Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About CRblogger

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. (Apologies, I can't seem to edit. The immediately preceding post was a reply to Old-CodJA. The one prior to that was to BazzaS. Apologies for any confusion)
  2. In brief: thanks for your *substantive* points, with which I have no difficulty and do not, I think, contradict what the reality of what I have said. Take care!
  3. "disingenuous". Right. You know you've crossed the line. And you know what you have to do.
  4. Apologies I didn't see this earlier. I will withdraw it if you or BazzS asks.
  5. Thanks, hope you slept well. Fair enough, taking your final request I'll briefly try to close off the rest, then let's try to move forward and focus on the OP. (If it makes you feel better mentioning the 5th amendment in every post, keep going, it was never part of my "case" as I said before. Nor was misquotes and quoting out of context...) (On the video substance (not 5th amendment label) - I think it useful in the UK generally, you disagree, I think we're pretty clear on that but let's adopt your position, but again you can keep mentioning it as you wish) On the CJPO I t
  6. Many thanks. I think we're in violent agreement and I can't yet see why you can't see that. 1. on the 5th amendment, cutting and pasting all I ever said was "(if you don't like the references to the fifth amendmenticon etc, just substitute their English inspiration, the Habeas Corpus Act 1640, now sadly repealed)." I too find the videos grating, that's the point. I stated the English inspiration was repealed. I just wanted people to ignore the labels and go for the substance of what's in the videos. I apologise for having given an impression other than what I thought I had said. 2. I
  7. "straw man", "fantasies", "tenuous", "unreliable"! A bit defensive? Fine, please understand I'm not trying to criticise you and I did not mean any offence. I accept that in your position you don't need to use WP or WPSATC, and don't see Courts recusing themselves or retaliating against misconduct. On your own case you don't understand why others do. I think that one ends there. In the context of right to silence I think you've mischaracterised my position but let's leave that. Your point is more interesting: you say " a tenuous hold on statute or case law applicable currently in E&W"
  8. Yes I am confusing "final warning" with the criminal offence final warning. Thank you for your correction. I also agree a non-formal warning (except perhaps a cannabis warning on which the Home Office seems to have a bet each way) does as you say appear on enhanced certificates - whether this is a criminal record or a pseudo-criminal record I guess we don't have to argue. The Home Office does however say even acquittals should be recorded against the alleged perp as a crime (which they sometimes describe as a "non sanction detection"), just not on the PNC. So what we say may be moot anyw
  9. Fair enough. Then the Court would throw it out or recuse itself, award as much costs as they could think of against the prosecuting authority, and report any prosecuting solicitor or barrister involved to their regulator for disciplinary action for professional misconduct. And if you were there and chose to argue the toss, you might just end up in the cells yourself as a contemner. Go on. Give in to your temptation. :-; As to "However, US law doesn't equate with UK law. The UK has no 5th Amendment." Quite right and I implicitly acknowledged this in what I said in that post abo
  10. A final warning is an offence held on a criminal record. Therefore if a final warning is all that is on offer, the "settlement" is illusory. Of course you're absolutely right. "Why you agree to a warning if you're not admitting liability? ". Indeed. Apologies for any misunderstanding. If however the defendant wishes not to have a criminal record, they have absolutely nothing to lose by going to Court. And equally nothing to lose by offering an administrative solution. What the TOC thinks is "clever" is utterly irrelevant. If you're facing a criminal record, there is NO incentive not
  11. . Yes. Clarification: and it also applies for when they apprehend someone inside their store. And for when I (or you) apprehend someone in a public place. Or when I (or you) apprehend someone in any store. Summary: s.24 is for police. s.24A is for everyone else. Interestingly, if security guards wrongly execute it, they might render themselves open to arrest by the police or anyone else, including their intended victim (not recommended, they're not renowned for their sense of humour).
  12. For anyone who still wants to spill their guts on facts, in open correspondence or otherwise, because it's right thing to do, etc, take a look at this "challenge" debate between a lawyer and a police officer. (if you don't like the references to the fifth amendment etc, just substitute their English inspiration, the Habeas Corpus Act 1640, now sadly repealed). The lawyer's view: The police's view: I'm grateful to another member of CAG who drew my attention to these some years ago.
  13. It shouldn't matter if there ARE proceedings of any kind or not. Because they're not open letters, the parties can communicate freely, notably for negotiating or making offers to each other, both sides secure in the knowledge that a judge will never see the documents in current or future proceedings. The traditional impression conveyed to the judge by OPEN settlement offers is "because they offered to settle rather than say in yer face let's go to trial, the party must be a bit worried about the strength of their position", the exception being to convey the attitude "Our position is obviously
  14. Ok, you might or might not be right. I'm not going to comment on substance. However to avoid the "bit smart and create extra paperwork" issue, there's nothing to stop you doing the same negotiation over the phone, starting with the precondition "are you authorised to hold a without prejudice conversation?". No extra paperwork. Just make sure you and they know you're recording it (as they probably will anyway, but then any extra paperwork is down to them). On the notes I've noticed comes up as a "tooltip" when "without prejudice" is mentioned, I won't agree or disagree but I would amplify
  15. This would be kind of funny if it wasn't so impressively grotesque. It was Aerospace v Thames that totally and utterly screwed RLP's in the reported Oxford case last year. Everything was admitted and the judge threw out the retailer's claim anyway, because of the same authority, which RLP until then had been swearing blind didn't matter. The security staff claimed many hours of time, on which the judge apparently was sceptical as it didn't appear to tally with their own CCTV evidence. But that didn't matter anyway, because the judge ruled they can't claim security staff costs no mat
  • Create New...