From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 31 13:07:27 2024 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: Successful failed prosecution References: <9lo6ajd32tbg66brnujage5ed0r9osn3cl@4ax.com> <2at6ajt89gg7oq7fjm3dtetceq66f5qbrp@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [17224264451421] reject abuse Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 13:07:25 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 You seem to be trying to insult the previous poster. If that was not your intention, omit the final sentence. The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful to another contributor. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 31 12:47:25 2024 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-hex-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of uni-berlin.de designates 130.133.4.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.133.4.89; envelope-from=mod-submit@uni-berlin.de; helo=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de; > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=XOpaFi918tjbz2OD6KVA8hXnaHueQlUM/A0qKrLuF98=; t=1722426441; x=1723031241; b=ApZMU2hw9NASb3K > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Successful failed prosecution > Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 12:47:20 +0100 > Message-ID: > References: > > > <9lo6ajd32tbg66brnujage5ed0r9osn3cl@4ax.com> > > <2at6ajt89gg7oq7fjm3dtetceq66f5qbrp@4ax.com> > > > > > > > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net xecQBNo0hUij1rmvicJuVAFCvthCYjOtQhOGJi06xf+QASC0Wf > Cancel-Lock: sha1:looVdzKbkRyyUw3xaVYBaTauphY= sha256:sNJjC2eLKsqLxRn6NKPgqwEMXdyjJYa5o0qjkbcC8Hk= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 17 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 31/07/2024 12:06, The Todal wrote: > > On 31/07/2024 00:57, JNugent wrote: > > >> Just imagine how you would react to "No comment" if you were a juror. > > > > I certainly wouldn't assume that it was a sign of guilt, without > > considering all the facts and circumstances and the directions of the > > judge. > > > >> Or perhaps, imagine how the other eleven would react to that if you > >> were a juror. > > > > Imagine if you were Huw Edwards being interviewed by the police. He has > > now pleaded guilty, by the way. And I have no idea how he responded to > > the police questions when interviewed. > > > > These images have been found on your computer - do you agree that they > > are indecent photographs? > > That's a legal question for the court to determine which he is not > qualified to answer. > > > Do you agree that all the images are of young people under the age of 18 > > and some are under the age of 15? > > He's not qualified to swear to anyone's age. > > > Did you download them deliberately? > > Fair question. > > > Are you the only person who ever uses this computer? > > Fair question, but very likely to be met with an unprovable and > unactionable denial whatever the facts. > > > Did you "make" the photographs? > > Again, a legal question for the court which he cannot answer and on > which his opinion is irrelevant. > > > Are the people in the photographs known to you or are they complete > > strangers? > > A question of doubtful relevance. > > > Do you have any reason that you believe to be legitimate, for possessing > > these photographs? > > He can't answer that. He's not a lawyer. > > > I think any sensible person would not want to make a full confession to > > the police and would want to reserve his position until he has had legal > > advice, from a lawyer who can tell him whether he has any defence or any > > mitigation. The suspect might be thinking "I've had major psychological > > problems over the years, but can that amount to a defence of any kind?" > > Having existed in the real world for some time, I think you can glean an > awful lot from non-answers to relevant questions both in police > interviews and in newsgroups. Don't you? > > You can also glean a lot about the questioner and his motives from the > questions he asks. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmaqKP0ACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x5X3ggAluAckI9aJL0o/pQbn5KLCIj/9C5m+vePfXGJb1uczMPFwwM2DT/eoOob 7ZFNThsDbYaI6gBK380mWVtGMp9X1WsgUJVQ5AHsNWLKnFX+rccoeG5dWtIsDZUI 77m7/F9KuLx7TmT+KkE3plu4wHh20w6pGv2zBroL5PtKe4CKmntE9kocEXY0Fl5D sGOjoILl6L3vBvME1Pe6EOgAKaqQ8kVME398hukMtBuaRYqSsjn9nFhC4+0eYk82 jwzvAMoZwFw5yh2t/ziARxvH+MYYiN4m9/0TMC/7KOM1rdiRDU2bIC3m7mOWlnjz HA/JZqa7q4felOIQ5l18a897ED95UA== =RK37 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----