Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? " Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago?" You saw the video of one of the brothers head butting a customer in an airport coffee shop months ago and knew that is why the police were sent to arrest him? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago? You saw the video of one of the brothers head butting a customer in an airport coffee shop months ago and knew that is why the police were sent to arrest him? " No, I saw an alternate video shot just before the police kicking one of the brothers in the head. When that was circulated by GMP, it clearly took the heat out of the situation, else we could have had daily riots outside Rochdale Police Station between then & now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago? You saw the video of one of the brothers head butting a customer in an airport coffee shop months ago and knew that is why the police were sent to arrest him? No, I saw an alternate video shot just before the police kicking one of the brothers in the head. When that was circulated by GMP, it clearly took the heat out of the situation, else we could have had daily riots outside Rochdale Police Station between then & now." What is your position on the legal system is it fit for modern times or not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago? You saw the video of one of the brothers head butting a customer in an airport coffee shop months ago and knew that is why the police were sent to arrest him? No, I saw an alternate video shot just before the police kicking one of the brothers in the head. When that was circulated by GMP, it clearly took the heat out of the situation, else we could have had daily riots outside Rochdale Police Station between then & now. What is your position on the legal system is it fit for modern times or not? " No, I don’t think it is but it’s the tech & the platforms that create the problems isn’t it. I think Social Media is a nightmarish can of worms for the Police to deal with & personally I think it should be banned for everybody under 18 as (generally speaking) children don’t have the maturity to engage responsibly with it. Hell, even plenty of adults don’t, as per your example, but at least then they *should* in theory be more aware of the ramifications. Hardly likely this will happen of course, as big tech leans on politicians of all colours, but that’s my opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think Social Media is a nightmarish can of worms for the Police to deal with & personally I think it should be banned for everybody under 18 as (generally speaking) children don’t have the maturity to engage responsibly with it..." What happens when you tell someone that something ubiquitous is forbidden too them until 18? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago? You saw the video of one of the brothers head butting a customer in an airport coffee shop months ago and knew that is why the police were sent to arrest him? No, I saw an alternate video shot just before the police kicking one of the brothers in the head. When that was circulated by GMP, it clearly took the heat out of the situation, else we could have had daily riots outside Rochdale Police Station between then & now. What is your position on the legal system is it fit for modern times or not? No, I don’t think it is but it’s the tech & the platforms that create the problems isn’t it. I think Social Media is a nightmarish can of worms for the Police to deal with & personally I think it should be banned for everybody under 18 as (generally speaking) children don’t have the maturity to engage responsibly with it. Hell, even plenty of adults don’t, as per your example, but at least then they *should* in theory be more aware of the ramifications. Hardly likely this will happen of course, as big tech leans on politicians of all colours, but that’s my opinion." I don’t believe the core problem lies with tech itself it lies with antiquated laws that are rigid and slow to adapt. Our legal system is built around an age when information could be contained and controlled. What we are left with is “make do” responses, police and courts trying to manage viral content ad-hoc. That isn’t good enough, especially when public trust and safety is at risk. I expect better from the government not just reactive policing, reform that addresses how people receive and disperse information today. We can't keep passing the blame to the point of least resistance because it is easier to do than tackle the monolithic framework we have created. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think Social Media is a nightmarish can of worms for the Police to deal with & personally I think it should be banned for everybody under 18 as (generally speaking) children don’t have the maturity to engage responsibly with it... What happens when you tell someone that something ubiquitous is forbidden too them until 18?" Exactly. Genie is well & truly out of the bottle now innit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago?"  It was out fairly soon after the initial one..
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago? You saw the video of one of the brothers head butting a customer in an airport coffee shop months ago and knew that is why the police were sent to arrest him? No, I saw an alternate video shot just before the police kicking one of the brothers in the head. When that was circulated by GMP, it clearly took the heat out of the situation, else we could have had daily riots outside Rochdale Police Station between then & now. What is your position on the legal system is it fit for modern times or not? " The whole legal system? Or just those aspects that cover the rapidly evolving area that are tech related? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago? It was out fairly soon after the initial one..
"I think these responses show the point of the post. Was you aware that 1 of the brothers head butted a customer in an airport coffee shop, that event was the start of the chain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago? You saw the video of one of the brothers head butting a customer in an airport coffee shop months ago and knew that is why the police were sent to arrest him? No, I saw an alternate video shot just before the police kicking one of the brothers in the head. When that was circulated by GMP, it clearly took the heat out of the situation, else we could have had daily riots outside Rochdale Police Station between then & now. What is your position on the legal system is it fit for modern times or not? The whole legal system? Or just those aspects that cover the rapidly evolving area that are tech related?" Wherever the law is outdated, it needs addressing not just in tech related areas. Take by-laws, for example. Many are decades old some hundreds of years old, irrelevant, or not enforced, but are still legally binding. The legal system should evolve where it’s no longer fit for purpose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago? It was out fairly soon after the initial one..
I think these responses show the point of the post.
Was you aware that 1 of the brothers head butted a customer in an airport coffee shop, that event was the start of the chain.
"I was aware there was 'an altercation' which led to the police being called.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago? You saw the video of one of the brothers head butting a customer in an airport coffee shop months ago and knew that is why the police were sent to arrest him? No, I saw an alternate video shot just before the police kicking one of the brothers in the head. When that was circulated by GMP, it clearly took the heat out of the situation, else we could have had daily riots outside Rochdale Police Station between then & now. What is your position on the legal system is it fit for modern times or not? The whole legal system? Or just those aspects that cover the rapidly evolving area that are tech related? Wherever the law is outdated, it needs addressing not just in tech related areas. Take by-laws, for example. Many are decades old some hundreds of years old, irrelevant, or not enforced, but are still legally binding. The legal system should evolve where it’s no longer fit for purpose." Did someone much more knowledgeable than you or I once say something like 'rushed law is bad law'..? I mean the sentiments your asking for are probably not something I would agree with but the wheels grind slowly with such things.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago? You saw the video of one of the brothers head butting a customer in an airport coffee shop months ago and knew that is why the police were sent to arrest him? No, I saw an alternate video shot just before the police kicking one of the brothers in the head. When that was circulated by GMP, it clearly took the heat out of the situation, else we could have had daily riots outside Rochdale Police Station between then & now. What is your position on the legal system is it fit for modern times or not? The whole legal system? Or just those aspects that cover the rapidly evolving area that are tech related? Wherever the law is outdated, it needs addressing not just in tech related areas. Take by-laws, for example. Many are decades old some hundreds of years old, irrelevant, or not enforced, but are still legally binding. The legal system should evolve where it’s no longer fit for purpose. Did someone much more knowledgeable than you or I once say something like 'rushed law is bad law'..? I mean the sentiments your asking for are probably not something I would agree with but the wheels grind slowly with such things.. " I'm not following your thinking 
Are for the legal system to be brought up to date or are you happy to leave it as is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago? You saw the video of one of the brothers head butting a customer in an airport coffee shop months ago and knew that is why the police were sent to arrest him? No, I saw an alternate video shot just before the police kicking one of the brothers in the head. When that was circulated by GMP, it clearly took the heat out of the situation, else we could have had daily riots outside Rochdale Police Station between then & now. What is your position on the legal system is it fit for modern times or not? The whole legal system? Or just those aspects that cover the rapidly evolving area that are tech related? Wherever the law is outdated, it needs addressing not just in tech related areas. Take by-laws, for example. Many are decades old some hundreds of years old, irrelevant, or not enforced, but are still legally binding. The legal system should evolve where it’s no longer fit for purpose." You mean like: It is illegal to be d*unk in a pub. Under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 it is an offence to be "found d*unk in any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or on any licensed premises”. In London, section 44 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 also made it an offence for a publican to permit d*unkenness on their premises. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? Where are you getting the 11 months from? I saw an alternate video giving a different pov of that incident months ago? You saw the video of one of the brothers head butting a customer in an airport coffee shop months ago and knew that is why the police were sent to arrest him? No, I saw an alternate video shot just before the police kicking one of the brothers in the head. When that was circulated by GMP, it clearly took the heat out of the situation, else we could have had daily riots outside Rochdale Police Station between then & now. What is your position on the legal system is it fit for modern times or not? The whole legal system? Or just those aspects that cover the rapidly evolving area that are tech related? Wherever the law is outdated, it needs addressing not just in tech related areas. Take by-laws, for example. Many are decades old some hundreds of years old, irrelevant, or not enforced, but are still legally binding. The legal system should evolve where it’s no longer fit for purpose. Did someone much more knowledgeable than you or I once say something like 'rushed law is bad law'..? I mean the sentiments your asking for are probably not something I would agree with but the wheels grind slowly with such things.. I'm not following your thinking
Are for the legal system to be brought up to date or are you happy to leave it as is?"I just reread it, I meant disagree.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need to be careful of trial by public opinion, including via media influence. Our legal system, like much public service, was starved of funds during austerity years. Backlogs are no surprise, alongside pandemic delays. The hysterical lawbreaking, after the Southport tragedy, where mobs planned murders and harm, highlights how we need to leave judicial matters to the official processes and back off. We've had instant cameras since Polaroid, decades ago. That was no justification before for mob rule. Public services need to be committed to by us, for appropriate resource allocations, including our willingness to pay more tax, if needed. " Polaroid isn't a direct comparison to the speed af digital transfer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is our legal system still fit for purpose in the age of social media and smartphones? The Manchester Airport attack, where two brothers violently assaulted police officers. Full body cam and CCTV footage existed from day one, however for nearly a year, public opinion was shaped by a short clip showing a police officer kicking one of the men in the head. This was shared online which led to mobs intimidating police outside Rochdale police station. The full facts have only emerged this week in court, 11+ months later. Why is our legal system operating under aged analog era rules that hide crucial evidence, when more often than not today, it is already circulating among millions of people online, often out of context and used to stir up trouble and more crime. Is it time to reform how we handle information in criminal cases so we the public aren't left in the dark or misled by bad actors? " The legal system is slow due to austerity. And no you, me or we shouldn't know anything. It's non of our business. It's why we pay our taxes and fair journalists have jobs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do I or you need to know what led to the actions of the police? Isn't that what the trial is for? They go through the evidence, all the evidence, in detail and decide? The police and government in some cases need to release enough information to reduce the chances of civil unrest. I'm not sure why we would want to rip up the legal system so the public can be a bit nosy. Saying that the amount of time it takes to get things through the courts is ridiculous, but that would require a lot of money to clear backlogs etc. So yeh I'm sure it needs reform but I don't think the reform you're suggesting personally " They actually don't need to release anything for civil unrest. Umless a grifter like Farage drove a wedge of hate between people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do I or you need to know what led to the actions of the police? Isn't that what the trial is for? They go through the evidence, all the evidence, in detail and decide? The police and government in some cases need to release enough information to reduce the chances of civil unrest. I'm not sure why we would want to rip up the legal system so the public can be a bit nosy. Saying that the amount of time it takes to get things through the courts is ridiculous, but that would require a lot of money to clear backlogs etc. So yeh I'm sure it needs reform but I don't think the reform you're suggesting personally " That wasn't my point.... To be clear, my point is our legal system can't cope with bad actor narratives due to video and witnesses posting their perspectives online instantly.. My question is: should our outdated legal frameworks be updated to be able to react to modern day. How you got being nosy out of this, I have no idea  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do I or you need to know what led to the actions of the police? Isn't that what the trial is for? They go through the evidence, all the evidence, in detail and decide? The police and government in some cases need to release enough information to reduce the chances of civil unrest. I'm not sure why we would want to rip up the legal system so the public can be a bit nosy. Saying that the amount of time it takes to get things through the courts is ridiculous, but that would require a lot of money to clear backlogs etc. So yeh I'm sure it needs reform but I don't think the reform you're suggesting personally That wasn't my point.... To be clear, my point is our legal system can't cope with bad actor narratives due to video and witnesses posting their perspectives online instantly.. My question is: should our outdated legal frameworks be updated to be able to react to modern day. How you got being nosy out of this, I have no idea "I'm confused at what your point is. I got the impression that you think they should have released the evidence they had before the trial. What do you think they should change specifically? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do I or you need to know what led to the actions of the police? Isn't that what the trial is for? They go through the evidence, all the evidence, in detail and decide? The police and government in some cases need to release enough information to reduce the chances of civil unrest. I'm not sure why we would want to rip up the legal system so the public can be a bit nosy. Saying that the amount of time it takes to get things through the courts is ridiculous, but that would require a lot of money to clear backlogs etc. So yeh I'm sure it needs reform but I don't think the reform you're suggesting personally That wasn't my point.... To be clear, my point is our legal system can't cope with bad actor narratives due to video and witnesses posting their perspectives online instantly.. My question is: should our outdated legal frameworks be updated to be able to react to modern day. How you got being nosy out of this, I have no idea
I'm confused at what your point is. I got the impression that you think they should have released the evidence they had before the trial.
What do you think they should change specifically?
"The point I'm making is, the police are restricted in what they can release under our legal system. I'm asking is the legal system out of date for todays digital world? Social media platforms receive content for all to see before the arresting police officer has made it back to the station, making the restrictions mostly pointless when it comes to prejudicing a trial? When the police do not respond or respond in a way that throws doubt in their credibility, it throws open the doors for 2 tier policing and unrest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Why do I or you need to know what led to the actions of the police? Isn't that what the trial is for? They go through the evidence, all the evidence, in detail and decide? The police and government in some cases need to release enough information to reduce the chances of civil unrest. I'm not sure why we would want to rip up the legal system so the public can be a bit nosy. Saying that the amount of time it takes to get things through the courts is ridiculous, but that would require a lot of money to clear backlogs etc. So yeh I'm sure it needs reform but I don't think the reform you're suggesting personally That wasn't my point.... To be clear, my point is our legal system can't cope with bad actor narratives due to video and witnesses posting their perspectives online instantly.. My question is: should our outdated legal frameworks be updated to be able to react to modern day. How you got being nosy out of this, I have no idea
I'm confused at what your point is. I got the impression that you think they should have released the evidence they had before the trial.
What do you think they should change specifically?
The point I'm making is, the police are restricted in what they can release under our legal system.
I'm asking is the legal system out of date for todays digital world? Social media platforms receive content for all to see before the arresting police officer has made it back to the station, making the restrictions mostly pointless when it comes to prejudicing a trial?
When the police do not respond or respond in a way that throws doubt in their credibility, it throws open the doors for 2 tier policing and unrest.
"But if someone dose post a one-sided pice of video the damage is done befor the evidence is gathered. Would it not be more beneficial to restrict mainstream media on using footage posted on line. Surly the editor could see like lots this was a snapshot of something bigger. But at the same time the police do need to be held accountable if found to be heavy handed. But for me NO the legal system was robust in this case. Posable news outlets should be fined for the one-sided articles. Or made to give apology on screen or in writing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A video circulated a few months ago of a horrific knife attack on a guy in Nottingham with crowds watching and recording, in the video you could hear people shouting cut him he’s a pedo. Social media went crazy with conversations primary in support of the perpetrator and all kinds of stories emerging that the guys daughter had been abused. Turns out none of it was true. The guy was a total nutter and just decided earlier to kill somebody for no reason. The victim was an innocent person and engineer for the railways who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time , yet there are still conversations on social media about how he deserved it. People still talk about that pedo that got done outside co-op.! " That kinda thing has been happening long before social media mate…. Near where I used to live a couple of kids aged around 12 broke into the garden of an empty house. A guy saw them through his window and told them if they didn’t clear off he’d call the police, which he did. Low level crime so was quite a while before the cops arrived. One of the kids went home and told their dad a perv was watching them out of his window. The dad rounded up a couple of mates and headed down there. When the police arrived they took the bloke to the station to make a statement. By the time they came back there was a small crowd outside his house “waiting for the pedo”. He feared for his safety but as they weren’t committing a crime, the police said they couldn’t do anything. That night his house got torched with him inside. It’s more about mob mentality than social media, and that will never change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The real question is who leaked the first edited clips that only showed the poloce kicking the man in the head and/or commanded the media engine to propagate them? " Someone who worked there and wanted to make a quick few quid from YouTube ads | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to step backwards and ask what causes criminality in the first place. Poverty? Inequality? Poor education? Substance abuse? Social media? Our jails are overflowing, so prison sentences don't seem much of a deterrent." All of those things and more. Not sure about education, most parents teach their kids their version of right and wrong. Someone who successfully runs scams will teach that to their kids, which will have more power than a teacher in a classroom. Not having any food or money might push what would ordinarily be a law abiding citizen to shoplift. But a lot of shoplifting is done to order by criminal gangs. Inequality will always exist so crimes of envy will always happen. I won’t go through your whole list but I think the cause can’t always be fixed. Prison is as much a masterclass in crime as much as a punishment and a removal from society temporarily. Some programs in other countries have had some success with reducing reoffending, but this is most often with petty crime i believe. I think the issue is with regard to the sliding scale of punishments clearly not working. A fine, community service, bigger fine and community service, probation, suspended sentence, 28 days in jail (so 14 in reality)…. Yet they still keep nicking cars. There’s clearly a section of society who think the law doesn’t apply to them a sentences are just a temporary hindrance to something they are gonna do no matter what. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You have to step backwards and ask what causes criminality in the first place. Poverty? Inequality? Poor education? Substance abuse? Social media? Our jails are overflowing, so prison sentences don't seem much of a deterrent." The government closing prisons and not replacing them while promoting mass immigration didn't help. If a certain amount of people in a population go to prison, importing more and actively closing prisons instead of building more is a recipe for disaster. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
