Bananaman Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/18/ba...ublic_interest/ Now the Police decide who's an expert witness and not the courts. And they'll bully the fuck out of you should you disagree. Makes me want to wretch! Bullying bastids! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 I work in computer forensics and can recall the conviction of Jim Bates for perjury. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind wanting to hire him as an expert witness after that but, on the basis that they do, it is (as the courts have now stated) for the court in each case to decide if he is competent to give expert evidence in particular areas of knowledge: not the police. Mu suspicion is that this is petty victimisation on the part of the police - Jim Bates had been a prosecution witness in many high profile child pornography cases, so his conviction for purjury gave many of those convicted on the basis of his evidence grounds for appeal, thus creating a lot of work for the police. Furthermore, he subsequently spoke out about the potential shortcomings of Operation Ore, and the liklihood that many of the supposed subscribers had been victims of credit card fraud. I also understand that Jim Bates' work since his conviction has been for defense teams: for some reason, the police seem to expect 'loyalty' from experts. This runs counter to the principle that experts should be (and should be seen to be) independent: their first duty is to the court. A refusal to undertake work for 'the other side' (in a different case) calls into question an expert's objectivity in my mind. Experts should be subject to the same 'taxi cab' rules as barristers in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovenotfear Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Yes the police state has arrived! Try and cover the annual bilderberg meeting and see what happens! http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/m...-skelton-greece http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/1...elton-dispatch1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
women4justice.co.uk Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Yes the police state has arrived! Try and cover the annual bilderberg meeting and see what happens! http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/m...-skelton-greece http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/1...elton-dispatch1 We know all about the police state Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I work in computer forensics and can recall the conviction of Jim Bates for perjury. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind wanting to hire him as an expert witness after that but, on the basis that they do, it is (as the courts have now stated) for the court in each case to decide if he is competent to give expert evidence in particular areas of knowledge: not the police. Mu suspicion is that this is petty victimisation on the part of the police - Jim Bates had been a prosecution witness in many high profile child pornography cases, so his conviction for purjury gave many of those convicted on the basis of his evidence grounds for appeal, thus creating a lot of work for the police. Furthermore, he subsequently spoke out about the potential shortcomings of Operation Ore, and the liklihood that many of the supposed subscribers had been victims of credit card fraud. I also understand that Jim Bates' work since his conviction has been for defense teams: for some reason, the police seem to expect 'loyalty' from experts. This runs counter to the principle that experts should be (and should be seen to be) independent: their first duty is to the court. A refusal to undertake work for 'the other side' (in a different case) calls into question an expert's objectivity in my mind. Experts should be subject to the same 'taxi cab' rules as barristers in my opinion. The row is in todays Times http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6368314.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Yes the police state has arrived! Try and cover the annual bilderberg meeting and see what happens! When was the last time you personally had your movements or freedom of expression inhibited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/18/ba...ublic_interest/Now the Police decide who's an expert witness and not the courts. And they'll bully the fuck out of you should you disagree. Makes me want to wretch! Bullying bastids! First off, an isolated case by a single police chief isn't anything like national policy, so I don't see how this makes for a police state. Of course the police select expert witnesses in prosecution cases, who else is going to? Doesn't look at all clean cut to me, why should Bates retain illegal child porn from past cases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Yes the police state has arrived! Try and cover the annual bilderberg meeting and see what happens! When was the last time you personally had your movements or freedom of expression inhibited? For most people it would happen everyday, but that is unlikely to have anything to do with state control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovenotfear Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Yes the police state has arrived! Try and cover the annual bilderberg meeting and see what happens! When was the last time you personally had your movements or freedom of expression inhibited? Ermm the last time i tried leaving here without ID!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Ermm the last time i tried leaving here without ID!! Your house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.