Manchester Airport police assault trial | Man found guilty of assaulting two female police officers

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

We need to recall the way some sections of the press stirred it up against the police in the days after the attack, implying the incident was some unhinged, racially motivated beating by cops on two innocent men. Took days for the video of the assault that provoked it to come out. Does not help the temperature in the country when the press do this.

So we reign in the media but members of the public are posting images on social media and fanning the flames there.

 

[i kne albert davy]

I think these wankers will get away with it

Not a chance in today’s climate mate, the two tier Kier would go into overdrive.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

But not necessarily be held on remand.

The interesting thing as well is the percentages of those charged that chose to plead guilty. It was conspicuously high, especially minors where 71 out of 73 pleaded guilty - 97%.

For indictable offenses, around 65-70% of defendants typically plead guilty at the first hearing according to Ministry of Justice data from recent years, with rates decreasing for more serious public order and riot-related charges!

So whilst not conclusive, it does appear that they were coerced into pleadung guilty when in some cases they perhaps should not have done so. There's at least one case I'm aware of where the individual absolutely did not riot, merely protested and yet received a custodial sentence. Appalling.

That theory is for another thread.

 

[Pancake Arse]

I think these wankers will get away with it

Looking at what's currently going on in Epping, if this happens then God help us.
I can't understand why it's taking so long. It's all on video, they can't deny what they did, it should've been done and dusted in the time it takes to show the video
This is all about their lawyer trying to make a name for himself

 

[i kne albert davy]

Looking at what's currently going on in Epping, if this happens then God help us.
I can't understand why it's taking so long. It's all on video, they can't deny what they did, it should've been done and dusted in the time it takes to show the video
This is all about their lawyer trying to make a name for himself

I think it’s all about staying out of prison as long as possible, they know that they’re going inside for quite a fair while and probably a bit longer for dragging it out. Like you say just a politically minded lawyer trying to stir more shit up in all honesty they can’t think anyone could believe the shite they’re coming out with on the witness stand.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Looking at what's currently going on in Epping, if this happens then God help us.
I can't understand why it's taking so long. It's all on video, they can't deny what they did, it should've been done and dusted in the time it takes to show the video
This is all about their lawyer trying to make a name for himself

Why? If they are found not guilty in a court of law then that is the verdict of the state. If the result is what is happening in Epping then that is anarchy. Its up to you whether you prefer the rule of law or anarchy but I can assure you the latter will have bad consequences. Personally - not expressing a view on proceeding because thats dangerously close to contempt - I'd go for the law.

I didn't like it when I was found a few MPH over a speed limit but thats the law and I paid the fine.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I think it’s all about staying out of prison as long as possible, they know that they’re going inside for quite a fair while and probably a bit longer for dragging it out. Like you say just a politically minded lawyer trying to stir more shit up in all honesty they can’t think anyone could believe the shite they’re coming out with on the witness stand.

The court will recognise this - thats why a guilty plea gets you a lower sentence

 

[i kne albert davy]

Why? If they are found not guilty in a court of law then that is the verdict of the state. If the result is what is happening in Epping then that is anarchy. Its up to you whether you prefer the rule of law or anarchy but I can assure you the latter will have bad consequences. Personally - not expressing a view on proceeding because thats dangerously close to contempt - I'd go for the law.

I didn't like it when I was found a few MPH over a speed limit but thats the law and I paid the fine.

I think I’ve seen something similar posted in the Palestinian Action thread not by you obviously, but like you say it’s whether you prefer the rule of law or not :-)

 

[Coatigan]

They (the BBC) have turned into a truly revolting organisation haven't they. They get on the wrong side of the argument every fucking time. I can't bear to listen to them with their constant political preaching. And if you complain they just write back and tell you (in terms) to fuck off. 1 complaint in every 600 million is upheld. Shameful.

I would disband them immediately and save us all a fortune.

Mrs Brown's boys FFS.

Have you ever considered it might be You that's on the wrong side of the argument if it is every time?

But that aside, mostly agree on the BBC. And fully on Mrs. Brown's Boys.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I think I’ve seen something similar posted in the Palestinian Action thread not by you obviously, but like you say it’s whether you prefer the rule of law or not :-)

Yeah - as concluded for Keecap today - some people can get het up about a thing but that doesn't make it illegal

 

[Chippy_boy]

Have you ever considered it might be You that's on the wrong side of the argument if it is every time?

But that aside, mostly agree on the BBC. And fully on Mrs. Brown's Boys.

Me? Wrong?

Impossible ;-)

 

[mr t]

Who knows what the jury will decide?

I watched something recently where someone was stabbed to death and the accused was found not guilty of murder even though there seemed to be evidence to the contrary. The accused gave ‘no comment’ interviews when presented with evidence and questions and offered no defence in court.

A police officer said they were nervous about the verdict as throughout the trial some members of the jury seemed besotted with the accused and couldn’t keep their eyes off them and actively seemed to engage with them without actually speaking.

 

[Bill Walker]

A police officer said they were nervous about the verdict as throughout the trial some members of the jury seemed besotted with the accused and couldn’t keep their eyes off them and actively seemed to engage with them without actually speaking.

This is where the jury system is massively flawed.
It's actually a shit system.
Jurors, like all humans, are subject to societal biases and prejudices that can influence their interpretation of evidence and their decisions. Does anyone think a jury of white Anglophile people would bring down the same verdict as a Moslem jury ? It's like the John Grisham books in the deep south where a black man was accused of murder, the defence lawyer tried to get black people on the jury and the prosecution tried to get middle class white people on there. People who looked down at black people.

Jurors may distort evidence to fit their preferred verdict or give more weight to evidence supporting their initial inclinations.
Lawyers can dismiss potential jurors without giving a reason, potentially allowing for the selection of juries that are more sympathetic to their side.

Jurors, often without legal training, must comprehend complex legal concepts and evidence, potentially leading to misinterpretations.

It's very flawed.

 

[KS55]

This is where the jury system is massively flawed.
It's actually a shit system.
Jurors, like all humans, are subject to societal biases and prejudices that can influence their interpretation of evidence and their decisions. Does anyone think a jury of white Anglophile people would bring down the same verdict as a Moslem jury ? It's like the John Grisham books in the deep south where a black man was accused of murder, the defence lawyer tried to get black people on the jury and the prosecution tried to get middle class white people on there. People who looked down at black people.

Jurors may distort evidence to fit their preferred verdict or give more weight to evidence supporting their initial inclinations.
Lawyers can dismiss potential jurors without giving a reason, potentially allowing for the selection of juries that are more sympathetic to their side.

Jurors, often without legal training, must comprehend complex legal concepts and evidence, potentially leading to misinterpretations.

It's very flawed.

US and UK have different rules about jury selection. UK is more limited in the ability to challenge. In the UK any challenge must be for cause and the grounds are very specific. Challenges not for cause are not allowed. UK juries are thus more random.
There has been some UK discussion of replacing jurors with lay assessors in certain types of case, eg fraud. Not sure where that currently stands. Ask a lawyer!
Remember that 98% of cases are in front of magistrates, no jury.

 

[Fordyboy46]

Looking at what's currently going on in Epping, if this happens then God help us.
I can't understand why it's taking so long. It's all on video, they can't deny what they did, it should've been done and dusted in the time it takes to show the video
This is all about their lawyer trying to make a name for himself

All hell will break out if they escape sentence

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

This is where the jury system is massively flawed.
It's actually a shit system.
Jurors, like all humans, are subject to societal biases and prejudices that can influence their interpretation of evidence and their decisions. Does anyone think a jury of white Anglophile people would bring down the same verdict as a Moslem jury ? It's like the John Grisham books in the deep south where a black man was accused of murder, the defence lawyer tried to get black people on the jury and the prosecution tried to get middle class white people on there. People who looked down at black people.

Jurors may distort evidence to fit their preferred verdict or give more weight to evidence supporting their initial inclinations.
Lawyers can dismiss potential jurors without giving a reason, potentially allowing for the selection of juries that are more sympathetic to their side.

Jurors, often without legal training, must comprehend complex legal concepts and evidence, potentially leading to misinterpretations.

It's very flawed.

It’s widely accepted that different courts tend to give different outcomes in criminal trials. Assault trials in Stoke tend to end in acquittals, dwelling burglary trials in Worcester and Warwick almost always end in conviction for example.

So it is a flawed system, without a doubt, but what’s the alternative? Case hardened, cynical judges making the decision? I can’t think of any other alternatives, although who knows how AI may come to play a part in the justice system in the future.

 

[hilts]

We have been through this before, he can get 5.

That's more than you get for chopping down a tree, worlds gone mad:-)

 

[East Level 2]

They reported him as a student they could have omitted that pathetic attempt at sympathy or actually explained that's how the vile bastard was described.

They could also say what he was studying and where, just to add some authenticity.

 

[Bigga]

Officer! 5ft 2 and 8 stone. And not carrying a firearm so not even got that advantage

I'm only just reading the thread to this point and have to respond, objectively.

Is equality not a thing here? A female officer goes into the job expecting the same treatment by her colleagues, so why not on the street with bad individuals? I would assume all the training is the same, so if a male colleague has to think about whether a female officer can cope, physically, with a confrontation that, surely, puts his own safety in question, that has to be a situation to be looked at by the organisation for that particular female officer.

It's red meat for those that don't believe women should be doing the similar physical/ dangerous jobs that men are capable of or be on the same pay structure if that's the case.

 

[Chippy_boy]

This is where the jury system is massively flawed.
It's actually a shit system.
Jurors, like all humans, are subject to societal biases and prejudices that can influence their interpretation of evidence and their decisions. Does anyone think a jury of white Anglophile people would bring down the same verdict as a Moslem jury ? It's like the John Grisham books in the deep south where a black man was accused of murder, the defence lawyer tried to get black people on the jury and the prosecution tried to get middle class white people on there. People who looked down at black people.

Jurors may distort evidence to fit their preferred verdict or give more weight to evidence supporting their initial inclinations.
Lawyers can dismiss potential jurors without giving a reason, potentially allowing for the selection of juries that are more sympathetic to their side.

Jurors, often without legal training, must comprehend complex legal concepts and evidence, potentially leading to misinterpretations.

It's very flawed.

Step in ChatGPT.

I made this comment somewhat tongue in cheek but actually I can envisage a time in the future where this could be the way forward.

It already has consummate legal knowledge. There's perhaps not much more capability needed for it to be able to hear all the evidence and come up with a verdict, and a sentence. Perhaps it has some in built biases from its training data, but honestly even without ironing that out, it seems much less biased to me than people are, already.