It is is simple as that, unless you are going to go down the line of conspiracy theories, in which case it is perhaps you who is simple.
Charles Floate charged with hacking and possession of child sex images
- Thread starter boombaby7
- Start date
- Status
It is is simple as that, unless you are going to go down the line of conspiracy theories, in which case it is perhaps you who is simple.
stharthjw6j
BANNED
- Dec 23, 2013
- 584
- 251
IIt's a common misconception, and a lazy one at that, to think that criticizing the law courts' legitimacy is akin to wearing a tin-foil hat. Well if it helps, I don't think the moon landings were filmed in a Hollywood studio, and I don't think 9/11 was an inside job. But the law courts deciding verdicts based on institutionally manipulated evidence isn't fanciful, not least because it's done in front of your very eyes & ears as it happens. Lawyers even freely admit to it (outside of court of course), and I refer you to my above post for more details. Any victim of a false verdict has to deal with the consequences of this gamesmanship the law courts call an investigation. This IM person you hate may or not be sent down by the courts, and you might even enjoy it if he is, but it doesn't mean what the courts say about him is factual, or even beyond reasonable doubt, the courts are not a credible witness.
MiLiTARYiV
Senior Member
- Jan 9, 2008
- 963
- 605
ahh so this was Charles. Looks like he is a fraud. He then tried to post his license but forgot to edit out the signature which said A. Sample..lol
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...ar-working-house-post5497426.html#post5497426
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/making-money/559428-my-success-story-17-years-old-car-working-house.html
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/shit-list/539328-dhselleruk-scam-ungrateful-16-year-old.html
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...ar-working-house-post5497426.html#post5497426
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/making-money/559428-my-success-story-17-years-old-car-working-house.html
http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/shit-list/539328-dhselleruk-scam-ungrateful-16-year-old.html
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 720373
Guest
Agreed 1000%, in the UK these days the police are scared to slap handcuffs on someone unless they have verifiable proof that a crime has been committed. Lawyers have a field day with wrongful arrest charges and people unlawfully detained. If the police weren't afraid that they could lose their jobs for detaining someone they believe MAY have committed a crime then maybe more paedophiles wouldn't slip through the net and carry on abusing young kids.
Believe me, I know a few coppers (all for good reasons) and they all seem to hate the job nowadays because of the interference from higher authorities and the do gooders in our society.
Anyway, I don't wish to get into a debate about this because there is a real danger of this becoming a political discussion which is against the forum rules but I just want to state that micky is correct in stating that this guy would NOT have been detained if there was no evidence against him.
Just read your post after I posted mine, it seems you and micky have crossed wires here. You are seemingly both stating the same point but from a different perspective.
The point I believe micky is making is that the police have enough evidence to detain Charles Float but you are talking about courtroom manipulation from a barristers point. We all know that barristers have a talent for asking the perfect question to lead the witness/defendant into a statement they wish them to make but that is the British justice system for you. Nothing whatsoever to do with being initially detained and remanded in custody.
Last edited by a moderator:
stharthjw6j
BANNED
- Dec 23, 2013
- 584
- 251
Evidence in a courtroom is in the eye of the beholder, and the only beholders with the power are the court judges, which defeats the purpose of true evidence. So the goal for police or other authority bodies becomes less about actual evidence, and more about legal checkboxes that pass in court, and it's those checkboxes that are called evidence, as is the secondary evidence that fills those checkboxes.
Yes, my criticism is of the British law courts.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 720373
Guest
Well as micky is stating below, he is referring to the evidence that the police will have found. That is what will result in him being remanded.
See above.
C'mon guys. Kiss and make up.
stharthjw6j
BANNED
- Dec 23, 2013
- 584
- 251
That's a very superficial analysis, and the answer to all four questions is: You have no idea.
By the way, I'm not defending or accusing this guy, he's not my concern, partly because like you I also have no idea what's going on, the difference is I don't pretend to do so and whip out my lynch & torch in gossiping anticipation, validating a dubious "due process" which has victimized what will be a forever unknown number of people, like unnamed tombstones of justice.
So what you are saying is the police are making it up? Stop talking complete and utter shit. It is as simple as this. In the UK he would not have been remanded unless he had done something serious, something that had overwhelming evidence against him. Like it or don't. It is fact.
D
Deleted member 720373
Guest
Capo Dei Capi
BANNED
- Oct 23, 2014
- 752
- 7,253
He had extreme porn found on his laptop which is vomit inducing kind of stuff, in addition to the pics of underage persons.
Along with necrophilia, beasiality rape and other disgusting things.
stharthjw6j
BANNED
- Dec 23, 2013
- 584
- 251
^ ^ ^ Strawman 101. That might be a perfectly acceptable question in a courtroom, it is not acceptable in a cogent discussion.
"In the UK he would not have been remanded unless the police believed he had done something serious, something that the police believed had overwhelming evidence against him. Like it or don't. It is fact."
Fixed it for you.
I guess you think the people who examined his laptop are clueless retards. Do you think some local PC who normally does the beat, investigated his laptop? It has nothing to do with what the police "believe" it has to do with what the police can see as fact. And on the facts that they can find, and prove to the courts by evidence, the courts then have the right to remand him, based on evidence. I don't know how they do it in the USA, but here it is based on evidence "FACTS", you know like his laptop having pictures of kids all over it.
Wilson Grant Fisk
Elite Member
- Nov 10, 2012
- 15,677
- 46,847
@whatrat I have appeared in Crown Court on several occasions, and I can tell you that a Judge in a criminal case does not determine who is guilty or who is innocent. The defendant will either plead guilty or not guilty, if he pleads not guilty then the trial will be with a jury who will hear the evidence and and find him guilty or not guilty. The Judge will pass sentence if found guilty or release him if found innocent.
I agree there are problems with the British Legal system but that doesn't mean he is innocent or that he will be treated unfairly.
I do feel a little sorry for him because when I was his age, I appeared in Crown Court and was very close to going to prison for a number of years. I don't care how much somebody might think they are a hard man, when you are standing in the dock and know that you are likely to be sent to prison, you are shitting it. I certainly was.
Even though I do have a little sympathy for him, we have to remember that he is in this mess because of his own actions.
I agree there are problems with the British Legal system but that doesn't mean he is innocent or that he will be treated unfairly.
I do feel a little sorry for him because when I was his age, I appeared in Crown Court and was very close to going to prison for a number of years. I don't care how much somebody might think they are a hard man, when you are standing in the dock and know that you are likely to be sent to prison, you are shitting it. I certainly was.
Even though I do have a little sympathy for him, we have to remember that he is in this mess because of his own actions.
stharthjw6j
BANNED
- Dec 23, 2013
- 584
- 251
Here you are having just been called out on committing a straw man and what do you do? You commit another one? Seriously.
That's the same thing.
That's what the process says on the tin. The practical application is nothing as black and white as you believe. There is huge bureaucratic pressure on the shoulders of the police, especially in pedo cases to avoid a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors#Type_I_error, the Type I Error having less (but still serious) consequences to them. And again, it's what the police believe is evidence but not only that, but believe is evidence that fills the legal checkboxes required in court, moreso than what is independent-from-the-law, evidential fact, and whether those two are in sync or not is not the police's biggest priority, their concern is legal evidence. I suspect what I wrote might be too subtle for you to get, it's not THAT subtle, but you don't strike me as having this on your radar. Then all this evidence is taken and twisted beyond all recognition of the facts in a courtroom by the lawyers.
I actually have a lot more sympathy for the police, they may sell you out if it's their own necks on the line, but it's really the courts where it gets properly corrupt.
I'm not in the US, I'm in the UK. But anyway, court evidence isn't merely "facts", they are those checkboxes written by politicians as long as decades ago for judges who haven't met or spoken to them, and whose filling are open to a very flexible interpretation as described above by lawyers. You have no idea what the police actually saw, what the context behind it was, what the history behind it was, who the people involved were, if it was even on a laptop for sure, and all the rest. You think you do though because the law told you so, that's what's troublesome of the masses.
Last edited:
stharthjw6j
BANNED
- Dec 23, 2013
- 584
- 251
In that the judge decides what evidence they want to admit, which objections to overrule, which to sustain, how to referee the case as a whole, they have a heck of a lot of leeway to decide who is guilty or innocent. In fact the judge can be quite the dictator of your fate who can lock you up for as little as wearing jeans while calling it "disrespect" in a quasi-Syrian way. Juries are seen as some kind of independent saviour from the court beast, but if they were then lawyers wouldn't see the opportunity to manipulate the evidence to deliver to them. The general public's voting record doesn't demonstrate good judgement of who are good guys or bad guys, put it that way.
"I agree there are problems with the British Legal system but that doesn't mean he is innocent or that he will be treated unfairly." - He will be treated unfairly though, guilty or not, we all are, because that is the court's institutional investigative method. See my long post above (edit: not above, previous page). They may not think they're being unfair, in fact people in law can be some of the most heavily brainwashed of all, but the process inherently is.
Yes the courts are scary, not least because of how illegitimate it all is, let alone all the pomp and ceremony, the medieval costumes, the elevated chair for the judge, they will abuse your human rights over matters of respect, etc. I don't trust a live period drama to churn out accurate verdicts consistently, that's before the method of the pseudo-investigative process.
I'm not really speaking about this Charles guy individually, but about the court franchise as a whole, criminal courts and the rest; HMCTS.
Last edited:
- Status