editor
hiraethified
Actually, it's right there on its "Court Escort and Custody Services" page.
Right at the top. In bold text. And highlighted.
Woman killed in traffic accident - Brixton Hill 22nd of April
- Thread starter story
- Start date
Right at the top. In bold text. And highlighted.
And on every page under their Home Affairs division ...
Read their site. The stuff I noticed at the ACPO conference exhibition this year was focusing on secure mobile communication technology.
I know. Why don't you ban me? Oh no, I forgot. Apparently you don't get banned for putting words in people's mouths here, do you?
editor
hiraethified
Yes. But it's on their "Court Escort and Custody Services" page in bold text and at the very top, clearly associating those services with their "terrorism" statement.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for some examples of the "terrorism-preventing" technology Serco Court Escort Services has invented, but something tells me you're just going to stumble around this thread like a bear with a bad head today.
Get over yourself or go out for a walk or something. Jeez. Talk about bad tempered.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Serco have the contract to transport prisoners between prisons and the courts.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
This is the case. I doubt very much that they transport "proper" terrorist prisoners (as opposed to girls who write bad poetry), though.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Probably.
editor
hiraethified
I understand that, but I was trying to establish what "terrorism-preventing" technology they'd come up with seeing as that's what they were bigging up in bold on their 'Escort Services' homepage.
But it's no big deal.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
The Escort crowd probably have nothing at all to do with the prevention of terrorism, but other bits of Serco have various contracts to do with what might be spun as "terror prevention":
http://www.serco.com/media/pressreleases/2007/eborders.asp
http://www.serco.com/media/pressreleases/2005/homelandsecurity.asp
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Its interesting how it says "working with governments to reduce crime and reoffending,control immigration and prevent terrorism"
Notice where the comma is and how this implies immigration and terrorism are close to each other.You could read this as implying that controlling immigration will prevent terrorism.(Despite the fact that the tube bombers were homegrown terrorists).
Only if you're paranoid ... I don't pretend to be an expert on punctuation, but as far as I can see it seperates two of the three categories: (a) crime and reoffending; (b) control immigration and (c) prevent terrorism.
If you are listing three things, two will be seperated by a comma, the third by "and". That does not in any way imply that any combination of them are connected surely.
You could make an assumption that they were in descending order of importance, but that may or may not be accurate - as far as you can tell from the face of them they could simply be in random order or because the marketing geeks reckon it "scans" better in that order or something.
I disagree the murder charge is hardly routine
There's got to be an intent to cause Grievous bodily harm or death for a murder charge to stick or to for the actions to be so reckless that GBH or death are a virtual certainty.
Murder is 2 steps up from deaty by dangerous driving, it's rare enough to see death by dangerous driving as an alternative to mansalughter let alone murder. Only in very excpetional cases are people charged with manslaughter resulting from road accidents.
Though overcharging does go on, the CPS have strict guidlines about charging people with the apporpoiate offence and there's got to be at least a prima facie case for murder here.
There's got to be an intent to cause Grievous bodily harm or death for a murder charge to stick or to for the actions to be so reckless that GBH or death are a virtual certainty.
Murder is 2 steps up from deaty by dangerous driving, it's rare enough to see death by dangerous driving as an alternative to mansalughter let alone murder. Only in very excpetional cases are people charged with manslaughter resulting from road accidents.
Though overcharging does go on, the CPS have strict guidlines about charging people with the apporpoiate offence and there's got to be at least a prima facie case for murder here.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
you'd have an oxford comma after 'immigration'? yuck! begone with your american punctuation habits.
Recklessness is not sufficient for murder. Intent is required. Recklessness may be sufficient for manslaughter but even then it must amount to "gross negligence" - i.e. to be way beyond what would normally be expected.
That's American punctuation? I didn't know there was a difference. You're making me worried now.
So how does that make a murder charge routine for what should be a manslaughter charge?
There must be some suspicion of intent, surely, for a murder charge to be levelled?
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
He didn't say it was routine - he said it wasn't uncommon for murder to be the charge when manslaughter was the more likely conviction. The charge wouldn't be murder if the CPS didn't think there was some chance of proving intent etc.
That's splitting hairs, though... you're right he didn't say 'routine' but 'not uncommon' isn't very different.
This is why I asked... because I don't understand the reasoning for that.
Surely the CPS must need to have a suspicion of intent to think there was a chance of proving it.
So is DB saying that in the case of any premature death - murder is the first charge that is levelled?
Or is there something about this case that is specific?
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Where has he said they don't need a suspicion of intent?
They do need to have a reason to believe that it was murder, they just don't need to have a good chance of proving it in court because the charge can be down-graded to manslaughter if they fail to prove intent (rather than acquittal being the only option).
ie (semantics) They do not routinely charge people with murder when they know it's manslaughter - but it's not uncommon for a murder charge to be brought even if they think that a jury is more likely to convict of manslaughter.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Didn't you already say that way back up the thread? If you want to give more reasons which might prejudice the trial, can't you just wait until it's over?
There's no need to cause problems for the site and I'm sure you'd be disgusted with yourself if you jeopardised the prosecution. It's good news that a murder charge has been brought at all - let them get on with trying to prove it, unless you have information that you think the prosecution ought to have.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Not being in on the investigation, no. But you only need to read the accounts of the incident to know why, surely?
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Because some eye-witness accounts suggest that there was intent to harm. I'm glad that this will be tested in court.
