1506 wrote:
On May 15, 3:19 pm, "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. 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.

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable.


But why? Simply because a tabloid told you anyone with a camera is a
peeedo/terrorist/MP/insert hate figure of the month?

Does that mean no more CCTV?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK