Convicted without evidence of a crime?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Semmy, Jul 17, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. News item in question

    Apparently new powers are being sought that will allow the Police (more accurately the Organised Crime Squad) to apply for control orders of suspects on whom there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction in court.

    So now you can be prejudged? Conviction of an offence without trial?

    Bloody marvellous... I wonder how long it would take for these powers to be abused and used against "normal" folk (as the anti-terror legislation was).
  2. I wonder how long it will take for a Lawyer to take it to the European Court of Human Rights!. It smells of failure to me.
  3. They were designed to tackle people who were suspected of involvement in serious organised crime but on whom there was not enough evidence to prosecute.

    Will it apply to things like Cash for peerages perhaps?
  4. Well, that's half of Gateshead about to go under the radar then.
  5. Don't be silly biscuits... there aint that many Scotsmen living in Gateshead! Even if Tyneside is the gateway to civilisation for you lot.
  6. Better than just shooting them dead I suppose?
  7. How many times have we hard similar lines recently?
  8. This sounds similiar to "These new powers will help us in the fight against terror, under no circumstances will these new powers be abused" unless your a 67yr old man or a protestor at the cenetaph.... Again the plight of the Natwest 3 comes to the fore, sent to the States guilty with no evidence produced to CPS.
  9. Or insider dealers, tax fiddlers and other white collar crimes
  10. Sven, Sven, Sven. (plus others) you seem to be missing one minor teensie weensie point, a judge will be able to implement restrictions on a person even though there is not enough evidence to convict them in a court of law.

    Lets break it down into easy stages for you.

    1) A person is deemed guilty of an offence when proven in court beyond reasonable doubt.
    2) If there is not enough evidence to convict in a court of law (see no. 1 above), does this mean the new act could apply to cases where there could be reasonable doubt?
    3) These proposals would incur legal penalties upon folk without recourse to the court of law (due process et al).
    4) It does not clearly define who, what, where and why, this is left to the Judges discretion (the fault of woolly wording within the proposed act).

    So all in all you agree with placing legal restrictions upon a person even though they might not be guilty of anything... How very..... Fascist.
  11. It does rather avoid the inconvenience and expense of actually gathering evidence and then having to discharge a legal and evidential burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt!

    Being 'suspected' has, of itself almost become a substantive offence in it's own right!

    This should leave no one in any doubt that Britain is a totalitarian state disguised as a democracy accepted with bovine docility by the vast majority of people who would rather watch 'Big Brother' on the television than contemplate the idea that they are living it in real life!

    When I hear a serving Police officer say: "what's innocence got to do with it" - that just about sums it up for me!

    I presume this is the sort of 'democracy' the government has in mind for Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Regards and best wishes
  12. So, if there isn't enough evidence to bring charges in "cash for peerages" or the criminally negligent manslaughter of a Brazilian and subsequent cover-up, can we expect to see Bliar, Levy, Powell, Turner, Bliar 2 and Dick subject to control orders?

    Perhaps they are not designed to be used on the snout-troughs and their stormtroopers..... :evil:
  13. This also sounds like one of those catch-all phrases that could be applied to practically anybody. All you have to do is to live next door to some gangster and that's you Donald Ducked!

    I'm sure there'll be the usual assurances that the new powers won't be abused! :D :D :D

  14. You couldn' t be further from the truth. My arguement was against ANY removal of a persons rights, especially with regard to control orders. I was simply emphasising that the 'nice middle class people' commit crimes and these crimes have less chance of conviction
  15. Is this another American idea?