Disclaimer: By posting on this web site it is accepted that you have agreed to our Terms. Please DO NOT publish copyrighted material/pictures without the owner’s permission, you are liable for any costs incurred.


Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 231
  1. #121
    Moderator Arthur Little's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    City of Perth, Scotland
    Posts
    24,230
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by andy222 View Post

    You cant lock your kids up for 24/7.
    Well, Andy ... ... the way things appear to be heading for the pair we're discussing here ... they're currently looking at the very real prospect of being locked up for 24 years - never mind 24/7!


  2. #122
    Moderator Arthur Little's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    City of Perth, Scotland
    Posts
    24,230
    Rep Power
    150
    @ ... John Car

    John ... according to Messrs Gilbert & Sullivan's comic operetta, 'Pirates of Penzance', "a policeman's lot is not an 'appy one". Here, then, is 'a little' in an attempt to restore your sense of humour and defuse any undue "heated tension" between you and a number of your fellow members here.

    QUESTION

    ... what d'you imagine colleagues of a former Spanish detective who's relegated to "pounding the beat" might call him?

    ANSWER

    Carlos!


  3. #123
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Southern England
    Posts
    5,102
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by joebloggs View Post
    i've read somewhere that 250 drug smugglers were arrested at that airport last year, so maybe the sniffer dogs are there all the time
    That's an awful lot of decoys Joe. Must of been an awful lot of smack getting through

    I wonder if the dogs have been trained to let the majority of smugglers through unhindered


  4. #124
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    18,267
    Rep Power
    0
    These slappers aren't posing for pics and looking smug now



  5. #125
    Respected Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Spain since 1988. My wife has been here since June 2006
    Posts
    2,384
    Rep Power
    99
    Some posters may find this, about libel, interesting:-

    (NB Publishing includes the internet )

    Quote:

    Published defamation -- called libel -- for example a newspaper article or television broadcast. Pictures as well as words can be defamatory.

    Anything that injures a person's reputation can be defamatory. If a comment brings a person into contempt, disrepute or ridicule, it is likely to be defamatory.

    You tell your friends that the boss is unfair. That's slander of the boss.
    You write a letter to the newspaper saying a politician is corrupt. That's libel of the politician, even if it's not published.
    You say on television that a building was badly designed. That's libel due to the imputation that the architect is professionally incompetent, even if you didn't mention any names.
    You sell a newspaper that contains defamatory material. That's spreading of a defamation.


  6. #126
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2012/11...n-prosecutors/

    and

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/c...dia/index.html

    New Guidelines: 4 categories

    The CPS has said that an initial assessment of the content of the communications should be made to distinguish between:

    1. Communications which may constitute credible threats of violence to the person or damage to property.

    2. Communications which specifically target an individual or individuals and which may constitute harassment or stalking within the meaning of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

    3. Communications which may amount to a breach of a court order.

    4. Communications which do not fall into any of the categories above and fall to be considered separately (see below): i.e. those which may be considered grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false.

    The guidance states that communications falling within paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above should be prosecuted, providing they satisfy the two-stage test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. However, the guidance suggests that it may not be in the public interest to prosecute cases which fall into paragraph 4.

    In the document, the CPS have provided guidance on what is deemed to fall within paragraphs 1-4, above.

    The need for caution

    The document also expresses the need for caution in prosecuting these types of offences, stating that there is the potential for a “chilling effect” on free speech. It highlights the case of Paul Chambers, where the Lord Chief Justice stated:

    “… a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside [section 127(i)(a)], for the simple reason that the message lacks menace.…Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127 of the Communications Act 2003].“

    It also highlights Art.10 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

    “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers …“


    As well as the case of Sunday Times v UK (No 2) [1992] 14 EHRR 123:

    “Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society … it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also as to those that offend, shock or disturb …“

    And the case of DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40:

    “There can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context. The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates.“

    The document also details the public interest test in deciding whether to prosecute. It confirms that a prosecution is unlikely to be both necessary and proportionate where:

    1. The suspect has expressed genuine remorse;

    2. Swift and effective action has been taken by the suspect and/or others for example, service providers, to remove the communication in question or otherwise block access to it;

    3. The communication was not intended for a wide audience, nor was that the obvious consequence of sending the communication; particularly where the intended audience did not include the victim or target of the communication in question; or

    4. The content of the communication did not obviously go beyond what could conceivably be tolerable or acceptable in an open and diverse society which upholds and respects freedom of expression.

    It also touches upon the potential prosecutions of young people, and how prosecutions of such individuals will not usually be in the public interest.


    http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2013/06...-social-media/
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  7. #127
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Marikina City
    Posts
    26,785
    Rep Power
    150
    The High Court has previously ruled that defamation on internet bulletin boards is akin to slander rather than libel.

    Mr Justice Eady stated that posts on bulletin boards "are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out...Those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."
    As such "When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions...People do not often take a 'thread' and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it."

    Mr Justice Eady said that the comments were likely to be considered as 'fair comment' i.e. they cannot be considered as defamatory if they are posted without malice and represent the posters honest views: "I referred to common themes in the postings, such as that of 'bullying' other users and making 'threatening demands' for money. That is classic fair comment territory and, in the light of the modern authorities, it is inconceivable that a jury would find any of those who expressed such a view 'malicious' let alone all of them...Opinions may be expressed in exaggerated and strident terms; the only requirement is that they be honestly held. It is fanciful to suppose that any of these people did not believe what they were saying. Even if they reached their conclusions in haste, or on incomplete information, or irrationally, the defence would still avail them."

    Defamation has always been notoriously difficult to prove in court.
    Courts generally agree that an opinion, no matter how malicious, is not the same as a stated fact.


  8. #128
    Trusted Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pangasinan
    Posts
    25,596
    Rep Power
    150
    Thanks for clearing that up.

    Now, where were we ?


  9. #129
    Moderator Arthur Little's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    City of Perth, Scotland
    Posts
    24,230
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by grahamw48 View Post

    Now, where were we ?
    Dunno, Graham ... putting the boxing gloves away, perhaps.


  10. #130
    Respected Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,524
    Rep Power
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Dedworth View Post
    These slappers aren't posing for pics and looking smug now

    That cake eating session seems a long time ago now

    The penny has finally dropped for these 2 !


  11. #131
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150


    the problem is they said they were told it was 100% sure that they wouldn't get caught.
    but maybe they had a backup plan if they did


    Yesterday, they faced further questions about their version of events when photographs emerged of them sipping beer and posing on a hotel balcony in Peru.

    They claimed they were told to take photos of themselves at tourist spots to back up the cover story they would use at customs.


    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...t-in-handcuffs

    were they having a good time or did they fear for their lives
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  12. #132
    Moderator fred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    South,North East,somewhere.
    Posts
    11,433
    Rep Power
    150
    The two women had been working on the Spanish island of Ibiza, where they say they were snared by a drug cartel, robbed of their passports and phones and followed as they travelled on separate flights from Spain to Peru.

    The 31-year-old, who lived on the island with Ms McCollum Connolly, told the Daily Mirror that traffickers would loiter near bars and nightclubs and get teenagers hooked on drugs before forcing them to become dealers and drug mules after they racked up large debts.


    Mr Garcia, who works in Amsterdam Bar in San Antonio, told the newspaper: "I've seen British guys come into the bar to try and recruit girls. They get them hooked on coke, on all sorts of things, and then make them do terrible things.

    "They become low-level dealers at first. The gangs use the girls who work in clubs and bars to sell drugs to punters. That's how it starts. In return they get money and drugs on credit."

    Colonel Tito Perez Arrascue, of the National Police of Peru said the woman were not expected to be formally charged until Monday or Tuesday.

    He said: "We have to take care. It's not a simple process, we have to investigate the case piece by piece. They will stay here for 15 days while we investigate."

    Ms Reid and Ms McCollum Connolly could be held pre-charge for up to 30 days and then could spend up to three years in prison before a trial.

    If convicted, they could face lengthy sentences in an overcrowded Peruvian prison where they will have to pay for everything, including food and bedding.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/422...ocaine-smuggle



  13. #133
    Respected Member Ako Si Jamie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    7,191
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Dedworth View Post
    These slappers aren't posing for pics and looking smug now

    At least they've got a photo pictured next to Ricky Gervais.


  14. #134
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    Accused drug girl in 'taped' drug call

    COPS in Peru have a recording of a phone call telling an Irish girl arrested over a €1.7million cocaine haul how to smuggle drugs, it emerged yesterday.

    Prosecutors have said the call will form part of the case against accused 20-year-olds Michaella McCollum Connolly and Melissa Reid.

    The recording is allegedly of Michaella, from Dungannon, Northern Ireland, being told exactly what to do.


    read more here .. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...drug-call.html
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  15. #135
    Respected Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,524
    Rep Power
    109
    The father who went over there thinks that they should plead guilty
    He thinks their defense case is slim
    Plead guilty and try plea bargaining might be a better way forward for them


  16. #136
    Moderator joebloggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    23,162
    Rep Power
    150
    WORLD EXCLUSIVE Our real story, by Ibiza drug mules: Incredible account girls gave to police published IN FULL ... so judge for yourself whether they were terrified stooges or calculated criminals

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2d5L57Q00
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    http://www.filipinouk.com/forum/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=870&dateline=1270312908


  17. #137
    Respected Member Ako Si Jamie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    7,191
    Rep Power
    150


  18. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Southern England
    Posts
    5,102
    Rep Power
    0
    Nice one Jamie
    Those girls look like they could be kid sisters of the stricken 2


  19. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Southern England
    Posts
    5,102
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by joebloggs View Post
    WORLD EXCLUSIVE Our real story, by Ibiza drug mules: Incredible account girls gave to police published IN FULL ... so judge for yourself whether they were terrified stooges or calculated criminals

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2d5L57Q00
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    Im surprised The Mail gave it the time of day...must of been short of stories
    They've had their 15 minutes..i say leave them to it


  20. #140
    Respected Member Michael Parnham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Nottinghamshire
    Posts
    11,643
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by jamieXXXmaria View Post
    Brilliant Jamie!


  21. #141
    Respected Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Spain since 1988. My wife has been here since June 2006
    Posts
    2,384
    Rep Power
    99
    Deleted because of insults


  22. #142
    Respected Member SimonH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Pampamga
    Posts
    3,728
    Rep Power
    150
    So in summary, someone being charged with an alleged crime that happened many years ago has exactly what to do with this thread

    I'm not the judge and certainly not the jury in this case, but as with other people who have contributed, I am expressing an opinion based on the facts we have been given. Hopefully that isn't against the law now.


  23. #143
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Southern England
    Posts
    5,102
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SimonH View Post
    So in summary, someone being charged with an alleged crime that happened many years ago has exactly what to do with this thread

    I'm not the judge and certainly not the jury in this case, but as with other people who have contributed, I am expressing an opinion based on the facts we have been given. Hopefully that isn't against the law now.
    I agree Simon...I can't help thinking all that white powder found in their luggage isn't going to help them one iota

    Hardly a comparision to the ''Kevin Webster'' case.


  24. #144
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Marikina City
    Posts
    26,785
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by johncar54 View Post
    I think that many posters probably thought that in the 'Kevin Webster' case there would be a conviction; he was acquited.

    As I said in posts here. "Arrest does not mean guilty."

    He had the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

    The women in Peru deserve the same.
    The women in Peru have admitted having drugs in their possesion. They are claiming mitigating circumstances.


  25. #145
    Respected Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Spain since 1988. My wife has been here since June 2006
    Posts
    2,384
    Rep Power
    99
    Deleted because of insults


  26. #146
    Respected Member bigmarco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SW London
    Posts
    4,053
    Rep Power
    150
    Calm down John we're just a bunch of people with a lifetimes experience expressing our views on a couple of slappers who got caught with suitcases filled with drugs in a country on the other side of the world.
    You obviously come with a wealth of experience representing a profession that managed to secure convictions against
    The Birmingham 6, The Guilford 4, The McGuire 7, The Bridgwater4, The Cardiff 3, Stefan Kizko, Judith Ward, The M25 3, Barry George, The Cardiff newsagent 3, Sally Clark and many many more. We're not harming anybody by expressing our views and let's be grateful that Kevin Webster/Michael Le Vell wasn't investigated by the infamous West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad because he'd probably be just starting a 25 stretch


  27. #147
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Southern England
    Posts
    5,102
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bigmarco View Post
    Calm down John we're just a bunch of people with a lifetimes experience expressing our views on a couple of slappers who got caught with suitcases filled with drugs in a country on the other side of the world.
    You obviously come with a wealth of experience representing a profession that managed to secure convictions against
    The Birmingham 6, The Guilford 4, The McGuire 7, The Bridgwater4, The Cardiff 3, Stefan Kizko, Judith Ward, The M25 3, Barry George, The Cardiff newsagent 3, Sally Clark and many many more. We're not harming anybody by expressing our views and let's be grateful that Kevin Webster/Michael Le Vell wasn't investigated by the infamous West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad because he'd probably be just starting a 25 stretch
    Love it

    BTW...I sent you a rep for that..brilliant!

    Im not happy about the new payment system here..before you cld just enter your any old card number and pay what you like..now we got to use paypal...not happy with that

    Just a thought


  28. #148
    Respected Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Spain since 1988. My wife has been here since June 2006
    Posts
    2,384
    Rep Power
    99
    Bigmarco you seem have to missed my post where I said,

    If it was that cut and dried everyone charged with an offence would be found guilty. I don’t have that sort of confidence in the abilities of all police officers !

    I am the one (maybe the only one) who is defending the right of people that they should be considered innocent until proven guilty. If some here had their way, all of those who you quote would have been convicted (even without the juries who decided to find them guilty) without any right to appeal.


  29. #149
    Respected Member SimonH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Pampamga
    Posts
    3,728
    Rep Power
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by johncar54 View Post
    Bigmarco you seem have to missed my post where I said,

    If it was that cut and dried everyone charged with an offence would be found guilty. I don’t have that sort of confidence in the abilities of all police officers !

    I am the one (maybe the only one) who is defending the right of people that they should be considered innocent until proven guilty. If some here had their way, all of those who you quote would have been convicted (even without the juries who decided to find them guilty) without any right to appeal.

    Johncar54 it seems that you have missed everyone else's point with your:-

    1. Have you any idea who I was
    2. I used to do this for a living
    3. I know what I'm talking about
    4. Don't you dare express an opinion which differs from mine
    5. Did I mention I was in the force?

    attitude

    We, as a public forum quite often discuss what's happening in the world, but when it comes to anything legal YOU are the expert and portray your opinions in a belittling and arrogant manner. In this case you bring to your defence something totally irrelevant to the subject to try and reinforce your statement.
    Until we have all the facts all we can base our opinion on is what has been reported in the press, and no-one has said they're guilty, but that's what a lot of people think (again given the information we have been given).
    I for one will be happy to say I was wrong in my opinion if they are proven innocent, but I have to wonder if you will be as happy to say you were wrong if they are proven guilty
    Please don't stoop so low as to send me a personal message as you have in the past if you disagree with me, just say what you want to so everyone can read it.


  30. #150
    Trusted Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pangasinan
    Posts
    25,596
    Rep Power
    150


    .


Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How stupid can you get?
    By SimonH in forum News UK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 9th January 2015, 13:11
  2. How could I have been so stupid
    By Northerner in forum Courting, Relationships & Weddings
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 5th October 2009, 17:28
  3. Please help me I'm stupid! :-)
    By nigel in forum Help & Advice
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 22nd July 2008, 20:42

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Filipino Forum : Philippine Forum