Skip to main content


I left the robing room at Court today and walked in to the hall way.  Talking in the hallway were two police officers in full uniform.  Before they saw me, one said to the other in a very worried voice, "we're not gonna get away with this".  The other agreed.

Co-incidentally, at the same Court two police officers were being called to give evidence about what they had seen on CCTV.  The only problem in that case seems to be that the CCTV they claimed to have watched in October 2010 was in fact LOST in January 2010...


  1. They must be corrupt then. Makes it a little easier to sleep at night that; assuming the cops are corrupt. Still, school fees are school fees and a skiing holiday is a skiing holiday. Who will notice if a little bit of artistic licence is used on the old mitigation front? or you can always go for the process in some way, yes that's it, go for the process. And of course there are no bent solicitors are there? LOL.

  2. Still playing to the rank and file in the peanut gallery, eh Gadget?

    Just out of curiosity as someone who claims to be a Inspector do you see nothing wrong in this? and how would you respond if the officers were under your command ?

  3. I'd think; well, they hear enough bullshit mitigation from solicitors, lies about 'oh, he's changed his life, he has a new girlfriend/baby etc' when they KNOW he will re-offend that they probably think it's OK. After all,. if the legal profession do it.......... but of course if they did something wrong they would be dealt with, unlike you lot.

  4. BTW - we seem to be the only ones reading this - it's boring so I'm off. Don't lose any sleep now:

  5. "Who will notice if a little bit of artistic licence is used on the old mitigation front?"

    What an extraordinary point to make - isn't that one of the main tenets of the British legal system? The prosecutor lays it on thick, using a bit of artistic licence, based on the police statements, possibly similarly embellished and the probation officer is in the middle, possibly doing a bit of the same in one direction or the other. It's a game after all isn't it?

  6. thats right. it is all a game......something i learnt very quickly joining plod.

    i still after all these years have more distain for the solicitors who quite plainly give their "cutomers" stories to tell on interview than the villians themselves.

  7. what

    because the customers that you despise so much are not capable of making it up themselves?

    and gadget may be part of the thought police : able to know exactly how someone is going to behave in the years to come : but I dont know any solicitors who are.

    That said once gadget (in his own blog) decided that anyone who dared to plead not guilty should be remanded to prison he has rather jumped the shark.

    In his world the presumed innocent should all go to prison to think about how innocent they are. Maybe in North Korea ........

    and I would love to know how the rank and file like anon above deal the mental anguish that must be caused by the fact that the barrister who is acting for the prosecution this week (good guy) was acting for a "scrote" last week (bad guy).

  8. and of course now gadget is actually endorsing perverting the course of justice ......


  9. 'BTW - we seem to be the only ones reading this - it's boring so I'm off. Don't lose any sleep now'

    I'm reading, and the only thing I lose sleep over is having people like inspector gadget in positions of power in the police force. Is he for real? my grandfather fought to stop people like Gadget taking over.

    Answer me this Gadget why did you have a dishonourable discharge from the army ?

  10. "And of course there are no bent solicitors are there? LOL."

    Funny, in my second ever post I said, "Do [solicitors] help clients fabricate their accounts to escape justice? Well, the truth is that yes some solicitors will do that... Should they do it? Of course not and the sooner such people are caught and thrown out of the profession the better."

    If only police inspectors were as good at basic investigation as they are at whinning about sking holidays and school fees.

    For the record, I have NEVER been on a sking holiday and my son does NOT go to a fee paying school.

  11. What I want to know is: why has Gadget been questioned twice about "inappropriate conduct" with children?

  12. Has Gadget been questioned at all over inappropriate conduct with children? Well, you know what they say... no smoke without fire.

  13. Ed (not Bystander)8 November 2010 at 17:07

    And not even only the one time, it seems.

    Gadget, got anything to say? Or are you just going to just keep quiet and hope it goes away?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…