surface, has erupted here. We all know that tories tout a "get tough on crime" policy; it's a cheap, albeit and inefective way of dealing with social problems. And it makes good slogans. We are all of us lucky to live as free people in democratic societies; and one of the bases of that freedom is a system of law before which all are equal.
Click to expand...
It would only happen in Britain where the powers that be bend over backwards for the criminal and take every opportunity to shaft the law abiding citizen, what I would like to see is that the Human rights of the victim were catered for rather than the offender
 
Some of the Human Rights Laws are good. Read this one -
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
Oviedo, 4.IV.1997

Chapter II – Consent

Article 5 – General rule

An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it.
This person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose and nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences and risks.
The person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time.

Chapter VIII – Infringements of the provisions of the Convention

Article 23 – Infringement of the rights or principles

The Parties shall provide appropriate judicial protection to prevent or to put a stop to an unlawful infringement of the rights and principles set forth in this Convention at short notice.

Article 24 – Compensation for undue damage

The person who has suffered undue damage resulting from an intervention is entitled to fair compensation according to the conditions and procedures prescribed by law.
 
If you catch a burglar in your house you should be able to pound the **** out of the bastard and not expect to be sentenced yourself
 
Restless said:
If you catch a burglar in your house you should be able to pound the **** out of the bastard and not expect to be sentenced yourself
Click to expand...

you can its a falicy that you cant as long as you are in fear for your life or protecting your property or family yuo can club the sod and even get away with it if teh sod dies

well thats what the head of scotland yard said over and over again when interviewed on the trevor msdonald tonight show a few years ago where they ran 6 constructions by him where each time the burgular died from been clubbed or stabbed etc

the only one that he said was unacceptable was when teh home owner was chased and stabbed in teh street but apparently its ok to sneak up behind teh sod and stick a knife in the sod

you wanna risk it though ? lol
 
Only this morning there was another example on Ceefax, where a 71 year old grandmother got a conditional discharge for poking a young thug in the chest because he'd been throwing bricks and eggs at her home, words fail me, Tough on crime tough on the causes of crime doesn't seem to ring true here does it
 
what i dont understand is that when one of these stupid cases gets to court infront of a jury why the jury dont just give the verdict of inocent

i know for sure if i was ever on a jury and some poor sod was on trial for protecting his home ,their self or family i would give a not guilty vote and encourage the other 11 to do the same
 
accyman said:
what i dont understand is that when one of these stupid cases gets to court infront of a jury why the jury dont just give the verdict of inocent

i know for sure if i was ever on a jury and some poor sod was on trial for protecting his home ,their self or family i would give a not guilty vote and encourage the other 11 to do the same
Click to expand...

Because these type of cases are decided by a Magistrate, many of which appear to be tossers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top