|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 23, 2024 14:17:25 GMT
Police officers did not know who was driving the Audi on the night Mr Kaba died, but they did know it had been used as a getaway car in another shooting in Brixton, south London, the night before. An automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) marker had been placed on the car, which alerted the police to it. the police knew the car was involved in a shooting incident and at the time the actions of the driver led the police to believe it was being used as a weapon fair game Which is NOW exactly what I said You previously said: " the police knew he had been involved in a shooting a few nights before, the police knew the car he was in was involved in a shooting the night before"This is not correct because the Police didn't know who was driving the car, the second part is correct fair point, i interpreted the report wrong |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 23, 2024 14:53:39 GMT
Interesting you mention this, the courts and legal system isn't fit for purpose and I said exactly this on my jury nomination form. Of which my attendance was exempted! And my initial point still stands. The CPS should have made the decision there was no case to answer based on the knowledge and facts they had. I never said they should find someone guilty or innocent. A 3hr jury return for such a major case clearly suggests the matter should never have got to trial stage! Hence my views mentioned above! To be honest it doesn't surprise me one bit you were exempted from jury service. The CPS clearly had relevant evidence - it was presented in court and the jury made a decision based on the evidence. If there was no evidence the case would not have been heard and if the "evidence" wasn't relevant the defence would have pointed it out and the judge would have ruled it inadmissible. If there was no evidence presented the jury would not even have had to have made a decision. In effect you are saying the CPS should be judge and jury. You are saying that it is them who should make the decision to ignore the evidence or effectively find in favour of the defendant and throw out the case. Your idea of how the law should work makes a mockery of the rule of law. You are basically side linling the courts and putting decisions onto appointed officials rather than a jury. What Callas said in relation to the CPS isn't wrong. It is precisely the role of the CPS to decide which cases go to Court and those which do not based on the prospect of conviction. The relevance of any evidence is off the mark a little, as the CPS agrees to bring cases to Court only if it thinks there is sufficient evidence to land a successful prosecution. As the case was thrown out after merely 3 hours it does raise serious questions about the decision the CPS took to prosecute Sgt Blake. CPS decides which cases go to Court to save Court time and money. Courts decide outcomes based on cases brought to it by the CPS. The CPS (as with the IPCC to a lesser extent) kicked the can down the road on this because it made a political decision not to determine whether there was a case to answer - which is precisely its role. |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Oct 23, 2024 15:51:44 GMT
The Home Secretary confirming FAOs will be granted anonymity up until the point of conviction under a new bill. It seems ludicrous that this wasnāt the case in the first place. I honestly think the judge who lifted restrictions on Martyn Blake being identified has questions to answer. I canāt think of any reason why it is in public interest to know. Was purely pressure from Kabas family. The judge will no doubt have been leaned on from above and bottled it. Easier to give in & take the course of less resistance than to stand up against the noisy minority. The same Kabaās that didnāt want their sonās criminality to come out. talk about double standards. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Oct 23, 2024 16:14:42 GMT
To be honest it doesn't surprise me one bit you were exempted from jury service. The CPS clearly had relevant evidence - it was presented in court and the jury made a decision based on the evidence. If there was no evidence the case would not have been heard and if the "evidence" wasn't relevant the defence would have pointed it out and the judge would have ruled it inadmissible. If there was no evidence presented the jury would not even have had to have made a decision. In effect you are saying the CPS should be judge and jury. You are saying that it is them who should make the decision to ignore the evidence or effectively find in favour of the defendant and throw out the case. Your idea of how the law should work makes a mockery of the rule of law. You are basically side linling the courts and putting decisions onto appointed officials rather than a jury. What Callas said in relation to the CPS isn't wrong. It is precisely the role of the CPS to decide which cases go to Court and those which do not based on the prospect of conviction. The relevanceĀ of any evidence is off the mark a little, as the CPS agrees to bring cases to Court only if it thinks there is sufficient evidence to land a successful prosecution. As the case was thrown out after merely 3 hours it does raise serious questions about the decision the CPS took to prosecute Sgt Blake.Ā CPS decides which cases go to Court to save Court time and money. Courts decide outcomes based on cases brought to it by the CPS. The CPS (as with the IPCC to a lesser extent) kicked the can down the road on this because it made a political decision not to determine whether there was a case to answer - which is precisely its role.Ā Yes the evidence must be relevent and sufficient to go to court. The CPS maintain that the evidence passed their criteria for taking the matter to court. Are they lying? Also the defence never put in an application that there was no case to answer which they could have done had they thought the CPS had made the wrong decision to proceed to a trial. They accepted there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to court. www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-statement-acquittal-martyn-blake |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 23, 2024 17:00:22 GMT
What Callas said in relation to the CPS isn't wrong. It is precisely the role of the CPS to decide which cases go to Court and those which do not based on the prospect of conviction. The relevanceĀ of any evidence is off the mark a little, as the CPS agrees to bring cases to Court only if it thinks there is sufficient evidence to land a successful prosecution. As the case was thrown out after merely 3 hours it does raise serious questions about the decision the CPS took to prosecute Sgt Blake.Ā CPS decides which cases go to Court to save Court time and money. Courts decide outcomes based on cases brought to it by the CPS. The CPS (as with the IPCC to a lesser extent) kicked the can down the road on this because it made a political decision not to determine whether there was a case to answer - which is precisely its role.Ā Yes the evidence must be relevent and sufficient to go to court. The CPS maintain that the evidence passed their criteria for taking the matter to court. Are they lying? Also the defence never put in an application that there was no case to answer which they could have done had they thought the CPS had made the wrong decision to proceed to a trial. They accepted there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to court. www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-statement-acquittal-martyn-blakeCases like this, Saville, fayad suggest itās not fit for purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Oct 23, 2024 17:35:05 GMT
This should replace the Homer Simpson backing into the hedge gif š Heās such a knob and his dislike of police is obvious. On his show a caller said re Kaba āWhen an officer tells you stop you stop.ā And straight away he bought up Sarah Everard. What happened to Sarah Everard was truly awful but in the same way Kaba doesnāt represent the vast majority of the black community, Cousins doesnāt represent the vast majority of police officers. Iād love OBrien to give an example of an officer in full uniform assaulting an innocent member of the public minding their own business when they stop for them. Itās very, very rare. |
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Oct 23, 2024 18:46:41 GMT
Yes the evidence must be relevent and sufficient to go to court. The CPS maintain that the evidence passed their criteria for taking the matter to court. Are they lying? Also the defence never put in an application that there was no case to answer which they could have done had they thought the CPS had made the wrong decision to proceed to a trial. They accepted there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to court. www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-statement-acquittal-martyn-blakeCases like this, Saville, fayad suggest itās not fit for purpose. Exactly the points I'm trying to make. The rules are far too rigid and again what one CPS lawyer see's fit to prosecute, another one may not. A bit like VAR, despite the rules and regulations being there it's all down to someone's opinion at the end of the day. |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Oct 23, 2024 18:50:35 GMT
Cases like this, Saville, fayad suggest itās not fit for purpose. Exactly the points I'm trying to make. The rules are far too rigid and again what one CPS lawyer see's fit to prosecute, another one may not. A bit like VAR, despite the rules and regulations being there it's all down to someone's opinion at the end of the day. Or politics |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Oct 23, 2024 18:55:25 GMT
Just as an aside, what kind of parents spell Martin with a Y? Disgraceful
|
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Oct 23, 2024 18:56:02 GMT
Exactly the points I'm trying to make. The rules are far too rigid and again what one CPS lawyer see's fit to prosecute, another one may not. A bit like VAR, despite the rules and regulations being there it's all down to someone's opinion at the end of the day. Or politics More politics, the last thing VAR should be about is opinion |
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 23, 2024 19:30:27 GMT
Cases like this, Saville, fayad suggest itās not fit for purpose. Exactly the points I'm trying to make. The rules are far too rigid and again what one CPS lawyer see's fit to prosecute, another one may not. A bit like VAR, despite the rules and regulations being there it's all down to someone's opinion at the end of the day. 100% correct mate I've experienced exactly that, a charge refused and then granted and vice versa. |
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Oct 23, 2024 19:36:36 GMT
More politics, the last thing VAR should be about is opinion It sadly is though isn't it. All about interpretations.. All rules and regulations can be tweaked to suit agendas or genuine thought processes.. |
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Oct 23, 2024 19:39:30 GMT
Exactly the points I'm trying to make. The rules are far too rigid and again what one CPS lawyer see's fit to prosecute, another one may not. A bit like VAR, despite the rules and regulations being there it's all down to someone's opinion at the end of the day. 100% correct mate I've experienced exactly that, a charge refused and then granted and vice versa. From personal experience I've experienced and been on the end of exactly that. Someone's made a decision and someone else with a bit more influence/sway has overruled the initial decision without any just cause. Definitely open to interpretation and anyone who thinks otherwise is somewhat deluded. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 23, 2024 21:11:41 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dvdmzxz82oSounds like most of them would have been happy for Kaba to have injured or killed one of the police force, but don't see how he brought the situation on himself.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Oct 23, 2024 21:16:20 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dvdmzxz82oSounds like most of them would have been happy for Kaba to have injured or killed one of the police force, but don't see how he brought the situation on himself. I donāt know how these idiots manage to get dressed in the morning |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Oct 23, 2024 21:20:48 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dvdmzxz82oSounds like most of them would have been happy for Kaba to have injured or killed one of the police force, but don't see how he brought the situation on himself. Totally blinkered. |
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Oct 23, 2024 21:27:05 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dvdmzxz82oSounds like most of them would have been happy for Kaba to have injured or killed one of the police force, but don't see how he brought the situation on himself. Thereās so much wrong with that article, but then what do you expect. I see the quote ā Iām still looking at a life lostā as being more like, yeh but how many lives have now been saved? He would have killed at some point based upon his offending and lifestyle. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Oct 23, 2024 21:29:59 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3dvdmzxz82oSounds like most of them would have been happy for Kaba to have injured or killed one of the police force, but don't see how he brought the situation on himself. Thereās so much wrong with that article, but then what do you expect. I see the quote ā Iām still looking at a life lostā as being more like, yeh but how many lives have now been saved? He would have killed at some point based upon his offending and lifestyle. They canāt look beyond a hatred of authority and skin colour. |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Oct 23, 2024 22:34:53 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62940371.ampHas he commented yet about the truth and justice he demanded yet now that itās come out? Corbyn, Abbot and Khan shouldnāt be allowed to wriggle out of the comments they made at the time of Kabaās death. Judging and taking sides without any evidence. They got it very wrong and should be made to comment now having heard the full evidence and with the court case concluded. They certainly had plenty to say at the time funny that now they have gone very silent. Says a lot about them does that. Iāll bet that if Martyn Blake was found guilty theyād be on 24/7.
|
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Oct 23, 2024 22:58:57 GMT
Has he commented yet about the truth and justice he demanded yet now that itās come out? Corbyn, Abbot and Khan shouldnāt be allowed to wriggle out of the comments they made at the time of Kabaās death. Judging and taking sides without any evidence. They got it very wrong and should be made to comment now having heard the full evidence and with the court case concluded. They certainly had plenty to say at the time funny that now they have gone very silent. Says a lot about them does that. Iāll bet that if Martyn Blake was found guilty theyād be on 24/7.  Totally agree. Add Stormzy to that list as well. He was out there with the justice for Kaba crew straight after the incident. If happy enough to be outspoken at the time, don't skulk away into the background now the whole truth has come out, own it and save a bit of face & personal pride! Simply admit to backing the wrong horse..! But nah, easier for them to pretend they hadn't had anything to do with it šš¬š«£ Embarrassing.. |
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Oct 23, 2024 23:18:36 GMT
Has he commented yet about the truth and justice he demanded yet now that itās come out? Corbyn, Abbot and Khan shouldnāt be allowed to wriggle out of the comments they made at the time of Kabaās death. Judging and taking sides without any evidence. They got it very wrong and should be made to comment now having heard the full evidence and with the court case concluded. They certainly had plenty to say at the time funny that now they have gone very silent. Says a lot about them does that. Iāll bet that if Martyn Blake was found guilty theyād be on 24/7. Totally agree. Add Stormzy to that list as well. He was out there with the justice for Kaba crew straight after the incident. If happy enough to be outspoken at the time, don't skulk away into the background now the whole truth has come out, own it and save a bit of face & personal pride! Simply admit to backing the wrong horse..! But nah, easier for them to pretend they hadn't had anything to do with it šš¬š«£ Embarrassing.. It does appear that certainly in the case of some media publications Corbyn and Abbot are quite rightly now being called out for their comments in 2022. Stormzy isnāt a politician but clearly is looked on as a role model. Corbyn and Abbott as experienced MPs should know better. They all saw the headlines and jumped all over them without looking at the bigger picture and doing some research around Kabaās background choosing instead to go down the usual dividing route and portraying him as a martyr. Not the first time theyāve opened their mouths without thinking so we shouldnāt be too surprised and to think āJezzaā could have been PM. |
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 23, 2024 23:18:47 GMT
Has he commented yet about the truth and justice he demanded yet now that itās come out? Corbyn, Abbot and Khan shouldnāt be allowed to wriggle out of the comments they made at the time of Kabaās death. Judging and taking sides without any evidence. They got it very wrong and should be made to comment now having heard the full evidence and with the court case concluded. They certainly had plenty to say at the time funny that now they have gone very silent. Says a lot about them does that. Iāll bet that if Martyn Blake was found guilty theyād be on 24/7. Totally agree. Add Stormzy to that list as well. He was out there with the justice for Kaba crew straight after the incident. If happy enough to be outspoken at the time, don't skulk away into the background now the whole truth has come out, own it and save a bit of face & personal pride! Simply admit to backing the wrong horse..! But nah, easier for them to pretend they hadn't had anything to do with it šš¬š«£ Embarrassing.. Both been approached for a response by the news channel I was watching yesterday morning don't hold your breath though. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 24, 2024 3:25:24 GMT
View AttachmentTotally agree. Add Stormzy to that list as well. He was out there with the justice for Kaba crew straight after the incident. If happy enough to be outspoken at the time, don't skulk away into the background now the whole truth has come out, own it and save a bit of face & personal pride! Simply admit to backing the wrong horse..! But nah, easier for them to pretend they hadn't had anything to do with it šš¬š«£ Embarrassing.. Both been approached for a response by the news channel I was watching yesterday morning don't hold your breath though. Where were these same mouthpieces calling out the people who shot Sasha Johnson and the community covering up for them? It seems that black lives don't matter to them when it means calling out black on black crime, which is a terrible scourge on that community. That's too difficult a conversation for them to have and doesn't provide the same soundbite or clickbait opportunities does it. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Oct 24, 2024 5:51:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Chewbacca the Wookie on Oct 24, 2024 7:19:50 GMT
Both been approached for a response by the news channel I was watching yesterday morning don't hold your breath though. Where were these same mouthpieces calling out the people who shot Sasha Johnson and the community covering up for them? It seems that black lives don't matter to them when it means calling out black on black crime, which is a terrible scourge on that community. That's too difficult a conversation for them to have and doesn't provide the same soundbite or clickbait opportunities does it. Whether itās the Guardian or the likes of Corbyn, Khan and Abbott thereās no more bigoted view than theirs. When they call for ājusticeā itās only on their terms. Theyāre unwilling to look at the background behind the story and just look on it as white cop and black male rather than cop and gang member. This has nothing to do with colour and everything to do with criminality. Whereās there condoning of Kabaās shootings that have been identified or the numerous tragic murders of young black men in London that tragically occur way to frequently. Why donāt they do something more constructive or bring people together rather than continuously cause division when the evidence isnāt there. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 24, 2024 7:50:00 GMT
What Callas said in relation to the CPS isn't wrong. It is precisely the role of the CPS to decide which cases go to Court and those which do not based on the prospect of conviction. The relevance of any evidence is off the mark a little, as the CPS agrees to bring cases to Court only if it thinks there is sufficient evidence to land a successful prosecution. As the case was thrown out after merely 3 hours it does raise serious questions about the decision the CPS took to prosecute Sgt Blake. CPS decides which cases go to Court to save Court time and money. Courts decide outcomes based on cases brought to it by the CPS. The CPS (as with the IPCC to a lesser extent) kicked the can down the road on this because it made a political decision not to determine whether there was a case to answer - which is precisely its role. Yes the evidence must be relevent and sufficient to go to court. The CPS maintain that the evidence passed their criteria for taking the matter to court. Are they lying? Also the defence never put in an application that there was no case to answer which they could have done had they thought the CPS had made the wrong decision to proceed to a trial. They accepted there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to court. www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-statement-acquittal-martyn-blakeIt irrelevant whether the CPS is lying or not. The Court decided in merely 3 hours that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute which in itself means the CPS decision was wrong. 3 hours is a ridiculously short duration for a murder trial. The defence did not put in an application that there was no case to answer first and foremost because they didnāt need to. The IPCC is obligated to investigate all cases involving police discharging firearms, and as the IPCC itself wouldnāt make a decision on that prior to the CPSā decision to go to Court, that defence would reasonably have been thrown out by the Court. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Oct 24, 2024 8:53:11 GMT
Yes the evidence must be relevent and sufficient to go to court. The CPS maintain that the evidence passed their criteria for taking the matter to court. Are they lying? Also the defence never put in an application that there was no case to answer which they could have done had they thought the CPS had made the wrong decision to proceed to a trial. They accepted there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to court. www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-statement-acquittal-martyn-blakeIt irrelevant whether the CPS is lying or not. The Court decided in merely 3 hours that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute which in itself means the CPS decision was wrong. 3 hours is a ridiculously short duration for a murder trial. The defence did not put in an application that there was no case to answer first and foremost because they didnāt need to. The IPCC is obligated to investigate all cases involving police discharging firearms, and as the IPCC itself wouldnāt make a decision on that prior to the CPSā decision to go to Court, that defence would reasonably have been thrown out by the Court. The Court didn't decide there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Blake, the Court decided there was insufficient evidence to convict Blake of Murder Your statement that the IPCC wouldn't make a decision is incorrect on so many levels. The IPCC was disbanded in 2018 and replaced by the IOPC. The IOPC has powers to investigate but if they believe an investigation may warrant a prosecution they pass their file to CPS. IOPC have no powers to initiate a prosecution so therefore they had no decision to make. |
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 24, 2024 9:12:40 GMT
It irrelevant whether the CPS is lying or not. The Court decided in merely 3 hours that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute which in itself means the CPS decision was wrong. 3 hours is a ridiculously short duration for a murder trial. The defence did not put in an application that there was no case to answer first and foremost because they didnāt need to. The IPCC is obligated to investigate all cases involving police discharging firearms, and as the IPCC itself wouldnāt make a decision on that prior to the CPSā decision to go to Court, that defence would reasonably have been thrown out by the Court.Ā The Court didn't decide there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Blake, the Court decided there was insufficient evidence to convict Blake of MurderĀ Your statement that the IPCC wouldn't make a decision is incorrect on so many levels. The IPCC was disbanded in 2018 and replaced by the IOPC. The IOPC has powers to investigate but if they believe an investigation may warrant a prosecution they pass their file to CPS. IOPC have no powers to initiate a prosecution so therefore they had no decision to make.Ā You are again correct but I'd add that the IOPC does indeed recommend a charge if they think a crime has been committed, they ask the CPS to consider charges on their file compiled so they DO initiate proceedings technically as all Police Officers do also. A file would contain all the evidence and a recommendation as to whether to charge and for what. It's a discussion but yes the CPS do have the final say. I know its a technicality but an important one. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Oct 24, 2024 9:19:28 GMT
It irrelevant whether the CPS is lying or not. The Court decided in merely 3 hours that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute which in itself means the CPS decision was wrong. 3 hours is a ridiculously short duration for a murder trial. The defence did not put in an application that there was no case to answer first and foremost because they didnāt need to. The IPCC is obligated to investigate all cases involving police discharging firearms, and as the IPCC itself wouldnāt make a decision on that prior to the CPSā decision to go to Court, that defence would reasonably have been thrown out by the Court. The Court didn't decide there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Blake, the Court decided there was insufficient evidence to convict Blake of Murder Your statement that the IPCC wouldn't make a decision is incorrect on so many levels. The IPCC was disbanded in 2018 and replaced by the IOPC. The IOPC has powers to investigate but if they believe an investigation may warrant a prosecution they pass their file to CPS. IOPC have no powers to initiate a prosecution so therefore they had no decision to make. Iām making the assertion that the Court throwing out a murder trial case against Sgt Blake in 3 hours demonstrates there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Sgt Blake. My bad, as old habits die hard - I used to work there when it was still called the IPCC. The IPCC was not disbanded, it was reformed and rebranded from the IPCC to the IOPC. Same staff, same oversight function, slightly amended jurisdiction. It looks into cases where individuals die or sustain serious injuries following police contact. The IOPC can recommend action be taken against a serving police officer (for eg, serious or gross misconduct charges, it can recommend action be taken if it feels criminality has occurred). Moreover, the IOPC still has to decide whether to recommend action be taken against Sgt Blake outside of the recent murder trial. The IOPC obviously would not decide that with the CPS deciding to prosecute for murder. Hence the furore over Sgt Blake still potentially facing action from the IOPC. |
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 24, 2024 9:32:06 GMT
The Court didn't decide there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Blake, the Court decided there was insufficient evidence to convict Blake of MurderĀ Your statement that the IPCC wouldn't make a decision is incorrect on so many levels. The IPCC was disbanded in 2018 and replaced by the IOPC. The IOPC has powers to investigate but if they believe an investigation may warrant a prosecution they pass their file to CPS. IOPC have no powers to initiate a prosecution so therefore they had no decision to make.Ā Iām making the assertion that the Court throwing out a murder trial case against Sgt Blake in 3 hours demonstrates there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Sgt Blake. My bad, as old habits die hard - I used to work there when it was still called the IPCC. The IPCC was not disbanded, it was reformed and rebranded from the IPCC to the IOPC. Same staff, same oversight function, slightly amended jurisdiction. It looks into cases where individuals die or sustain serious injuries following police contact. The IOPC can recommend action be taken against a serving police officer (for eg, serious or gross misconduct charges, it can recommend action be taken if it feels criminality has occurred).Ā Moreover, the IOPC still has to decide whether to recommend action be taken against Sgt Blake outside of the recent murder trial. The IOPC obviously would not decide that with the CPS deciding to prosecute for murder. Hence the furore over Sgt Blake still potentially facing action from the IOPC. Ā Interesting comments do you anticipate gross misconduct proceedings in this case ? From my experience I would be very surprised if they decided not to hold a gross misconduct hearing in the coming months. |
|
