PC Plod delivers notam personally!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA your right we are going round in circles and I take offence to some of your derogatory comments thrown my way, however I firmly believe in free speech and you are entitled to your opinion. I wont be visiting this thread anymore as I have nothing further to add, thankfully the majority of the general public do not share your views. You are ill informed and see things from the "outside" and are obviously listening to stories from people who have a grievance against the Police.
I know things are not perfect and there are bad apples however these are being found and removed, maybe some of those bad apples are the ones giving you the information you base your flawed case on?
Re the fitting up...I would be disapointed if the only way to get a conviction is by this method. We have advanced in this country in the ways we gather evidence and have the use of some very high tech methods of detecting the offenders. Maybe the officers you know need to look at how they detect crime and how their skill base can be improved. I would think a half decent lawyer would rip holes in any case that had a hint of a "fit up" to it. So this task would be a peice of cake
All the best Volrider
I know things are not perfect and there are bad apples however these are being found and removed, maybe some of those bad apples are the ones giving you the information you base your flawed case on?
Re the fitting up...I would be disapointed if the only way to get a conviction is by this method. We have advanced in this country in the ways we gather evidence and have the use of some very high tech methods of detecting the offenders. Maybe the officers you know need to look at how they detect crime and how their skill base can be improved. I would think a half decent lawyer would rip holes in any case that had a hint of a "fit up" to it. So this task would be a peice of cake
All the best Volrider
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: South
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA
Whilst I agree with Volrider I am not too blinkered to believe that we live in a free or just society but I think one thing is being overlooked here.
You claim, in more than one entry, to have personal knowledge of corruption - and not just police officers but also members of the public who are (according to you) signing false declarations and by default committing perjury when these cases go to court.
FL may disagree but my Readers Digest Book of Criminal Law suggests that, at the very least, the officer and witness(es) are guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and you - yes you, with all this knowledge of police procedures you have, are also culpable because you choose to do nothing. These are serious matters which you are alleging and to hide behind the cloak of 'it's a waste of time reporting it' tells me everything about your integrity and moral values.
If you choose to sit on the fence and do nothing so be it - but by doing nothing your credibility is zero rated. I would have a lot more respect for you if you had stated that you had reported this matter. Didn't someone once say that society gets the police force it deserves.
If the Commissioner who you continue to quote was Robert Mark please note that he retired in the early seventies - a generation ago and yes I have read that one as well.
Regards
HN
Whilst I agree with Volrider I am not too blinkered to believe that we live in a free or just society but I think one thing is being overlooked here.
You claim, in more than one entry, to have personal knowledge of corruption - and not just police officers but also members of the public who are (according to you) signing false declarations and by default committing perjury when these cases go to court.
FL may disagree but my Readers Digest Book of Criminal Law suggests that, at the very least, the officer and witness(es) are guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and you - yes you, with all this knowledge of police procedures you have, are also culpable because you choose to do nothing. These are serious matters which you are alleging and to hide behind the cloak of 'it's a waste of time reporting it' tells me everything about your integrity and moral values.
If you choose to sit on the fence and do nothing so be it - but by doing nothing your credibility is zero rated. I would have a lot more respect for you if you had stated that you had reported this matter. Didn't someone once say that society gets the police force it deserves.
If the Commissioner who you continue to quote was Robert Mark please note that he retired in the early seventies - a generation ago and yes I have read that one as well.
Regards
HN
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volrider
Well I am impressed you believe in free speech and accept that other opinions than your own exist and may well be equally valid. However I do not think you are in a position to say what the majority of the public think. It is a shame that you demonstrate you narrow mindedness by refusing to visit this thread again. However in case you do read this, your head in the sand attitude is understandable as your beliefs have been challenged.
My view and it is a view, is that that majority of the public are all too aware of the imperfections of the police service. I guess we both will never know for sure.
I think you also are not understanding my posts very well as I have not suggested all convictions are obtained unfairly, merely that unfairness does exist, and that the public need to be careful of the police and not blindly accept we live in a fair and just state.
There are many victims of police misconduct that would take great offence to you having the view that wrong cannot possible exist in your club.
For info, a court take only take a view on the evidence it has before it. If the police suppress evidence, what can the court do? Nothing!
If law and justice was a piece of cake, there would be no need for appeals!
Vol...we do not live in a perfect world and your police service is no different !
hangnail
Change needs to come within the police force. I am not putting my neck on the block again for principals. I have already paid dearly for principals! I was blackmailed by the police and when refused to give in they "fitted me up". You can write and complain as much as you like. I have written to MP’s, Chief Justice, Ian Blair, etc etc and no one gives a damn provided they get their monthly pay check! Principals have cost me close to £100K, I cannot afford principals. Would you like to underwite my legal costs if counter complaints are made against me? You now have knowledge of this corruption, it is now your duty to do something? You now know that I was fitted up by the police, why don't you make a complaint that I was fitted up? If you choose to sit on the fence doing nothing you're credability is also zero. "Society gets the police force it deserves" There is apathy everywhere, no one gives a damn, not the lawyers, not the police, politicians or anyone!
A complaint made by me will be completely ignored. I have no hard evidence and if it is my word against an officer...who obviously will be believed? Far more serious dishonesty exists in the police force, and at least in the case I mentioned someone dodgy is off the street and won’t break into my place. The chap who nicked a car and was hit by a police car may think twice about nicking a car again!
I have personal experience of trying for years to encourage standards to investigate. They come out with endless excuses and still do nothing when advised by the IPCC that their lack of investigation is flawed. They try every trick in the book to sweep the complaint under the carpet. It really is utterly unreal, if you want more info PM me, I would be pleased to bore you with the story! It borders on the comical how dishonest they have behaved. I have nearly a hundred letters/ phone conversations which are clearly, without any doubt at all clear proof that a cover and sham investigation took place…and no one cares whatsoever, so much for principals.
Also hangnail, principals are very costly and dangerous. What will I gain and what do I stand to loose? Do I want to antagonise the local old bill? Do I want to cause trouble? The police need to police themselves. It’s like arguing with your examiner on a pilot proficiency check, you won’t win, far better to say “you are right, quite agree, etc”
If police ever blackmail me again, I will say certainly sir, whatever you like!
Early this century 4 million or so died in the Gulag’s. Many of those died for their principals. Yes I want an easy life, that’s why I firmly say do not antagonise the authorities.
I cannot remember which commissioner, perhaps paul condom, but it was within the last 10 years or so. He was campaigning for improved police pay saying that would reduce corruption.
Brian Abraham
Would I trust a member of the police force?
No more or less than anyone else would be my answer. A police officer does not have inbuilt qualities to be any more trustworthy or untrustworthy than any one else. However there is an age old saying “power corrupts”, so the police service needs to be careful that they do not abuse the power that society has given them.
The bottom line is, if the police or authorities make a threat or give a warning. It needs to be taken seriously. No authority in any country acts with complete fairness and Justice. Just because you are abiding by the law is no guarantee that the law will protect you.
And finally, the right decision was not to fly. Never wave a red rag to a bull!
Well I am impressed you believe in free speech and accept that other opinions than your own exist and may well be equally valid. However I do not think you are in a position to say what the majority of the public think. It is a shame that you demonstrate you narrow mindedness by refusing to visit this thread again. However in case you do read this, your head in the sand attitude is understandable as your beliefs have been challenged.
My view and it is a view, is that that majority of the public are all too aware of the imperfections of the police service. I guess we both will never know for sure.
I think you also are not understanding my posts very well as I have not suggested all convictions are obtained unfairly, merely that unfairness does exist, and that the public need to be careful of the police and not blindly accept we live in a fair and just state.
There are many victims of police misconduct that would take great offence to you having the view that wrong cannot possible exist in your club.
For info, a court take only take a view on the evidence it has before it. If the police suppress evidence, what can the court do? Nothing!
If law and justice was a piece of cake, there would be no need for appeals!
Vol...we do not live in a perfect world and your police service is no different !
hangnail
Change needs to come within the police force. I am not putting my neck on the block again for principals. I have already paid dearly for principals! I was blackmailed by the police and when refused to give in they "fitted me up". You can write and complain as much as you like. I have written to MP’s, Chief Justice, Ian Blair, etc etc and no one gives a damn provided they get their monthly pay check! Principals have cost me close to £100K, I cannot afford principals. Would you like to underwite my legal costs if counter complaints are made against me? You now have knowledge of this corruption, it is now your duty to do something? You now know that I was fitted up by the police, why don't you make a complaint that I was fitted up? If you choose to sit on the fence doing nothing you're credability is also zero. "Society gets the police force it deserves" There is apathy everywhere, no one gives a damn, not the lawyers, not the police, politicians or anyone!
A complaint made by me will be completely ignored. I have no hard evidence and if it is my word against an officer...who obviously will be believed? Far more serious dishonesty exists in the police force, and at least in the case I mentioned someone dodgy is off the street and won’t break into my place. The chap who nicked a car and was hit by a police car may think twice about nicking a car again!
I have personal experience of trying for years to encourage standards to investigate. They come out with endless excuses and still do nothing when advised by the IPCC that their lack of investigation is flawed. They try every trick in the book to sweep the complaint under the carpet. It really is utterly unreal, if you want more info PM me, I would be pleased to bore you with the story! It borders on the comical how dishonest they have behaved. I have nearly a hundred letters/ phone conversations which are clearly, without any doubt at all clear proof that a cover and sham investigation took place…and no one cares whatsoever, so much for principals.
Also hangnail, principals are very costly and dangerous. What will I gain and what do I stand to loose? Do I want to antagonise the local old bill? Do I want to cause trouble? The police need to police themselves. It’s like arguing with your examiner on a pilot proficiency check, you won’t win, far better to say “you are right, quite agree, etc”
If police ever blackmail me again, I will say certainly sir, whatever you like!
Early this century 4 million or so died in the Gulag’s. Many of those died for their principals. Yes I want an easy life, that’s why I firmly say do not antagonise the authorities.
I cannot remember which commissioner, perhaps paul condom, but it was within the last 10 years or so. He was campaigning for improved police pay saying that would reduce corruption.
Brian Abraham
Would I trust a member of the police force?
No more or less than anyone else would be my answer. A police officer does not have inbuilt qualities to be any more trustworthy or untrustworthy than any one else. However there is an age old saying “power corrupts”, so the police service needs to be careful that they do not abuse the power that society has given them.
The bottom line is, if the police or authorities make a threat or give a warning. It needs to be taken seriously. No authority in any country acts with complete fairness and Justice. Just because you are abiding by the law is no guarantee that the law will protect you.
And finally, the right decision was not to fly. Never wave a red rag to a bull!
Last edited by Autostart Abort; 6th Apr 2006 at 18:02.
Guest
Posts: n/a
okay 1 more....
Originally Posted by Autostart Abort
For info, a court take only take a view on the evidence it has before it. If the police suppress evidence, what can the court do? Nothing!
Further... The Disclosure of Information Act, has been in force for several years now. No information, no matter how inconsequential, can be withheld. It must be presented to the court. That includes any previous misconduct proceedings against all officers involved in the case.
However the defendant, generally speaking, does not have to disclose previous offences to the court.!
Its a miracle that anyone gets found guilty by a court in this country, with so much stacked against the prosecution.
I know of a man that lives down south, he's really narrow minded and quite dim. Therefore ALL southerners must be thick ! using principles put forward by AA..!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colonel Q
Actually we are still discussing original post. The point I am making is don't ignore a threat from the authorities.
We are totally on the original thread here. Others can benefit from my experience. Certainly some pilots would have the view - I am legal, I am in the right, no copper can tell me what to do. Well this is dangerous thinking. I am advocating caution and cooperation.
I once had a chat with a CAA inspector just prior to getting airborne. He came over to helicopter (rotors running) and gave his opinion on a particular flight and said I could go ahead if I wanted. What did I do? I shut down, had a chat, accepted it was a grey area and did the right thing..flight cancelled.
He may be right, he may be wrong, but whats the point in being obstructive?
Hello Morris1
yes, "all info must be disclosed" thats quite correct in theory!
It seems you are reacting a little bit? I have given no indication that I have a stereotyped view of the police. It seems you are projecting your own stereotyped views.
It is entirely logical that a cross section of the police will have good and bad just like a cross section of society as a whole. And furthermore, I have stated several times that most police are honest.
Yes I agree so much is stacked against the prosecution, many guilty go free and sometimes innocent are guilty. The Justice system is not a perfect system and cannot ever be.
You need to be realistic and understand it is not anti-police, to be aware of the limitations of our Justice system. Relax!
Helicopters are not perfect machines, mechanical defects occur, mistakes happen and people die. This is not anti-helicopters, just the way it is.
However we need to be aware of the limitations and seek improvements.
I believe it is better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent to be found guilty. This has been a principal of Justice in the UK. However changes are taking place. Principals of the Magna Carta are being removed from British Justice. The rules of evidence in the Inquisition were more stringent than they are today. Then you needed two witnesses, today one witness will do.
I do not believe the UK Justice system is improving, nor is government. It seems there are rights for the guilty and no rights for the innocent.
In contrast, aviation on the other hand is making great improvements.
Actually we are still discussing original post. The point I am making is don't ignore a threat from the authorities.
We are totally on the original thread here. Others can benefit from my experience. Certainly some pilots would have the view - I am legal, I am in the right, no copper can tell me what to do. Well this is dangerous thinking. I am advocating caution and cooperation.
I once had a chat with a CAA inspector just prior to getting airborne. He came over to helicopter (rotors running) and gave his opinion on a particular flight and said I could go ahead if I wanted. What did I do? I shut down, had a chat, accepted it was a grey area and did the right thing..flight cancelled.
He may be right, he may be wrong, but whats the point in being obstructive?
Hello Morris1
yes, "all info must be disclosed" thats quite correct in theory!
It seems you are reacting a little bit? I have given no indication that I have a stereotyped view of the police. It seems you are projecting your own stereotyped views.
It is entirely logical that a cross section of the police will have good and bad just like a cross section of society as a whole. And furthermore, I have stated several times that most police are honest.
Yes I agree so much is stacked against the prosecution, many guilty go free and sometimes innocent are guilty. The Justice system is not a perfect system and cannot ever be.
You need to be realistic and understand it is not anti-police, to be aware of the limitations of our Justice system. Relax!
Helicopters are not perfect machines, mechanical defects occur, mistakes happen and people die. This is not anti-helicopters, just the way it is.
However we need to be aware of the limitations and seek improvements.
I believe it is better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent to be found guilty. This has been a principal of Justice in the UK. However changes are taking place. Principals of the Magna Carta are being removed from British Justice. The rules of evidence in the Inquisition were more stringent than they are today. Then you needed two witnesses, today one witness will do.
I do not believe the UK Justice system is improving, nor is government. It seems there are rights for the guilty and no rights for the innocent.
In contrast, aviation on the other hand is making great improvements.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,052
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
AA, although I disagree with a lot of what you say, you have actually hit the nail on the head, saying that better a guilty man goes free than an innocent to be guilty. I must be lucky, in that the bobbies I work with are all absolutely straight down the line. They are disappointed if we dont get a prosecution on a known 'bad lad', but they counter this by saying not to worry, he will do it again and we will catch him then. I found this really strange at first, but I understand what they mean now.
I think that the reason people (including me) get a bit upset with you, is because the vast majority of the force are straight. Yes, bad apples are there and we dont disagree, but rank and file show no sympathy to people who go bad and have no problems with disciplinary action against them. Your opinion is that IPCC and PSD cover up complaints. We all find that statement amazing!! They bloody well dont up here. In orders, all disciplinary actions are circulated monthly with harsh penalties including prosecution and sacking. If these are cover-ups, god help the bobbies when the system decides to go tougher!!
No system is perfect and I am certain mistakes happen and some people do not get the service they deserve at times, but I do not believe we are as far down the corruption line as you suggest.
I think that the reason people (including me) get a bit upset with you, is because the vast majority of the force are straight. Yes, bad apples are there and we dont disagree, but rank and file show no sympathy to people who go bad and have no problems with disciplinary action against them. Your opinion is that IPCC and PSD cover up complaints. We all find that statement amazing!! They bloody well dont up here. In orders, all disciplinary actions are circulated monthly with harsh penalties including prosecution and sacking. If these are cover-ups, god help the bobbies when the system decides to go tougher!!
No system is perfect and I am certain mistakes happen and some people do not get the service they deserve at times, but I do not believe we are as far down the corruption line as you suggest.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Jayteeto
Nice post, agreed most police are honest. It is encouraging to read a logical reply to my comments.
The IPCC have not covered up any compliant, they merely agreed with me that the police investigation (non investigation) was flawed and agreed since so much time has passed (several years) that it is now probably too late to do anything. (Standards still refuse to investigate, so IPCC have no teeth)
I was personally done up like a kipper, so I find it very offensive when your colleagues insist everything is just perfect. I am not that fussed with the officer in question as it is a fact of life that not everyone is honest. I am rather surprised to the lengths the standards dept go to, to NOT investgate. Endless procedures and guidelines are used as reasons. One of the reasons was because shortly afterwards she resigned! Other reasons were their interpretation of Chief Justice guidelines, etc, etc.You know how long it would take to investigate? An hour or two at the most. A CCTV tape of the incident was available for 28 days and several other police were witnesses. But the standards would rather spend two years of letter writing explaining reason why they will not investigate. And whats more no one gives a toss! not the lawyers, the police, MP's, Chief Justice...no one!
The simple fact is society does give authority to the police and this can and is sometimes abused (albeit rarely). If it was abused for a trivial matter like mine, it can certainly be abused for a more important matter.
Therefore the point I am making to fellow pilots is use caution when threatened or given a warning by any authority. The chances of being set up is minor, but the chance certainly exists.
We are prepared for engine failure on every departure, we brief it, we practice it every six months, however the chances of it happening are very small.
Likewise if we ignore the warning from authority, no matter how small the chance, the chance exists that we could come a cropper if we do not comply.
I am advocating caution. Being legal and in the right is no absolute guarantee of adverse consequences. I am sure you would agree.
Nice post, agreed most police are honest. It is encouraging to read a logical reply to my comments.
The IPCC have not covered up any compliant, they merely agreed with me that the police investigation (non investigation) was flawed and agreed since so much time has passed (several years) that it is now probably too late to do anything. (Standards still refuse to investigate, so IPCC have no teeth)
I was personally done up like a kipper, so I find it very offensive when your colleagues insist everything is just perfect. I am not that fussed with the officer in question as it is a fact of life that not everyone is honest. I am rather surprised to the lengths the standards dept go to, to NOT investgate. Endless procedures and guidelines are used as reasons. One of the reasons was because shortly afterwards she resigned! Other reasons were their interpretation of Chief Justice guidelines, etc, etc.You know how long it would take to investigate? An hour or two at the most. A CCTV tape of the incident was available for 28 days and several other police were witnesses. But the standards would rather spend two years of letter writing explaining reason why they will not investigate. And whats more no one gives a toss! not the lawyers, the police, MP's, Chief Justice...no one!
The simple fact is society does give authority to the police and this can and is sometimes abused (albeit rarely). If it was abused for a trivial matter like mine, it can certainly be abused for a more important matter.
Therefore the point I am making to fellow pilots is use caution when threatened or given a warning by any authority. The chances of being set up is minor, but the chance certainly exists.
We are prepared for engine failure on every departure, we brief it, we practice it every six months, however the chances of it happening are very small.
Likewise if we ignore the warning from authority, no matter how small the chance, the chance exists that we could come a cropper if we do not comply.
I am advocating caution. Being legal and in the right is no absolute guarantee of adverse consequences. I am sure you would agree.
Last edited by Autostart Abort; 6th Apr 2006 at 21:57.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get back to the original subject. I have written to AOPA with the suggestion that their president, Lord Stevens, ex met commisioner and pilot may be interested in the circumstances. If I get a reply thats relevant I'll post it here.
I considered pulling this thread as It seemed to be getting out of hand with wild accusations with which I didnt want to be associated. I'm glad I didn't as reasoned debate appears to have followed.
AA. If I may be so bold to offer a little friendly advice re post 83. Try to Keep your posts a little shorter! I for one have the attention span of a gnat. I find myself scrolling past them.
I got the name Gaseous long before Pprune for being too verbose! I now try to fight the tendancy.
OK. I'll shut up now.
I considered pulling this thread as It seemed to be getting out of hand with wild accusations with which I didnt want to be associated. I'm glad I didn't as reasoned debate appears to have followed.
AA. If I may be so bold to offer a little friendly advice re post 83. Try to Keep your posts a little shorter! I for one have the attention span of a gnat. I find myself scrolling past them.
I got the name Gaseous long before Pprune for being too verbose! I now try to fight the tendancy.
OK. I'll shut up now.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaseous
I am sure you will get a reply and look forward to it.
Martin Robinson and FL for that matter could tell a few good stories about CAA.
CAA also are meant to disclose evidence to the court and I remember a case in the west country where the magistrate told off the CAA for withholding evidence.
A CAA ops inspector wrote a note to CAA enforcement with his view that the flight in question was LEGAL! Now before anyway jumps to conclusions I am not criticising CAA or saying all CAA is corrupt, just the messenger here. So please - no CAA staff should react negatively to this!
I am really trying to restrain myself here, but there are many other CAA cases that have been quite unjust, which a certain eminent barrister has sussessfully defended. (and aren't most of the enforcement branch ex-coppers?)
My limited view is, the problem with courts is that both sides get too focussed on winning the case rather than the truth.
The prosecutor is trying to get a guilty verdict, the barrister not guilty. In my limited view, they are both too focussed on getting the result they want rather than the truth. But then who will hire a barrister if he helps the prosecution. Capitalism and values, can you have both?
I am sure you will get a reply and look forward to it.
Martin Robinson and FL for that matter could tell a few good stories about CAA.
CAA also are meant to disclose evidence to the court and I remember a case in the west country where the magistrate told off the CAA for withholding evidence.
A CAA ops inspector wrote a note to CAA enforcement with his view that the flight in question was LEGAL! Now before anyway jumps to conclusions I am not criticising CAA or saying all CAA is corrupt, just the messenger here. So please - no CAA staff should react negatively to this!
I am really trying to restrain myself here, but there are many other CAA cases that have been quite unjust, which a certain eminent barrister has sussessfully defended. (and aren't most of the enforcement branch ex-coppers?)
My limited view is, the problem with courts is that both sides get too focussed on winning the case rather than the truth.
The prosecutor is trying to get a guilty verdict, the barrister not guilty. In my limited view, they are both too focussed on getting the result they want rather than the truth. But then who will hire a barrister if he helps the prosecution. Capitalism and values, can you have both?
Last edited by Autostart Abort; 6th Apr 2006 at 22:53.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the move...
Age: 58
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The truth has no place in a modern court
GASEOUS Discretion before valour! A wise move.
AA I like your thinking re capitalism and courts. I agree that both sides are focussed on winning and not on the truth. Although this only goes part way, It is the truth as each side sees it!
The defendant is always innocent until proven guilty. If the defendant tells a lie often enough they might believe it (It becomes truth in their mind) and when did a barrister ever ask a client "Did you do it?"
Defense are being paid to do a job, to deliver a product. In this case freedom for their client. If they were interested in true justice for all then they would ask the hard questions, encourage their client to plead guilty and then simply try to get a reduced penalty. But no, "Lets pick as many holes in 'their' story (the prosecution) and we might get lucky."
Most coppers are after the truth, but they sometimes get blinkers on and forget that their job is to gather evidence, including evidence that may prove innocence.
Having been a copper for almost 19 years, I can tell you that it's easier to leave something out than it is to make something up or to plant evidence. Only the truely bent copper knows how or has the desire to do so. Other coppers who get it wrong are more likely doing their incompetent best or simply having a bad day. And haven't we all had one of those? I feel for the two who visited Gaseous, out of their depth, not quite sure how to handle it, and unable to tell the boss to 'S*d off Sir, it's not our job."
As for the coppers who do get it wrong when they are trying to do their job, let he who is without sin ... We all make mistakes in our jobs, some mistakes have bigger consequences than others. The scary question is "What was their intent?" The answer is the difference between corruption and error.
AA I like your thinking re capitalism and courts. I agree that both sides are focussed on winning and not on the truth. Although this only goes part way, It is the truth as each side sees it!
The defendant is always innocent until proven guilty. If the defendant tells a lie often enough they might believe it (It becomes truth in their mind) and when did a barrister ever ask a client "Did you do it?"
Defense are being paid to do a job, to deliver a product. In this case freedom for their client. If they were interested in true justice for all then they would ask the hard questions, encourage their client to plead guilty and then simply try to get a reduced penalty. But no, "Lets pick as many holes in 'their' story (the prosecution) and we might get lucky."
Most coppers are after the truth, but they sometimes get blinkers on and forget that their job is to gather evidence, including evidence that may prove innocence.
Having been a copper for almost 19 years, I can tell you that it's easier to leave something out than it is to make something up or to plant evidence. Only the truely bent copper knows how or has the desire to do so. Other coppers who get it wrong are more likely doing their incompetent best or simply having a bad day. And haven't we all had one of those? I feel for the two who visited Gaseous, out of their depth, not quite sure how to handle it, and unable to tell the boss to 'S*d off Sir, it's not our job."
As for the coppers who do get it wrong when they are trying to do their job, let he who is without sin ... We all make mistakes in our jobs, some mistakes have bigger consequences than others. The scary question is "What was their intent?" The answer is the difference between corruption and error.
