Hi guys and gals,i`ve been reading about the cps "threatening" our members with PCJ is there anything we can do to stop this happening?Obviously they have registered and paid to be a BBG member and get access to our strategy.One thought crossed my mind(i don`t get many )I personaly would be quite happy to give a lot more personal details to the web master for checking i/e home,work and mobile no`s in order to verify that i`m not cps or police.Anybody else got any ideas?i know pm`s can work but that sort of defeats the object of learning about how the system works.I realise that some people wouldn`t like the idea of a phone call at work but it would certainly help to sort out those that shouldn`t be here.I mean if Fredd rang me and the phone was answered Joe Bloggs Garage it would be a fairly safe bet that i`m not cps,it all depends i suppose how many calls you would have to make.Anyway discuss

All in all this site promotes discussion and strategy to leagally defend the members, I have seen on numerous occasions warnings against Lying and PCJ so the CPS are basicaly bullshitting IMV

they do seem prone to
pram = no toys
moments

how they think they could actually lead any internet forum posts would be be interesting - as distinct to blantantly waiving printouts in the air and shouting about them in absolute disregard for the rules of evidence.
Good job they don't know about the 'other place'....

They'd have to use one of the hearsay exceptions.

before waiving it in the air and talking about it or afterwards ?

Well, preferably some time before

Attributing it to a particular person would take some doing!

"Well, preferably some time before"

Indeed.

"Attributing it to a particular person would take some doing"


and then some. Well outside computer based evidence IMV, though paradoxically (and with ample irony) DVLA records have a statutory right to to be taken as 'gospel'.

The Police & CPS probably have four reasons, for being on PePiPoo. One of which might be legitimate.

1) Looking for people who are perverting the course of justice.
Unwise people do occasionally appear, post a NIP wizard that says that they were the driver, and then state that they propose to say they weren't the driver and have no idea who was. These people are of course strongly advised to play it by the rules - but there is no certainty that this advice will be followed. If the Police can tie in one of these posters to an actual court plea of "unable to identify driver" then they have evidence for the more serious crime of perverting.

It is entirely legitimate for the police to look for evidence of perverting the course of justice when they have a reasonable suspicion that this crime is being/has been committed by some particular person. I'm not so sure if its legitimate for the police to be routinely reading through all the posts on PePiPoo, many of which clearly ought to be covered by litigation privilege, simply because some of them show an urge to "get off the ticket" by simply lying - an urge that may well pass once the regular posters have pointed out to the newbie just how unwise it would be to commit a serious crime like perversion, especially when the case involves one of the most minor crimes a person can possibly be accused of.

2) Taking copies of posts with a view to producing them in court
They should be hearsay. They should be inadmissible if not disclosed in advance. But this tactic was terribly effective when they used it against Lynnzer. They can sometimes get them admitted as evidence, even though they should not be, and even if they are not admitted the damage of painting the PePiPoo subscriber as some kind of internet terrorist may be already done. This is completely not legitimate, because it should be obvious to anyone that the posts that can be used in this way really must be covered by litigation privilege.

3) Taking copies of posts in order to brief the prosecution on the defence's lines of thinking and likely strategy/tactics
Again, the only posts that have value for this are the ones that are most clearly covered by litigation privilege. An illegitimate use of the forum.

4) To deny the use of the forum to its members.
If, say, the CPS encountered a defendant who was a scientist (without legal training) who seemed to be scientifically correct and have caught "The System" bang to rights failing to follow the instructions, then IF the CPS were deviating from their code of practice and trying to obtain a conviction at any cost then the CPS might wish to try to cut that person off from their source of legal advice. They might do this by looking at that person's posts on PePiPoo and letting slip to them that they had been doing this. The defendant would then have a choice of posting freely on PePiPoo and getting good advice, but forewarning the CPS of his strategy or of keeping his secrets secret from the CPS but having to either do without advice or pay for advice (which he may not be able to afford). This clearly would be an illegitimate use of the forum, and by attempting to deny a person access to a legitimate source of legal advice, could in itself constitute an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Dr.S

In my case they produced a printout which gave details of my personal triumph of having won an important point against them for the use of hearsay. I was gloating that although I knew there was a correct procedure for hearsay I did it my way, ie produce it without any warning.
Of course I knew there was a correct way to do it, I just didn't know how to do it by those rules. I had trawled the various pages of the CPS website and other legal forums to try and get a copy of the correct form to use but to no avail. I therefore did it my way, merely due to my lack of expertise in knowing my way around. They forget that a speeding offence doesn't get the legal aid awarded to other offences so a litigant in person has no real way of sussing these things out.
In any event they used this posting as showing the court that I had manipulated the magistrates and used it as a character assasination. They didn't mention the post I made accusing them of perverting the course of justice themselves though by the lies told at my S8 hearing by the CPS lawyer.
I haven't had any libel charge laid against me yet. Maybe, just maybe they want to test me on whether the Data Protection Act and the Copyright Act do actually prevent use of information in criminal cases. I would take bets on this.

In any case I suspect that the disclaimer attached to lots of members posts now are worthless, or would be consudered as such if it ever went to adjudication, a lot like the PACE witness statement being admissable when we would rather it wasn't.
So the moral is to be open with the things we don't mind the courts knowing, and be cautious with all the things we would rather not have the CPS know in advance.

Just thinking out loud. I don't think the personal details registration would work. They'd just get a friend or family member to register. Uploading the NIP or some other legal document I think is a bit better, defeatable with a bit of forgery but that's a severe blow to credibility if/when found out, and the mods/community can keep the submission on record. On our side is the number of checking eyes. The BB can/could track members on posts. Submitting an unwashed NIP to mods is a possibility; it probably puts off some first timers though. Any merit in a legal T&C on sign up?