Man convicted for website offering links to TV Shows

[JasonFWard]

Tweet

In this case I don't see any real difference to FACT being present at the arrests and police interviews any more than it would be surprising when the RSPCA, insurance recovery agents or the Benefits Agency get involved in arrests and police interviews.

[TVC_Admin]

Very good point indeed. Seems that it’s everyone else’s fault that he got caught for earning himself £15k a week from people advertising on his illegal site.

[TVC_H4U]

RSCPA would gather evidence and provide it to the Police or File papers in Court.
Insurance Agents, Im sure would not go to police and would file papers in Court.
Benefits Agents, apparently have their own mini police force.

The Police would not normally allow 3rd party's to use them as Puppets.
The facts are a Private Company, FACT decided the UK Police did not know what to do. So they had to hold their hands trough the whole process.

Unless something has changed since last time I needed the Police, they don't ask the accuser to attend the Arrest and Interviews as normal practice.

With some good legal representation his sentence i am sure it will get squashed.

Anton Vickerman, who has been sentenced to four years in jail.

I tied to look up Average jail times, seems harsh four years. To put in perspective, it turns out maximum sentence for "Sexual penetration of a corpse" is 2 years...

He operated a Morally Flawed website, it should have been shut down and he fined.

[JasonFWard]

The RSPCA do go with police, and do attend police interviews as do Insurance recovery agents and Benefits Agency investigators, yes, you are right the Benefits Agency does have an investigative branch as do people like immigration, but when it comes to raids, arrests and the wider crimes the only agency I can think that frequently operates alone is the Customs and Excise, but even they often accompany police, take part in police interviews.

There is nothing unusual in any of this.

The Police would not normally allow 3rd party's to use them as Puppets.

If a crime is reported to them they have to look into it. If there are grounds for further investigation and even arrests then they have to do that also, and they often not only use information from 3rd parties, but if the 3rd party is a specialist investigator in their field they are often in on the whole thing.

The police even provide information to insurance companies the primary use of which is to protect the commercial interests of the insurance companies.

The police even hire civilian investigators as do the military police.

If you really still don't believe me, then all I can suggest is you watch more Quest/PickTV etc as they are full of police/customs/etc programs and from time to time, not only is the camera crew their, so are numerous civilian investigators working closely with the police/customs and they are in on the raid, in on the interviews, in on the prosecution, there is nothing unusual in what happened with FACT being involved.

[TVC_H4U]

RSPCA are their to help Convict the people? or Remove the Animals? I believe the latter although it is up to interpretation of the linked article.

Police do use information from 3rd parties, as I said providing evidence. They don't normally allow 3r'd party LTD companies to hold their hands throughout the process.

Of course the Police investigate, Of Course Insurance Companies investigate.

The problem here is the Bias that is put at the police departments door by being so closely linked to the accuser that they where present at the Interview and Arrest.

P.S. No need to watch public bodies arresting people on TV, this is different.

[JasonFWard]

The RSPCA has it's own prosecutions department let alone what they do to assist police and prosecutors from other agencies.

You are somewhat mistaken in how our justice system works.

The problem here is the Bias that is put at the police departments door by being so closely linked to the accuser that they where present at the Interview and Arrest.

Part of the police job, and has been from the very beginnings of the Police is to detect crime. In the case where the police detect crime they become the accuser.

The distinction you are looking for, to serve justice, is that the courts are independent of the police and prosecutors, they are the people that balance the prosecution versus the defense, and the prosecution side has always consisted of those accusing, those that investigated and those that are prosecuting, I cannot recall any moment in our history when that has not been the case.

People often mistake the question from the police "do you want to press charges?" to mean, "this person cannot be prosecuted with you pressing charges." That's false, if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute then the person can be prosecuted, the thing is, if the victim, the person asked if they want to press charges, backs out most prosecutions will fail.

[TVC_H4U]

You point to Cival cases/prosecution team when were talking about Police and Criminal law. Then change to Criminal law (when police can become the accuser). I don't think I am mistaken how the system works.

Comparing an organisation that has been around before I was born. Is at complete odd's to a special interest LTD company EST. 1996.

Dont get me wrong, im not saying police are Impartial. Ive promoted to my friends for years that i'd never talk to the Police, innocent or otherwise.

The police, as you suggest though are not supposed to be their for someone to point a finger and then they take their side.
They are supposed to weigh up the arguments and if they believe their is a case to put that towards the CPS. Walking hand in hand with the accuser in this manor is not a independent look at the situation.

Unless something has changed since last time I needed the Police, they don't ask the accuser to attend the Arrest and Interviews as normal practice.

[TVC_H4U]

In this case anyway, it becomes irrelevant. Police decided their was not a case for them and FACT went via Cival proceedings of which they won.

He was convicted of "conspiracy to defraud" rather than any specific copyright offences, oddly not for the copyright issues on the site.

[tacoben]

I have not been reading the news. Was he convicted regarding evidence found after the arrest and not for what he was being arrested for in the first place.

People need to be careful with FACT. They are on a learning curve and what gets dismissed easily now will not in the future. It was the same with revenue control on the underground. At first the courts did allowed all sorts of fanciful excuses but after a while the same ones kept being used and then people started getting fined etc.

[JasonFWard]

You point to Cival cases/prosecution team when were talking about Police and Criminal law. Then change to Criminal law (when police can become the accuser). I don't think I am mistaken how the system works.

The RSPCA handle criminal prosecutions, I have no idea if they handle civil proceedings at all, although I'd guess they would, but their primary role as a prosecutions department is criminal proceedings.

Indeed the word "prosecute" means to bring criminal proceedings.

Comparing an organisation that has been around before I was born. Is at complete odd's to a special interest LTD company EST. 1996.

I don't see how date of incorporation makes any difference to anything talked about in this thread.

The police, as you suggest though are not supposed to be their for someone to point a finger and then they take their side.
They are supposed to weigh up the arguments and if they believe their is a case to put that towards the CPS. Walking hand in hand with the accuser in this manor is not a independent look at the situation.

I didn't mean to imply, and didn't think I had, that the police jusr jumped on to any old accusation and went after whoever the finger was pointed at, which is why I said previously

If a crime is reported to them they have to look into it. If there are grounds for further investigation and even arrests then they have to do that also, and they often not only use information from 3rd parties, but if the 3rd party is a specialist investigator in their field they are often in on the whole thing.

But the police, once they have made their decisions about what and who to investigate, and after sending their files to the DPP are not treated as impartial 3rd parties, they are part and parcel part of the prosecution side.

I have not been reading the news. Was he convicted regarding evidence found after the arrest and not for what he was being arrested for in the first place.

Again, this is not unusual.

People need to be careful with FACT. They are on a learning curve and what gets dismissed easily now will not in the future. It was the same with revenue control on the underground. At first the courts did allowed all sorts of fanciful excuses but after a while the same ones kept being used and then people started getting fined etc.

But yes, I do agree that FACT need careful monitoring as I don't want FACT running around launching prosecutions people to make profit for themselves or their clients. On the other hand, if they can secure criminal convictions then good luck to them, if there is an objection to that, then the law they are being prosecuting people under needs to change, not FACT. Don't forget that to get a criminal conviction requires the prosecution to show that the accused is guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt" whereas civil proceedings are based on "balance of probability".

But as with revenue control on the Underground, if your breaking the law and hurting other perfectly innocent people, then I'm quite happy for the law to hurt you back.

Personally if FACT are running around making court cases against people, I'd much rather that they have to meet the higher, not the lower standard.

There is also the safeguard that the DPP can effectively shutdown any private prosecution at anytime if they think it is not in the public interest.