Yet another moron can't accept responsibility for their own actions and blames police.

J

johnny8977

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,014
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...be-video-saw-Santa-bundled-car-kidnapped.html

Some choice excepts:

1. "Concerned customers phoned 999" - so the offence is complete right there!
2. "now because of the actions of Sussex Police we have criminal records" - no, because of YOUR own actions you have criminal records.
3. "It was surely clear to everyone it was a stunt." - clearly not, see point 1.
4. "It was never our intention to upset or offend anyone" - doesn't matter. A normal person would have thought their 'plan' through and come to the conclusion that maybe some people would be concerned.
5. "even the magistrates couldn't believe that the case had made it this far. We couldn't afford a defence, so we were advised to plead guilty and try and limit the damage that way.' - if you had no defence, who advised you? And I find it doubtful the Magistrates, who decision it is to find guilty or not, would on one hand say they couldn't believe it went to court but on the other hand find them guilty.

Every day its just reams upon reams of people making mistakes and blaming someone/something else. It's like living in a world populated by 8 year olds! Drives me mad.
 
Can't say I have much sympathy for them - pretty out of order thing to do in front of lots of little kids. I suspect it's an error of judgement on their behalf so a ticking off seems more appropriate but you take your chances...
 
What happened to a "police caution"? I agree they have no real right to complain but at the same time it seems like an awful lot of unnecessary expense to drag them through the courts for what was essentially a stunt where no-one got hurt and nothing got broken.
 
They have to be eligible to have a caution - no previous etc. So the fact the didn't speaks volumes.
 
Steep said:
What happened to a "police caution"? I agree they have no real right to complain but at the same time it seems like an awful lot of unnecessary expense to drag them through the courts for what was essentially a stunt where no-one got hurt and nothing got broken.
Click to expand...

Agree, when you see those cop documentaries (usually in places like Hull) and see what low-life get away with it is silly that they got prosecuted. It was silly with hindsight but would hardly brand them criminals. What happened to a bit of common sense being applied?
 
I am thinking it would have been the CPS who decided to go ahead with the prosecution rather than the Police - admittedly based on my viewing of TV documentaries?

Anthony.
 
If they felt that strongly about it, they should have insisted on having their moment in Crown Court, to have their case decided by a jury of their peers.
 
Anthony.Ralph said:
I am thinking it would have been the CPS who decided to go ahead with the prosecution rather than the Police - admittedly based on my viewing of TV documentaries?

Anthony.
Click to expand...

Police are able to charge for that level of offence.
 
johnny8977 said:
Police are able to charge for that level of offence.
Click to expand...

The police can charge for any level of offence, but it's still the CPS who will decide
whether or not there's enough evidence against the defendant for a realistic prospect of conviction. If there is, they'll then decide if it's in the public interest to continue with a prosecution.
This one does, on the face of it, seem a little frivolous.
 
jakeblu said:
I'm not sure what point your trying to make here!

So, I walk down a posh area late at night and someone phones the police and says 'there's this dodgy looking guy, acting suspicious' thats an offence then yeah?

I suppose it'll save a lot of court time and money :)
Click to expand...

No he's saying that because someone phoned 999, there is evidence that Alarm or Distress was caused (Lying aside of course). An ensuing trial could have decided whether the onlookers were lying or not, but they pleaded guilty.
 
Marcel said:
No he's saying that because someone phoned 999, there is evidence that Alarm or Distress was caused (Lying aside of course). An ensuing trial could have decided whether the onlookers were lying or not, but they pleaded guilty.
Click to expand...
Fair point, although its an alleged offence, from the op's statement it seemed it was cut and dried. Like I said in my post, simply phoning the police doesn't automatically constitute an offence has taken place.
 
jakeblu said:
Fair point, although its an alleged offence, from the op's statement it seemed it was cut and dried. Like I said in my post, simply phoning the police doesn't automatically constitute an offence has taken place.
Click to expand...
You're right.
Point 1 in the OP is incorrect.
 
Bunch of cry babies. So they've previously informed authorities when they filmed stunts. A quick google highlights all the contact details to inform authorities including the recommendation to still do so even when you don't by law are required to do so.

For something like this they've learned a wise lesson. Got to love the YouTube entitlement attitude. Perhaps it is worthwhile going to school and learn about these subjects. It's not all about creativity, it is about business as well. This could have easily been avoided, especially dangerous driving as well n
 
viv1969 said:
The police can charge for any level of offence, but it's still the CPS who will decide
whether or not there's enough evidence against the defendant for a realistic prospect of conviction. If there is, they'll then decide if it's in the public interest to continue with a prosecution.
This one does, on the face of it, seem a little frivolous.
Click to expand...

No they can't. That's the whole point of pre-charge CPS advice for offences whereby the police can't make the decision. What would the point be of the police charging them to court, building a file and then the CPS looking at it afterwards and deciding there isn't a realistic prospect of conviction?

jakeblu said:
I'm not sure what point your trying to make here!

So, I walk down a posh area late at night and someone phones the police and says 'there's this dodgy looking guy, acting suspicious' thats an offence then yeah?

I suppose it'll save a lot of court time and money :)
Click to expand...

No, you misunderstand the meaning of making an offence complete. It doesn't mean they are guilty - it's means that the various points to prove for the offence are complete and present. For instance, you cannot have the complete offence of theft without an act of dishonesty. In this case you can't have an offence of S.5 public order without having members of the public harassed, alarmed or distressed. By virtue of several of them phoning 999, that aspect is 'complete', hence me saying the offence was complete.
 
johnny8977 said:
No they can't. That's the whole point of pre-charge CPS advice for offences whereby the police can't make the decision. What would the point be of the police charging them to court, building a file and then the CPS looking at it afterwards and deciding there isn't a realistic prospect of conviction?
.
Click to expand...

Odd then, that it happens regularly.
 
It does happen, but I can assure you the police can't charge for anything.

johnny8977 said:
No they can't. That's the whole point of pre-charge CPS advice for offences whereby the police can't make the decision. What would the point be of the police charging them to court, building a file and then the CPS looking at it afterwards and deciding there isn't a realistic prospect of conviction?
Click to expand...

That was a poor argument on my part - it has it's reasoning based on common sense and efficiency, two concepts that are alien to most CPS 'lawyers' I've dealt with.
 
johnny8977 said:
It does happen, but I can assure you the police can't charge for anything.



That was a poor argument on my part - it has it's reasoning based on common sense and efficiency, two concepts that are alien to most CPS 'lawyers' I've dealt with.
Click to expand...

That was exactly my point.
The police can't change anything, but the CPS can, and do.
 
johnny8977 said:
Sorry, I misunderstood the bit where you said "the police can charge for any level of offence."
Click to expand...

NP...Wires now uncrossed all round :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top