klanky Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 The law relates to 'blue warning beacons'. I'd say the blue tinged lamps on top of trucks and coaches would be difficult to describe as 'warning beacons'. Put it this way, I've never got them confused with emergency vehicles when I've seen them switched on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Well, so much for the "innocent until found guilty" principle, yet again. what chance do those charged have of a fair trial now that its already been announced to all and sundry that they did it.I would guess that they have already been dealt with as the detection on 15 of the rapes was reported among the figures for 2012/13, over a year ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Well, so much for the "innocent until found guilty" principle, yet again. what chance do those charged have of a fair trial now that its already been announced to all and sundry that they did it.I would guess that they have already been dealt with as the detection on 15 of the rapes was reported among the figures for 2012/13, over a year ago. You would be guessing wrong then, wouldn't you. Read the final sentence of the quote, the key word is "reported", not "processed", not "appeared", not "sentenced" or anything similar, simply "reported". Definition, the court has been made aware of them, whether the court chooses to try them or not, and whether the court finds them guilty or not, has not yet been decided. Unless of course, the media report is massively misquoting their source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 There have been several appearances and convictions for rape at that time, and his comment is correct as these have been reported to the courts. No where in this report does it mention outcomes. Make your complaint and we can see then the facts. "While there is social media chatter in relation to the incidents [and] people can be critical on Facebook etc., it would be more beneficial if they were coming forward and reporting these crimes.You are even invited to report crimes instead of your chatter here, what you are suggesting could be a crime. Although this quote is about dick heads who cannot handle a drink in public, it is a comment that has been used before. For instance, when all these gypsies were offending in Brae. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windwalker Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 I can see what your saying Ghostie, the report says " two individuals HAD committed" which suggested the decision has been made. Perhaps it should have just said, two individuals have been reported for......... All I can say is its good that the police investigations has resulted in people being reported to court. Ghostrider 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 There have been several appearances and convictions for rape at that time, and his comment is correct as these have been reported to the courts. No where in this report does it mention outcomes. That is exactly the point. Nowhere is anything said about the two individuals unless that they have been "reported". Hence, when the media report is read as a stand alone statement, without the addition of supposition or assumption as you have decided to do, the information available to the reader is that nothing else except being "reported" to the court has happened as yet. Which is stating a situation contrary to the letter and spirit of the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. *If* the individuals in question have actually been processed further through the court system than simply being "reported", and the media report by consequence is factually incorrect. Then they are perhaps "lucky" insofar as the statement may have a lesser or zero effect on the outcome of their cases. However, if the report is factually correct and their cases are yet to be heard, if they are heard at all, a publically published statement attributed to a senior police officer unambiguously stating that "two individuals had committed a series of rapes" is prejudicial to a fair trial. Perhaps in areas of higher population densities a statement of this nature could just about be gotten away with, as the number of rape cases are inevitably higher and identifying who individuals are who are mentioned in an anonymous context is far from an exact science, but this is Shetland, where rape charges are thankfully rare and a charge of multiple rape is virtually unheard of. Had two individuals already been processed through the court system on charges of multiple rapes, it is inconceivable that the local media would have left such an event unreported in any way. So, as things stand, as and when and if, two individuals come up in court on multiple rape charges allegedly committed in Shetland during 2012/13, any jury members who are aware of this media report have already been publically told allegedly by the most senior member of the local Police that they are guilty. If that doesn't create a situation of some level of bias on the part of that jury member to be predisposed towards a guilty verdict, regardless of whatever evidence is presented at any trial, its difficult to imagine what could. Public servants and the media, especially where legal matters are concerned, have a duty when making information public to ensure it is as unambiguous and neutral as possible. To state someone has only been reported on alleged criminal charges, but also claim they had committed them, is everything but unambiguous and neutral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 I can see what your saying Ghostie, the report says " two individuals HAD committed" which suggested the decision has been made. Perhaps it should have just said, two individuals have been reported for......... All I can say is its good that the police investigations has resulted in people being reported to court. Exactly. The quicker anyone guilty of committing such an offense is off the streets, the better. It is definitely only the choice of wording in the media report I am objecting to. Something along the lines of, "Two individuals are the subject of reports to the Procurator Fiscal in relation to a number of these alleged incidents", would have provided the reader with exactly the same information, but had no prejudicial effect whatsoever on any trial(s) which may yet take place. Windwalker 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 An individual was sentenced for rape a few months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 ^ According to media reports the incidents relating to those convictions occured in June 2011, not during 2012/13. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-25399586 While there is of course the possibility that the incidents were only formally reported during the 2012/13 year, and thus have become a relevant part of the statistics at issue, there is nothing to suggest that that may be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffererof1crankymofo Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 Many people get nicked by the cops. Many are reported to the PF for alleged offences. Even if they cough up during a Police interview, it don't mean they are guilty. In turn, they appear at a Sheriff's Court. Depending on said offence, it can be referred to a higher court. Whilst England is different, I recall when working for the British Transport Police in a CJU (Criminal Justice Unit where case papers are prepared before being sent to the CPS) that it wasn't uncommon for some cases to take two years to get to Crown Court. The court system can sometimes be notoriously slow. Just because a case has been reported it doesn't immediately mean that the PF will decide that it is in the public's best interests for the case to proceed. In addition, sometimes delays are deliberate and nothing to do with the Court's timetable but more to do with other factors ... some people might have been charged with assault but if the victims are still suffering from their injuries and undergoing medical treatment, whilst the Defence may want the case to be done and dusted promptly, the Prosecution might prefer it to be delayed as the charge can be altered/longer sentence handed down, and so forth. What would be interesting would be to compare how many reported cases to the Police versus the actual number of cases reaching the Court and how many were found guilty; it might paint a totally different overall picture of crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 If I was ever called for jury service I would dread having to decide in a rape case. Having to decide which of two people was telling the truth while bearing in mind that one might be an accomplished actor/actress and the other might be one of those unfortunate people who act guilty when accused of anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian.smith Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) Firstly Police do not report matters to the court they report matters to the Procurator Firscals service. I an evidential threshhold is met the person will appear in court If there are difficulties with the case the matter will be reported byt the Procurator Fiscal to Crown Office and Crown Councils instructions on how to proceed will be sought in any event cases such as these are controled by Crown office as Rape is only ever prosecuted in the High Court of Justiciary. So in short Ghostie is correct although the procedure is slightly wrong Edited July 8, 2014 by brian.smith Ghostrider 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klanky Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 Good to see yet another thread hijacked by the pedants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.