Eric, You are putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with a random number.
The CPS can't come up with any random charge as they run the risk of it being kicked out. They are, however, allowed to change it prior to court hearing. The defence can challenge the charge if they think it is disproportionate to the offence. The statement relating to Hansard was a cut and paste effort from a protest blog/website. Have you actually looked through the Hansard record to produce the evidence, hearsay does mot make your statement correct. The fact that Hansard reported that ministers asked the Police Chief to increase the charge is largely irrelevant, as the police have no bearing upon which charge is laid and presented in court as it is handled by an independent organisation and has done since the late 1980s. For this to have more substance and make it believable it would have to be linked to the DPP or at least someone within his organisation. It isn't (in as far as I can see) In this instance, as in 98% of cases, this was first heard in a Magistrates Court, where it was passed 'upstairs' for Trial. It went to Trial because he was pleading Not Guilty and during which twelve of his peers from society, not the Judge, found the evidence against him. The Judge sentenced him accordingly, if as you say the offence could warrant up to Life as a tariff then Oldfield has only just managed to squeeze in at the bottom end. Lucky lad. By protesting as he did he endangered his own life as well as potentially others involved in the race, the participants of which were completely innocent bystanders to the protest as the protest was not against them. He was protesting against spending cuts. How he linked spending cuts and a boat race god only knows. This would have been taken into account when sentencing. As for any elitist stuff you mentioned earlier about Oxbridge you will do well to remember that Oldfield went to the elitist LSE! Ironic eh? Can't work out how his appeal will be for my benefit. On 23 Oct 2012, at 11:06, "Eric B" <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris, > > I think in general terms you are probably on the ball. however with > this case: when you re on national telly theres little room > for claiming innocence. so the CPS could probably press for whatever > charge and it would be hard to refute. > > All of this that is beside my point though. I claimed that politicians > influenced justice, see below: > > "Trenton was initially charged with Section 5 of the 'public order > act'. Hansard reports reveal that government ministers asked the > police commissioner to increase the charge so that a custodial > sentence could be achieved. On the morning of his first court > appearance (23 April 2012) Trenton’s charge was significantly > increased via the ancient common law charge of 'public nuisance' under > which conviction can result in life in prison. On the 26 September > 2012 Trenton was found guilty of causing ‘public nuisance’ for > undertaking his protest." > > The maximum sentence is life in prison, unreal ey? So in theory one > could be jailed for life for protesting, which is what he did. Lets > not forget that. Does this equate to setting precedence for jailing > political protesters for how long you want? > > I am hoping for an appeal even though its not been made, for your > benefit, not mine. > > Eric > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Chris Briggs <[email protected]> wrote: >> Whilst that is an interesting read it does contain one fundamental flaw. >> >> The Police are there to collect the evidence and document the crime. The >> charges are laid and the prosecution is administered by an independent >> authority, the CPS. >> >> It is very unlikely that the CPS would inflate a charge without a better >> than average chance of winning, like anyone else they are governed by >> numbers, it is better for them to lay a lesser charge and secure a >> conviction than it is for them to lay a higher charge and run the risk of >> the defendant getting a discharge. No conviction equals no prosecution costs. >> >> If the rower or his solicitor had thought that the charge was unfair or it >> was politically motivated then they have a right to lodge an appeal. I don't >> think >> This has been done. >> >> >> On 23 Oct 2012, at 09:47, "Eric B" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The problem is that politicians are impacting justice and judges are >>> letting it happen. >>> >>> In the case of the rower that got 6 months my wife read the police had >>> a charge prepared against him that would only >>> warrant for a minor sentence, 2 months or something like that. However >>> some politician, a royalist I might add, wrote a letter to the police >>> chief and suggested he review and maybe charge him for X. As is turns >>> out mr Police chief obliges and X warrants for 6 months in jail. Add >>> to this that apparently 80% of judges in the UK have gone to Oxford in >>> the past and there you go. Horrendous. >>> >>> The way I see if the judge here is the main offender, even with the >>> opportunity to jail him for 6 months it is a judges >>> role to hand out justice, fair justice, not heavy handed, not colored >>> by anything. So the judge could have voided the PMs interference, but >>> didnt. Next thing politicians will running trials! oh hold on.. they >>> are already? >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Ian Murray <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> I wouldn't, honestly. >>>> >>>> I think that we are currently going down a very dodgy road in this country. >>>> How many people have been sent to prison recently for saying things on >>>> twitter and so on? Ridiculous. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On 22 Oct 2012, at 14:52, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> It was a very very minor assault and does not warrant 4 months in the >>>>>>> big house, IMHO of course.<< >>>>> >>>>> True if it had been outside a pub, but it was on a football field, >>>>> against a player, during a game. >>>>> >>>>> In my book, that's crossing a line that should not be crossed, and as a >>>>> result, the strongest sentence available should be applied. >>>>> >>>>> It wasn't, according to Sky Sports News, "because he had pleaded guilty". >>>>> >>>>> Run it past me how he might have pleaded not guilty?? >>>>> >>>>> I suspect, Ian, you'd be calling for the same punishments that I'm >>>>> calling for if it had been a Wednesday fan who'd pushed Kenny in the face. >>>>> >>>>> M >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leedslist mailing list >>>> Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >>>> To unsubscribe, email [email protected] >>>> >>>> PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leedslist mailing list >>> Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >>> To unsubscribe, email [email protected] >>> >>> PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] PETE CASS (1962 - 2011) Rest In Peace Mate
