Mundane News

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

biggs682

Touch it up and ride it
Location
Northamptonshire
Nice blue sky and white clouds
A few hours garden tidying up later
 

tyred

Legendary Member
Location
Ireland
Mundane round plate this morning.

IMG_20240504_092448.jpg
 

Jenkins

Legendary Member
Location
Felixstowe
Good morning from a bright, sunny but not that warm Suffolk where the first coffee of the day has just been finished. Whatever I do later on will have to involve avoiding parts of Ipswich - with 30,000 people heading for Portman Road plus countless others in the area hoping to celebrate promotion to the Premier League I think it could be quite busy.
 

Mike_P

Guru
Location
Harrogate
Drizzle seems to have stopped but dull overcast and totally uninspiring out. Car had a triple shop visit, first up replacing the ebikes normal Saturday visit to Waitrose. Store annoyingly being moved around, seems the long "closed temporarily" bakery counter has vanished so aisles being lengthened. Presumably additional lines are going to be stocked.
Then to a Simply Food for gift card free Cumberland Pie, Ice Buns and yellow label HCBs. Finally to Morrisons where a box of Patch Fix reduced the number of Toblerones to two in order to use the £10 off £40 voucher.
 

tom73

Guru
Location
Yorkshire
One thing I have not heard mention of in the POL Inquiry is "exculpatory evidence". When they decided to withold evidence of systemic/system-wide bugs, surely they were breaking the law.

From a on-line legal dictionary, I read:

"When a prosecutor has access to any type of exculpatory evidence, he is required by law to disclose the evidence to the defense. Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence may result in a dismissal of the case, or in the declaration of a mistrial".
The short answer is yes it's partly why the court of appeal has over turned convictions.
That's a US legal term in British law it comes under disclosure rules of evidence. The inquiry has a number of times linked documents it now holds to examples of cases it has been using. This stuff trends to come up in the more legal "dry" days of questions that most press don't cover. You will notice that a number of documents got marked "legally sensitive" by POL. The inquiry has been looking at how they applied the legal test of none discloser to the documents. Remember unlike most court cases they hold legal power do private processions. (The only other organisation allowed to do so is the RSPCA) When challenged in court on none discloser they presented things in a way to prevent discloser. Or basically claimed it did not exist or covered it up. The legal company they used had only ever done defence work so often let the POL take the lead believing what they said about documents. The last few day have shown how it's staff messed up when things become clear what was happening.
there are legal reasons to withhold it. I think if withholding it prevents another crime
You can in British law it's untimely down to the judge if it meets the test for none disclosure of evidence.
You'd have to have good grounds it not easy to refuse disclose. The only other form of none disclosure is Public-interest immunity or Crown privilege. The bar for this is very high and only used if the public are at risk or matter of national security. Only the state can apply for it. Yesterday the inquiry showed at one point the post office looked if it could get one. When it got desperate to cover things up.
 
Top Bottom