Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral


About CalvinK

  • Rank
  • Birthday 17/07/90

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  1. You might be thinking of proposals to limit theft at a certain amount. [Link] I do recall a case a few years ago where the defendant had stolen a low value item (a tin of beans comes to mind) worth about 19p, and elected a jury trial costing a huge amount for the taxpayer. The case was criticised by the judge at the time if I remember correctly. Unfortunately despite my best efforts I can't source it though.
  2. Deeply saddened by the news. I never met David but I recall the day's events and he has been an inspiration with his work afterwards. I shall be making a donation to BLF at some point today in his name.
  3. I am going to pick up on one thing I'm afraid! Theft is a triable either way offence so could in theory elect for a jury trial.
  4. I'll address your first point that was contained within your quote. I appreciate that it is perhaps not good law. However you bring forward a very good argument. I would argue that if defendant has asked whether they were being subjected to force, and they told the defendant they weren't, then is it really fair that the defendant is penalised for what he at the time thought was a consensual (and legal) act? I would argue that is rather unfair on the defendant. I'm not sure how things would proceed from there, and as I am no expert in the matter I wouldn't like to speculate. However on the other side, the defendant knows that the sex industry is (without trying to be stereotypical, this is based on the general public's knowledge of it through media portrayal) dodgy and there is a likelihood that someone could be coerced or subject to force - I'd argue that although it appears a reputable agency, that he is engaging in business within the sex industry he would at least be aware of the potential for danger and so to some extent is responsible. Your scenario is an interesting one, as it does bring up issues of consent as well. I'm certainly in no position to explain how it should be dealt with but unfortunately Parliament do make bad laws and some do seem very unfair at times. I really don't know how to answer the question other than say that he is aware that the industry is dodgy and that girls are coerced so he takes the risk willingly.
  5. The reason why it is a strict liability offence is simple really. It wound render the law redundant if all you had to say to be found not guilty was "I didn't know she was subjected to force". I think that due to media portrayals most if not all people will be aware of the coercion and drug problem that is present in that industry and so by paying for sex they take the risk that they could potentially pay for sex with someone who is coerced into it. Recklessness is not a defence. The reason why the client is prosecuted is to make it a deterrant in my opinion. The thoughts behind it are probably that if you stifle the demand, then you stifle the trade. How well that works in practice is for another topic I think. If you did something and did not know it was against the law, then you shouldn't be allowed to get away with it just because you didn't know it was against the law. That would set a very dangerous precedent whereby all you would have to do is convince the jury that you were not aware that the law existed, and you would be find innocent. As a result, thankfully, ignorance of the law is not a defence.
  6. Inspectors and above - Ma'am/Sir both in public and private Sergeants - First name in private (unless I don't know them then they are called Sarge/Sgt), Sarge/Sgt in public.
  7. Does this disposal method provide us with a detection at the end?
  8. It would depend on the content. I'm inclined to look at potential harrassment/malicious communications offences but without more detail I couldn't say for certain.
  9. I appreciate where you are coming from, but you have failed to understand the most important aspect. In that in one case, the image is viewable to the public and so presents a potential danger to those officers from others. The public's photos are kept in the interests of safety and used for a policing purpose, regulated by the Data Protection Act and the Official Secrets Act. Use of the images for anything other than a policing purpose can lead to criminal proceedings. You cannot compare the two, really.
  10. Rereading the legislation, s.6 seems to be the more appropriate offence. I don't know - I only remember someone being arrested on suspicion of using a false instrument for info, but similarly I've seen the same thing for fraud. So without asking Licensing, I don't know which offence they would warn them over.
  11. Am I misreading it or does this only cover using it to gain personal information about someone? We have a policy whereby doorstaff seize any ID and present it to our licensing team who give out warning letters/prosecute. We tend to use the offence of false instrument for info.
  12. 1. I would suggest you haven't been booked at all. You would have been given seven days (our form is called a VDRS form - Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme) which gives you seven days to get the defect fixed and escape any prosecution. 2. He hasn't intentionally broken the lighting regulations. He hasn't put the condensation there. For all you know, he may have gone back to the police station and sorted it. You on the other hand have decided to alter your number plate or have been happy to have a non-standard number plate. Completely different circumstances. 3. Do you know the lighting regulations? Or have you seen it had condensation and thought I will find any way to get back at the officer for giving me the form? Would you have mentioned it had the officer driven past or had said hello to you? Or were you motivated by revenge? 4. At the enquiry office, did you tell them that you were reporting the offence as a result of you yourself being given a form? I notice you neglect to say what they said -simply that "I came up across a total barrier". This leads me to believe there is more to the story. 5. What is the force policy on driving police vehicles? Juding by your comments in your thread, you come across as being annoyed that the officer gave you a VDRS (VREC, whatever they call it) and thought you would try and get some sort of revenge on the officer. This is proven by you accusing the police of "closing ranks", which is basically an accusation of police corruption.
  13. Hats tend to be shared by the officers on our team - most of us have the same head size. On one occasion the Sgt took my hat and I had to show him under UV light where I had written my name. Needless to say he gave it back. Never leave pens about, and do not buy any decent pens to use - they tend to go walkabouts. Having said that, I wouldn't say people deliberately steal items. It's mainly because if you're looking for a pen and you see one, you just use it and you get sidetracked. It's just one of those things.
  14. Found this article as part of my subscription to The Times which brought up some interesting points. What's your opinion on whether S5 should apply to police officers? For me it is unacceptable behaviour, but I find the points interesting that someone telling me to F**k off is often boring as I have heard the term so many times.