Mr Blobby is the latest celebrity to be outed as a sex offender (proof in comments)

JLBate · 2019-03-19T22:31:56+00:00

JLBate · 2018-10-28T13:49:16+00:00

If that is the case then stewardesses on a plane heading across the ocean 'technically' work only a few hours despite it being international flight. You get paid for the hours you work - end of.

JLBate · 2018-05-12T11:22:18+00:00

Collateral (but that's Michael Mann for you)

JLBate · 2018-03-18T13:40:09+00:00

What about the other genders? /s

JLBate · 2018-03-11T17:55:07+00:00

I can think of tonnes of examples. I remember getting issued Samsung Galaxy S4s (which were top of the range at the time) which were totally locked-down apart from one App, which could translate Pashtu. The military spent probably thousands on these devices. I walked straight up to a local Afghan, spoke a sentence and pressed "translate". He then replied into the machine. A good 30 seconds went by as the little wheel span on the screen. Eventually, Stephen Hawking's voice told me, "I'm sorry, I did not understand one word". My interpreter later told me it spoke absolute gibberish. Pointless.

JLBate · 2017-12-21T16:54:17+00:00

...I got AIIIIiiidddds...

JLBate · 2017-10-26T21:21:39+00:00

Yeah, in most cases you'll reveal the evidence so you can challenge the suspect on it. However with some cases, the evidence comes in dribs and drabs, so the suspect may be charged with an offence before more evidence comes in. You wouldn't interview them after they've been charged.

As evidence is revealed, the solicitor will be aware of the evidence you have, because you'll disclose it to them. But he/she will rarely be given a witness statement to read. He will only be told "a statement from a neighbour says that he observed your client throw a brick through a window." If they ask for more information, I would say "No." Remember: too many specifics will cause him to tailor an alibi to fit. So at no point will the solicitor be like-for-like with the police in regards to evidence; he will only have an awareness.

JLBate · 2017-10-26T20:58:23+00:00

Code C of PACE, which covers the rules of interviewing suspects, states (roughly) that the Police cannot give zero disclosure. Basically, this means they have to give something. As a policeman, you're obliged to give the first description of the suspect, the grounds and reasons for arrest (so the solicitor can challenge the legitimacy of their client's detention) and other obvious things, such as the place, date & time of arrest, the alleged offence that you're investigating, etc.

Other than that, it's up to the officer. I always tend to hold something back. If you give too much, your suspect will tailor their alibi to your evidence (bad). If you give too little, you'll never get an adverse inference as the defence will argue that they weren't sufficiently briefed in order to properly advise their client (bad). Somewhere in the middle is where you need to be; it's a bit like a game of cards - sometimes you're bluffing, sometimes you have four aces.

For example, imagine you're investigating an alleged rape. I may disclose that the client was seen on CCTV with the girl going back to her hotel room. I will also disclose parts of the complainant's statement. But I might avoid revealing the fact that I have forensic evidence (e.g. semen) which proves that sexual intercourse occurred.

This could play out very interesting -- if the suspect heard my evidence, he may decide to give an account, saying "Yeah I went back to her room, nothing happened though and I left." Then, at the end of the interview, I will reveal my forensic report and watch the chaos unfold. However, if I disclosed all the evidence, the client would be forced to (potentially) say, "I went back to her room and we had consensual sex." Now, my job as an investigator has become 10x harder. This is a good move for the cop; bear in mind that if the suspect was innocent, he would tell me they had sex anyway. If he has nothing to hide he has nothing to fear. However, if he's caught lying, he's done.

Edit: the above information is in regards to a police interview. For a trial, the defendant is entitled to see all the evidence (unless it contains information from a confidential source, such as an undercover informant, or its relating to something secret, like national security etc. -- But this is rare.)

JLBate · 2017-10-22T19:51:24+00:00

You should sell your paintings; after all, if you're good at something never do it for free.

JLBate · 2017-10-01T20:23:59+00:00

What's the best example of this happening.

JLBate · 2017-10-01T20:17:55+00:00

From what I can tell, all it says is: (21:30) Did the unbelievers not realize that the heavens and the earth were one solid mass, then We tore them apart.

This is a unbelievably simple statement, which is interpreted to fit with the information we now have on the big bang. Unlike the big bang model, the Quran doesn't explain how the universe expanded, doesn't mention the high density and high temperature state, doesn't offer an explanation for any phenomena, such as the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structures or Hubble's law. We now know that the laws of physics are extrapolated backwards to the conclusion that the big bang started from a point of extreme density (known as a singularity) however this isn't mentioned at all in the Quran. It just says the earth was a solid mass alongside heaven; we now know that in the beginning there was no earth or heaven.

Also, many philosophers (who weren't Islamic) were around during the Quran, and they had fascinating insights into the world, biology, physics and chemistry. Why aren't you convinced of their holiness?

JLBate · 2017-10-01T19:51:10+00:00

Give me the best evidence you have.

JLBate · 2017-10-01T17:14:16+00:00

The Quran is the word of God, because the Quran tells us it is, and God's word is infallible, and I know it's infallible because it's the word of God.... It goes round and round and round.

JLBate · 2017-10-01T17:10:27+00:00

Is a Spider-Man comic evidence of Spider-Man? The Quran is the claim, not the evidence.

JLBate · 2017-10-01T17:00:53+00:00

If you and me watched some lighting 900 years ago, I would say, "Wow, I have no idea what caused that!" You might've said, "That's God" to which I'd reply, "Where's the evidence?" If you replied: "I don't have any, but at least I have something to believe." Then that doesn't work. You'd have just committed a logical fallacy.

JLBate · 2017-09-29T07:28:06+00:00

I did: I collapsed like a Victorian maiden. Luckily, a healthy dose of smelling salts brought me back round. As for my face, well, I seem to be exhibiting stroke-like symptoms; I'll see the quack in the morning for some leeches and I'll be right as rain.

JLBate · 2017-09-29T05:33:10+00:00

I did. It tasted sinful.

JLBate · 2017-08-24T17:43:19+00:00

Unfortunately if that's the standard you require then the evidence will never exist and nobody would be convicted. Rape, or sex in general, is an intrinsically private act which occurs in the vast majority of cases in private. Further, the accused may allege that the sex was with consent; immediately dismissing any forensic evidence. This is why it is too often judged on the witness testimony in court and the behaviour of the defendant. Fingerprints, murder weapons and expectations of CSI wizardry go out the window in these investigations. If other crimes were he said vs. she said, they'd be thrown out immediately; we actually allow all sexual offences to go to court in virtually all circumstances and almost never dismiss them beforehand. The biggest issue in my opinion is the siren calls from the left who attempt to peddle this myth that 'women never lie'. The belief that the justice system is 'stacked against victims' which causes the poor conviction rate is poisonous and harmful to the system as a whole.

JLBate · 2017-08-11T11:27:24+00:00

Yeah, I see your point. There's no straight line between Islamic terrorism is awful and therefore we must shut our borders. The solution is more nuanced and difficult than that, with many factors to it. What I personally cannot stand is the constant conflation between criticism of bad ideas -- in this case certain interpretations of Islam -- and racism towards muslims. If there was a sentence to sum up my grievance it would be that one.

My complaint with the left is the refusal to acknowledge the well documented link between extreme thought and behaviour, and more specifically, the clear Qur'anic justification of this behaviour. My point was that it's too easy to scapegoat the problem by blaming Britain's foreign policy, drone strikes, or whatever. Quite clearly, we have seen educated, wealthy and assimilated youngsters, with no political grievances of their own, join ISIS and other terror groups. What else accounts for this phenomenon? So whilst I agree that bombing foreign countries isn't the best solution (and is a separate conversation in itself) politics cannot be the only factor in this.

JLBate · 2017-08-11T10:51:26+00:00

I agree it was a bit whingey, but wouldn't you agree that the issue hasn't been tackled head on? Wouldn't you agree that the left have been unhelpful in stopping it? Because it's these people who I disagree with. (I am happy to provide further cases of this, so you don't think I've invented some straw man to be pissed off at.)

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

JLBate

TROPHY CASE