Sir Bob Almighty! 0 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Had a little bit of a party at my mates house, went to town, had a great night, drunk but not TOO drunk, gets to around 3am and some fat charv comes round the corner mouthing off at me... i dont react because thats not my style, i just have a bit of verbal with him and they disappear for a few seconds, then one of them in the group comes back and decks one of my mates, now i hate seeing my friends get hurt so me and another mate chase them off, without assaulting anyone. Then the next thing i know we turn around and theres another one of my mates fighting and another one about to join in and go for him, so to stop this i grab one of the lads by the arms to stop him from going for my mate, the police arrive and its all dealt with, no arrests. At this point i was angry seeing that my mates had been hurt in a fight, i hit the wall in frustration, not too hard i might add and theres no marks on my knuckles. Next thing i know I'm being handcuffed by two coppers who claim i cracked the window of samjacks with my fist and that they had seen this, so i get put in the back of the van and spend the night in a cell! Now the CCTV footage suppposedly shows nothing because it has poor quality, and i 100% did not crack any glass (especially industrial strength glass) Now i have to go to pilgrim street police station on may 20th to see what will come of it, but its two police against me if it goes to court! what you reckon will happen with that one? I refuse to admit to something i didnt do. Anyone been in this situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Had a little bit of a party at my mates house, went to town, had a great night, drunk but not TOO drunk, gets to around 3am and some fat charv comes round the corner mouthing off at me... i dont react because thats not my style, i just have a bit of verbal with him and they disappear for a few seconds, then one of them in the group comes back and decks one of my mates, now i hate seeing my friends get hurt so me and another mate chase them off, without assaulting anyone. Then the next thing i know we turn around and theres another one of my mates fighting and another one about to join in and go for him, so to stop this i grab one of the lads by the arms to stop him from going for my mate, the police arrive and its all dealt with, no arrests. At this point i was angry seeing that my mates had been hurt in a fight, i hit the wall in frustration, not too hard i might add and theres no marks on my knuckles. Next thing i know I'm being handcuffed by two coppers who claim i cracked the window of samjacks with my fist and that they had seen this, so i get put in the back of the van and spend the night in a cell! Now the CCTV footage suppposedly shows nothing because it has poor quality, and i 100% did not crack any glass (especially industrial strength glass) Now i have to go to pilgrim street police station on may 20th to see what will come of it, but its two police against me if it goes to court! what you reckon will happen with that one? I refuse to admit to something i didnt do. Anyone been in this situation? The burden of proof is with them. If all happened like you said it did you'll be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko 0 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Hasn't that sam jacks window been cracked for weeks? Either way if they cannot prove you smashed or cracked anything with hard evidence i fail to see how you could be prosecuted for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gejon 2 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 As others have said without any concrete evidence I don't think there is much they can do. Police can be right cunts though. I got "questioned" in the back of a police car after a fight by 3 of them and they were claiming I had blood on my hands and all sorts of shit when there wasn't a mark/spot on me. Doubt any of that would have held up in court if it went that far, if anything it would have ruined any case they would have had I imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10429 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 was there a kid in a Blyth shirt, eating a Mars Bar, drinking some water and playing a retro arcade machine in the corner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bob Almighty! 0 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 Hope you're right like lads, i mean theres nowt on my record so i would only get a warning but i'd most likely have to pay for the window, im in enough bloody debt as it is Wouldnt surprise me if the window has been broke for months and samjacks are just after a free fix. cunts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6822 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 was there a kid in a Blyth shirt, eating a Mars Bar, drinking some water and playing a retro arcade machine in the corner? He had my sympathy til he said he hit a wall . . . . but not too hard bet the police thought you was rock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 was there a kid in a Blyth shirt, eating a Mars Bar, drinking some water and playing a retro arcade machine in the corner? He had my sympathy til he said he hit a wall . . . . but not too hard bet the police thought you was rock! Yup once he hit a wall (which was daft, because police being police they'd see an easy mark) he clearly deserves any false charges they can think of to be held against him. Hope you're right like lads, i mean theres nowt on my record so i would only get a warning but i'd most likely have to pay for the window, im in enough bloody debt as it is Wouldnt surprise me if the window has been broke for months and samjacks are just after a free fix. cunts. Get a very good solicitor, and if necessary the best barrister you can afford, it's the only difference between a "guilty" person and an "innocent" one in cases like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 was there a kid in a Blyth shirt, eating a Mars Bar, drinking some water and playing a retro arcade machine in the corner? He had my sympathy til he said he hit a wall . . . . but not too hard bet the police thought you was rock! Yup once he hit a wall (which was daft, because police being police they'd see an easy mark) he clearly deserves any false charges they can think of to be held against him. Hope you're right like lads, i mean theres nowt on my record so i would only get a warning but i'd most likely have to pay for the window, im in enough bloody debt as it is Wouldnt surprise me if the window has been broke for months and samjacks are just after a free fix. cunts. Get a very good solicitor, and if necessary the best barrister you can afford, it's the only difference between a "guilty" person and an "innocent" one in cases like this. It's all fucking legal aid man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) was there a kid in a Blyth shirt, eating a Mars Bar, drinking some water and playing a retro arcade machine in the corner? He had my sympathy til he said he hit a wall . . . . but not too hard bet the police thought you was rock! Yup once he hit a wall (which was daft, because police being police they'd see an easy mark) he clearly deserves any false charges they can think of to be held against him. Hope you're right like lads, i mean theres nowt on my record so i would only get a warning but i'd most likely have to pay for the window, im in enough bloody debt as it is Wouldnt surprise me if the window has been broke for months and samjacks are just after a free fix. cunts. Get a very good solicitor, and if necessary the best barrister you can afford, it's the only difference between a "guilty" person and an "innocent" one in cases like this. It's all fucking legal aid man. It is if you want to be convicted. Never mind this Edited April 1, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Quality-citing a source which is essentially lawyers moaning about their wages. Boo hoo. It's done on a legal aid basis man, end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Fop currently Googling like frantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 PS none of the above is said as a pre-cursor to an argument, cos it's a waste of time. I just mentioned it as I objected to what effect it might have on a young lad who faces the prospect of court-scaremongering him into thinking he's fucked unless he's got money coming out of his ears to pay for legal representation that will in actual fact be available to him free of charge. Criminal law (and criminal damage) is conceptually very straight forward Bassong, so don't worry about getting sound advice and representation from a legal aid lawyer, be they solicitor or barrister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bob Almighty! 0 Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 My uncle (who used to be a solicitor) reckons that the case wont even make it to court, since theres no evidence. And I've already spoke to a solicitor before my statement, even he didnt think anything would come from it, but knowing my luck they will both be wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 My uncle (who used to be a solicitor) reckons that the case wont even make it to court, since theres no evidence. And I've already spoke to a solicitor before my statement, even he didnt think anything would come from it, but knowing my luck they will both be wrong Too early to tell by the sounds of things mate-just make sure you're represented on your bail back date. Hopefully you won't get charged up for it at all though. You're saying on a factual basis it wasn't your act and it sounds like on a legal basis also under de minimis principles there's a suggestion there was already damage to the thing even if the first point was in doubt. Good luck with it kidda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Fop currently Googling like frantic. Sorry to keep you waiting on tenterhooks manc-foplite, Fop knows property law is a high pressure business, but.... well lunch. (a Fop has to eat ) The last criminal case Fop was involved in both solicitor and barrister were engaged and paid for privately, after the case was thrown out (which is the RELEVANT point here - as Fop knows if it would have been with a different team ) most all costs were claimed back. Now is manc-foplite saying this is impossible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) PS none of the above is said as a pre-cursor to an argument, cos it's a waste of time. I just mentioned it as I objected to what effect it might have on a young lad who faces the prospect of court-scaremongering him into thinking he's fucked unless he's got money coming out of his ears to pay for legal representation that will in actual fact be available to him free of charge. Ah... so you are admitting you're talking already, before Fop even queried it. He can of course go the free route, it depends how much £££'s value you put on staying "clean" I suppose. Edited April 1, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Fop, what you've written there is a clear work of fiction. It's taken you a while to piece something together from a variety of online sources and then try to pass it off as some real life experience you've 'been involved in' What a liar. As stated before, Bassong would qualify for legal aid for this type of matter-he will therefore get his representation for free. I object to what you say because it is ill informed and would give Bassong the idea that the only way he can be acquitted is if he has lots of money. It's just cobblers. If there is any basis to what you are saying above (bearing in mind that you have blatantly made it up in as far as it was an actual personal experience-which worries me massively incidentally and is why I dont dispute wth you), I'm guessing you've probably stumbled across a source where someone has not been entitled to legal aid in the first place (due to the nature of the case) and has therefore paid privately-it is certainly then true that those costs can be re-claimed out of central funds. You made a similarly stupid criminal law point the other day in the 'John Terry's mam' thread re the administration of a caution btw. I know you've got opinions on this stuff but they're unfortunately mainly very ill informed. For instance in this thread you've managed to link to the Solicitor's Journal story above-I very much doubt Bassong wants a family law legal aid lawyer in this case tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawan 0 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Is this SJ in town next to gate? Walked past it today the crack is fucking tiny. Thats not the point tho, if they have no evidence then they surely cant charge you for anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) Fop, what you've written there is a clear work of fiction. It's taken you a while to piece something together from a variety of online sources and then try to pass it off as some real life experience you've 'been involved in' What a liar. As stated before, Bassong would qualify for legal aid for this type of matter-he will therefore get his representation for free. I object to what you say because it is ill informed and would give Bassong the idea that the only way he can be acquitted is if he has lots of money. It's just cobblers. If there is any basis to what you are saying above (bearing in mind that you have blatantly made it up in as far as it was an actual personal experience-which worries me massively incidentally and is why I dont dispute wth you), I'm guessing you've probably stumbled across a source where someone has not been entitled to legal aid in the first place (due to the nature of the case) and has therefore paid privately-it is certainly then true that those costs can be re-claimed out of central funds. You made a similarly stupid criminal law point the other day in the 'John Terry's mam' thread re the administration of a caution btw. I know you've got opinions on this stuff but they're unfortunately mainly very ill informed. For instance in this thread you've managed to link to the Solicitor's Journal story above-I very much doubt Bassong wants a family law legal aid lawyer in this case tbh. All of which (you an Chezzy with your words and words saying something very simple) actually means Fop is completely right as you're not saying it's wrong (and it can't be as it happened), all you are saying is that you have to believe Fop made it up and implying as if that would some how make it "wrong" even if it were the case. So I ask again are you saying that it is it impossible (nothing to do with cheaper or qualifying for legal aid - completely different issue)? Now I know you won't answer that, because it will make you look even more like your usual "self", so just stick to selling houses. Edited April 1, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Fop, you did make it up and my point stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Fop, you did make it up and my point stands. See? Fop was completely right. But you're right it would be cheaper to do it the cheap way (nothing to do with what Fop said though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Fop, you're mentally ill and Bassong should not be intimidated by your completely false assertion that payment is (and I quote) "the only difference between a "guilty" person and an "innocent" one in cases like this". I feel strongly about that because the threat of criminal proceedings alone is probably enough for Bassong to deal with right now without scaremongering too. You making stories up about yourself to give credance to what you say would be an utter disgrace if it were not for the fact that you're suffering from a defect of reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) Fop, you're mentally ill and Bassong should not be intimidated by your completely false assertion that payment is (and I quote) "the only difference between a "guilty" person and an "innocent" one in cases like this". I feel strongly about that because the threat of criminal proceedings alone is probably enough for Bassong to deal with right now without scaremongering too. You making stories up about yourself to give credance to what you say would be an utter disgrace if it were not for the fact that you're suffering from a defect of reason. You are having an argument with yourself (or at least the Fop in your head ) now, not Fop. Which is just as well as it is clearly the only type of argument you can win. Edited April 1, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now