May could face loss of seat over #Abbott comment electoral breach #GE17 #BBCQT

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:42 pm

As the SKWAWKBOX reported on Sunday, Theresa May has been reported to police over false claims she made during Friday’s BBC Question Time special about Diane Abbott and police DNA records.

May told the studio audience and millions of viewers around the country that Abbott had advocated the removal of the DNA samples of ‘criminals and terrorists’ from police databases – an accusation that is completely untrue.

Making false statements about a candidate’s ‘character or conduct’ during an election campaign is a criminal offence under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

Paul Cardin of the Wirral in it Together blog reported the matter initially to the Metropolitan Police, as May is based in Downing Street, but the Met has advised that the matter needs to be investigated by North Yorkshire Police (NYP), because the programme was filmed – and the alleged offence committed – in York. Cardin has formally complained to NYP and has submitted evidence, including video of May’s comments.

If found guilty, Mrs May would face both criminal penalties and the loss of her parliamentary seat – assuming of course that she wins it on Thursday.

This is not a merely theoretical possibility. In 2010, Phil Woolas – who had been a government minister until that year’s General Election – was investigated and found guilty of making false statements about his LibDem opponent in the General Election.

Woolas lost his seat and was barred from public office for three years.

Paul Cardin has also reported the matter to the Electoral Commission and directly to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The Prime Minister appears to have seriously overreached in making a statement about Ms Abbott that she must have known was untrue – on national television and with a clear intent to influence election results. It is to be hoped that North Yorkshire Police, the CPS and the Electoral Commission will treat the matter with the seriousness it deserves.

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/06/may-could-face-loss-of-seat-over-abbott-comment-electoral-breach-ge17-bbcqt/

Now, that would be justice.

by nicko Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:58 pm

by HoratioTarr Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:14 pm

On the Prime Minister's comments, Ms Abbott told The Independent: "It is unethical for hundreds of thousands of innocent people to have their DNA indefinitely held on what is essentially a government database of potential suspects.

Potential suspects. Just like the monsters who have recently slaughtered dozens of innocent people? Was their DNA on the database, I wonder?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/diane-abbott-labour-party-bbc-question-time-leader-debate-theresa-may-dna-database-untruth-a7770656.html

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:24 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:On the Prime Minister's comments, Ms Abbott told The Independent: "It is unethical for hundreds of thousands of innocent people to have their DNA indefinitely held on what is essentially a government database of potential suspects.

Potential suspects. Just like the monsters who have recently slaughtered dozens of innocent people? Was their DNA on the database, I wonder?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/diane-abbott-labour-party-bbc-question-time-leader-debate-theresa-may-dna-database-untruth-a7770656.html

So May is exonerated here.

Abbot would have removed their DNA, those who went onto then commit terrorist acts.

by HoratioTarr Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:26 pm

Thorin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:On the Prime Minister's comments, Ms Abbott told The Independent: "It is unethical for hundreds of thousands of innocent people to have their DNA indefinitely held on what is essentially a government database of potential suspects.

Potential suspects. Just like the monsters who have recently slaughtered dozens of innocent people? Was their DNA on the database, I wonder?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/diane-abbott-labour-party-bbc-question-time-leader-debate-theresa-may-dna-database-untruth-a7770656.html

So May is exonerated here.

Abbot would have removed their DNA, those who went onto then commit terrorist acts.

That might be the risk, and then imagine the stink!

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:31 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So May is exonerated here.

Abbot would have removed their DNA, those who went onto then commit terrorist acts.

That might be the risk, and then imagine the stink!

Imagine indeed. I fail to see why people have such an issue if they are innocent of having their DNA on such a database. As if anything having this is going to help clear them of false criminal claims or on a more sad note, could help identify, unidentifiable remains. It think it makes more sense that everyone has their DNA on a database.

I mean if people are innocent, and have nothing to hide, then why should not have any problem with doing this?

by Fred Moletrousers Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:33 pm

nicko wrote:

I know, Nicko, I know...Swarwkbox is just another Leftie site, like EvolvePolitics, that are set up specifically to churn out endless Labour propaganda material for people like Sassy to replicate in forums like this.

Good God, she'll start spamming us with the Rachael@Swindon site garbage next!!!!!

by Andy Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:37 pm

We are lucky that we we live in a country where the authorities decide who faces charges, not rw posters on a small , largely right wing, American forum.
Let the law run it's course. Let the police, CPS and the Electoral Commission investigate , and if appropriate come down like a ton of bricks.

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:41 pm

Angry Andy wrote:We are lucky that we we live in a country where the authorities decide who faces charges, not rw posters on a small , largely right wing, American forum.
Let the law run it's course. Let the police, CPS and the Electoral Commission investigate , and if appropriate come down like a ton of bricks.

I think it will get laughed at by both the CPS and the Police, as it reeks of desperation from Labour knowing they will lose this election.

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:54 pm

False statements as to candidates.

(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—

(a)before or during an election,

(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true.

(2)A candidate shall not be liable nor shall his election be avoided for any illegal practice under subsection (1) above committed by his agent other than his election agent unless—

(a)it can be shown that the candidate or his election agent has authorised or consented to the committing of the illegal practice by the other agent or has paid for the circulation of the false statement constituting the illegal practice; or

(b)an election court find and report that the election of the candidate was procured or materially assisted in consequence of the making or publishing of such false statements.

(3)A person making or publishing any false statement of fact as mentioned above may be restrained by interim or perpetual injunction by the High Court or the county court from any repetition of that false statement or of a false statement of a similar character in relation to the candidate and, for the purpose of granting an interim injunction, prima facie proof of the falsity of the statement shall be sufficient.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/section/106

Now May stating what she did is far removed from what Woolas did.

On Friday 28 May 2010, Woolas's Liberal Democrat opponent, Elwyn Watkins, issued an election petition against the result[40][41] under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983,[42][43][44] which makes it illegal to make false statements of fact about a candidate. Watkins claimed that leaflets issued by Woolas falsely portrayed him as taking unlawful foreign donations, and linked him to Muslim extremists.[45]

During the court case, held in public at Saddleworth Civic Hall, a number of emails between Woolas and his campaign team emerged. In one, Woolas's agent and former Labour councillor, Joseph Fitzpatrick emailed Woolas and Steven Green, the MP’s campaign adviser, to say: "Things are not going as well as I had hoped ... we need to think about our first attack leaflet."[46] A reply from Fitzpatrick said: "If we don’t get the white vote angry he’s gone." Some have criticised these tactics in light of significant existing racial tensions in the area.[47]

During the course of the court case, both Woolas and Fitzpatrick were cautioned by the presiding judge in respect of possible criminal charges relating to election offences. The court hearing finished on Friday 17 September 2010, with the judges reserving their judgement until 5 November 2010.[48] On that day Woolas was found to have breached section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.[49] The judges ruled that a fresh election for the seat should be held.[50] In a statement released through his lawyer, Woolas stated that "this election petition raised fundamental issues about the freedom to question and criticise politicians" and that it "will inevitably chill political speech".[51]

Phil Woolas applied for a judicial review into the ruling,[52] but as the Labour Party withdrew its support he had to finance it himself, and he started to ask for donations.[53] The High Court rejected his request for a judicial review.[54] Woolas launched a second judicial review, technically a renewed application for permission to seek judicial review, and was heard in person at the High Court on 16 November 2010.[55][56] The judges' decision took longer than expected, with them saying that there were "difficult questions to resolve".[57]

Following the initial court result, Woolas received goodwill messages from former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown and from Cherie Blair, wife of former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. Labour MP Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) was vocally supportive and criticised Harman and the party for suspending Woolas.[58]

A decision on this second request was published on 3 December 2010.[59] Woolas was accompanied to court by the Labour Shadow Health Secretary John Healey.[60] The court granted Woolas permission to bring judicial review and that review overturned one of the three breaches of the section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 found by the Election Court. The other two breaches stood: "this does not affect the certificate as the findings of an illegal practice in relation to the other two matters cannot be impugned".[59] On leaving court, Woolas said, "It is the end of the road – I am out."[61]by-election to elect a new Member of Parliament for his former seat was held on 13 January 2011,[62] in which the new Labour Party candidate Debbie Abrahams defeated Elwyn Watkins.
After the review ruling, a Labour spokesman said, "The Labour Party administratively suspended Phil Woolas after the original judgment of the election court. Following the conclusion of this judicial review, the Labour Party will consider this issue in detail and whether further action is appropriate."[63] Although the verdict of the election court indicated a prima facie breach of criminal law, in March 2011 the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it would not bring criminal charges against Woolas as the finding of the Election Court already disqualified him from holding elected office and they felt that this was sufficient punishment.[64] The CPS also declined to prosecute Joseph Fitzpatrick, who later stood unsuccessfully in Oldham as a Council candidate for the United Kingdom Independence Party, and although as election agent he was responsible for the items deemed to have broken the law, he suffered no penalty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Woolas#Election_court_case

There is no case against May, its not even the same ball park by any stretch of the imagination

Like I say this is desperation by those knowing they have lost the election

by HoratioTarr Tue Jun 06, 2017 5:59 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
nicko wrote:

I know, Nicko, I know...Swarwkbox is just another Leftie site, like EvolvePolitics, that are set up specifically to churn out endless Labour propaganda material for people like Sassy to replicate in forums like this.

Good God, she'll start spamming us with the Rachael@Swindon site garbage next!!!!!

Worse, it's on Wordpress! All that blathering about Conservative biased newspapers too.

by Fred Moletrousers Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:19 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I know, Nicko, I know...Swarwkbox is just another Leftie site, like EvolvePolitics, that are set up specifically to churn out endless Labour propaganda material for people like Sassy to replicate in forums like this.

Good God, she'll start spamming us with the Rachael@Swindon site garbage next!!!!!

Worse, it's on Wordpress! All that blathering about Conservative biased newspapers too.

The Daily Mail's established editorial policy is, and always has been, to support the Conservative and Unionist Party.

But anyone who actually reads the paper instead of simply believing what is said about it in one of the heavily-edited and biassed anti-Mail websites will know that it can also be one of the harshest critics of a Tory government in office.

Few newspapers actually "lie"...but their leader writers and columnists may well express opinions which conflict with those of others. To Sassy, any criticism of Corbyn and the Labour Party is, by definition, a lie.

People like Sassy and Andy are simply incapable of distinguishing between actual direct reporting of news (which usually in itself contains material from interviewees which is going to be strongly opposed by someone else) and the genuine freedom of expression which is afforded to principally freelance contributors such as Oborne, Littlejohn, Letts and Craig Brown.

Of course, as we all know, The Daily Mirror and The Guardian are all fonts of veracity, wisdom and truth.........

by Fred Moletrousers Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:23 pm

Angry Andy wrote:We are lucky that we we live in a country where the authorities decide who faces charges, not rw posters on a small , largely right wing, American forum.
Let the law run it's course. Let the police, CPS and the Electoral Commission investigate , and if appropriate come down like a ton of bricks.

Does the same principle apply to LW posters whose default position is to regard anyone as being guilty until proven innocent...so long as they are Tories, of course?

Otherwise I agree with you.

by Andy Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:29 pm

Applies to all posters. But LW on here are a tiny minority nowadays, many have gone , fed up with extremists anď crap modding (except Veya).

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:32 pm

Angry Andy wrote:Applies to all posters. But LW on here are a tiny minority nowadays, many have gone , fed up with extremists anď crap modding (except Veya).

Tiny minority?

Is this because these left wing posters are not Far Left enough for you, that you do not consider them left wing?

by Fred Moletrousers Tue Jun 06, 2017 6:55 pm

Angry Andy wrote:Applies to all posters. But LW on here are a tiny minority nowadays, many have gone , fed up with extremists anď crap modding (except Veya).

Perhaps all of us that you consider to be Right wing should also up sticks and quit...but where would that leave the forum?

Extremists? Who, exactly...apart, that is from Sassy, Wolfie and yourself?

Ah, but you're Left wing and therefore always in the right, aren't you? Er, aren't you?????

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:14 pm

My God you are an ignorant lot.

What Abbot actually said: "It is unethical for hundreds of thousands of innocent people to have their DNA indefinitely held on what is essentially a government database of potential suspects. - if they are not convicted for a crime

Now, I can hear the screams already, but guess what, the Dodgy One had better take himself over to the constituency office of his local MP, if he is re-elected, Damien Green:

Cut the DNA database down to size
Damian Green

Police have finally agreed to delete my DNA profile – now for all the other innocent people whose details are being held

One down, 800,000 to go. That was my first reaction to hearing that the police had agreed to take me off the national DNA database, on which my records have been sitting since I was arrested last November for embarrassing the government in a persistent and unhelpful fashion.

What is now important is that I am not treated differently just because I am an MP. There cannot be one rule for innocent public figures and another for innocent members of the public. In this regard the revelation of the inner thoughts of Acpo, the Association of Chief Police Officers, is both instructive and worrying.

Senior police officers have been "strongly advised" by Acpo that it is "vitally important" that they resist individual requests based on the recent European court ruling to remove DNA profiles from the national database in cases such as wrongful arrest or mistaken identity, or where no crime has been committed. The Metropolitan police have sensibly ignored this in my case, and other forces would be well advised to follow suit.

The home secretary is dragging his feet in producing even a consultation document in response to the European court's ruling, which destroys the legal basis of current policy. So the policy, which intrudes on the privacy of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, could remain in place for months.

Britain is at the extreme end of this kind of state intrusion. At the end of September 2008, the national DNA database contained computerised DNA profiles and linked DNA samples from approximately 4.7 million individuals (more than 7% of the UK population). This is a much higher proportion of the population than any other EU or G8 country.

What is particularly galling is that we do not even need to look outside the borders of the UK to find a better model. In Scotland the DNA profiles of those not convicted of an offence are retained only in circumstances relating to a crime of violence or a sexual offence. Even in these circumstances, DNA profiles can be retained for a period of three years subject to an extension to a maximum of five years.

The British used to pride themselves on a phrase that became a cliche. "This is a free country." By stealth we have become a citizenry whose masters distrust us the most. We are more spied on, interfered with and kept in check than the people of most other democracies. Across the political spectrum there is now a revolt against this. This revolt needs to grow and strengthen, and cutting the DNA database down to size is a good place to start.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/20/dna-database-profile-police#ampshare=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/20/dna-database-profile-police

Go on Dodge, off you trot like a good little RW extremist and tell him he's wrong.

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:16 pm

Thorin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

That might be the risk, and then imagine the stink!

Imagine indeed. I fail to see why people have such an issue if they are innocent of having their DNA on such a database. As if anything having this is going to help clear them of false criminal claims or on a more sad note, could help identify, unidentifiable remains. It think it makes more sense that everyone has their DNA on a database.

I mean if people are innocent, and have nothing to hide, then why should not have any problem with doing this?

He is wrong sassy, as seen by above with my views

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:20 pm

News just in lol

Met taking May electoral breach re Abbott ‘very seriously’ #GE17

As the SKWAWKBOX reported at the weekend, a viewer has made a formal complaint to police about Theresa May’s comments concerning Diane Abbott, which the Tory leader made during the BBC’s Question Time special.

The comments – that Abbott planned to wipe the DNA records of ‘criminals and terrorists’ from police databases – were without foundation and making a false statement about a candidate during an election period is a criminal offence under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

An offence that can result in disqualification from public office, as well as leading to criminal penalties.

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) had originally advised the complainant to report the matter to North Yorkshire Police, as the comments were made from a studio in York.

Now, in a remarkable turnaround, the MPS has decided that it will take on the case. A response from the MPS’ ‘SCO1 Special Investigations Team‘ confirms a case reference to the complaint and states that it is taking the allegations ‘very seriously‘.

A formal statement from the Met has been requested. Any further developments will be reported as they emerge.

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/06/met-taking-may-electoral-breach-re-abbott-very-seriously-ge17/

by SEXY MAMA Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:21 pm

Thorin wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

That might be the risk, and then imagine the stink!

Imagine indeed. I fail to see why people have such an issue if they are innocent of having their DNA on such a database. As if anything having this is going to help clear them of false criminal claims or on a more sad note, could help identify, unidentifiable remains. It think it makes more sense that everyone has their DNA on a database.

I mean if people are innocent, and have nothing to hide, then why should not have any problem with doing this?

You cannot be serious?

I used to be very naive like you and thought the same.

But have you

Never seen innocent people go to jail? The burden of proof will be on the innocent to prove their innocence the in this instance as it will be under terrisom acts!

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:23 pm

Thorin wrote:
False statements as to candidates.

(1)A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—

(a)before or during an election,

(b)for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true.

(2)A candidate shall not be liable nor shall his election be avoided for any illegal practice under subsection (1) above committed by his agent other than his election agent unless—

(a)it can be shown that the candidate or his election agent has authorised or consented to the committing of the illegal practice by the other agent or has paid for the circulation of the false statement constituting the illegal practice; or

(b)an election court find and report that the election of the candidate was procured or materially assisted in consequence of the making or publishing of such false statements.

(3)A person making or publishing any false statement of fact as mentioned above may be restrained by interim or perpetual injunction by the High Court or the county court from any repetition of that false statement or of a false statement of a similar character in relation to the candidate and, for the purpose of granting an interim injunction, prima facie proof of the falsity of the statement shall be sufficient.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/section/106

Now May stating what she did is far removed from what Woolas did.

On Friday 28 May 2010, Woolas's Liberal Democrat opponent, Elwyn Watkins, issued an election petition against the result[40][41] under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983,[42][43][44] which makes it illegal to make false statements of fact about a candidate. Watkins claimed that leaflets issued by Woolas falsely portrayed him as taking unlawful foreign donations, and linked him to Muslim extremists.[45]

During the court case, held in public at Saddleworth Civic Hall, a number of emails between Woolas and his campaign team emerged. In one, Woolas's agent and former Labour councillor, Joseph Fitzpatrick emailed Woolas and Steven Green, the MP’s campaign adviser, to say: "Things are not going as well as I had hoped ... we need to think about our first attack leaflet."[46] A reply from Fitzpatrick said: "If we don’t get the white vote angry he’s gone." Some have criticised these tactics in light of significant existing racial tensions in the area.[47]

During the course of the court case, both Woolas and Fitzpatrick were cautioned by the presiding judge in respect of possible criminal charges relating to election offences. The court hearing finished on Friday 17 September 2010, with the judges reserving their judgement until 5 November 2010.[48] On that day Woolas was found to have breached section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.[49] The judges ruled that a fresh election for the seat should be held.[50] In a statement released through his lawyer, Woolas stated that "this election petition raised fundamental issues about the freedom to question and criticise politicians" and that it "will inevitably chill political speech".[51]

Phil Woolas applied for a judicial review into the ruling,[52] but as the Labour Party withdrew its support he had to finance it himself, and he started to ask for donations.[53] The High Court rejected his request for a judicial review.[54] Woolas launched a second judicial review, technically a renewed application for permission to seek judicial review, and was heard in person at the High Court on 16 November 2010.[55][56] The judges' decision took longer than expected, with them saying that there were "difficult questions to resolve".[57]

Following the initial court result, Woolas received goodwill messages from former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown and from Cherie Blair, wife of former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. Labour MP Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) was vocally supportive and criticised Harman and the party for suspending Woolas.[58]

A decision on this second request was published on 3 December 2010.[59] Woolas was accompanied to court by the Labour Shadow Health Secretary John Healey.[60] The court granted Woolas permission to bring judicial review and that review overturned one of the three breaches of the section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 found by the Election Court. The other two breaches stood: "this does not affect the certificate as the findings of an illegal practice in relation to the other two matters cannot be impugned".[59] On leaving court, Woolas said, "It is the end of the road – I am out."[61]by-election to elect a new Member of Parliament for his former seat was held on 13 January 2011,[62] in which the new Labour Party candidate Debbie Abrahams defeated Elwyn Watkins.
After the review ruling, a Labour spokesman said, "The Labour Party administratively suspended Phil Woolas after the original judgment of the election court. Following the conclusion of this judicial review, the Labour Party will consider this issue in detail and whether further action is appropriate."[63] Although the verdict of the election court indicated a prima facie breach of criminal law, in March 2011 the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it would not bring criminal charges against Woolas as the finding of the Election Court already disqualified him from holding elected office and they felt that this was sufficient punishment.[64] The CPS also declined to prosecute Joseph Fitzpatrick, who later stood unsuccessfully in Oldham as a Council candidate for the United Kingdom Independence Party, and although as election agent he was responsible for the items deemed to have broken the law, he suffered no penalty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Woolas#Election_court_case

There is no case against May, its not even the same ball park by any stretch of the imagination

Like I say this is desperation by those knowing they have lost the election

The Police will laugh at this and again the site claiming this is by a Far Left conspiracy nutball

Funny how none of the main media are claiming this

That might give you a clue sassy

So no response to my post

Now I certainly do not agree with things Tory Mp's say, on certain topics

hence why your reply was laughable

Now tackle my points with your own views

In your own time

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:24 pm

SEXY MAMA wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Imagine indeed. I fail to see why people have such an issue if they are innocent of having their DNA on such a database. As if anything having this is going to help clear them of false criminal claims or on a more sad note, could help identify, unidentifiable remains. It think it makes more sense that everyone has their DNA on a database.

I mean if people are innocent, and have nothing to hide, then why should not have any problem with doing this?

You cannot be serious?

I used to be very naive like you and thought the same.

But have you

Never seen innocent people go to jail? The burden of proof will be on the innocent to prove their innocence the in this instance as it will be under terrisom acts!

Why would innocent people go to jail with their DNA on a database?

So yes i am very serious, please explain how having everyone's DNA on a system is wrong?

How will the burden of proof be on the innocent?

by SEXY MAMA Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:30 pm

Thorin wrote:
SEXY MAMA wrote:

You cannot be serious?

I used to be very naive like you and thought the same.

But have you

Never seen innocent people go to jail? The burden of proof will be on the innocent to prove their innocence the in this instance as it will be under terrisom acts!

Why would innocent people go to jail with their DNA on a database?

So yes i am very serious, please explain how having everyone's DNA on a system is wrong?

How will the burden of proof be on the innocent?

As I said earlier you are being way naive.

Half the time people haven't even committed the bloody crime and they are detained and awaiting some sort of trial. Look at the stats for yourself.

Young Black people and Asians and Muslims in particular are very vulnerable.

Technology is easily manipulated

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:34 pm

SEXY MAMA wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Why would innocent people go to jail with their DNA on a database?

So yes i am very serious, please explain how having everyone's DNA on a system is wrong?

How will the burden of proof be on the innocent?

As I said earlier you are being way naive.

Half the time people haven't even committed the bloody crime and they are detained and awaiting some sort of trial. Look at the stats for yourself.

Young Black people and Asians and Muslims in particular are very vulnerable.

Technology is easily manipulated

1) Really, because you say so?

2) That is not people being convicted because of their DNA on a system

3) That is because they are likely to be involved in more crime in city areas.

4) So now you claim conspiracy, woo

5) So again you failed to answer my questions

Why would innocent people go to jail with their DNA on a database?

So yes i am very serious, please explain how having everyone's DNA on a system is wrong?

How will the burden of proof be on the innocent?

by Victorismyhero Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:36 pm

the only problem Thorin, is that our authorities, are not the snow white innocents you seem to think, and the concept of justice is to them an embarassing inconvenience....

juries are (being a cross section of the general public) generally scientifically illiterate and a statement to the fact that Mr X's DNA was found at the scene of a crime is an automatic guilty verdict

this DESPITE then fact that your DNA could be there for ANY number of innocent reasons...
DNA evidence is persistant in the environment
the fact you walked through that area an hour before the crime, smoking a fag and dropped the butt could end up with you in the dock on a murder charge....and if the police could not find the real perp...ah well you will do as well as anyone else.....

Juries by and large are fair...but stupid...scientific evidence stuns their critical thinking faculty and would overide all the other evidence.....probably even a gold plated invitation to be with the pope, sworn to and attested by his holiness at the precise time it happened

by Victorismyhero Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:37 pm

too many fools watch CSI and think dna evidence is infallible

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 10:41 pm

Lord Foul wrote:the only problem Thorin, is that our authorities, are not the snow white innocents you seem to think, and the concept of justice is to them an embarassing inconvenience....

juries are (being a cross section of the general public) generally scientifically illiterate and a statement to the fact that Mr X's DNA was found at the scene of a crime is an automatic guilty verdict

this DESPITE then fact that your DNA could be there for ANY number of innocent reasons...
DNA evidence is persistant in the environment
the fact you walked through that area an hour before the crime, smoking a fag and dropped the butt could end up with you in the dock on a murder charge....and if the police could not find the real perp...ah well you will do as well as anyone else.....

Juries by and large are fair...but stupid...scientific evidence stuns their critical thinking faculty and would overide all the other evidence.....probably even a gold plated invitation to be with the pope, sworn to and attested by his holiness at the precise time it happened

1) So the bases for your arguments is that you also believe that most must be corrupt and you base this off what exactly? That our British legal system is unfair?

firstly I didnt say all...so thats that straw man burned...secondly its not the first time evidence has bee tampered with nor would it be the first time police have "lost (cough cough) evidence that was embarassing to their case.

2) No its not an automatic guilty sentence at all, because there has to me a multitude of evidence. There could be many varying reasons why DNA is there and plausible explanations

annnnd...so my Dna is found at the scene of a crime..at the time I was alone in the woodland.....I fuel up a couple of days before in most cases, and do not have any communication with anyone on the way there...I see no one whiule I'm up there and then return...i havnt needed to refuel...and I have no contact with anyone on the return....WHAT "multitude of evidence" is there I could provide NO proof odf where I was

3) So your view is on now your poor view of people as jurors and again i ask based on what. Exactly how many miscarriages of justice are we talking about from jurors?

Most jurors havnt a clue about scientific evidence nor its value or lack therof in any particular case...hell most of them dont even know the law as applies to juries....

4) So again i ask, how and why is it wrong for all people to have their DNA on a system? The whole bases of your argument is based on a what if and that what if you have failed to provide any evidence its valid

Now there has been very few cases of miscarriage and if that is the bases for your claim, then we might as well not hold any DNA of anyone, including convicted criminals,as the same reasoning can apply.

So which is it?

Hold none or all?
and the biggest objection to everyone being on that data base is security...hell the incompetant numptys in the govt cant even keep their bog paper stash secure...
immagine the value of that dna profile of EVERYONE to say...the insurance business..

and its NOT a "binary choice"...some should be held, known and properly convicted criminals (and terrorist suspects) should be on there...tghose never charged or proven innocent should not

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:28 pm

1) No its not burned at all because you have made very sweeping statements and failing to understand the advances in methods of DNA testing. So you are not getting of that lightly at all here. Here we go again with claims to tampering and i ask, How many cases are we talking about with actual DNA evidence?

2) How would it still point the crime to you? Sorry but just because your DNA is there does not make you guilty of a crime or then for the CPS to even start a prosecution against you. There has to be a motive and countless other evidence that would point you to committing the crime. Sorry that was poor to say the least and shows you do not understand the workings of the CPS on prosecutions.

3) Here we go again with this assertion over understanding DNA. So the bases now for your claim is that Jurors require being experts in a multitude of fields, to be selected. When they only require or need a basic understanding. Where again the reason you post this is based again on the view to skewing the evidence. Even though the worlds worst lawyer would be able to pick holes into such evidence with their own scientific team. Or had you not even thought of that? You see the bases of your claim seems to seriously think Defense lawyers are clueless, when its far easier or them to show doubt, than the prosecution with guilt with the evidence.

4) So to sum up, we have a what if on security, a what if on a miscarriage of justice, and countless claims to slate our legal system and people in general in jurors. Neglecting that your view would nullify there being any DNA being allowed to be held, as all your poor what if arguments can be applied to previous convicted criminals

SO i ask again, where is the corroborating evidence for your claims on the above and that you have to make a stark choice here. You cannot argue against all being on a DNA base, without calling for all to be removed. Your reasons claimed incompetence, a claimed lack of understanding, even though that was about your weakest argument. Skewing the evidence, a miscarriage of justice etc, all of which can be applied to those who have served their convictions and could fall foul of this happening to them, based on holding their DNA.

Its either one or the other.

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:39 pm

I will catch up on this tomorrow, as am tired.

Night Victor

Night everyone

by Victorismyhero Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:39 pm

you watch too much CSI

by Guest Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:41 pm

Lord Foul wrote:you watch too much CSI

I dont watch CSI at all

That is misdirection and you know it

Night mate

by eddie Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:06 am

by 'Wolfie Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:29 am

SEXY MAMA wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Why would innocent people go to jail with their DNA on a database?

So yes i am very serious, please explain how having everyone's DNA on a system is wrong?

How will the burden of proof be on the innocent?

As I said earlier you are being way naive.

Half the time people haven't even committed the bloody crime and they are detained and awaiting some sort of trial. Look at the stats for yourself.

Young Black people and Asians and Muslims in particular are very vulnerable.

Technology is easily manipulated

Also, there could be the case where some DNA is found after a crime, especially after a terrorist incident...

While waiting to narrow down the DNA match, the authorities could round up several siblings and cousins while looking for one culprit..

Under British law, in the meanwhile all of those "supects" could be locked up for weeks..

Lose your job;
Lose your house;
Have your name & reputation permanently sullied ?

"Tough titties" !!!

You may well won't be eligible for any compensation or recompense -- or if you are, it could well be "too little too late"..

Often in those cases, affected innocent people are seen to be considered "acceptable collateral damage" by many governments.

by 'Wolfie Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:37 am

Lord Foul wrote:the only problem Thorin, is that our authorities, are not the snow white innocents you seem to think, and the concept of justice is to them an embarassing inconvenience....

juries are (being a cross section of the general public) generally scientifically illiterate and a statement to the fact that Mr X's DNA was found at the scene of a crime is an automatic guilty verdict

this DESPITE then fact that your DNA could be there for ANY number of innocent reasons...
DNA evidence is persistant in the environment
the fact you walked through that area an hour before the crime, smoking a fag and dropped the butt could end up with you in the dock on a murder charge....and if the police could not find the real perp...ah well you will do as well as anyone else.....

Juries by and large are fair...but stupid...scientific evidence stuns their critical thinking faculty and would overide all the other evidence.....probably even a gold plated invitation to be with the pope, sworn to and attested by his holiness at the precise time it happened

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

cheers

What Victor said...

by Guest Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:39 am

Here we go again.

I keep seeing claims to wrongs, without any hard evidence.

Well lets put it this way, are people really suggesting innocent people will get locked up because of their DNA on a system?

When in every case their DNA would be collected of suspects anyway?

Again I beg the question why are people so paranoid and not trusting of our systems?

Cases can be hampered in any shape or form and if they want to get you, they will. So the views being made are born more from those who wish to hide things and not help the state solve problems.

People who are innocent do not have anything to hide

by Guest Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:40 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:the only problem Thorin, is that our authorities, are not the snow white innocents you seem to think, and the concept of justice is to them an embarassing inconvenience....

juries are (being a cross section of the general public) generally scientifically illiterate and a statement to the fact that Mr X's DNA was found at the scene of a crime is an automatic guilty verdict

this DESPITE then fact that your DNA could be there for ANY number of innocent reasons...
DNA evidence is persistant in the environment
the fact you walked through that area an hour before the crime, smoking a fag and dropped the butt could end up with you in the dock on a murder charge....and if the police could not find the real perp...ah well you will do as well as anyone else.....

Juries by and large are fair...but stupid...scientific evidence stuns their critical thinking faculty and would overide all the other evidence.....probably even a gold plated invitation to be with the pope, sworn to and attested by his holiness at the precise time it happened

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What Victor said...

And for you to try and answer Smile

1) No its not burned at all because you have made very sweeping statements and failing to understand the advances in methods of DNA testing. So you are not getting of that lightly at all here. Here we go again with claims to tampering and i ask, How many cases are we talking about with actual DNA evidence?

2) How would it still point the crime to you? Sorry but just because your DNA is there does not make you guilty of a crime or then for the CPS to even start a prosecution against you. There has to be a motive and countless other evidence that would point you to committing the crime. Sorry that was poor to say the least and shows you do not understand the workings of the CPS on prosecutions.

3) Here we go again with this assertion over understanding DNA. So the bases now for your claim is that Jurors require being experts in a multitude of fields, to be selected. When they only require or need a basic understanding. Where again the reason you post this is based again on the view to skewing the evidence. Even though the worlds worst lawyer would be able to pick holes into such evidence with their own scientific team. Or had you not even thought of that? You see the bases of your claim seems to seriously think Defense lawyers are clueless, when its far easier or them to show doubt, than the prosecution with guilt with the evidence.

4) So to sum up, we have a what if on security, a what if on a miscarriage of justice, and countless claims to slate our legal system and people in general in jurors. Neglecting that your view would nullify there being any DNA being allowed to be held, as all your poor what if arguments can be applied to previous convicted criminals

SO i ask again, where is the corroborating evidence for your claims on the above and that you have to make a stark choice here. You cannot argue against all being on a DNA base, without calling for all to be removed. Your reasons claimed incompetence, a claimed lack of understanding, even though that was about your weakest argument. Skewing the evidence, a miscarriage of justice etc, all of which can be applied to those who have served their convictions and could fall foul of this happening to them, based on holding their DNA.

Its either one or the other.

by 'Wolfie Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:42 am

Thorin wrote:1) No its not burned at all because you have made very sweeping statements and failing to understand the advances in methods of DNA testing. So you are not getting of that lightly at all here. Here we go again with claims to tampering and i ask, How many cases are we talking about with actual DNA evidence?

2) How would it still point the crime to you? Sorry but just because your DNA is there does not make you guilty of a crime or then for the CPS to even start a prosecution against you. There has to be a motive and countless other evidence that would point you to committing the crime. Sorry that was poor to say the least and shows you do not understand the workings of the CPS on prosecutions.

3) Here we go again with this assertion over understanding DNA. So the bases now for your claim is that Jurors require being experts in a multitude of fields, to be selected. When they only require or need a basic understanding. Where again the reason you post this is based again on the view to skewing the evidence. Even though the worlds worst lawyer would be able to pick holes into such evidence with their own scientific team. Or had you not even thought of that? You see the bases of your claim seems to seriously think Defense lawyers are clueless, when its far easier or them to show doubt, than the prosecution with guilt with the evidence.

4) So to sum up, we have a what if on security, a what if on a miscarriage of justice, and countless claims to slate our legal system and people in general in jurors. Neglecting that your view would nullify there being any DNA being allowed to be held, as all your poor what if arguments can be applied to previous convicted criminals

SO i ask again, where is the corroborating evidence for your claims on the above and that you have to make a stark choice here. You cannot argue against all being on a DNA base, without calling for all to be removed. Your reasons claimed incompetence, a claimed lack of understanding, even though that was about your weakest argument. Skewing the evidence, a miscarriage of justice etc, all of which can be applied to those who have served their convictions and could fall foul of this happening to them, based on holding their DNA.

Its either one or the other.

More ignorant rants and waffling misdirection from the trusty ol' doddery Thorin....

by Guest Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:45 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Thorin wrote:1) No its not burned at all because you have made very sweeping statements and failing to understand the advances in methods of DNA testing. So you are not getting of that lightly at all here. Here we go again with claims to tampering and i ask, How many cases are we talking about with actual DNA evidence?

2) How would it still point the crime to you? Sorry but just because your DNA is there does not make you guilty of a crime or then for the CPS to even start a prosecution against you. There has to be a motive and countless other evidence that would point you to committing the crime. Sorry that was poor to say the least and shows you do not understand the workings of the CPS on prosecutions.

3) Here we go again with this assertion over understanding DNA. So the bases now for your claim is that Jurors require being experts in a multitude of fields, to be selected. When they only require or need a basic understanding. Where again the reason you post this is based again on the view to skewing the evidence. Even though the worlds worst lawyer would be able to pick holes into such evidence with their own scientific team. Or had you not even thought of that? You see the bases of your claim seems to seriously think Defense lawyers are clueless, when its far easier or them to show doubt, than the prosecution with guilt with the evidence.

4) So to sum up, we have a what if on security, a what if on a miscarriage of justice, and countless claims to slate our legal system and people in general in jurors. Neglecting that your view would nullify there being any DNA being allowed to be held, as all your poor what if arguments can be applied to previous convicted criminals

SO i ask again, where is the corroborating evidence for your claims on the above and that you have to make a stark choice here. You cannot argue against all being on a DNA base, without calling for all to be removed. Your reasons claimed incompetence, a claimed lack of understanding, even though that was about your weakest argument. Skewing the evidence, a miscarriage of justice etc, all of which can be applied to those who have served their convictions and could fall foul of this happening to them, based on holding their DNA.

Its either one or the other.

More ignorant rants and waffling misdirection from the trusty ol' doddery Thorin....

Oh do grow up you silly little child and stop spoiling the threads

Now if you cannot answer my points, then do what you always do, act like a wally and sulk

Smile

by The Devil, You Know Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:13 pm

the thing is everything being thrown at corbyn and his cronies is documented fact from his 30+ years of anti british sentiment.

by veya_victaous Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:57 am

by nicko Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:36 am

Pathetic

by Andy Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:30 am

But if it was Abbott, would you say the same?
In case you forgot, Abbott is also a black lady. Possibly a reason for the hate towards her?

by eddie Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:09 pm

Angry Andy wrote:But if it was Abbott, would you say the same?
In case you forgot, Abbott is also a black lady. Possibly a reason for the hate towards her?

Strangely, you're the only one who sees her colour before seeing the person.

I'd absorb that sentence if I were you - try and work out what it might mean.

by Sponsored content