Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill

[Andy Farman]

Lying about being on the pill would may constitute an offence at s4 of the Sexual Offences Act

Lying about being raped is a staight up pervert the course of justice.

Consent is justifiably quite important in terms of the issue of the regulation of sexual behaviour.

"May constitute"? Be real, there have been no charges, ever.

"Lying about being raped is a staight up pervert the course of justice." and yet a probbie at ZY with an appallingly bad CTC failure rate and empty pages in her record of work, having scored 23% on her final exam, and having been told she was being made redundant having failed her probation, accused 32 colleagues of rape, five of whom were not even in the service or on the division at the time, admits, a year later, malicious allegations due to panic at being sacked. Keeps her job and gets the posting of her choice so as not to discourage other female employees from claiming to have been raped, all with the commissioners and CPS sanction.

BTW Boumer, grow a pair and quote my post in future when you reply

 

[Dredd]

If you look up justice.gov.uk and find 'part 82' of the law on court procedures you will find the rules for CMP (Closed Material Procedures). This involves "...the Court appointing a specially vetted counsel to communicate the interests of a party without risking the exposure of sensitive national security details."

It is as you might imagine, hughley controversial and it is recognized that it risks the denial of justice. There is quite a bit of concern about it, but I can assure you it exists.

That would apply to the evidence and where it was gathered from, surely, and not the actual law itself?

Whilst ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law, that would be taking the proverbial.

 

[Kinch]

That would apply to the evidence and where it was gathered from, surely, and not the actual law itself?

Whilst ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law, that would be taking the proverbial.

Probably correct.. I am recalling my last reading of the thing a few years ago and there was something regarding witness evidence which I believe meant that in certain cases the identity of a witness and their evidence could be withheld from both a defendant and their counsel. There would be a situation when the defendant might rightly believe that apart from the specific charge/s they faced, they would be unaware of precisely what it was they had done or were alleged to have done. Perhaps this could, on the other hand, merely be a degree of precision that I, and others, have only imagined to exist within our legal system.

Ultimately I am torn to some extent between the need to have robust system to tackle the type of threats to the state that we have seen in recent years, and the thought of some poor bugger ending up in an iron mask with no idea of what the problem was or how he got there.

 

[par avion]

having scored 23% on her final exam,

23%, the pass mark was about 70% wasn't it? Mind you John Stephens payed out thousands of pounds to Ali Dizaei despite numerous allegations of Domestic violence from his Iranian mistresses which were quietly ignored.

 

[Boumer]

"May constitute"? Be real, there have been no charges, ever.

"Lying about being raped is a staight up pervert the course of justice." and yet a probbie at ZY with an appallingly bad CTC failure rate and empty pages in her record of work, having scored 23% on her final exam, and having been told she was being made redundant having failed her probation, accused 32 colleagues of rape, five of whom were not even in the service or on the division at the time, admits, a year later, malicious allegations due to panic at being sacked. Keeps her job and gets the posting of her choice so as not to discourage other female employees from claiming to have been raped, all with the commissioners and CPS sanction.

BTW Boumer, grow a pair and quote my post in future when you reply

None of that contradicts what I have said.

I pointed out on a separate thread Fīat jūstitia ruat cælumis.

Applies here too.

Making others wrong, does not make one right.

The fact you take things directed at you does not make them so either; These points are directed at you so I quote direct.

So take you grow a pair remark and **** off.

HTH.

 

[Boumer]

No, there was some ratboy burglar who raped a woman in bed with her boyfriend.

Ah, I couldn't remember the case law any more.

I'm still fair sure 'Jill who was Bill but now has a surgically reconstructed vagina ' as an exam only scenario

 

[Tuffty]

How do i apply for a job

 

[BarcelonaAnalPark]

There's a disturbing amount of women who get raped by ratboy burglars whilst their partners sleep in the same bed, as I've learned through some cursory googling.

 

[Robbo_72]

If this law is never enacted, but stifles any would be Jihadi wanting to play chop chop, This cannot be a bad thing.

The flip side, If this law is enacted in the interests of protecting a political class or orthodoxy (both sides) and not the people, then we have a very big problem.

Out of curiosity, What is the root cause of the original bill being passed in the first place?

 

[Kinch]

If this law is never enacted, but stifles any would be Jihadi wanting to play chop chop, This cannot be a bad thing.

The flip side, If this law is enacted in the interests of protecting a political class or orthodoxy (both sides) and not the people, then we have a very big problem.

Out of curiosity, What is the root cause of the original bill being passed in the first place?

I think it is the difficult situation that many people, including serving soldiers, were left in - limbo basically - while carrying out irregular and often highly dangerous duties in NI. When more professional covert operations began around the mid 1970s there were still no guidelines available (I suspect there still were non ten years or more later). It meant that soldiers (and mainland policemen) were making difficult decisions for which there was little or no formal support.

There were also changes to international law c. 1976 that established two new protocols under the Geneva Convention. The UK had signed up to these (and possibly assisted there development), but found themselves in a potentially difficult situation regarding the 'status' of both 'prisoners' and of soldiers and agents working covertly.

On the 'prisoner' side of the equation, the 'special status' formerly allowed to Republican prisoners was abolished and a policy of 'criminalization' was pursued. If some form of 'political status' had prevailed, then there were implications for the way the UK conducted the conflict, particularly regarding the use of the 'military instrument' in plain clothes. I will need to read up on it again as it is a bit complicated, but that is my understanding.