a neighbour has taken it on herself to inform the police i pushed her as she tried to assault my son.
the police wish me to go for an interview voluntary tomorrow. shall i get legal help now or wait and see how the interview goes. do i refuse to answer questions or give a statement and then refuse to elaborate
|
|
get legal help now as you'll get all sorts of conflicting answers on here and be no more knowledgeable.
|
|
Get legal help - well worth it in these circumstances. May delay you're interview keep them informed in case they feel your collar - you will be offered this before/during any taped interview.
|
i was thinking of attending and offering a statement of my version of the truth and if i am arrested or they want to question at lenght then get legal help.
am i entitled to free representation at any time or only if im arrested formally.
they said they wanted to question about common assault. its all rather silly but i must take it seriously.
|
...you will be offered this before/during any taped interview...
That was my first question - if he could get legal aid for voluntarily attending a police station for interview.
He can, so take it.
I don't think anyone thinks the punter must have something to hide just because he has legal representation.
If anything, it shows he is treating the process with the respect it deserves.
|
my natural insticnt is to go in a say nothing at all but that makes me look unhelpful but i dont want to give the police or the complainant any help at all.
|
You can go down the prepared statement line - but you need to be prepared to answer questions on it - you don't have to answer them, it's unlikely there is a possibility that an inference being drawn but you will be warned. It's best to have read the below - they have to comply with this. It explains your rights quite clearly.
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/pace-codes/pace-code-c
|
|
Just read your other post now - I would seek advice from a solicitor. Depends on where they're coming from, they may want to interview just to box the job off on paper - or they may be seeking to get some sort of outcome - if it's a caution you'll need to "cough it" before they can do that but advising you on here could put you at risk. Everyone's circumstance is different.
|
im loathed to admit that i touched her at all at anytime because that would be common assault and im not guilty.
they may want me to cough to a warning but that would be wrong.
im of a mind to go for a prepared statement and answer a few questions but ask for represention if the questioning takes a turn and i believe they are willing to charge me
|
|
Just remember that an arrest can have a profound effect on many aspects of life !
|
thanks so muchfor that. ive been looking for something like that.
i phoned cab and they said i casn only get help if im arrested but will read some more
|
It's at times like this when a good local solicitor is worth his weight in gold, even if you have to pay him in pounds.
He will know how the police in that nick tend to deal with situations such as this, and make sure your position is put across in a way they understand and are comfortable with.
Getting legal help is a wise move and shows you are taking the matter suitably seriously.
It shouldn't annoy the police, it may even please them, because a suspect who is represented is easier to deal with.
|
i agree i need solicitor help but do i wait and ask for free representation during the interview or pay up front beferhand. they want to interview tommorow at 6.
|
|
im a little loathed to spend several hundred pounds because some local chav women has decided to lie to the police because her son was admonished verbally by me for climbing on my car.
|
nyx2k: in your first post you said she was trying to assault your son. In your last one you say you verbally admonished her son. If the story comes out like that, in dribs and drabs and in the wrong order, the police can be forgiven for thinking you are being evasive.
So although I didn't think at first you needed legal advice, I now think you do need someone to help you get your story straight. And calling the woman a chav won't help, even if she is one. Let old bill draw his own conclusions.
|
you are of course correct and a bit here and there will look like im making it up on the spot.
thats why i was going to make a statement before hand in writing and offer it to the police officer and answer question on it until the point of it looking like it may not be going my way.
i think i'll phone around and see what my legal position is as regarding legal aid as i dont get paid until next week and my savings account needs 7days notice for any withdrawals
|
>> i dont get paid until next week and my savings account needs 7days notice for any withdrawals
Surely shysters send their swingeing bills in, in guineas, and expect a gentlemanly pause before your cheque arrives? That's what they used to be like anyway. I would certainly think twice before paying one in advance. They might just do a runner if they make demands like that.
Tchah!
|
... dont get paid until next week and my savings account needs 7days notice for any withdrawals...
Don't worry about that, one consultation will not be hundreds and the solicitor will not expect payment in advance.
Represented or not, you need to be calm, rational, and respectful.
You want to give the police officer the impression you are the least likely guy in the world to lose your temper and banjo a disabled woman.
There may be some ground you can concede without harming your overall position - this is where the solicitor can help you.
|
im aiming to come across as a normal , educaTED , RESPECTFUL OF THE LAW AND ITS PROCESSES AS THE WOMAN WILL COME ACROSS AS THE ENTIRE OPPOSITE.
sorry about the shouting . bad typing
|
...they want to interview tommorow at 6....
I would be inclined to ring a solicitor today.
Now is a good time to do it, these guys are often in court in the morning and meander back to the office in the afternoon.
He - or she - might want you in for an interview early tomorrow afternoon.
The phone call will cost nothing and you should be able to establish your legal aid position quite quickly.
Last edited by: Iffy on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 15:12
|
I pick my girls up from outside school every night and for a few days now watched some kid pushing another about all the way down the path from the school gates... pushing the victim through other folks hedges... barging him into the phone box etc.
I've told the girls if it happens again in front of me I'll get out of the car and warn the bully off. My girls plead with me not to in case he accuses me of hitting him or something and the police get called with me the accused.
Hmmm... but I'll not sit and watch it many more days.
|
Hmmm... but I'll not sit and watch it many more days.
thats why i wont go into the city centre to collect my eldest as i weould be permamanly under cautian.
i detest the low life we have now and thought i was safe from them in my little hamlet but this woman has no income and has a disabled husband and a child with special needs so im not sure how she pays her mortgage at all.
i want it to go away as i know she will try something else in a few weeks time.
|
I'm a complete outsider to all of this and not a lawyer, but I would suggest that nyx2k should stop mentioning any details about what has happened, how it might be interpreted, or indeed anything about his mind-set and attitude towards the other person.
If the "wrong" person reads this forum there could be trouble.
Mods, what say you? Delete?
Last edited by: ChrisPeugeot on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 15:21
|
|
I'll e-mail the texts of this through to the OP and hide the post. If you are on any benefits you'll get legal aid as a rule of thumb. You are entitled to free legal advice and you will be allowed to consult a solicitor before any interview.
|
thanks pugugly.
i dont tyhink ive done anything that will hurt mine or the complainants case but i understand the need to no bias.
|
They'll need evidence to charge you with anything, and if an experience I had is anything to go by, it is unlikely that the complainant's word will be enough. They may of course put her version to you and see what you give them.
A scenario might be that the complainant says you pushed her, and you say in your statement that you merely put your hand on her arm [because you thought she intended harm to your son]. Where might that leave you?
About 30 years ago I was knocked down from behind and kicked by a debtor I was trying to collect money from. I reported it to the police. Despite the fact that I had a colleague as a witness, owing to the fact that the police (to whom the individual was known) expected him to deny it and be supported by his 'own' witness, they would not even interview him.
I'd get representation to reduce the chance of inadvertently incriminating yourself.
Happy to be corrected by experts if the above is not good reasoning - I'm no lawyer.
|
You can go there, assist them with your version of events if you wish, Until the time you are cautioned. The bit where they say "anything you say...may rely on... used in your defence..etc.
At that point you say nothing and seek legal advice.
|
Exactly what Zero just said.
I found myself in a very similar position five years ago. The police visited my house in the early hours one morning but I was already out in the truck, so I attended the nick by appointment the following morning. I was then cautioned, so I asked for the duty solicitor to attend straightaway. I didn't even find out exactly what it was I was supposed to have done until the police officer told her. As soon as the police could see the accuser was, er, of the same integrity as yours, they took no further action.
The most unpleasant part for me was the several hours' waiting around for due process to take its course - in a cell, after tipping out my pockets and handing over belt, tie and shoelaces. And submitting a mugshot, prints and DNA swab.
Sorry nxy2k, but there is a reasonable chance you'll go through the same IMO. Allow 7 or 8 hours. The truth will always out though, and if someone had genuinely committed an offence against a loved one of yours, you'd want them to be dealt with in an appropriate manner from the start wouldn't you?
- - - - -
The affair remained (remains?) on record, as I found out a couple of years ago when getting tugged for a CU80 (mobile phone use while driving). The traffic coppers shifted uneasily in their seats when checking my identity until I told them a potted version of this story, whereupon they relaxed noticeably.
|
As it is "voluntary" I would be loathe to attend, sounds like they are trying to find enough to charge one or other party its just that at the moment they do not have enough to do so.
Interviews of this type are used to gather evidence not to eliminate you from enquiries, one ill judged statement or answer and you may find its your collar that is being felt.
Get advice being going or saying anything more even if it takes time to get advice, just ring and say you cannot attend on the specified time and date.
There is a substantial difference between being a witness or being a suspect and plod do not always like to enlighten you on the difference between being one or the other especially if it detracts from them getting a result.
As always
Mark
Last edited by: Mark on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 20:51
|
|
If you don't go voluntarily they may well nick you. Get a brief.
|
|
They have to tick boxes to justify their existence. There is no rhyme or reason to some cps decisions or to some of the actions of the BIB. Twas never like this in my day.
|
ive just telephoned the pc who came to ask me to attend on friday. he said he was happy for me to come at another date asap if i wanted my own council there but he also said if i didnt attend within the next several days then they will have to come to the house and arrest me.
ive spoken to a local firm of solicitors and they said in the first instance to attend and ask for a duty solicitor when you need one.
ive decided to give a written statement and to answer questions that may arise from my statement.
As soon as i feel the questioning has changed and he wants to cross examine me about her statement i'll ask for a duty solicitor and if that cant happen stariaght away then i think they will ask me to come back at a later date. i cant see them wanting to detain me on a busy friday night.
maybe i'm being naive but i feel comfortable to go and give my account and see what happens.
|
|
Write it out very carefully - hen re-write it. Remember that an interview is for gathering evidence....once they have sufficient they're obliged to charge or report you for summons....just be careful.
|
Further to my post above:
Having read what you've just written I would say you are being naive, yes. DO NOT admit to anything that puts you in a worse position than when you walked in the door.
Remember the duty solicitor (they are good btw, don't think they're a "value" brand, they're the real deal) is getting paid to get you out of the door and in the clear asap. They will know the way the system works because they deal with it all day every day,so they know what to say and what not to say. You don't.
I reiterate - if/when you hear the police caution (like you see on the telly) ask for a duty solicitor and shut up. When they arrive, talk to them truthfully, without the police there, and then do and say exactly what they tell you.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 01:31
|
|
Just remember, as soon as you are cautioned your statements become evidence.
|
|
Keep a copy of what you write - they'll take the original from you.
|
if i get cautined before i give my statement i will ask for a solicitor to be present before i say another word.
if its a psudeo friendly type of interview i'll read from the statement and answer questions until im cauitioned.
|
...before i give my statement...
I'm not sure about this statement idea, far too big a chance of dropping yourself in it.
No harm in making a few notes, clarifying your thoughts, but you need to keep the interviewing officer lean, not give him loads of information.
Let him make the running, so you find out what, if anything, they have on you.
That doesn't mean make no reply, but make brief replies, sticking rigidly to the question, don't elaborate.
|
|
Good. The other thing you need to do is get a good night's sleep ahead of it. Good luck.
|
They will interview in one of two ways either with written notes, possible but unlikely - in all likelihood on tape - they will go through a script either way offering legal advice. Take it.
|
ive just remembered that the visiting pc asked if i would need representation or would i be coming on my own and i said i didnt know and would take advise.
maybe it would be better to ask for the duty solicitor, can this be done before im cautioned. in that way i cant get nervous and incriminate myself with their friendly chat technique.
|
|
That would be my strongest advice. You will have time to consult before any interview and get far better advice than you'll get here as regards prepared statements from an expert.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 22:02
|
thanks pugugly.
to sum up i'll write down some notes on the order of events and what was said between the parties.so i can refer myself to these notes and it will help the solicitor to get up to speed straight away.
|
...so i can refer myself to these notes and it will help the solicitor to get up to speed straight away...
Spot on.
|
|
Take a copy for your brief as well.
|
so the concensus is that i ask for a solicitor at the outset.
so do i have the right to get one of the duty briefs before im cautioned and questioned, even if they say they want to do a interview before i may be cautioned?
posted before the great answer below
Last edited by: nyx2k on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 22:32
|
Not that you have time but reading the book 'Wasting Police Time' gives an insight into the Police having to deal with these 'petty' squabbles. Certain sections of our community show no responsibilities but are what I would term as 'Police Users'.They are not interested in justice as there is non to be had but know that any spurious complaint will put you through much pain with no comeback on themselves.
Whilst on Police premesis you are entitled to free independent legal advice. Not so if you are at home. As aluded to above the strategy could be to arrest you at the station and go through the process with you being bailed back to a date in the future after a decision has been made. Photo, fingerprints, DNA and maybe a little time in a cell well they get things sorted
The strategy could be to simply 'Form 99' you, in otherwords an interview but not under arrest conditions. You would stiil be entitled to free independent legal advice.
What you need to know are the intentions of the interviewers; perhaps a phone call to the Officer who has made the appointment may give you a heads up. Tell them you are wishing to make a decision as to whether or not avail yoursef of the free legal advice. They will want to get you dealt with ASAP and will not want to be waiting for legal rep to turn up having been called at 6pm.
Legal advice is always good if its needed, particularly as regards getting the Police to show their hand under Disclosure rules. They may just wish to be going through the motions with the foregone conclusion of getting the complaint written off. At this stage you do not know that.
Whatever you do; providing you have not commited any offence, dont be sucked into any form of formal disposal even a caution as this will be recorded and will come back to bite you if and when you apply for jobs - big time.
These types of complaints are messy and time consuming.
|
ive already decided not to accept a caution unless the duty solicitor thinks its the only way but im loathed to admit ive done anything wrong because i dont think i have.
the pc did say that 6pm would be the latest they would like because after 7 the friday rush happens.
im not at all intimidated by being locked in a cell or getting dna taken.
im hopeing they see that its just a silly sqauble but its impossible to know what way they wish this case to go.
|
nyx2k
please read through all the advice given and use it
ive been in the same situation as you and ended up in court because i didnt take legal representation from the outset
|
Carefully read read the information above by those who know what they're saying (PU & iffy, amongst others).
If you're a regular, you'll know what I mean.
|
Just out of interest and in no way to be taken as advice to nyx2k, I'd like to know what the legal people and police officers on the forum think if someone in that position was adamant in denying the offence and made it plain he would have the case heard in Crown Court if the CPS were to proceed against him.
Would they actually bother taking a common assault case to that level, assuming just one word against the other?
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 23:45
|
...Would they actually bother taking a common assault case to that level, assuming just one word against the other?...
On the basis I've seen common assault trials at magistrates' courts, the short answer is yes.
Common assault is a summary only offence, so someone accused of it does not have the right of trial by jury at a crown court.
Others on here are better placed to tell you about the charging decision, but the two tests for the CPS are: Is there a realistic chance of conviction? And, is charging in the public interest?
The 'realistic chance' refers to the strength of the case, but 'public interest' is harder to define.
Generally, it is regarded as in the public interest to prosecute crime so the public know those who commit crime will not get away with it.
Practically, it is accepted to charge everything is unrealistic because the courts would be even more clogged than they are now.
But there is plenty of room for judgment, and what one CPS lawyer wants to press ahead with, another may not.
The use of the caution by police is one resolution for minor offences, but I have heard some concerns the caution is now being used for far more serious offences than for which it was intended.
Apart form anything else, solicitors I've spoken to are concerned about losing work.
It's no good for them if what would have been a police station interview, followed by a charge and three or four court appearances, doesn't get outside the nick because the punter is offered a caution.
I suspect there are times in minor matters when the position of both sides is entrenched, the police and CPS attitude is 'stuff the pair of them - let the court decide'.
|
|
A Caution will still give you a criminal record. They're going to interview you under caution (different sort of caution see- PACE link) - you need a solicitor.
|
...A Caution will still give you a criminal record...
Although just to make things simple, it is not a conviction.
"A simple caution is not a criminal conviction, but it will be recorded on the police database.
"It may be used in court as evidence of bad character, or as part of an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) application."
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/cautioning/
So if you have a caution, you can still say 'no' to the question: Do you have any criminal convictions?
|
from the great advice i think i'll proceed as:
prepare notes for myself on the order of events and what was said by whom.
i phoned a few solicitors this morning and they say they cant attend this evening so im going to go to the station and ask for the duty solicitor from the outset and brief him from my notes.
i'll go to the station expecting to be cautioned and follow the advice from the duty solicitor but there may be a long wait to see the duty solicitor so i'll go expecting a wait in the cells of a few hours.
|
|
If you want the duty solicitor then warn them in advance. Don't turn up and assume someone is available. Especially not turning up at 5:55pm and say you want their solicitor present, on a Friday evening.
|
|
good advice. i'll give them a ring and inform them
|
|
Does your house insurance include "family legal protection"?
|
i checked that yesterday and it doesnt.
ive left a message for the pc who reqested the interview and will see what comes of it
|
|
Keep us posted, would you?
|
|
If you need a mobile phone lobbed over the wall, or sim card in an Eccles cake, let me know which HMP you ended up in.
|
...let me know which HMP you ended up in...
Or we could use the little-known arm of the Home Office known as the Prisoner Location Service:
www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/adviceandsupport/keepingintouch/locationservice/
|
A bottle of baby oil with the phone....he might get banged up with Big Ron.
Ted
|
im due to go tonight and will post when i return.
maybe tonight or maybe in year or two...
|
maybe in year or two...
Even the dustiest Solicitor will be quicker than that. All the best !
|
dont forget to ask for your shoelaces and belt back
and why is there no seat on the toilets in them cells
|
...toilets in them cells...
Toilets in cells - luxury.
I was shown around some of the older parts of Durham prison before it was refurbished.
Real, old-fashioned 'landings and galleries' Victorian jail.
Proper grim.
The re-done parts aren't much more cheerful, but they are en-suite.
No more slopping out of a morning.
|
stainless steel in my nick
boy were they cold
could feel me piles reappearing
|
...stainless steel in my nick...
Yes, the ones I've seen have all been one-piece stainless.
Not sure why there's no seat.
Suppose it could be used as a weapon, but in the case of a serving prisoner, he has plenty of his stuff in the cell which he could use to clout someone.
|
|
nyx2k: It's highly unlikely that officers will pre-judge the matter. They've nothing to gain from doing so. (They may even have formed an opinion about the complainant that's in your favour!). A pre-prepared statement means almost nothing to the officers. Whether given before a voluntary interview or during a taped interview it isn't going to stop officers asking questions. Your choice is whether you answer them. If you end up in court it might be up to the court to consider whether failure to answer or offer an explanation is reasonable. This is about the drawing of 'inferences', and my explanation is very simplistic to say the least. In practice, magistrates may not be able to draw an inference in law, but they may do so behind closed doors.. You should avail yourself of a duty solicitor, or your own, if you see fit. Be aware though that many duty solicitors are in fact 'legal reps' . They do the early work at the station and then pass on the papers to a solicitor back at the office. The law changed some time ago to allow this. Legal aid pays the bills, so it pays some firms to employ the reps (many ex-police officers doing this!) and rake off the top of the fees. Disclosure: there is no legal requirement for the police to disclose anything pre-interview, to the suspect or his legal rep. It's a common fallacy that this must be done. However, it would be difficult for a legal rep to advise the client without some sort of disclosure. If officers disclose a 'prima facie' case, then it makes it equally difficult for legal reps to advise that a 'no comment' interview is given , although often they do. There are those that think the solicitors make more money by routinely advising a 'no comment' interview, safe in the knowledge that the case will then almost certainly progress, thus making them more fees. I could give you many instances where solicitor advice has caused a case to go to court, when a simple caution would have been available. I understand that some people have a mistrust of the police. It's the blind faith in the legal profession that I fail to understand! There are, of course, many good solicitors and reps in whom we can have faith. many offer sound advice and look for sensible ways for matters to be dealt with. The point is that you know what happened. It's your choice what you say. Officers deal in available evidence, not guesswork. If there are witnesses for the complainant and you deny the offence then they either take no further action or charge you or refer to the CPS. In either of the last 2 disposals the CPS will be the final decider as to whether they continue the case at court and they will assess the evidence. The officer in the case will bring their attention to any known strengths or weaknesses in evidence, but ultimately it's the CPS that decide on continuance.
|
Just one word of advice from having on several occasions been asked to make statements to the police (as a witness).
Always insist on composing and writing your own statement. PC Plod is not the best educated person, and if you let him compose your statement as you relate it to him it will later read like something that has been written by an online translation program.
Someone later will read out bits of "your" statement and cross-examine you on it, and you will cringe at the inept use of language. You want it to sound like you, transparently honest and law abiding, not something you have been put up to saying.
|
On the other hand trying to produce some sort of constructive evidence from the ramblings of someone who struggles to string two words together without using the f word, whilst their kids are creating, the telly is on full blast, and struggling to see through the fog of tobacco smoke and then feeling the need to wipe your shoes on the way out is somewhat of an art form.
Anyway wonder if he's out yet????
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 21:48
|
i went to the interview and was told i could have a solicitor present and it would be done on tape.
i gave my account of events and refered to my notes. when i had finished i was asked to explain why my account was different from the complainent.
i declined to have a solicitor present and was comfortable i wasnt going to be answering difficult questions.
the next step is for the pc to refer to his senior officer and see if he thinks a further enquiry of my neighbors to see if they saw anything.
the pc said it would be unlikely to proceed to house to house enquireys but was still possible.
he also said that it's unlikely to go to another interview but if it does i will get my own solicitor without doubt.
i was dna'd and finger printed.
|
|
Thanks for update. Take it you were arrested then?
|
i was cautioend but not areested and was told i could leave at any time and was told if i chose to leave i would be allowed to leave without being arrested straight away, and would have the opportunity to rearrange the interview at a later date.
i was told the duty solicitor would be available from 8pm if i wanted to wait and i didnt have to wait in the cells and could wait in my car if i wanted. he was very polite and straight forward with no silly power games like i was expecting.
|
|
Still sounds like Bullying.
|
>> i was cautioend but not areested and was told i could leave at any time
>> and was told if i chose to leave i would be allowed to leave without
>> being arrested straight away, and would have the opportunity to rearrange the interview at a later date.
>>
I wonder what would have happened if you had tried to leave 'at any time'
My guess is you wouldn't have been allowed to.
Good luck, I get the feeling you will need all the luck you can get....
|
>> I wonder what would have happened if you had tried to leave 'at any time'
>> My guess is you wouldn't have been allowed to.
>>
Yes. We release the attack dogs and electrify the door handles!!
Or perhaps he would have been allowed to leave, just like it says on the tin.
|
|
Or just like they told him - if they wanted to nick the OP they could have done it at anytime they wanted....
|
Were you cautioned? I assume so.
Is it still the case that the DNA stays on the register even if the case goes no further? What about the finger prints?
|
So you have been arrested (otherwise why did they take your DNA?)
and they are now seeking further evidence of your guilt through wider questioning of those that might know you.
seems like a result
sort of....
Why did you ignore all the advice given in this thread?
As always
Mark
Last edited by: Mark on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 22:08
|
i took advice from the nice poele on here but when i got there i got the impression that they were only doing it to get it out of the way.
i was comfortable about it being on tape and not a written statement.
|
|
I would ONLY ever give written and then in my time and space, but that is me.
|
Sorry but I need to ask...
But out of who's way and for who's benefit? Surely not the nice Mr Plod who was seeking your help and input to resolve this matter.....
Surely you can see if you have been arrested and DNA sampled this might go somewhere other than a ticking off....
I am glad your statement is only on tape, I am sure they won't produce that in court will they? or hold on is it ermm only paper statements they can produce to get you nicked... Doh! I get so confused.
As always
Mark
Last edited by: Mark on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 22:17
|
|
i just felt that i wanted to proceed and use my own experience and intelligence and see what happened. if it goes any furthther then without doubt i will get a solicitor
|
I think I would have found it a harrowing experience, you have my sympathy
>> i gave my account of events and refered to my notes. when i had finished
>> i was asked to explain why my account was different from the complainent.
Not a question worth dignifying with an answer I would have thought. Just an opportunity for you to give them some evidence against you - I hope you didn't.
>> i was dna'd and finger printed.
I am shocked that this can apparently happen as a result of a mischievous or malicious complaint. Were you arrested? Did you have a choice? Maybe FC or Woodster will enlighten us as to how this works.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 22:05
|
|
the dna and prints are entered into the national database and ran against the outstanding crimes register. they stay forever on file i was told by the pc
|
|
System stinks. Guilty until proven innocent. Crap.
|
when i told the police officer on tape that the lady had been on her own house to house call to tell the neighbours that i was a crazed maniac he was very interested.
|
If they want my prints and DNA they would have to arrest me.
Not for any nefarious reason, but I object to the principle of innocent people being tagged in this way. Its a very small step to being DNA registered at birth.
|
|
apparantly and suspected crime that is an arrestable offence warrants tagging and prints now adays
|
To be clear on this
You were not arrested....
But you gave a DNA sample (or were told your had to give one)
Is that the case?
As always
Mark
|
|
no arrest and yes they told me i had to provide prints and dna and if i refused they were allowed to use reasonable force to get the dna
|
>> no arrest and yes they told me i had to provide prints and dna and
>> if i refused they were allowed to use reasonable force to get the dna
Not sure, but they cant use any force to obtain this information until you are arrested.
|
>> no arrest and yes they told me i had to provide prints and dna and
>> if i refused they were allowed to use reasonable force to get the dna
>>
2.1.19.20.1.18.4.19
|
>> >> no arrest and yes they told me i had to provide prints and dna
>> and
>> >> if i refused they were allowed to use reasonable force to get the dna
>> >>
I get the feeling that nyx2k is not sure of his facts on being cautioned/arrested, dna+phot+fingerpritns taken and then interviewed.
www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/fingerprints-and-photos.html
"Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), the police have wide powers to take photographs, fingerprints and body samples of persons without their consent where they had been charged with, or convicted of, a recordable offence. These powers have been considerably extended by amendments contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Under the new powers, the police may also take fingerprints and body samples without consent where a person has been detained in consequence of an arrest for a recordable offence(before charge)."
|
|
I think the same to you on this, it doesn't sit well with me people being dna and finger printed just on the suspicion of a crime.
|
'but I object to the principle of innocent people being tagged in this way'
I suppose I do to in theory but a lot of people who are arrested aren't innocent, its just that the police have insufficient evidence against them. Should we really help these people avoid being caught when they offend again?
Actually I think it would be fairer if DNA was registered at birth. It would certainly have many advantages
|
>> Actually I think it would be fairer if DNA was registered at birth. It would
>> certainly have many advantages
I cant dispute it would, but I still think its a step to far.
|
>a lot of people who are arrested aren't innocent, its just that the police have insufficient evidence against them.
Few of the "non innocents" are first timers. If someone is arrested, then yes DNA and prints should be taken, and checked against the database for past hits. If they are subsequently found not guilty - or the case does not proceed, those records should be removed.
|
According to this this an arrest is required before DNA can be taken?
tinyurl.com/6xmnp7t
Are you sure about where you stand in this process and what has happened to you?
It is not beyond Plod to be disingenious with those whom they talk....
As always
Mark
Last edited by: Mark on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 22:45
|
>> According to this this an arrest is required before DNA can be taken?
>> Are you sure about where you stand in this process and what has happened to
>> you?
>>
I don't think nyx2k is sure of any of this stuff at all.
Last edited by: John H on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 22:46
|
John
Agreed!!!
As always
Mark
|
john h, i dont understand why you think im being disingenuos.
order of events is.
pc- you are here voluntalry and may leave at any time. you have been asked to appear in relation to a complaint made by mrs x at your home on x day. this interview will be recorded and i will read you your caution when i sart the tape. may i start the tape now.
i am then read my caution
as mentined before you are here in relation to blah.
do you wish a solicitor to be present- i decline
i then refer to my notes on what happened on the day in question.
after i finished the pc asked why my account was different to hers and my reply was that she is wrong and im relaying what really happened.
the was then stoppped and i am told i have to give dna and prints.
i asked if this was really required and his reply was i had to give samples and if i didnt they were allowed to use reasonable force to gains these samples.
|
I am surprised DNA/print were needed if not arrested. Why didn't you get legal advice like you said you would?
This might amount to nothing but it might be more complicated than you thought to resolve.
I've given evidence on tape twice. The first time as a witness to a dispute which was related to police officers out of order on a night out together (could have been serious and evidence in court....) and the other after an accident I was in and someone was injured.
DNA and fingerprints sounds a bit serious to me. Maybe not? Where's our police members and legal gurus.
|
Mark: the very purpose of a taped interview is to produce it at court.
nyx2k: there is no power to take your fingerprints/photograph/DNA if you haven't been charged, arrested or convicted. It therefore follows that there is no power to 1) retain indefinitely or 2) make a speculative search with your samples. I know you haven't been convicted so if you weren't arrested and booked in by a custody Sergeant then you weren't charged either. You've every right to have those samples removed.
|
Woodster
I was being sarcastic vis the worthiness of a written/taped statement with regards to going to court, I inferred from his response that he thought a taped statement was better for him in that respect.
There is more to this than meets the eye I think....
I will not however be judgemental other than agree with those below in as much as something appears to to have gone wrong if the accounts given are correct.
As always
Mark
Last edited by: Mark on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 23:42
|
im going to get some legal advice on monday as i was not charged just cauitioned i was told i HAD to give samples and these would remaim on file and would be used and crosschecked.
|
>> and prints should be taken, and checked against the database for past hits. If they
>> are subsequently found not guilty - or the case does not proceed, those records should
>> be removed.
>>
www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=11757
www.criminalsolicitor.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6808
|
|
John - your post is a little odd. The court dismissed the PNSI case and found in favour of retaining the samples despite the fact the case was not taken forward. the second link is mere speculation/opinion/advice on a forum.
|
>> John - your post is a little odd. The court dismissed the PNSI case and
>> found in favour of retaining the samples despite the fact the case was not taken
>> forward. the second link is mere speculation/opinion/advice on a forum.
>>
Thank you.
|
>>If they are subsequently found not guilty - or the case does not proceed, those records should be removed.
As is the case in Scotland I believe. English law allows the records to be kept indefinitely, but the European court has ruled this illegal. I'm not sure that the amending legislation has actually been passed through parliament yet though.
|
It would appear to me, reading the above comments from Woodster, that your DNA/Dabs have been taken unlawfully and that you have been threatened with force if you did not comply with that unlawful demand..
If I were in your position I would register an official complaint with the Chief Constable's office asap and inform your solicitor.
Ted
|
|
I tend to think a solicitor should have been involved at the interview, the OP is far too naive, you just don't risk it in these sorts of situations, you don't know what evidence they have.
|
im now begining to realise you are right.
as i said any more dealings awith the police and a solicitor will be called straight away but also on monday i'm going to get advice about the prints and dna they took as they said if they wernt given then they would take then anyway
|
on monday i'm going to get advice about the prints and
>> dna they took
Any news?
|
It is a difficult decision and if you take the view that the rights of the individual are paramount then only the DNA records of those found guilty of an offence should be retained.
However the world is not a perfect place and we all know that many of those arrested and even found not guilty were actually involved in crime. If we insist that the DNA database should only contain data on those found guilty in a court then we will not have as many criminals brought to justice, its as simple as that. We as a society need to decide our main priority, the rights of the individual or catching criminals.
|
Not sure why the OP had his DNA taken, unless it was part of the 'attitude test', or local custom and practice.
This is where a good local solicitor can help. "They often do that here, we don't think it's quite right, but they can get your DNA one way or the other anyway, so best not to rock the boat."
There are two ways the OP can convince the coppers he is not the sort of guy to clout a neighbour: word and deed.
Word is obvious - tell them he didn't do it.
Deed is by coming over as an all-round affable, stand-up kinda guy.
By being co-operative in the nick, the OP will have gone a long way to making the police think he is not the hot-headed thug the other woman is accusing him to be.
Last edited by: Iffy on Sat 29 Jan 11 at 10:48
|
>> This is where a good local solicitor can help. "They often do that here, we
>> don't think it's quite right, but they can get your DNA one way or the
>> other anyway, so best not to rock the boat."
What they typically do is give you a drink of water, and then take both your DNA and fingerprints from that...I saw it on CSI....
|
Deed is by coming over as an all-round affable, stand-up kinda guy
What like Tony Blair !?
|
...What like Tony Blair !?...
Exactly like Tony Blair.
If he can smarm and wriggle his way out of bother over the Iraq war, he could easily avoid responsibility for banjoing a neighbour.
|
I tend to agree with a nationwide DNA database in principle, although I have a couple of observations.
1) I believe (of course, I could well be wrong) that the vast majority of crimes are carried out by people who already have a criminal record. So perhaps just a database of criminal is going the catch the vast majority of offenders.
2) It would seem likely that all of the generally law abiding citizens would hand over their DNA, and the dodgy ones wouldn't (a bit like the fact that the "dodgy" drivers don't get insured). I suppose, however, that is were taking DNA from suspects might actually work, because the dodgy folks would likely have some kind of run in with the police. Far from a perfect system though.
|
>> I tend to agree with a nationwide DNA database in principle, although I have a couple of observations.
I have one - trusting those in charge.
If it ever turns out that Joe public finds HMG to be a problem for the public (compare with previous dictatorships in other parts of the World)....
|
"I have one - trusting those in charge."
Just to clarify are you against the retention of anyone's DNA information, even convicted criminals , or are you against a database of all members of the public?
|
|
I don't trust the state for one minute. The thought of a national DNA register is horrifying and open to all sorts of abuse. The more power we hand to government (always of course in the interests of the national good) the more they will use them as an instrument of control.
|
dont know why you are all bothered
all new babies born in the uk since 1994 have had a chip implanted in their brain after birth
why do you think matron smacks their bottie?
its so they scream as the staple gun is used
|
"The thought of a national DNA register is horrifying and open to all sorts of abuse."
But we already have a National DNA database.
www.npia.police.uk/en/8934.htm
Would you have this abolished? The question really is what information the database should contain:
Should this be restricted to
1 Convicted criminals
2 Anybody arrested for a recordable offence, whether or not any charge is ever bought against that person. This is the current position.
3 The entire population
|
|
Convicted criminals only, and then only those who have committed an imprisonable offence unless there is a pattern of repeat behaviour.
|
|
If you went down that route you would have to accept that there would be a lot criminals currently behind bars who would still be out there on the streets.
|
|
If you are found guilty of, plead guilty to, an arrestable offence then yup, Prints and DNA on file. Anythine else? nope.
|
|
I guess on balance I feel safer with less criminals on the street and live with the theoretical possibility of misuse of data but as I said its not an easy decision
|
>> plead guilty to, an arrestable offence then yup, Prints
>> and DNA on file.
So if, for the sake of argument, Rattle had a big night on the booze, got himself into a fight at one of his punk do's and was arrested for breach of the peace and got a caution and £85 fine should he have his DNA taken?
|
Fraid so.
He didn't have to accept the caution, could have gone before the Maj. If found guilty by the bench then yes.
If however he got into a fight, was thrown in the cells and released the next day with no charge then no.
|
The trouble with your proposal Zero is that people like this would still be at large.
'Ronald Castree. In October 1975, 11 year old Lesley Molseed was abducted on her way to the shops in Rochdale. Her body was discovered three days later on the moors. In a sexually motivated attack, Lesley was stabbed 12 times. A semen stain was recovered from Lesley's clothing. In 2005, Ronald Castree was arrested on suspicion of the rape of a female who had been found in a drink and drug induced state. Ronald Castree was brought into custody, his fingerprints and DNA were taken for the first time. Ronald Castree was released with no further action being taken. Ronald Castree's DNA was retained and loaded onto the NDNAD. His DNA matched the semen stain recovered from Lesley's clothing in 1976. He was found guilty of Lesley's murder at Bradford Crown Court in November 2007 and sentenced to life imprisonment.'
|
Simply matching DNA is lazy police work. Its also very simple to frame someone by planting DNA (less so with fingerprints - they are not portable)
DNA should be one of the tools/skills for the police to work with, not the only one. I am not even convinced that someone should be found guilty on DNA alone.
|
"I am not even convinced that someone should be found guilty on DNA alone."
No, they also need to look guilty. (Long grey hair, raincoat, thick black glasses)
|
>> "I am not even convinced that someone should be found guilty on DNA alone."
>>
>> No, they also need to look guilty. (Long grey hair, raincoat, thick black glasses)
Thats the identikit,
|
>> So if, for the sake of argument, Rattle had a big night on the booze,
>> got himself into a fight at one of his punk do's and was arrested for
>> breach of the peace and got a caution and £85 fine should he have his
>> DNA taken?
>>
Why not?
He is in breach of the law, and gets a fine.
Put him on database. he'll think twice of commiting an offence in the future, won't he?
By the way, is getting involved in a pub punch-up a criminal offence? Or is that only if an assault/abh/gbh is committed?
And who decides to charge him? CPS or the assaulted?
|
Is a pub punch-up a criminal offence?
Yes, a common assault can be committed just verbally, and affray is committed if 'a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene fears for their safety'.
Who decides to charge?
The CPS and only the CPS.
Although if the victim/witnesses decline to make a statement, it can make building a runnable case difficult.
There are plenty of occasions when a police officer gets involved in an argument with the CPS lawyer, because the copper wants the guy charged and the CPS don't want to do it.
Last edited by: Iffy on Sat 29 Jan 11 at 16:12
|
I've managed on the whole to avoid altercations with toerag neighbours which can obviously make people's lives a misery. I've avoided giving nyx2 much advice because I still haven't understood what seems to have happened. But doesn't this business of talking to the police need to be demystified?
About 25 years ago now I clipped in my Skoda the rear wheel of a black bicycle without lamps ridden by a woman in dark clothing after dark across the front of my car at the Paddington roundabout, several of whose orange overhead lights were not functioning that evening. I only saw the cyclist when she turned her head to look at me. Her face was then visible but it was so late that I couldn't quits slow enough. She sort of half-fell off the bike bruising one of her shins, not too badly, against a pedal, but its back wheel was bent.
I stopped, offered to take her home and asked if she wanted to call the police. She was a bit shaken, but a perfectly sensible woman, and declined. I offered to give her a lift or accompany her home on foot if she preferred. She declined. A passing ambulance stopped and asked if anyone needed its help. No one did. I gave her my phone number and invited her to call when she'd had her bike fixed.
Several days later the local nick called and said it wanted to send someone to ask me about an accident. Clearly the lady's friends had got at her and she had doubled back, as it were, and rather caddishly gone to the fuzz without bothering to let me know. A plainclothes man turned up and I told him what had happened. He asked a few questions and said he didn't think they would be taking any further action. I said I found the lady's behaviour slightly annoying but no doubt she had been got at. The policeman admitted cautiously that he thought her behaviour 'a bit pedantic'. He also made it clear that the essential sign of my 'innocence' was the fact that I had 'admitted' the incident without shilly-shallying. The impression given by this is that a lot of people start lying through their teeth the moment anything at all happens. I find it hard to believe myself, despite many disappointing experiences over the years, but Old Bill does have a grittily realistic picture of society gleaned from his daily work. Depressing really.
I paid for the lady's bike repairs but accompanied the cheque with a letter saying rather distantly that I had been disappointed by her jinking and dodging. She seemed a nice young woman to me and I hope it was a lesson to her.
|
>> black bicycle without lamps ridden by a woman in dark clothing after dark
Given the above...
>> I paid for the lady's bike repairs
...that was more then generous of you, AC.
|
>>...that was more then generous of you, AC.
Indeed. She was very lucky, and not just to get the bike mended, and it was ungracious of her to dob in AC.
There was a chap near hear who was in the habit of cycling home from work, or the pub, at about 10.30 at night. Bendy country road, unlit, no lights on the bike, dark clothing. On several occasions I more or less swerved round him myself. Eventually he was fatally knocked off, albeit by a drunk driver who didn't even stop, though he was traced afterwards.
|
It seemed that old-fashioned thing, 'only fair'. Some intellectuals decry the concept of 'fairness', and I have often seen or heard it used in criminally unfair ways, but I was raised with it as I imagine many were.
It is after all the duty of drivers not to run over cyclists however kamikaze-like the latter may be. I was extremely relieved that the lady had suffered no serious injuries - a bit shocked myself perhaps really - and since the thing hadn't (yet) become an official or insurance matter felt I should bear my motorist's share of the economic burden. Of course if it had involved tens of thousands I wouldn't have been able to. That's what insurance is for.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 29 Jan 11 at 17:03
|
...It is after all the duty of drivers not to run over cyclists however kamikaze-like the latter may be...
Pal of mine had a similar experience to AC.
He had a coming together with a cyclist on a roundabout.
The cyclist was on the roundabout as my pal joined, so I think he was on a sticky wicket to start with.
But as with AC, cyclist seemed to take it pretty well, apologies all round, dusted himself down and off he went.
My pal was disappointed and annoyed to receive a visit from the police and then a summons for due care.
He fought it at magistrates' court, but was convicted.
Not unreasonably, but the cyclist going back on his word was the most annoying thing.
The cyclist had obviously been got at by his mates and was probably motivated by greed.
A criminal conviction does not establish civil liability, but it is an enormous help to someone in the cyclist's circumstances who is after compensation.
|
"Not unreasonably, but the cyclist going back on his word was the most annoying thing."
The best thing in these circumstances is surely to comply with the law which is for the driver to report any accident involving injury to the police within 24 hours.
|
|
But AC did comply exactly with the law - there was no need to involve the Police. The law says that after a defined accident that you must stop and exchange details with whoever may require them OTHERWISE report it to the Police in 24 hours.
|
>> Just to clarify are you against the retention of anyone's DNA information, even
>> convicted criminals , or are you against a database of all members of the public?
My views are as Zero's comment at 14:34 today in this thread.
|
CGN said
>> Actually I think it would be fairer if DNA was registered at birth. It would
>> certainly have many advantages
Well it would be fair, but I don't think it would be safe. DNA is seen by many now as a magic bullet for solving crimes. If we go down that route then I can see all sorts of problems. DNA can be planted, cross contamination is more than a possibility.
More worrying than the science itself is the ability of prosecutors, courts, judges, lawyers and so-called expert witnesses to apply it properly. They have been shown to be very unreliable with the logic of probability (vide Sally Clark). Never mind the possibility of false matches, my DNA could be in any number of places without my being able to account for it and I am very happy that my DNA profile is not (yet) on file to be misused.
Of course there's always the "if you do nothing wrong, you've nothing to worry about" argument. But there comes a point where you have to decide how much freedom you are prepared to sacrifice in order to be safe in the sheep pen.
In my darker moments, I fear it's too late already.
|
I do understand your reservations Manatee but logically they apply to any DNA database, whether partial or complete. If we accept that there should be a database then the logical conclusion is that is that should include everbody. If you believe that such a database is inherently unsafe and represents a reduction in your personal freedom then no such database should exist, even for known criminals.
|
I recall reading about a case a few years back. Some scrote threw a large lump of concrete off a motorway bridge, killing a driver below.
DNA was taken from the concrete, and matched pretty damn close, but not exact.
Not to him, but to an uncle. Uncle's relatives were DNA'ed, and scrote was caught.
|
CGN, I don't think it follows that there should be no DNA database at all. There is a trade-off somewhere, and it is reasonable I think for the properly convicted anti-social to be tagged in some way, including DNA records.
You are right, they may still be misused, and safeguards are still needed.
|
|
How exactly does anyone think DNA data can be misused? And by the way, I have no strong opinion on this one either way.
|
>> How exactly does anyone think DNA data can be misused? And by the way, I
>> have no strong opinion on this one either way.
>>
Supposing you had a one night stand with someone who was in the habit of taking strangers back to her flat after a boozy night out (not uncommon at all these days). A week later she is found murdered and your DNA is all over her flat and her bedclothes.
Would the police bother looking any further, and what would a jury think?
|
>> Yes they would RR.
>>
Of course they would, though if they didn't find any other suspects you might still be on a bumpy wicket.
Just putting you at the scene of course is not a problem specific to DNA testing. You could have been seen going there, or leaving the pub with her.
Nevertheless, the fact that DNA is seen as scientific and unarguable does I think have the potential to lead to an increased likelihood of the wrong conclusion being reached. Inferences may be drawn from the fact that no evidence is presented regarding anyone else's DNA being at the scene (it is common to ignore unhelpful evidence).
And a simple statement such as "the probability of the DNA samples found at the scene having come from [the accused] is approximately 1,000,000,000 times the probability of it's being found in a sample taken randomly from the population at large" becomes, in the mind of a juror (or even a judge perhaps) "it's a billion to one against this bloke being innocent". (This is pretty much what happened to Sally Clark when Professor Meadow said the odds of a double cot death were 1 in 73,000,000. It wasn't DNA related, but the misuse of statistics - and DNA evidence is all about statistics).
It's been stated that DNA samples can now be manufactured from profiles without the need for actual tissue samples. If that's true, it will happen. Never mind the simpler expedient of putting the blame on somebody else (or fitting them up) by just introducing some of their actual tissue into the scene or the process; or how good the records are - it's a racing certainty that there will be profiles on file that have incorrect or inaccurate identities associated with them.
|
...This is pretty much what happened to Sally Clark when Professor Meadow said the odds of a double cot death were 1 in 73,000,000...
While that is true, Ms Clark was drinking so much at the time the children died, I don't think she knew what day it was.
She resumed her devotion to alcohol after release from prison:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-443123/Sally-Clark-drank-death.html
|
Iffy,
I'm sorry but the comment implying Sally Clark's children died as a result of her drinking is appalling.
She was the victim of a double tragedy followed by an outrageous miscarriage of justice. It's not surprising she took to the drink afterwards. There's nothing in the Wail link you posted to substantiate your comment about her drinking at the time her kids died.
Can you supoprt it from other public accounts?
|
...I'm sorry but the comment implying Sally Clark's children died as a result of her drinking is appalling...
Bromptonaut,
I am not seeking to imply the children died because of Clark's drinking.
What I am saying is she was an alcoholic at the time, which would have impaired her abilities as a mother.
Saying she was an unfit mother is a far cry from saying she killed the children.
The police gathered evidence of her drinking, including statements from local off-licence owners.
Rightly or wrongly, much of this evidence was not put before the jury.
Even if it was, they may have thought it was something of a side issue.
I agree with the commonly held view the jury convicted her on the evidence of Prof Meadows, which was subsequently discredited.
|
|
I think you should shut up.
|
...I think you should shut up....
Bromptonaut asked me a question, I answered it.
If you have a problem with that way of working, your are in the wrong place.
|
>> Bromptonaut asked me a question, I answered it.
TBH I don't think you did.
SC was charged and wrongly convicted of the murder of her two sons. Evidence, not disclosed never mind put to the court, suggested that the first kid may have died of natural causes, streptococal infection. If so the chances of the second being aflicted are much greater than normal. While police may have investigated allegations of her drinking and it's bearing on the outcome they presumably decided it was not relevant. If she was drinking to excess during the kids lives then she's not be the first post natally depressed, pressured professional and later grieving mother to do so and she won't be the last.
I'm at a loss as to why you had to introduce it at all. It's irrelevant to this discussion about police processes and DNA stats.
In any other context it's disrespectful to the memory of someone who died in tragic circumstances.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 1 Feb 11 at 14:09
|
...I'm at a loss as to why you had to introduce it at all...In any other context it's disrespectful to the memory of someone who died in tragic circumstances...
Someone else raised the Clark case, I didn't, and her drinking is relevant to that case.
I wonder if she would even have been charged had she been sober.
Her drinking must have gone against her in the investigation process.
If you are a detective, you are more likely to believe the word of a sober person than you are one who is permanently sozzled.
So to me, her drinking is highly relevant to the case, even though it probably played no direct part in the death of her children.
As regards being disrespectful, that is always going to be a matter for the individual.
She did drink herself to death, I see no point in pretending she didn't.
Nor do I see drinking oneself to death as a 'tragedy'.
|
>> Nor do I see drinking oneself to death as a 'tragedy'.
I always think that we should go easier on those that perhaps haven't coped as well with life as many.
Maybe they are not as strong as others, or maybe they have just been through things that we haven't, but neither thing makes them a bad person.
Too many depressed people are told to "pull themselves together" by people with only a layman's understanding of what depression actually is.
People who commit suicide, or otherwise engage in self destructive behaviour, are too often portrayed as weak/selfish, again by people with no real understanding of what drove them.
You wouldn't tell someone with a broken leg to run it off, yet somehow we expect that people can just shake off a broken mind.
|
...yet somehow we expect that people can just shake off a broken mind...
I was referring to the common misuse of the word tragedy.
My desktop dictionary defines the word: "An event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe : a tragedy that killed 95 people."
Drinking oneself to death does not quite fall into the above definition of tragedy.
I am not unsympathetic to the plight of alcoholics.
I've seen the booze get hold of some otherwise very strong people who have been unable to shake it off.
|
>> seen the booze get hold of some otherwise very strong people who have been unable to shake it off.
I've seen some very strong people get hold of the booze and cling to it so determinedly that I have been unable to shake it free.
|
Collins and the Oxford paerback agree on 'an event that causes great sadness, a calamity.
SC saw two babies die, was wrongly convicted of their murder and spendt years in a prison where as a child killer, lawyer and copper's daughter she was treated as the lowest of the low.
Following that she took to the bottle and died of a heart attack.
If that's not a tragedy I'm a dutchman.
|
...If that's not a tragedy I'm a dutchman...
Herr Van Bromptonaut,
Her entire life could be described, in dramatic terms, as a tragedy.
No doubt her death caused great sadness to her family, but it was not in itself a calamity.
The death of a homeless drunk under a railway arch doesn't even pass the first test of causing great sadness to someone.
We're not going to quite agree on this one, but I'm reserving 'tragedy' for when hundreds die in an earthquake.
|
As you say we'll not agree either about the Clarke case, alcohol more generally or whether life admits of a personal tragedy.
|
...As you say we'll not agree either about the Clarke case...
We do agree about the Clark case.
She was wrongly convicted of murder by a jury told it could rely on a professor whose methodology has since been discredited.
|
"Drinking oneself to death does not quite fall into the above definition of tragedy."
Tragedy: When the feeling's gone and you can't go on, it's tragedy. When the morning cries and you don't know why, it's hard to bear. With no one to love you, you're going nowhere.
|
What I find amazing is that her legal team didn't do a better job of challenging the 1 in 73 million claim.
As I understand it, he reached that figure by squaring 1 in 8,500.
Quite aside from issue such as there being genetic factors etc, there is a fatal statistical flaw in this reasoning.
Families do unfortunately suffer cot deaths, and if a family does so, the chance of another one (all other factors aside) is 1 in 8,500.
So, yes, if you took an individual who had not suffered a cot death and then tried to predict the likelihood of them suffering two cot deaths, you could perhaps come up with the 1 in 73 million figure, but if you take somebody who has already suffered one, the chance of another is 1 in 8,500.
Likewise, if you already has a lottery winner in the population, the chance of getting a double lottery winner is 1 in 14 million, not 1 in 196 trillion (yet if you were predicting the chance of a non-winner later winning twice, the odds would be 1 in 196 trillion).
How did her lawyers not successfully tackle that one? They should have been able to make the expert look like an idiot.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 1 Feb 11 at 14:03
|
>> then the logical conclusion is that is that should include everbody
If convicted criminals should be tagged, it follows that everyone should be tagged...
No, that doesn't follow either. Same idea though.
It's ok to discriminate *convicted* criminals, not acceptable for normal folks though.
|
|
Am I imagining that it has been suggested that a person's DNA can change over time to some extent, and particularly in babies?
|
All sorts of daft things have been suggested over the course of time so I wouldn't rule it out. Whether it's true or not though...
John
|
>> Am I imagining that it has been suggested that a person's DNA can change over time
>> to some extent, and particularly in babies?
I have distant memories of watching something where identical twin Doctors went their separate ways, and one matured in the US with the attendant car based lifestyle and burger intake, and the other stayed in the UK and cycled almost everywhere.
Their genes changed a bit, but the basic DNA was not (AFAIR)
|
how to deal with police - TheManWithNoName
