Bbc Interupts Ronnie Osullivan Playing...
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Be afraid...
Last November a member of the main opposition party was arrested and held for eleven hours on suspicion that he had illegally obtained information which was either secret or compromised national security. His files and computers were seized from his office in his constituency, as were those from his office in the parliament building where he sits. Access to that office was provided by the "impartial" Speaker of the House.
During questioning by police he was told that he could face Life in prison for these alleged offences. His fingerprints and DNA profile were taken and remain on file forever.
Where did all this take place? A rogue African state? A corrupt South American dictatorship? No, this took place in England and the member was the Conservative spokesman on immigration and MP for Ashford, Kent.
Yesterday the Director of Public Prosecutions said that no charges would be brought. Furthermore he said that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the allegations made. (So trivial was this announcement considered that it did not warrant a mention on the BBC national news at 6pm).
Meantime, for the past five months, police have been sifting through files and confidential correspondence between the MP and his constituents (some of which may relate to complaints about the police).
Is there anybody still out there who believes that if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear?
During questioning by police he was told that he could face Life in prison for these alleged offences. His fingerprints and DNA profile were taken and remain on file forever.
Where did all this take place? A rogue African state? A corrupt South American dictatorship? No, this took place in England and the member was the Conservative spokesman on immigration and MP for Ashford, Kent.
Yesterday the Director of Public Prosecutions said that no charges would be brought. Furthermore he said that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the allegations made. (So trivial was this announcement considered that it did not warrant a mention on the BBC national news at 6pm).
Meantime, for the past five months, police have been sifting through files and confidential correspondence between the MP and his constituents (some of which may relate to complaints about the police).
Is there anybody still out there who believes that if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by New Judge. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Krom:
So, basically you have not been truthful, have you?
1. The gathering was illegal, no matter how you try to dress it up i.e."of course permission wasn't sought". That made it an illegal rave. In order to be legal, you need permission. That's what the Law states, as per the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994.
2. "I believe around 40-50. It may have been less." The actual number exceeded 100.
3. "The police broke it up on anti-terrorism grounds" Totally incorrect. The mere presence of the Police apparently ruined the party for the "ravers" and no arrests were made. And they have perfectly adequate powers under the above Act I mentioned in 1.
4. The location was Norwich city centre which is a public place.
5."If that's an officer's job, then I was definitely lied to in school." You ought to have gone to a respectable school, not one which must have been "approved".
Next time at least try to be truthful.
So, basically you have not been truthful, have you?
1. The gathering was illegal, no matter how you try to dress it up i.e."of course permission wasn't sought". That made it an illegal rave. In order to be legal, you need permission. That's what the Law states, as per the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994.
2. "I believe around 40-50. It may have been less." The actual number exceeded 100.
3. "The police broke it up on anti-terrorism grounds" Totally incorrect. The mere presence of the Police apparently ruined the party for the "ravers" and no arrests were made. And they have perfectly adequate powers under the above Act I mentioned in 1.
4. The location was Norwich city centre which is a public place.
5."If that's an officer's job, then I was definitely lied to in school." You ought to have gone to a respectable school, not one which must have been "approved".
Next time at least try to be truthful.
I'm with New Judge on this one.
And paraffin, if you really believe that the Police cannot be �used� by politicians for their own ends then you are not living in the real world. The Police, while independent of politics to a degree, can very easily be manipulated by those in power to investigate anyone by simply implying that National Security is at stake.
This clearly happened in this case, either on the say so of the Home Secretary or at the very least, with her knowledge and consent.
These days, whenever I hear Jackie Smith speak my default position is to immediately disbelieve everything she says until it is confirmed by independent sources.
And paraffin, if you really believe that the Police cannot be �used� by politicians for their own ends then you are not living in the real world. The Police, while independent of politics to a degree, can very easily be manipulated by those in power to investigate anyone by simply implying that National Security is at stake.
This clearly happened in this case, either on the say so of the Home Secretary or at the very least, with her knowledge and consent.
These days, whenever I hear Jackie Smith speak my default position is to immediately disbelieve everything she says until it is confirmed by independent sources.
birdie:
"The police...............................can very easily be manipulated by those in power......."
Thanks for that. And your irrefutable evidence and proof of this......IS?????
Look, I do not give a monkey's whether the Home Sec is Smith or Osborne, believe me, but if you're daring to make a totally unfounded allegation such as the above, completely based on supposition and innuendo, then it is you who are "not living in the real world", not I.
"The police...............................can very easily be manipulated by those in power......."
Thanks for that. And your irrefutable evidence and proof of this......IS?????
Look, I do not give a monkey's whether the Home Sec is Smith or Osborne, believe me, but if you're daring to make a totally unfounded allegation such as the above, completely based on supposition and innuendo, then it is you who are "not living in the real world", not I.
Keep your hair on Paraffin!
Okay. Believe it or not I do not have 'irrefutable' evidence. I do, however, have several years of being a Police Officer behind me. And one thing I do know is that people do make false allegations against others.
When this happens, the boys in blue typically arrest the accused and question them under caution. The allegations may well prove to be totally baseless. In cases where this is so, the allegations are often made in order to antagonise or inconvenience the accused.
Any member of the public can phone the police and accuse anyone of anything. If you want to make someone's life a misery by making false allegations, it's quite easy � as many people find to their cost. And that's just a member of the public.
How much trouble do you think a cabinet minister can cause someone? Do you think they phone 999 in these situations? Hardly. They talk to senior Police Officers. If a Home Secretary (or one of her minions) mentions the magic words �National Security�, it's pretty obvious that the Police will have to investigate, make arrests and question under caution.
If you doubt that this happened, why is the Home Secretary now under increasing pressure to explain the events leading up to Mr Green's arrest?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics /article6108896.ece
Okay. Believe it or not I do not have 'irrefutable' evidence. I do, however, have several years of being a Police Officer behind me. And one thing I do know is that people do make false allegations against others.
When this happens, the boys in blue typically arrest the accused and question them under caution. The allegations may well prove to be totally baseless. In cases where this is so, the allegations are often made in order to antagonise or inconvenience the accused.
Any member of the public can phone the police and accuse anyone of anything. If you want to make someone's life a misery by making false allegations, it's quite easy � as many people find to their cost. And that's just a member of the public.
How much trouble do you think a cabinet minister can cause someone? Do you think they phone 999 in these situations? Hardly. They talk to senior Police Officers. If a Home Secretary (or one of her minions) mentions the magic words �National Security�, it's pretty obvious that the Police will have to investigate, make arrests and question under caution.
If you doubt that this happened, why is the Home Secretary now under increasing pressure to explain the events leading up to Mr Green's arrest?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics /article6108896.ece
"The police broke it up on anti-terrorism grounds" Totally incorrect.
I know quite a lot of people who were there. Despite the fact the police statement denies this, according to them, anti-terror laws were cited, and the police actively asked the dancers to leave. They haven't got any reason to lie...
The actual number exceeded 100.
According to whom? It's been estimated to me that around 50 people were actually dancing, whereas others were just sort of present.
order to be legal, you need permission. That's what the Law states, as per the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994.
Section 63 actually quite clearly states that it applies to venues "at which amplified music is played during the night (with or without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality". This didn't apply. And according to people who were there, the act wasn't cited by the attending officers. Anti-terror laws were.
The same police spokesman who denied the police did anything also said that the officers were aware that the event was going to happen, so they couldn't exactly claim they thought the event might burst into a 90s-style disturbance in the street...
I know quite a lot of people who were there. Despite the fact the police statement denies this, according to them, anti-terror laws were cited, and the police actively asked the dancers to leave. They haven't got any reason to lie...
The actual number exceeded 100.
According to whom? It's been estimated to me that around 50 people were actually dancing, whereas others were just sort of present.
order to be legal, you need permission. That's what the Law states, as per the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994.
Section 63 actually quite clearly states that it applies to venues "at which amplified music is played during the night (with or without intermissions) and is such as, by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality". This didn't apply. And according to people who were there, the act wasn't cited by the attending officers. Anti-terror laws were.
The same police spokesman who denied the police did anything also said that the officers were aware that the event was going to happen, so they couldn't exactly claim they thought the event might burst into a 90s-style disturbance in the street...
birdie:
Thank you for your honesty in the first line of your latest post. I appreciate that.
However, given that you are someone with Police experience, is it not fair to state that if, as you allege, there are so many people blatantly wasting Police time, then you'd have multitudes of prosecutions for that type of offence? Even cabinet ministers are not immune to prosecution, highly unlikely though that is.
And another basic piece of Police work is evidence gathering in the form of statements of complaint, even if a case is subsequently discontinued, as the Damian Green enquiry. Do you think for one second that someone like the Home Secretary would have his/her name on such a statement? Of course not, hence the reason, amongst others, why that name would not be directly linked to this type of enquiry.
And it is also true that Ms Smith has been under fire about this ever since it first happened, therefore the fact that there are reports in the media about it is par for the course, nothing new whatsoever. All these politicians, especially those in high office, have their enemies. She was the "prime suspect" according to the media. So what? It proves nothing which you should appreciate.
By the way, what does the term "increasing pressure" mean in this case? She has been under relentless scrutiny since day one and that has not changed one iota.
Do not be fooled by the media hype, they want us to watch and/or read their news reports, and the more lurid and sensationalistic from their perspective, the better.
Thank you for your honesty in the first line of your latest post. I appreciate that.
However, given that you are someone with Police experience, is it not fair to state that if, as you allege, there are so many people blatantly wasting Police time, then you'd have multitudes of prosecutions for that type of offence? Even cabinet ministers are not immune to prosecution, highly unlikely though that is.
And another basic piece of Police work is evidence gathering in the form of statements of complaint, even if a case is subsequently discontinued, as the Damian Green enquiry. Do you think for one second that someone like the Home Secretary would have his/her name on such a statement? Of course not, hence the reason, amongst others, why that name would not be directly linked to this type of enquiry.
And it is also true that Ms Smith has been under fire about this ever since it first happened, therefore the fact that there are reports in the media about it is par for the course, nothing new whatsoever. All these politicians, especially those in high office, have their enemies. She was the "prime suspect" according to the media. So what? It proves nothing which you should appreciate.
By the way, what does the term "increasing pressure" mean in this case? She has been under relentless scrutiny since day one and that has not changed one iota.
Do not be fooled by the media hype, they want us to watch and/or read their news reports, and the more lurid and sensationalistic from their perspective, the better.
Hi Paraffin.
Thanks for replying. I have a feeling we're going to end up agreeing to disagree about this matter, but that's fine.
Your quote �... there are so many people blatantly wasting Police time, then you'd have multitudes of prosecutions for that type of offence?� is slightly misleading.
People who �blatantly� mislead the cops do get fined. Usually with an �80 FPN.
But the vast majority of 'false claim' cases are never followed up due to it not being in the public interest or a lack of evidence on both sides.
�Do you think for one second that someone like the Home Secretary would have his/her name on such a statement?�
You've answered your own question here. No is the answer. But do you think that she would be somehow unaware that allegations were being made against Mr Green? It seems inconceivable that someone in her position would be unaware of the allegations being made, particularly when 'national security' was involved.
�She was the "prime suspect" according to the media. So what? It proves nothing which you should appreciate.�
I do appreciate that. I also do not automatically believe the press. However, I also know that there is something called 'character'. The issue of 'character' is legitimately brought up in court on many occasions.
Thanks for replying. I have a feeling we're going to end up agreeing to disagree about this matter, but that's fine.
Your quote �... there are so many people blatantly wasting Police time, then you'd have multitudes of prosecutions for that type of offence?� is slightly misleading.
People who �blatantly� mislead the cops do get fined. Usually with an �80 FPN.
But the vast majority of 'false claim' cases are never followed up due to it not being in the public interest or a lack of evidence on both sides.
�Do you think for one second that someone like the Home Secretary would have his/her name on such a statement?�
You've answered your own question here. No is the answer. But do you think that she would be somehow unaware that allegations were being made against Mr Green? It seems inconceivable that someone in her position would be unaware of the allegations being made, particularly when 'national security' was involved.
�She was the "prime suspect" according to the media. So what? It proves nothing which you should appreciate.�
I do appreciate that. I also do not automatically believe the press. However, I also know that there is something called 'character'. The issue of 'character' is legitimately brought up in court on many occasions.
Cont...
So - Jacqui Smith. What would you say is a fair comment about her 'character'?
Personally, I would say she her honesty is highly questionable to say the least. It's hard to believe someone who claims her 'main residence' is a bedroom in her sister's house.
At the very least it's fair to say that Ms Smith's character is dubious.
�Do not be fooled by the media hype, they want us to watch and/or read their news reports, and the more lurid and sensationalistic from their perspective, the better.�
Don't worry about that old bean. I'll look under every rock and in every nook and cranny!
So - Jacqui Smith. What would you say is a fair comment about her 'character'?
Personally, I would say she her honesty is highly questionable to say the least. It's hard to believe someone who claims her 'main residence' is a bedroom in her sister's house.
At the very least it's fair to say that Ms Smith's character is dubious.
�Do not be fooled by the media hype, they want us to watch and/or read their news reports, and the more lurid and sensationalistic from their perspective, the better.�
Don't worry about that old bean. I'll look under every rock and in every nook and cranny!
birdie:
Yes we must disagree because not only can you get a FPN for the offence of "wasting police time", you could also get a custodial sentence - up to six months, I believe. The fact is that it is not up to the Police to make judgements like "not in the public interest", is it?
"But do you think that she would be somehow unaware...."
That simply is not the point - saying that and proving it are light years apart, otherwise she would have been shown to be implicated beyond reasonable doubt long before now.
"I also do not automatically believe the press." Therefore why put the Times link at the bottom of your 22:19 post?
I am no fan of Ms Smith, her cronies and their ilk but you cannot expect anyone to be convicted of anything simply on hearsay, innuendo and media frenzy. Even if their character is "dubious".
Yes we must disagree because not only can you get a FPN for the offence of "wasting police time", you could also get a custodial sentence - up to six months, I believe. The fact is that it is not up to the Police to make judgements like "not in the public interest", is it?
"But do you think that she would be somehow unaware...."
That simply is not the point - saying that and proving it are light years apart, otherwise she would have been shown to be implicated beyond reasonable doubt long before now.
"I also do not automatically believe the press." Therefore why put the Times link at the bottom of your 22:19 post?
I am no fan of Ms Smith, her cronies and their ilk but you cannot expect anyone to be convicted of anything simply on hearsay, innuendo and media frenzy. Even if their character is "dubious".
Paraffin: Thanks for taking the time to debate.
You have said something quite bizarre though... you said, �...why put the Times link at the bottom of your 22:19 post?� after hysterically asking me, �...And your irrefutable evidence and proof of this......IS?????�
How do you expect me or anyone else to 'prove' anything without relating to external sources?
It not like I was actually there is it?
And neither were you.
�... you cannot expect anyone to be convicted of anything simply on hearsay, innuendo and media frenzy.�
I agree. But that does not stop the debate. Which is what you seem to be saying - �We don't know what happened and until we do, let's not talk about it.�
Nice.
You have said something quite bizarre though... you said, �...why put the Times link at the bottom of your 22:19 post?� after hysterically asking me, �...And your irrefutable evidence and proof of this......IS?????�
How do you expect me or anyone else to 'prove' anything without relating to external sources?
It not like I was actually there is it?
And neither were you.
�... you cannot expect anyone to be convicted of anything simply on hearsay, innuendo and media frenzy.�
I agree. But that does not stop the debate. Which is what you seem to be saying - �We don't know what happened and until we do, let's not talk about it.�
Nice.
birdie:
Let me just correct some of your "misunderstandings":
1. "You have said something quite bizarre..." This "bizarre something" was to do with my reference to your 22:19 post about your link to the Times article.
"I also do not automatically believe the press" is what you claimed in your later 00:43 post, but you still saw fit to refer me to an article by the press which, by your own admission, you "do not automatically believe". So, you do expect me to believe it then? You must be at least consistent, old bean.
2. "after hysterically asking me" (My sentence ending with "IS?????")
Firstly, hysterical I am not, I merely highlighted one word in capitals because of your unsubstantiated claim that "the Police...................can very easily be manipulated by those in power..." That was a sweeping claim by you and one about which, by your own admission "I do not have "irrefutable" evidence". I would go as far as suggest that you have no evidence at all.
3. I am not saying "We don't know what happened, and until we do let's not talk about it." Far from it. However, if you are actually a Police Officer, or have been in recent years, "several years of being a Police Officer behind me" (In the UK? Recently?), you would be extremely wary of using careless hearsay and unfounded speculation willy nilly.
4. This is what we, Joe Public, know about this matter:
a. A Tory MP was arrested allegedly on suspicion of "leaks" from his office which could threaten national security.
b. A civil servant was also arrested in connection with that matter.
c. Both men were interviewed and subsequently released on Bail. Various other connected enquiries were carried out.
d. A File was prepared for the CPS who recently announced that no further action would be taken against either man.
I hope this has clarified the matter for you, birdie?
<
Let me just correct some of your "misunderstandings":
1. "You have said something quite bizarre..." This "bizarre something" was to do with my reference to your 22:19 post about your link to the Times article.
"I also do not automatically believe the press" is what you claimed in your later 00:43 post, but you still saw fit to refer me to an article by the press which, by your own admission, you "do not automatically believe". So, you do expect me to believe it then? You must be at least consistent, old bean.
2. "after hysterically asking me" (My sentence ending with "IS?????")
Firstly, hysterical I am not, I merely highlighted one word in capitals because of your unsubstantiated claim that "the Police...................can very easily be manipulated by those in power..." That was a sweeping claim by you and one about which, by your own admission "I do not have "irrefutable" evidence". I would go as far as suggest that you have no evidence at all.
3. I am not saying "We don't know what happened, and until we do let's not talk about it." Far from it. However, if you are actually a Police Officer, or have been in recent years, "several years of being a Police Officer behind me" (In the UK? Recently?), you would be extremely wary of using careless hearsay and unfounded speculation willy nilly.
4. This is what we, Joe Public, know about this matter:
a. A Tory MP was arrested allegedly on suspicion of "leaks" from his office which could threaten national security.
b. A civil servant was also arrested in connection with that matter.
c. Both men were interviewed and subsequently released on Bail. Various other connected enquiries were carried out.
d. A File was prepared for the CPS who recently announced that no further action would be taken against either man.
I hope this has clarified the matter for you, birdie?
<
Paraffin. Oh dear...
Point 1: I already answered when I said, �How do you expect me or anyone else to 'prove' anything without relating to external sources?�. Sorry if this is too difficult for you to understand.
Point 2: You sounded hysterical. As does everyone who WRITES LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!
Point 3: If you don't believe that I was a police officer, that's up to you. I can't prove it to you, so make up your own mind. And if you think that cops do not speculate then how exactly do you think they do their job? One of the things you do on a daily basis as a cop is use your initiative, speculate, and go on your gut instincts.
Point 4: I agree. But let's not question the underlying reasons or motivations eh? Let's just listen to the Government and blindly agree with everything they say.
Yes, that would be better wouldn't it?
Oh, and your final point, �I hope this has clarified the matter for you, birdie?�, it has. How is 'The News Of The World' these days?
Point 1: I already answered when I said, �How do you expect me or anyone else to 'prove' anything without relating to external sources?�. Sorry if this is too difficult for you to understand.
Point 2: You sounded hysterical. As does everyone who WRITES LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!
Point 3: If you don't believe that I was a police officer, that's up to you. I can't prove it to you, so make up your own mind. And if you think that cops do not speculate then how exactly do you think they do their job? One of the things you do on a daily basis as a cop is use your initiative, speculate, and go on your gut instincts.
Point 4: I agree. But let's not question the underlying reasons or motivations eh? Let's just listen to the Government and blindly agree with everything they say.
Yes, that would be better wouldn't it?
Oh, and your final point, �I hope this has clarified the matter for you, birdie?�, it has. How is 'The News Of The World' these days?
birdie:
My initial post to you challenged your claim that the Police "can very easily be manipulated by those in power".
Your reply, because I "dared" to print one word in capitals, i.e."IS", was to accuse me of being "hysterical".
1. You had to concede that my challenge was legitimate because you had no "irrefutable evidence", or any evidence whatsoever, of what you had claimed.
2. Your excuse for accusing me of hysteria was "you sounded hysterical" (for having put "IS" in capitals?).
You stated that you are/were a Police Officer, and I, as a result suggested that, (paraphrasing), you should be aware of the importance of evidence over hearsay and innuendo.
You have patently failed to address my points about this, instead you have referred to "external sources", i.e. your link to the hearsay of newspapers and media reporting.
And the thing which for me is "too difficult to understand" is how hearsay, rumour, innuendo, media speculation etc could ever amount to anything but that. They could not and would not "stand up" in a Court of Law in the UK. They are of course used, even in Courts here, but no one has ever to my knowledge been convicted of them. As far as I'm aware, no such "Laws" exist.
You are extremely coy now, having stated "several years of being a Police Officer behind me." You have changed your tune to "I can't prove it to you." No one is asking you to, all I was interested in was whether or not you are/had been one recently, and in the UK? I wasn't asking specifics, i.e. number, rank, name, which Force and Station, so what's the big secret? The more you prevaricate, the more your claim will seem dubious.
You rather tartly accuse me thus: "Let's just listen to the Government and blindly agree with everything they say." Sorry, but where have I done that? I would no sooner believe their rhetoric, spin or propaganda any more than I would
My initial post to you challenged your claim that the Police "can very easily be manipulated by those in power".
Your reply, because I "dared" to print one word in capitals, i.e."IS", was to accuse me of being "hysterical".
1. You had to concede that my challenge was legitimate because you had no "irrefutable evidence", or any evidence whatsoever, of what you had claimed.
2. Your excuse for accusing me of hysteria was "you sounded hysterical" (for having put "IS" in capitals?).
You stated that you are/were a Police Officer, and I, as a result suggested that, (paraphrasing), you should be aware of the importance of evidence over hearsay and innuendo.
You have patently failed to address my points about this, instead you have referred to "external sources", i.e. your link to the hearsay of newspapers and media reporting.
And the thing which for me is "too difficult to understand" is how hearsay, rumour, innuendo, media speculation etc could ever amount to anything but that. They could not and would not "stand up" in a Court of Law in the UK. They are of course used, even in Courts here, but no one has ever to my knowledge been convicted of them. As far as I'm aware, no such "Laws" exist.
You are extremely coy now, having stated "several years of being a Police Officer behind me." You have changed your tune to "I can't prove it to you." No one is asking you to, all I was interested in was whether or not you are/had been one recently, and in the UK? I wasn't asking specifics, i.e. number, rank, name, which Force and Station, so what's the big secret? The more you prevaricate, the more your claim will seem dubious.
You rather tartly accuse me thus: "Let's just listen to the Government and blindly agree with everything they say." Sorry, but where have I done that? I would no sooner believe their rhetoric, spin or propaganda any more than I would
Latest Posts
Europe To Send Immigrants To Rwanda?
News3 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
