"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.uk...
MB wrote:
"1506" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 7:54 am, furnessvale wrote:
On May 15, 3:24 pm, MIG wrote:





On 15 May, 15:17, Alistair Gunn wrote:
Theo Markettos twisted the electrons to say:
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w...0_15/05/2009_1...
Interestingly it's claimed that he deleted the photos before the
Police
ever got involved ... So where's the actual evidence to prove his
"crime" actually occured?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
The evidence is the distress.
So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.
Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.

George

what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
matter shall be confirmed."?

---------------------------------


Haven't you noticerd, everyone is now guilty unless proved innocent and
even then still considered probably a criminal.

Don't a lot of people who follow rules like the one above believe that
everyone born *is* guilty, by definition?

Some of the interviews with police and Home Office people about the
keeping of DNA records of innocent people were illuminating. They just
did not understand the concept, one even admitted that he would have to
look up in the dictionary. One aspect was that if you are innocent of
most crimes they want to keep your DNA for six years but if you are
innocent of a more serious crime then they want to keep it for twelve
years.

Radio 4 recently had a minister(?) saying they had to keep your DNA
because even if you are found not guilty you might offend *again*. They
gave him a couple of explicit opportunities to correct this, but he was
quite clear that anyone arrested is guilty, even if a mere court finds
them not guilty.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK




There is the other recent case where the police found some money in a house
and are keeping it unless the owner can prove where he got it. I don't
think most people have any objection to criminal's money being confiscated
but you would expect at least some evidence that it was obtained through
criminal activities.