I was on the train

[Inspector Blake aka Blakey]

"a_a_a" <a@a.a.net> wrote in message
news:4d755fee$0$30002$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraw eb.com...
> On 8/03/2011 07:11, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>
>> maybe a bad example on my part, my point is when the police see someone
>> doing something unsafe they stop the person doing that. They use their
>> training to recongnise a situation where someone is doing something
>> stupid
>> and/or dangerous
>
> there is no general offence of doing something which the police consider
> dangerous, so what authority do they claim to have to 'stop' the person
> doing it?
>

Duty of care, read up on it.

[Inspector Blake aka Blakey]

>> Someone, chances are it was a country area with a very small police
>> station
>> and as already stated they need to get ALL the facts before deciding if
>> an
>> offence has been committed.
>>
>
> What are "ALL" the facts? It's not even apparent that they got the
> relevant facts.
>
>>

Now you are playing with words, they get all the facts they need when they
get there by doing their job as police


>>> Hah. The police know very little about the law.
>>
>>
>> really, talk to the police. What are you basing this generalisation on?
>
> From talking to police.

Well I would trust a seasoned police officer over you anyday


>> WHAT? they need the facts FIRST then they can research the law. Without
>> the
>> facts any researching of the law is a waste.
>
> There are endless facts that can be collected about a train. It's mass,
> the power of its engine, the cargo it's carrying, the speed it was going
> before the stopped it, the state of the track underneath it, it's colour,
> ....
>
> Most are irrelevant. Yet there was one very important fact - whether the
> area was designated as a prohibited area, but the police didn't know that
> at the time, because they hadn't researched the law.
>

Expain how they are supposed to reasearch the law before knowing exactly
what has happened? What if they got there and the two guys were rail workers
checking on something and had all the proper safety gear etc What if it was
a false alarm? You can not work out what to charge them with before you find
out exactly what happened.


> >> Hence my comment 'tell it to the judge' he or she will decide if an
> >> offence
>> was committed.
>
> It would be an abuse of process indeed, if the police were to start
> arresting people on the basis that a court could, in due course, make a
> pronouncement on their guilt.
>
>
The police will decide if in their opinion an offence has occurred and also
if they can prove it and get a conviction. If they don't then it will not
get to court and in this case by charging them they feel they canprove an
offence and if the judge says that an offence didn't occur then so be it.
That is what the courts are for.

[Epsilon]

Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>
>
> Sorry you are not able to see my point, want me to dumb it down a
> touch?

The evidence is clear - that would be impossible. But, please. Don't let
me hold you up.

[Inspector Blake aka Blakey]

"a_a_a" <a@a.a.net> wrote in message
news:4d76ceb5$0$29892$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraw eb.com...
> On 9/03/2011 10:46, Epsilon wrote:
>> Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry you are not able to see my point, want me to dumb it down a
>>> touch?
>>
>> The evidence is clear - that would be impossible. But, please. Don't let
>> me hold you up.
>
> Well said, epsilon. However perhaps we should ask Inspector Blake just one
> more question - how would HE feel if he was charged on some trumped-up
> charge on non-existent evidence? Would HE take his own advice and say
> 'that's fine, I can rely on the court system to get me off, and it's all
> in a good cause'?
>
>
>
>

Yes I would fight it through the courts and if the evidence was non existent
etc I would then start civil action against those who charged me and the
retire with my millions.

[Inspector Blake aka Blakey]

"a_a_a" <a@a.a.net> wrote in message
news:4d770be1$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraw eb.com...
> On 9/03/2011 15:09, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>
>> I never made that claim, I'm not the one who said police frame people etc
>> etc
>
> do you seriously deny that police frame people?
>
>
>
It happened in the past with cops who were on the take but I have faith in
our system and the percentage of people framed by the police will be very
very small.

[Inspector Blake aka Blakey]

"a_a_a" <a@a.a.net> wrote in message
news:4d77f70b$0$30002$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraw eb.com...
> On 10/03/2011 01:31, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>
>>> do you seriously deny that police frame people?
>
>> It happened in the past with cops who were on the take but I have faith
>> in
>> our system and the percentage of people framed by the police will be very
>> very small.
>
> Did you arrive on earth in the last raindrop?
>
>
>

Still yet to see proof of your wild conspiracy theory of widespread police
frame ups. As stated previously sometimes the police are not able to prove
the charges they lay and the person is found innocent whih is why we have
courts, you probably believe the moon landing and 9/11 were fakes too.

[Inspector Blake aka Blakey]

"a_a_a" <a@a.a.net> wrote in message
news:4d79ec85$0$29996$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraw eb.com...
> On 11/03/2011 08:43, Inspector Blake aka Blakey wrote:
>
>> I have never claimed it doesn't happen and I'm sure it does but not very
>> often. a_a_a makes out like it is an everyday occurence.
>
> Exactly.
>
> And if you refuse to recognise that simple reality and choose to keep your
> head firmly in the clouds, we have totally exhausted any useful
> discussion. Good night.
>
>

I have never said it doesn't has hasn't happened. You are the one making
claims of widespread police framing people.