I keep reading this again and again from Stokey & I'm pretty sure he's trolling us.
"they got me mixed up with a good looking lad"
I'm gonna RAISE.
As the good looking lad in question, I can confirm that Sean is telling the truth.
I can understand why any guilty party would go down the "No comment" route, it's poor but it's just how the innocent until proven guilty system works. Anybody who is genuinely innocent should do all they can to assist the police in their duties though.
i was looking after my brothers it was a sunday night school next day i hope haysies happy now now that my dad told the truth look i was being questioned in front of my dad and there was no way i was gonna let him down. never
Our prisons are filled with innocent people.
It usually pays when you are in a hole to stop digging.
You wouldnt have to have many O Levels, to realise that when you are innocent it is best to cooperate, its only when you are guilty, you go no comment.
I can see the headlines in the Stoke Gazette,
AFTER 9 DAYS OF SEVERE WATERBOARDING, GOOD LOOKING LAD FROM STOKE, FINALLY GIVES UP HIS ALIBI, AND IS RELEASED FROM CUSTODY.
Pleading the 5th is there for good reason, the burden of proof is on the accuser , innocent until proven guilty and I hope that never changes.
The fact that twats, who have done the crime , can keep their mouth shut is a nasty by-product of a system that protects the vulnerable.
I liken it to the and NHS and benefits system we have here in the UK, its there if you need it, but making it so available means the abusers can abuse it.
Pleading the 5th is there for good reason, the burden of proof is on the accuser , innocent until proven guilty and I hope that never changes.
The fact that twats, who have done the crime , can keep their mouth shut is a nasty by-product of a system that protects the vulnerable.
I liken it to the and NHS and benefits system we have here in the UK, its there if you need it, but making it so available means the abusers can abuse it.
I would rather have it than not.
Hi Charlie Fair analogy on the NHS, The current system is flawed and seems to benefit the guilty, we should review it.
What I would suggest is a tweak to the system which still gives people the right to remain silent on arrest, but once they receive council they have to answer questions rather than repeat “No Comment”
Pleading the 5th is there for good reason, the burden of proof is on the accuser , innocent until proven guilty and I hope that never changes.
The fact that twats, who have done the crime , can keep their mouth shut is a nasty by-product of a system that protects the vulnerable.
I liken it to the and NHS and benefits system we have here in the UK, its there if you need it, but making it so available means the abusers can abuse it.
I would rather have it than not.
Hi Charlie Fair analogy on the NHS, The current system is flawed and seems to benefit the guilty, we should review it.
What I would suggest is a tweak to the system which still gives people the right to remain silent on arrest, but once they receive council they have to answer questions rather than repeat “No Comment”
Maybe they should have to play the interview tapes to the jury.
Pleading the 5th is there for good reason, the burden of proof is on the accuser , innocent until proven guilty and I hope that never changes.
The fact that twats, who have done the crime , can keep their mouth shut is a nasty by-product of a system that protects the vulnerable.
I liken it to the and NHS and benefits system we have here in the UK, its there if you need it, but making it so available means the abusers can abuse it.
I would rather have it than not.
Hi Charlie Fair analogy on the NHS, The current system is flawed and seems to benefit the guilty, we should review it.
What I would suggest is a tweak to the system which still gives people the right to remain silent on arrest, but once they receive council they have to answer questions rather than repeat “No Comment”
Hi Tom,
I genuinly think the "no comment" option should remain in place, it kind of impies guilt if the accused is just being unhelpful .
The no comment is used on tv for dramatic effect, I dont believe in real life council would advise a client to reply "no comment" unless the the client was someone who couldnt help themselves and phrased things wrongly and wouldnt do them selves any favours if they kept talking.
Ive an ex girlfriend who would of faired better if she just kept her mouth shut.
Pleading the 5th is there for good reason, the burden of proof is on the accuser , innocent until proven guilty and I hope that never changes.
The fact that twats, who have done the crime , can keep their mouth shut is a nasty by-product of a system that protects the vulnerable.
I liken it to the and NHS and benefits system we have here in the UK, its there if you need it, but making it so available means the abusers can abuse it.
I would rather have it than not.
Hi Charlie Fair analogy on the NHS, The current system is flawed and seems to benefit the guilty, we should review it.
What I would suggest is a tweak to the system which still gives people the right to remain silent on arrest, but once they receive council they have to answer questions rather than repeat “No Comment”
Hi Tom,
I genuinly think the "no comment" option should remain in place, it kind of impies guilt if the accused is just being unhelpful .
The no comment is used on tv for dramatic effect, I dont believe in real life council would advise a client to reply "no comment" unless the the client was someone who couldnt help themselves and phrased things wrongly and wouldnt do them selves any favours if they kept talking.
Ive an ex girlfriend who would of faired better if she just kept her mouth shut.
Pleading the 5th is there for good reason, the burden of proof is on the accuser , innocent until proven guilty and I hope that never changes.
The fact that twats, who have done the crime , can keep their mouth shut is a nasty by-product of a system that protects the vulnerable.
I liken it to the and NHS and benefits system we have here in the UK, its there if you need it, but making it so available means the abusers can abuse it.
I would rather have it than not.
Hi Charlie Fair analogy on the NHS, The current system is flawed and seems to benefit the guilty, we should review it.
What I would suggest is a tweak to the system which still gives people the right to remain silent on arrest, but once they receive council they have to answer questions rather than repeat “No Comment”
Hi Tom,
I genuinly think the "no comment" option should remain in place, it kind of impies guilt if the accused is just being unhelpful .
The no comment is used on tv for dramatic effect, I dont believe in real life council would advise a client to reply "no comment" unless the the client was someone who couldnt help themselves and phrased things wrongly and wouldnt do them selves any favours if they kept talking.
Ive an ex girlfriend who would of faired better if she just kept her mouth shut.
Just googled and saw these - Make “NO COMMENT” to all questions. There is no such thing as a friendly chat with a police officer. Everything you say can and will likely be used as evidence. If they interview you, give a “No Comment” interview, unless under explicit advice from a good solicitor to make a written statement.
Once you understand the various hoops the legal process jumps through on the way to court you will see how much sense it makes to do a no comment interview even with the changes to the law passed in the much hated Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Remember never to talk to the police until your solicitor arrives and then you can at least tell the court if asked why you gave a no comment interview that you did so on the advice of your brief.
I’m pretty sure I have seen clients about to say something in a tv police documentary, the solicitor has whispered something to them, then the inevitable “ No Comment” gets uttered.
It may be the series I watch just show obviously guilty individuals who mutter these words which has slanted my views, but with violent crime rising and police numbers falling ( no Boris 20k extra isn’t actually more numbers than before) something drastic needs to be done to help balance things.
Comments
I can understand why any guilty party would go down the "No comment" route, it's poor but it's just how the innocent until proven guilty system works. Anybody who is genuinely innocent should do all they can to assist the police in their duties though.
It usually pays when you are in a hole to stop digging.
You wouldnt have to have many O Levels, to realise that when you are innocent it is best to cooperate, its only when you are guilty, you go no comment.
I can see the headlines in the Stoke Gazette,
AFTER 9 DAYS OF SEVERE WATERBOARDING, GOOD LOOKING LAD FROM STOKE, FINALLY GIVES UP HIS ALIBI, AND IS RELEASED FROM CUSTODY.
and its true he was a good looking lad why would i lie about that
I have not disputed anything to do with looks, good or otherwise.
If you are being questioned about a burglary, and you have a really good alibi-you were committing an armed robbery at the time....
Pleading the 5th is there for good reason, the burden of proof is on the accuser , innocent until proven guilty and I hope that never changes.
The fact that twats, who have done the crime , can keep their mouth shut is a nasty by-product of a system that protects the vulnerable.
I liken it to the and NHS and benefits system we have here in the UK, its there if you need it, but making it so available means the abusers can abuse it.
I would rather have it than not.
Fair analogy on the NHS,
The current system is flawed and seems to benefit the guilty, we should review it.
What I would suggest is a tweak to the system which still gives people the right to remain silent on arrest, but once they receive council they have to answer questions rather than repeat “No Comment”
I genuinly think the "no comment" option should remain in place, it kind of impies guilt if the accused is just being unhelpful .
The no comment is used on tv for dramatic effect, I dont believe in real life council would advise a client to reply "no comment" unless the the client was someone who couldnt help themselves and phrased things wrongly and wouldnt do them selves any favours if they kept talking.
Ive an ex girlfriend who would of faired better if she just kept her mouth shut.
Make “NO COMMENT” to all questions. There is no such thing as a friendly chat with a police officer. Everything you say can and will likely be used as evidence. If they interview you, give a “No Comment” interview, unless under explicit advice from a good solicitor to make a written statement.
Once you understand the various hoops the legal process jumps through on the way to court you will see how much sense it makes to do a no comment interview even with the changes to the law passed in the much hated Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Remember never to talk to the police until your solicitor arrives and then you can at least tell the court if asked why you gave a no comment interview that you did so on the advice of your brief.
I’m pretty sure I have seen clients about to say something in a tv police documentary, the solicitor has whispered something to them, then the inevitable “ No Comment” gets uttered.
It may be the series I watch just show obviously guilty individuals who mutter these words which has slanted my views, but with violent crime rising and police numbers falling ( no Boris 20k extra isn’t actually more numbers than before) something drastic needs to be done to help balance things.