Crime

I’m sure there is a Fnarr Fnarr here

Undercover police officers can have sex with suspects if refusal might blow cover
They must keep it as short as is possible to ‘mitigate the threat’ of being exposed and report it ‘immediately’ to their senior officer

Knee tremblers are legal, romantic afternoons teasing the new bra and panty set off aren’t. And someone must be able to make a joke out of blowing cover.

We’ll throw that open to community participation shall we?

After which, my actual reaction is that this is why planned economies don’t work. OK, sure, I take the Sun rising in the east as evidence that planned economies don’t work. But look at the absurdities we do get when the authorities try to define, in detail, what may be done. Anything more specific than general rules (“Don’t take the piss, Son” would seem useful although given some modern sexual habits perhaps not) descends into this sort of absurdity. And if we try to apply this sort of detail to the politicians and bureaucracy deciding who may make what, how, at what price, from which ingredients…..

Oh isn’t this going to be lovely?

A senior Catholic cardinal has been accused of using €700,000 of Vatican funds to bribe witnesses to secure a sex abuse conviction against a rival.

Italian media have reported that Cardinal Giovanni Angelo Becciu, 72, is suspected of wiring the cash to recipients in Australia who helped to ensure hostile testimony in the abuse trial of Cardinal George Pell, who was accused of molesting choir boys in Melbourne in the 1990s.

Whut?

Before he returned to Australia in 2017 where he was tried, jailed and acquitted on appeal, Cardinal Pell, 79, served as finance minister at the Vatican, where his attempts to clean up opaque accounting were opposed by Cardinal Becciu.

Quoting leaked documents, the Italian newspapers La Repubblica and Corriere della Sera reported at the weekend that Vatican investigators suspect that Cardinal Becciu hoped to use the money to definitively derail Cardinal Pell’s transparency programme, which threatened to expose Cardinal Becciu’s allegedly corrupt management of Vatican cash.

Isn’t it all going to be so glorious if this turns out to be true? That entire witch hunt against Pell purely bought and paid for?

True, it seems a bit of a stretch but then…….

Well, yes, but, well……

A man has been jailed for rape after he admitted deliberately piercing a condom with a pin before having sex.
Andrew Lewis, 47, claimed he had punctured the contraceptive in the hope that it would split and improve intimacy.
But he was arrested and charged with rape after his victim found the damaged condom in his bin and went to police.
The train driver was jailed for four years

Sex without the full and informed consent so, yes, rape. It’s also not Whoopi’s “rape rape” and yet appears to be being punished as such. Which seems a tad extreme. There being gradations even within the same crime.

BTW, before the righteous get too loudmouthed about this, this is exactly the form of rape that Julian Assange was accused of. Sex without a condom when it had been agreed to only with. And a number of rightons and Woken were insisting that he shouldn’t have to even stand trial…..

A most impartial report

As expected, Trump raised unfounded accusations about Biden’s son, Hunter, related to his business dealings in Ukraine. Trump was impeached for pushing government officials in Kiev to investigate the Biden family. Despite no evidence of wrongdoing, Republican allies of the president have continued to fixate on the manufactured controversy.

Hunter was raking it in left right and centre because Daddy was VP.

Now, whether this is unusual or not is a fair question but there’s nothing manufactured about it.

More impartiality:

Trump ensures first presidential debate is national humiliation

What confuses is why they bother with this vituperation. Who among The Guardian’s readership is not going to vote for Biden anyway? Well, except the brave investigators like me here who read it so you don’t have to? Who is this rhetoric supposed to convince?

French men of no appearance

French police have opened an investigation after a young woman said she was attacked by three men and beaten in public for wearing a skirt.

The government denounced the “very serious” incident as unacceptable, which came amid growing anger in France at physical and verbal abuse towards women over their dress in public.

The student, 22, identified only as Elisabeth, said she was punched in the face in the eastern city of Strasbourg on Friday afternoon, in an attack “by three individuals who complained about me wearing a skirt”.

She was walking home when one of the three exclaimed “look at that whore in a skirt”, Elisabeth told France Bleu Alsace radio. Two of them then held her while the third hit her in the face, leaving her with a black eye, she told the radio station. The men then fled.

She said there were more than a dozen witnesses but no one intervened or pursued the attackers.

Isn’t that nice. A full report which manages to make no reference at all to the specifics of the men thought to have done this.

Leaving us to have to guess as to what might have caused this. The well known Gallic propensity for abhoring wimmins who show their knees? That centuries long insistence that bits be covered up like they do on the beaches? Or are we talking about some more recent cultural influence upon the society?

After all, this is the place where the national statue has her tits out*. Something seems to have changed.

*Often, in some versions.

Well, yes, yes and no

Daniel Cameron, Kentucky’s Attorney General, said the pair – Sgt. Johnathan Mattingly and Officer Myles Cosgrove – were “justified” in their use of force as they fired in self-defence after Ms Taylor’s boyfriend fired a shot.

That part seems justified. Cops being shot at, cops fire back.

Former police officer Brett Hankison, who fired a number of the shots, was on Wednesday charged with three counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree, after it was determined he had shot into neighbouring flats.

That also seems fair. Duty of care and all that even under fire. The actual problem, in the larger picture, is here:

Ms Taylor, 26, was shot multiple times by plainclothes officers who entered her home after midnight using a no-knock warrant that allowed them to enter without warning during a drugs investigation on March 13.

Armed men are – righteously, this is the police and here they#re in plain clothes – storm into your home without warning? Your ability to distinguish between this and a home invasion is? A home invasion you are – righteously – allowed to defend yourself against?

The problem here is, to use something of an unpopular word, structural. Insane policing that is.

Something wrong here, surely?

There was some arguing and shoving, the court heard, before the Graham and his colleague were escorted off the land.
However, days later Graham called the police to say that he had been assaulted before providing footage later that month which he claimed was an original recording.
It appeared to show Henry Milner repeatedly kicking him but when he was interviewed by police he denied any assault.
Mr Milner told the court that he had merely taken a step near the defendant while requesting he leave his land.
Graham had fallen to the ground in the “slippery” wet field, he said.
However, it was not until the summer of 2018 that the case against Mr Milner was discontinued after Leicestershire police analysed the films and “determined they had been doctored to present the incident in a different light”.
Graham was charged with perverting the course of justice with the video but denied the allegations and was only convicted following a trial at Leicester Crown Court last week.
He was found not guilty of a separate count of perverting the course > of justice in relation to the report of the assault which he had made.
He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment suspended for two years and ordered to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work within the next two years after the judge noted that it had taken almost five years for the case to come to a conclusion.
He was also ordered to pay £1,000 costs and given a seven-year restraining order banning any contact with the people he had made the allegation against or from going to the area in which the incident was reported to have happened.
Detective Constable Louise Osborne investigated the incident.
She said: “Perverting the course of justice is a serious criminal offence. I hope this will serve as a deterrent to anyone intent on committing a similar offence.”

If perverting the course of justice is a serious criminal offence – which it is, as with perjury, it kills the system of law in the first place – then why hasn’t he been significantly jugged for it?

Let’s explain this somehow

Originally, Texaco attempted to walk away with impunity, but a coalition of Indigenous peoples and local communities sued Texaco in New York, where the company was based. They got support from a small group of American and Ecuadorian human rights lawyers. The eventual leader of the legal team was Steven Donziger, an attorney we’ve come to know and respect.

Somehow, David beat Goliath. After 18 years of court battles, the coalition won $9.5bn in damages,

Through bribery and corruption of the Ecuadorean legal system. Which is an interesting “somehow” really.

Most interesting

There’s a word in the Telegraph description of this that isn’t in The Guardian one:

A 27-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of murder and seven counts of attempted murder following a series of stabbings in Birmingham city centre on Sunday, West Midlands police said.

A male suspect was at large for 24 hours following the attacks, but on Monday morning police confirmed an arrest had been made.

The word? “Somali” – as in of that appearance. Gosh.

Oh, right

Portland mayor Ted Wheeler on Sunday slammed Donald Trump, accusing the president of encouraging the kind of violence that erupted in the city overnight when a reported member of a right-wing group was shot dead after a group of Trump supporters confronted Black Lives Matter protesters.

In Kenosha a couple of guys are shot dead by a Trump supporter, it’s the Trump supporter’s fault. Hey, maybe it is.

In Portland a Trump supporter is shot dead and it’s the Trump supporters’ fault. Hey, maybe it is.

But, you know……

More than a little silly

Under Wisconsin law, anyone 17 or older is treated as an adult in the criminal justice system.

OK.

Under Wisconsin law, Rittenhouse, who is 17, was too young to legally posses the rifle he was alleged to have been carrying at the protests.

Eh?

They’re not even understanding their own rhetoric

Yet this pitch to people of color is undercut by the racism that is also part of Trump’s message. Throughout the convention there has been an endless litany of law-and-order rhetoric, with warnings that the Democrats would unleash crime on the suburbs.

That’s a flat out statement that worrying about law an order is racist. At which point, well, peeps have a point about the Democratic establishment really….

Well, yes, there’s a certain truth here

Tucker Carlson defends actions of teen charged in killings of Kenosha protesters
Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, has been charged with murder after two people were killed at Black Lives Matter protest

Well, no, he doesn’t actually.

On his TV show Carlson – who has a long record of making racist and inflammatory statements, triggering an advertising boycott – said that Rittenhouse’s actions were understandable given the violence and property damage in the city.

“Kenosha has devolved into anarchy because the authorities in charge of the city abandoned it. People in charge from the governor of Wisconsin on down refused to enforce the law. They stood back and they watched Kenosha burn,” Carlson said.

He then added: “So are we really surprised that looting and arson accelerated to murder? How shocked are we that 17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?”

He says that if you allow mob rule then who could be surprised that you get mobs?

As to what actually happened:

A 17-year-old has been arrested and charged with murder after two people were killed on Tuesday night when violence erupted in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after white vigilante-type agitators shot at Black Lives Matter protesters.

It’s worth reading that piece. As even The Guardian is having trouble with it all. They – even they – seem to be saying that the (white) BLM protestors were, at least at one point, chasing the laddie with the gun.

Although the sequence of events remains confusing, the Guardian has tried to piece together what happened from video and images posted online showing the run-up to the shooting and its aftermath.

The alleged shooter first appears in footage wearing a baggy light-green T-shirt and dark jeans and a white reversed baseball cap, with other armed people apparently in the vicinity of a site identified as Bert and Rudy’s Auto Service petrol station, where alleged militia members had gathered before the first shots.

In these pictures, the man who appears to be in his late teens or early 20s, carries an assault-style rifle, a distinctive black and orange shoulder bag, wearing what appear to be purple nitrile gloves of the kind used by first aiders and hospital staff.

While what occurs in the intervening period before the first shots is not clear, video taken during the first fatal shooting shows a man with a rifle being pursued by a second man in front of a building with an auto service sign. The pursuer appears to throw something white at him as the two men approach several parked cars.

Several shots ring out, before the figure with the rifle reappears from the far side of the cars and walks round to approach where a young white man without a shirt has fallen with a gunshot wound to the head.

The figure with the gun is identifiable as the young man in the green T-shirt, with the black and orange bag and purple gloves from earlier in the evening

As another man takes off his T-shirt to apply pressure to the wound, the man with the gun turns to leave, talking on a phone.

The next footage takes up events a short time later, showing what appears to be the same man jogging down a street being pursued by others, alerted by the first shots.

At which point Tucker seems justified in what he said. If things get to where peeps with guns are roaming the streets then sure, someone’s going to get shot.

Jacob Blake

Clearly I’ve missed something here. From the piccies I’ve seen plod wants him to stop. So, he continues to walk to his car, open the door, begin to reach in – and he gets shot.

Reaching into a car is not going to get you shot when?

OK, what is it I’ve missed?

Umm, why?

It is likely to reignite calls for the Conservative Party to detail its safeguarding processes, or remove the whip from the MP as a precautionary measure.

Last week Angela Rayner, chairwoman of the Labour Party, wrote to the Tories, saying: “Suspension would help protect others by making them aware of the allegations he faces and it would also show that the Conservative Party takes safeguarding concerns seriously.”

Other than providing some political benefit for the Labour Party – “Look, Tory Rapist!” – what does suspending the whip do? He’s still an MP, still attends Parliament, still gets paid, can still vote.

What’s the point?

Difficult one really

Crispin Odey, one of Britain’s most high profile hedge fund bosses, has been charged with indecently assaulting a woman more than two decades ago.
The Brexit donor, who founded and runs Odey Asset Management and has an estimated wealth of £825m, was charged over an attack alleged to have taken place in Chelsea in 1998.
The attack is alleged to have happened at Swan Walk in west London, where Odey owns a home and several of his businesses are registered, the Evening Standard reported.
Mr Odey said: “The allegation is denied and I will strongly contest this matter.”
The case was due to come before Westminster magistrates’ court next week but has been postponed until 28 Sept due to a backlog of hearings created by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Mr Odey, 61, has been charged under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 with a single offence alleged to have occurred in July 1998, the Crown Prosecution Service said. He is charged with “indecently assaulting a woman over the age of 16”, the Standard reported.

Actually, not so difficult as all that. Sexual assault is a he said, she said offence. Because the act itself, sex (one assumes that is what it concerns) is entirely legal. It’s about consent. And 22 years ago? Probably no witnesses other than the two participants? The likelihood of a fair trial – you know evidence ‘n’ all that – is what?

One of the things the Americans have got right in their legal system is that insistence of taking statutory limitations seriously.