Charles Floate charged with hacking and possession of child sex images

[dymockpoet]

I think we are running into language difficulties, or a miscommunication. Allow me to rephrase.

In the US you have the right to silence. If you elect to exercise your right to silence (highly recommended) it is not a bar to using things you kept silent about for your defense. As I understand the UK system, while you do not have to speak, the failure to speak when questioned by the *authorities* is a bar against later using the things you remained silent about for your defense. Hence, my assertion that you do not have a right to remain silent.

It is also my understanding that the trial phase is different in that in the UK you have to prove yourself innocent whereas in the US the prosecutor must prove you guilty. There is a difference. However, as practiced in the US, because of the attitude of the court personnel, the police, and the propensity of the jurors to believe the police, you actually have to prove yourself innocent.

Excuse me, sir, but you are talking a lot of nonsense on this thread about the UK legal system. From PACE:

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

So you can later rely on something in court that you did not mention previously. However, it is possible that the jury could draw an adverse inference from your silence, in certain (limited) circumstances. These are laid out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I'm not allowed to link to stuff, but look it up if you're interested.

You are also incorrect about the burden of proof in the UK. You don't have to 'prove yourself innocent'. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, who must prove your guilt beyond 'reasonable doubt'.

So really I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

Too bad he didn't have gotten busted by Stinson Hunter first before the cops found the pics.

 

[EddieC123]

They aren't really cracking down on activism

Incorrect on this count as well, numerous laws have been passed in recent years in the UK to severely limit political activism.

Massive groups like Anonymous could have lobbied and won privacy protection laws and laws to protect free speech on the internet in many countries in Europe and in America

If you genuinely believe this you must go through life with your eyes firmly shut.

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

Incorrect on this count as well, numerous laws have been passed in recent years in the UK to severely limit political activism.



If you genuinely believe this you must go through life with your eyes firmly shut.

My eyes aren't shut, companies legally donate millions of dollars to get laws changed in their favor. Anonymous could easily raise millions of dollars itself from their popularity.

 

[EddieC123]

Do you genuinely believe that shite as you type it? There is no hope in hell that any western government would put the demands of Anonymous ahead of the common interests of not only a multitude of huge businesses but also their own - with the exception of a small minority they all have financial interests in said businesses themselves.

 

[JustUs]

Excuse me, sir, but you are talking a lot of nonsense on this thread about the UK legal system. From PACE:

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

So you can later rely on something in court that you did not mention previously. However, it is possible that the jury could draw an adverse inference from your silence, in certain (limited) circumstances. These are laid out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I'm not allowed to link to stuff, but look it up if you're interested.

You are also incorrect about the burden of proof in the UK. You don't have to 'prove yourself innocent'. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, who must prove your guilt beyond 'reasonable doubt'.

So really I don't know what you're talking about.

Not familure with Pace, but given the the name of the act, I traced it down.

Section 35(2) [in part]: "it will be permissible for the court or jury to draw such inferences as appear proper from his failure to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question."

Basically you are compelled to answer any question. Voluntary compulsion is still compulsion. The compulsion is a negative inference that will harm the defense. In the US the jury is admonished not to draw any inference from silence or refusal to answer questions.

Section 36 Effect of accused's failure or refusal to account for objects, substances or marks.
(paraphrased) refusal to account for objects, etc. result in a negative inference.

Again voluntary compulsion is still compulsion.

Section 37 Effect of accused's failure or refusal to account for presence at a particular place.
Again negative inference for refusal or failure to account for ones presence.

Section 34 allows silence to be introduced into evidence as evidence of guilt.

I stand on my position that a person has to prove their innocence.

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

Do you genuinely believe that shite as you type it? There is no hope in hell that any western government would put the demands of Anonymous ahead of the common interests of not only a multitude of huge businesses but also their own - with the exception of a small minority they all have financial interests in said businesses themselves.

Its the truth, western governments can be bought, and anyone can buy them. Anonymous could be just another lobby group, as long as they have the money to get what they want they will be effective.

 

[dymockpoet]

Not familure with Pace, but given the the name of the act, I traced it down.

You're not familiar with one of the most important statutes in English criminal law? Good start.

Section 35(2) [in part]: "it will be permissible for the court or jury to draw such inferences as appear proper from his failure to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question."

Basically you are compelled to answer any question. Voluntary compulsion is still compulsion. The compulsion is a negative inference that will harm the defense. In the US the jury is admonished not to draw any inference from silence or refusal to answer questions.

How on earth do you draw that conclusion from the section you quoted? You don't have to answer any question if you don't want to. 'Voluntary compulsion' is an oxymoron. I will quote section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (the one you should be looking at):

4) This section does not render the accused compellable to give evidence on his own behalf, and he shall accordingly not be guilty of contempt of court by reason of a failure to do so.

Random aside: you're not a native English speaker are you? Stop trying to sound clever by using fancy words. You're actually making yourself look stupid because you're not using them correctly. Look up the meaning of 'admonished', for example, and you'll see that your use of the word is wrong. You should have just said 'told'.

I stand on my position that a person has to prove their innocence.

Well that is just stupid. The presumption of innocence is probably the most fundamental right a defendant has and is explicitly included in art. 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which is binding on all member states, including the UK): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". And it's 'stand by', not 'stand on'. You stand by your position, not on it.

 

[Reops]

He entered no plea. Does this mean guilty by default? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[EddieC123]

Its the truth, western governments can be bought, and anyone can buy them. Anonymous could be just another lobby group, as long as they have the money to get what they want they will be effective.

Absolutely they can be bought, but you're wrong that anyone can buy them. In principle yes anyone could, but they would have to have more money to offer than all the corporate lobbying groups that their aims clashed with. In the case of Anonymous this is simply impossible, ignoring the other groups their aims clash with can you really see them ever having enough money just to compete with the oil & banking industries?

He entered no plea. Does this mean guilty by default? Correct me if I'm wrong.

No, simply that it hasn't got to the point where he needs to enter a plea yet.

 

[JustUs]

You're not familiar with one of the most important statutes in English criminal law? Good start.



How on earth do you draw that conclusion from the section you quoted? You don't have to answer any question if you don't want to. 'Voluntary compulsion' is an oxymoron. I will quote section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (the one you should be looking at):

4) This section does not render the accused compellable to give evidence on his own behalf, and he shall accordingly not be guilty of contempt of court by reason of a failure to do so.

Random aside: you're not a native English speaker are you? Stop trying to sound clever by using fancy words. You're actually making yourself look stupid because you're not using them correctly. Look up the meaning of 'admonished', for example, and you'll see that your use of the word is wrong. You should have just said 'told'.



Well that is just stupid. The presumption of innocence is probably the most fundamental right a defendant has and is explicitly included in art. 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which is binding on all member states, including the UK): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". And it's 'stand by', not 'stand on'. You stand by your position, not on it.

Let me requote for you:

4) This section does not render the accused compellable to give evidence on his own behalf, and he shall accordingly not be guilty of contempt of court by reason of a failure to do so.

Not being in contempt of court is not the same thing as drawing a negative inference for failing to give evidence in his behalf. Is it?

To answer your second issue. I have been a native English speaker, and a fluent one, all of my life. The difference is English as spoken/written/understood in England versus English as spoken/written/understood in the United States. There is one hell of a difference. A very simple example is the word "Truck" In England it generally means a handcart of the type used to move furniture or appliances where as in the US it means a motor vehicle such as a semi truck or pickup truck. What is called a truck in the United States would be called a "Lorry" in England.

"European Convention on Human Rights?" I really have to laugh here, especially when it comes to England. I could pick a number of areas, but I will just stick to privacy as the example. Remember the World Court Ruling that Google must take down URL's of outdated, irrelevant, and inaccurate or personally invassive articles? Happening all across the Eu. right now, to date 177,000 url's taken down. The ruling is based on the European Convention on Human Rights. England is bucking the ruling. Immigration would be another good area to pick on, but I said I would stick to one. The point here is that England complies with the European Convention on Human Rights when it is convenient and ignores it when it is not. That is not the people, that is your government. Don't even get me going because all governments have problems and the US is worse than most!

Then you choose to jump on my grammar. Well... First of all I place a person picking on the grammar of another, especially when it involves two different versions of a related language, to be a candidate for Godwin's law. Next, the grammar is different between your country and mine; you are acting improperly when you fail to take that into consideration.

 

[misteryou.]

i don't know who is this Charles and not even interested to know what he did or not

i start to wonder: are we in BHW or are you copy pasting your facebook timeline guys lol

 

[mqsss]

Seriously, screw this kid. "Fake it until you make it" obviously works.

Lying about income, references, driving license, scamming people for $5... This guy was the same thing as CEOsam, but Charles probably knows a lot more about SEO and marketing in general.

He copied content from other blogs and twisted it around a little bit, that's nothing new. You'd be amazed how many self-proclaimed top bloggers copy content from Backlinko or Viperchill, and don't actually test anything by themselves.

There are shitloads of SEO & marketing blogs out there, but most of them are crap with zero to little value. Nowadays people just copy content, twist it around and try to discredit successful bloggers and steal their readers. I know a guy that wrote probably more than 500k words on his SEO & marketing blog and earned just couple of pennies out of it. Still he has the balls to discredit people like Patt Flynn, John Chow and others.

Everyone wants to be a baller way before they stop sucking on mama's tits.

 

[wi11iam]

Excuse me, sir, but you are talking a lot of nonsense on this thread about the UK legal system. From PACE:

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

So you can later rely on something in court that you did not mention previously. However, it is possible that the jury could draw an adverse inference from your silence, in certain (limited) circumstances. These are laid out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I'm not allowed to link to stuff, but look it up if you're interested.

You are also incorrect about the burden of proof in the UK. You don't have to 'prove yourself innocent'. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, who must prove your guilt beyond 'reasonable doubt'.

So really I don't know what you're talking about.

I agree with this statement 100%. I graduated with both a bachelor's and master's of law from UK universities and I myself am British. It is up to the prosecution to prove that you are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. When you enter a courtroom the presumption is that you are innocent until the prosecution can prove that you are not. If they can't prove this beyond any reasonable doubt then the defendant must be found not guilty.

Please read the Human Right Act 1998, schedule 1, article 6 and the answer is clearly written in black and white. "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

 

[nimrodo]

my thoughts exactly (about the child porn thing)...

 

[mickyfu]

I feel very sorry for you. You see nothing else then flesh when it comes to human beings. I'll pray for you today.

You feel sorry for me? If you think what Charlie Peado has been up to is fine, then I feel sorry for kids that come across you. Oh and save your prayers for Charlie.

 

[Scritty]

in the US a person is innocent until proven guilt, while in the UK a person is guilty unless proven innocent. The other major difference that I am aware of is that in the US a person has the right to silence, while in the UK a person does not.

Have to pull you up there.

Same rules apply. Innocent until proven guilty and we do have a right to silence.
The addition to the Miranda rights "If you fail to say something that you later rely on in court" was added, but doesn't prevent you from being as silent as you like - in practice in fact silence as a defence is far more likely to succeed in the UK than in the USA if you check the defence stats.

Scritty

 

[Reops]

I agree with this statement 100%. I graduated with both a bachelor's and master's of law from UK universities and I myself am British. It is up to the prosecution to prove that you are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. When you enter a courtroom the presumption is that you are innocent until the prosecution can prove that you are not. If they can't prove this beyond any reasonable doubt then the defendant must be found not guilty.

Please read the Human Right Act 1998, schedule 1, article 6 and the answer is clearly written in black and white. "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

Could you comment on this please:

He tweeted during the day of the Brighton SEO event:

Was on my way to #BrightonSEO when the Cyber Crimes Unit decided to interject my journey - Not been charged but they didn't like my book..

and this...

Police have been visiting my friends & family now.. Not actually asking any questions just making their presence felt.. Harassment.

On the day of the event, they confiscated his equipment and have ran it through forensics. They then charged him a few days ago.

They would require a substantial amount of evidence to charge, correct? And they would require a reason to put him on remand.

 

[mickyfu]

And they would require a reason to put him on remand.

The normal reason being that they are a danger to others, in Charlies case, kids.

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

Have to pull you up there.

Same rules apply. Innocent until proven guilty and we do have a right to silence.
The addition to the Miranda rights "If you fail to say something that you later rely on in court" was added, but doesn't prevent you from being as silent as you like - in practice in fact silence as a defence is far more likely to succeed in the UK than in the USA if you check the defence stats.

Scritty

In the U.S., schools and many older people try to teach that only the U.S. has Miranda rights laws and innocent until proven guilty, and every other country has laws that make people guilty until proven innocent.