|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 19, 2023 18:50:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 19, 2023 19:20:27 GMT
Don't blame him one bit. Why should he have to declare his profession? What relevance is it to the case?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 19, 2023 19:24:21 GMT
Don't blame him one bit. Why should he have to declare his profession? What relevance is it to the case?NONE.....I was just pointing out the fact that is trial by media these days... |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 19, 2023 19:26:50 GMT
Don't blame him one bit. Why should he have to declare his profession? What relevance is it to the case?NONE.....I was just pointing out the fact that is trial by media these days... Yep. And the Daily Mail have effectively proved him right - this wouldn't even be a story if he was an accountant. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 19, 2023 19:28:26 GMT
NONE.....I was just pointing out the fact that is trial by media these days... Yep. And the Daily Mail have effectively proved him right - this wouldn't even be a story if he was an accountant.Exactly.. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 20, 2023 8:38:28 GMT
I suspect he has probably lost his career even though found not guilty
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 20, 2023 9:46:57 GMT
Don't blame him one bit. Why should he have to declare his profession? What relevance is it to the case? Depends. Did being a police officer figure in his chat up of the woman who ultimately complained about his behaviour…? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 20, 2023 10:30:08 GMT
Don't blame him one bit. Why should he have to declare his profession? What relevance is it to the case? Depends. Did being a police officer figure in his chat up of the woman who ultimately complained about his behaviour… Totally irrelevant since he wasn't guilty.
Unless being a cop means a presumption of guilt, which for many it clearly does - hence his reluctance to declare it.
Indeed, your attitude and the DM article have proved his concerns valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 20, 2023 10:43:36 GMT
Don't blame him one bit. Why should he have to declare his profession? What relevance is it to the case? Depends. Did being a police officer figure in his chat up of the woman who ultimately complained about his behaviour… What a silly comment to make with your bias I hope you never ever sit on a Jury, which bit of he was found not guilty do you not understand ? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 20, 2023 12:09:13 GMT
Just listened to a snippet on the news (Talk TV midday news) that said gun crime in the wonderfully diverse and multiculti metropolis of Londonistan has increased by 2,500% in one year. Could it be that gun crime is increasing with mass illegal immigration? And all Khan is concerned about is stopping people driving cars. This country has gone to the dogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 20, 2023 12:12:06 GMT
Depends. Did being a police officer figure in his chat up of the woman who ultimately complained about his behaviour… What a silly comment to make with your bias I hope you never ever sit on a Jury, which bit of he was found not guilty do you not understand I'm not commenting on his guilt or innocence, but on the question asked:
Why should he have to declare his profession? What relevance is it to the case?
Which prompted me to observe that I thought it was relevant if he used his position as a police officer as part of his chat up. Then I read in the link:
During the nine day long trial, jurors heard that the father-of-three met the woman on Bumble and she felt a 'degree of trust because he was a police officer'.
He sent her selfies, talking about having sex in his uniform and told her he is 'a bit of a rebel off duty' as the pair exchanged sexualised messaged in October 2020. In these messages, he bragged about his physical build and told her: 'I'll protect you for life, you will be my baby girl, I'll look after you.'
So being a police officer was relevant and going to come out in other evidence, anyway.
FYI, I've sat on juries in two trials at Wood Green Crown Court, one of rape and the other of drug smuggling...
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 20, 2023 13:52:11 GMT
If you had thought about it , they were both looking to meet other people they chatted each other up, his occupation or her occupation is immaterial she invited him to her home, where they had sex, how many other men had she invited to her place before him,? she claimed she was raped, he stated she consented to sex a willing partner.
If you had been on the Jury on a Rape case you should know that it all boils down the alleged victims words against the word of the accused , that is why the conviction in Rape cases are low , he was acquitted innocent not guilty the end
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 20, 2023 14:33:43 GMT
If you had thought about it , they were both looking to meet other people they chatted each other up, his occupation or her occupation is immaterial she invited him to her home, where they had sex, how many other men had she invited to her place before him, she claimed she was raped, he stated she consented to sex a willing partner. If you had been on the Jury on a Rape case you should know that it all boils down the alleged victims words against the word of the accused , that is why the conviction in Rape cases are low , he was acquitted innocent not guilty the end With respect, if you had read what I replied to, you'd see I wasn't discussing whether the accused was guilty.
I was replying to the query of whether his occupation was relevant. The accused/defence was concerned that if known, it might influence the jury.
The judge disagreed. So the defendant's occupation became known at the two trials he had to face.
Prosecutors later said they would not seek another trial because the woman involved did not want to go through giving evidence for a third time.
From the report in the Mail, my opinion is still his occupation was relevant to the trial because the evidence appears to show that he may have used the fact he was a police officer to further his relationship with his accuser.
But I admit that now we will never know...
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 20, 2023 14:49:44 GMT
If you had thought about it , they were both looking to meet other people they chatted each other up, his occupation or her occupation is immaterial she invited him to her home, where they had sex, how many other men had she invited to her place before him, she claimed she was raped, he stated she consented to sex a willing partner. If you had been on the Jury on a Rape case you should know that it all boils down the alleged victims words against the word of the accused , that is why the conviction in Rape cases are low , he was acquitted innocent not guilty the end With respect, if you had read what I replied to, you'd see I wasn't discussing whether the accused was guilty.
I was replying to the query of whether his occupation was relevant. The accused/defence was concerned that if known, it might influence the jury.
The judge disagreed. So the defendant's occupation became known at the two trials he had to face.
Prosecutors later said they would not seek another trial because the woman involved did not want to go through giving evidence for a third time.
From the report in the Mail, my opinion is still his occupation was relevant to the trial because the evidence appears to show that he may have used the fact he was a police officer to further his relationship with his accuser.
But I admit that now we will never know...
The Court decides what evidence is admissible or inadmissible and can be put before the Jury , in this case the Court ruled that his occupation was something the Jury did not need to know in order that he had a fair trial as it may have unduly influenced them |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 20, 2023 14:58:32 GMT
With respect, if you had read what I replied to, you'd see I wasn't discussing whether the accused was guilty.
I was replying to the query of whether his occupation was relevant. The accused/defence was concerned that if known, it might influence the jury.
The judge disagreed. So the defendant's occupation became known at the two trials he had to face.
Prosecutors later said they would not seek another trial because the woman involved did not want to go through giving evidence for a third time.
From the report in the Mail, my opinion is still his occupation was relevant to the trial because the evidence appears to show that he may have used the fact he was a police officer to further his relationship with his accuser.
But I admit that now we will never know...
The Court decides what evidence is admissible or inadmissible and can be put before the Jury , in this case the Court ruled that his occupation was something the Jury did not need to know in order that he had a fair trial as it may have unduly influenced them I don't have court records, but the Mail report states:
Judge Robert Bright QC dismissed the application, ruling Longden-Thurgood's position a police officer was part of the reason the woman trusted him enough to invite him to her home so the jury should hear it.
'It's the case that he said he was a police officer and that he would protect her', the judge said. He also said there was an 'imbalance of power' in the incident due to the circumstances.
And you hope I never have to sit on a jury and understand things...
|
|
