New law to regulate and ban raves in the czech republic http://www.praguemonitor.com/ctk/?id=20050817E01372;story=New-law-to-regulate-and-ban-tehcno-music-raves
(PDM staff with CTK) 18 August - The Interior Ministry has prepared a bill determining specific rules for staging raves and similar events. The bill will require organisers to inform local authorities about the their events before they are scheduled, Pravo reported yesterday. The proposed bill is a reaction to the recent CzechTek rave staged in west Bohemia in late July. The rave was violently dispersed by police and nearly 100 people injured, including police and techno fans.
Pravo says that the new law would apply to event lasting more than 24 hours during which "other people can be disturbed above the standard level" and which are attended by over 500 people or, according to the bill's second version over 1,000 people.
According to the bill, organisers would have to provide details to town and regional office concerning the event's purpose and programme; the venue and dates, as well as the expected number of participants. Organisers would also have to provide documents proving that property owners whose land is being used for the event have issued the necessary approvals. Signed permits would also have to be obtained from health inspectors, firemen and environmentalists before an event such as a rave could take place.
Moreover, a rave organiser would have to be over 18 let and a Czech or a foreign citizen or a legal entity with residence in the Czech Republic.
The bill states that under certain circumstances the municipal authorities can ban such events if they deem it a threat peace, property or state security.
Organisers will have the right to appeal the ban on the planned event in the courts which will be obliged to issue a decision within three days after an appeal is made.
If the rave organisers or participants go ahead with a rave that has been banned, they will face a fine of up to CZK 50,000. Participants in a banned or unreported rave-like event would face a fine of up to CZK 10,000, Pravo says.
Organisers of regularly scheduled rock shows or other festivals will not be affected by the law as it does not apply to events that have been traditionally held in the same site year after year.
The law also does not concern culture and sport events held in closed venues.
CTK news edited by the staff of the Prague Daily Monitor, a Monitor CE service
police shoot innocent man dead. i know this is old news already, but when i saw it in the papers, i assumed that the bloke had been a suicide bomber because noone was pointing out that he was innocent, just that he had been shot, as if the police did something good. i now realise that his crime was not being white enough, and being scared when our coppers opened fire.
[quote=bbc]
The police marksman's dilemma
By Chris Summers
BBC News website
Scotland Yard's admission that an innocent man, Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes, was shot dead on Friday by plain-clothed police searching for the 21 July London bombers has focused attention on the record of British firearms officers.
Jean Charles de Menezes was not the first person to die by mistake at the hands of UK armed police.
Jean Charles de Menezes (left) pictured at a barbecue last week
His death, which came amid heightened tension caused by a string of bomb attacks on London by Islamic extremists, is the latest in a long line of controversies involving firearms officers.
Only a month ago two Metropolitan Police officers were arrested by detectives investigating the fatal shooting of Scottish-born Harry Stanley in Hackney, east London, in 1999.
Family and friends of Mr Stanley have been campaigning for the officers who shot him to face a criminal trial. There have been two inquests and two judicial reviews during the saga.
In November 2004 members of SO19, the Met's firearms unit, staged an unofficial strike in protest after two officers were suspended following the second inquest.
The Stanley case revolved around the question of whether the officers had acted correctly in shooting the 46-year-old.
Shot by mistake
14 Jan 1983: Stephen Waldorf (survived), Kensington, west London
15 Jan 1998: James Ashley, St Leonards, East Sussex (above)
22 Sep 1999: Harry Stanley, Hackney, east London
They claimed they shouted: "Stop, armed police" and fired when Mr Stanley turned around while carrying a bag which they believed contained a gun. In fact it only contained a table leg.
Most police forces in the UK supply their firearms units with rules of engagement based on guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).
These state that they:
Must identify themselves and declare intent to fire (unless this risks serious harm).
Should aim for the biggest target (the torso) to incapacitate and for greater accuracy.
Should reassess the situation after each shot. These guidelines were introduced in the wake of the 1983 shooting of film editor Stephen Waldorf in Kensington, west London.
Mr Waldorf was shot five times but survived after being fired at by police officers who were on the trail of a dangerous escaped prisoner called David Martin.
Mistaken identity
The confusion apparently arose because police mistook Mr Waldorf for Mr Martin, partly because they both had long hair and partly because Mr Waldorf was accompanied by Mr Martin's girlfriend Sue Stephens.
Two officers were eventually acquitted of attempted murder in connection with the Waldorf case.
Lessons were learnt and the Acpo guidelines were drawn up in an attempt to prevent a repetition.
Fifteen years later Sussex Police officers were criticised after they shot dead a man called James Ashley as he lay naked in bed with his girlfriend.
'Five shots'
Three senior police officers were cleared in 2001 of any wrongdoing in the raid, but the circumstances surrounding the shooting led to the resignation of Sussex Chief Constable Paul Whitehouse.
And only last month the family of Derek Bennett, shot dead by police in July 2001 in Brixton, south London, after he was seen brandishing a cigarette lighter shaped like a gun, won the right to challenge the inquest verdict that he had been lawfully killed.
After the suicide bomb attacks in London on 7 July it is thought the Met's Anti-Terrorist Branch implemented its own pre-arranged response to suicide bombers, based on Acpo advice.
Harry Stanley was walking home with a table leg in a plastic bag
Codenamed Operation Kratos, and based on the experiences of the Israeli security forces, the guidance reportedly states that an officer can shoot a suspect in the head if it is thought he is a suicide bomber who poses an imminent danger to police or the public.
Eyewitnesses at Stockwell station on Friday said they saw police officers fire five shots into the head of the suspect.
If Operation Kratos is being used, it would be the first time a shoot-to-kill policy was officially allowed on British streets.
Killed by SAS
Sinn Fein has long claimed the SAS and other British Army units used a shoot-to-kill policy against IRA members in Northern Ireland.
Among the cases highlighted are the 1992 shooting of four IRA men - Kevin O'Donnell, Patrick Vincent, Sean O'Farrell and Peter Clancy - in Clonoe, County Tyrone.
Three others - Peter Ryan, Tony Doris and Lawrence McNally - were killed in Coagh, County Tyrone, in June 1991 when SAS soldiers fired around 200 shots into the stolen car in which they were travelling.
Shoot-to-kill was also said to have been used by the SAS in Gibraltar in 1988 on three IRA suspects.
An inquest into the incident held on Gibraltar returned a verdict of lawful killing but the European Court of Justice verdict ruled that British soldiers violated the fundamental right to life of the three IRA members.
Many policing experts claim the threat posed by suicide bombers today is so much more serious than the danger from the Provisional IRA in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s that a shoot-to-kill policy is obligatory.
Former Scotland Yard commander Roy Ramm told the BBC: "Generally speaking police officers have been taught to aim at the largest target on the body, which is the torso and that has worked well.
Almost invariably a shot to the head will kill - in a sense it is a shoot-to-kill policy but by practice rather than design
Roy Ramm
"People have died but others - robbers and drug dealers - have lived.
"The problem with the police continuing with that strategy is that if a round enters the body of a suicide bomber it could detonate the charge, probably killing the person wearing it, the police officers and anyone else who is close to the suspect.
"That leaves no option for the police but to take head shots. Almost invariably a shot to the head will kill. In a sense it is a shoot-to-kill policy, but by practice rather than design."
But the death of Mr Menezes shows the tragic consequences which can lead from such a policy and there may now have to be a rethink by Scotland Yard.
Quote:
UK : Wales/Cymru : *sucessful PEL prosecution by Welsh council* Officlal press release from the council..
Council prosecute for illegal rave
Ceredigion County Council and Dyfed Powys police have successfully fined the organiser of an illegal rave that was disturbing residents of Rhydlewis.
On Friday 14th May 2004, Robert Evans of Cwmbedw Rhydlewis, Llandysul, pleaded guilty at Cardigan Magistrates Court to an offence under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 after a “rave” was held at the property on 21-22 July 2003.
The unlicensed event caused considerable disturbance to residents in the Rhydlewis area and the congestion and general public order problems required considerable police attendance. Uncontrolled events such as this have significant health and safety implications, especially when access for emergency services is restricted and the behaviour of the individuals attending is not effectively managed.
As Bryan Thomas, Director for Environmental Services and Housing said; “The event was held with little regard to the safety of people attending and even less consideration for the impact on residents of the area. These particular licensing requirements were introduced to ensure that events of this type can be properly regulated and that operating arrangements are agreed in advance. People need to understand that deliberately flouting such controls will not be tolerated.
“This case once again highlights the importance of partnership working between the Heddlu Dyfed Powys Police and Ceredigion County Council. I would like to thank the police for their involvement in this matter and also the members of the public who supported the action taken”.
Mr Evans was find £500 and ordered to pay £550 costs.
?? 2005 Ceredigion County Council
I always wondered what the Welsh for "rave" was!!!
Y Cyngor yn erlyn am rêf anghyfreithlon
Mae Cyngor Sir Ceredigion a Heddlu Dyfed Powys wedi llwyddo i ddirwyo trefnydd rêf anghyfreithlon a oedd yn tarfu ar drigolion Rhydlewis.
Ar ddydd Gwener, 14 Mai 2004, plediodd Robert Lewis o Gwmbedw, Rhydlewis, Llandysul, yn euog i dramgwydd dan Ddeddf Llywodraeth Leol 1982 (Darpariaethau Amrywiol) yn dilyn rêf a gynhaliwyd ar 21-22 o Orffennaf 2003.
Achosodd y digwyddiad didrwydded gryn drafferth yn ardal Rhydlewis a bu’n rhaid i’r heddlu ymdrin â phroblemau megis gormod o draffig a materion yn ymwneud â’r drefn gyhoeddus. Mae gan ddigwyddiadau fel hyn, nad ydynt dan reolaeth, nifer o oblygiadau o ran iechyd a diogelwch, yn enwedig pan rhwystrir mynediad i wasanaethau brys a phan nad oes digon o reolaeth ar ymddygiad y bobl sy’n mynychu’r digwyddiad.
Fel y dywed Bryan Thomas, Cyfarwyddwr yr Adran Gwasanaethau Amgylcheddol a Thai; “Cynhaliwyd y digwyddiad heb fawr o ystyriaeth i ddiogelwch y bobl a oedd yn mynychu a rhoddwyd llai fyth o ystyriaeth i’r effaith y gallai gael ar drigolion yr ardal. Cyflwynwyd y trwyddedau arbennig yma er mwyn sicrhau y gellir rheoli digwyddiadau o’r math hwn ac y cytunir ar drefniadau gweithredu o flaen llaw. Mae’n rhaid i bobl ddeall na fyddwn yn barod i dderbyn unrhyw un a fydd yn herio’r rheolau yma.
“Unwaith yn rhagor, mae’r achos hwn yn pwysleisio pa mor bwysig yw’r bartneriaeth rhwng Heddlu Dyfed Powys a Chyngor Sir Ceredigion. Hoffwn ddiolch i’r heddlu am eu rhan yn y mater hwn a hefyd i aelodau’r cyhoedd a gefnogodd y gweithredu”.
Cafodd Mr Evans ddirwy o £500 ac fe’i gorchmynnwyd i dalu £550 mewn costau.
my 5 week old daughter is an illegal alien! this is nothing to do with parties but i thought i post it as it shows how our lives are not our own in many ways
we're off to sweden in August to visit the family, show off our five and a half week old daughter and get married
or so we thought
being born here to a British father and Swedish mother has left our little girl in a citizenship anomily
we applied for a British passport (new born babies have to have a passport)...she was born here, her dad is British, and we all live here
she can't have a British passport because her mother (my partner) doesn't have 'indefinate leave to remain in the UK' stamped in her passport, nor does she have a residence permit
she can only get the 'indefinate leave to remain' stamp if she successfully claims refugee status - which she can't do as she isn't being persecuted (much) in this country or in sweden
she can get a residence permit - but her nationality (and that of all EU citizens) permits her to reside here already - so it is of no benefit to anyone...
if she applied for one, the process takes 6 months, costs money and includes hearings at the home office!!!
the upshot of it all is that my five and half week old daughter is an illegal alien...(one to add to Blair's '570,000')
she cannot have british citizenship, but equally she cannot leave the country without a passport
British Immigration, UK Passport Service and the Home Office are:
full of shit
rude and ignorant
stupid
mindless drones working for a dysfunctional system that does not benefit the general public
and one bloke i spoke to after 4 hours on hold sounded like Papa Lazaru
anyone else ever feel like going and living in a cave in morroco or somewhere?
PEL – is there a time limit for launching proceedings? ISTR that In some legal matters there has to be a certain timescale in which the allegation is made otherwise no further legal action can be taken
Obviously not for stuff like murder and violence (we all see news reports where some OAP is carted out of a nursing home in handcuffs for some crime he committed in their youth) - but I wonder if there is a time limit for relatively minor summary (non arrestable) offences such as PEL prosecutions?
The reason I ask is I am concious that many of the posts on here are often heavy political stuff, and I would love to start doing party reviews again but there is the obvious danger of incriminating people now... when you say "xxx rig was at yyy party" its a bit of soft intelligence that CPS lawyers could use [in conjunction with their own photo evidence from helicopters and EGTs] to launch a PEL prosecution.
But if they can't do anything about a party which happened 2 years ago then it would be OK to write reviews, upload photos etc.....
New police powers to stop raves BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3808411.stm
Avon and Somerset police are taking advantage of new legislation to help break up illegal gatherings and raves before they happen.
Previously, 100 people had to be gathered in an open space before officers could take action.
The new order gives them powers to break up a crowd of 20 or more people in open or indoor areas.
And anyone who is moved on faces arrest if they try to start up another gathering within 24 hours.
The force is believed to be one of the first in the country to adopt the new legislation under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003.
'Early Action'
Operational planning head, Superintendent Adrian Coombs, said police could now deal with incidents more effectively rather than relying on public order legislation.
"In the past we've had a situation where officers realised they could do little until a rave had been going on for some time, meaning serious disruption to both local people and officers.
"Now officers will have the power to take early action to prevent a rave getting off the ground in the first place," he said.
The new legislation also gives police powers to remove 20 or more people suspected of trespass, which will stop raves in disused warehouses taking place.
and
So, there you have it! yet another turn of the screw. I pointed out the advance of these law changes, earlier on my blog at:
[url]http://tash_lodge.blogspot.com/2003_10_05_tash_lodge_archive.html#106569213958283190[/url]
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/10/278956.html
An earlier 'Rant' about it all at, and further info:
http://tash.gn.apc.org/rant_1.htm
http://tash.gn.apc.org/sys_opinion.htm
http://tash.gn.apc.org/law_impl.htm also ....
New toys (and new skills) for the Old Bill
http://partyvibe.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1681
all on my blog at:
[url]http://tash_lodge.blogspot.com/2004_06_13_tash_lodge_archive.html#108733713725031608[/url]
ho hum!!!!
best
tash
____________________________________________
ALAN LODGE
Photographer - Media: One Eye on the Road. Nottingham. UK
Web: http://tash.gn.apc.org
WAP phone http://wappy.to/tash
ICQ #24654598
My Blog [url]http://tash_lodge.blogspot.com[/url]
BroadBand http://tash.dns2go.com
My WAP on web http://tash.gn.apc.org/wap_phone.htm
Member of the National Union of Journalist [No: 014345]
____________________________________________
"It is not enough to curse the darkness.
It is also necessary to light a lamp!!"
free parties or Private freeparties Are freeparties Public or Private? The wrong answer to this question can get you into a lot of trouble.
The correct answer is Private. unless you have a Public Entertainments License. PEL.
If your party is done FOR the Public and you have Entertainment you need a licence.
If your Party is Advertised in the Public Domain then you need a License.
The new amendments to PEL now makes Equipment Owners or Hirers and DJ's liable as well as Organizers and Management.
unless
FREEPARTIES ARE PRIVATE FREEPARTIES ARE PRIVATE.
Pass on the words ….. Private Freeparties, Don’t advertise publicly use your Private networks. Party Lines maybe ok if the number isn’t public.
This is not about making parties exclusive or scaremongring, this Law is being used against rigs and DJ's. It's not about breaking the PEL law but having some defence against it.
You have been warned.
Take care and be prepared.12
Shroom laws i'm sure this is old news, but it scares the crap out of me. apparently under the new act, anything containing psilocybin or psyocin is now illegal.
not only that, but any landowners can be prosecuted for failoing to stop them growing on their land! so instead of the "have to be prepared" laws, now the liberty cap itself is illegal.
what are we gonna do about this? making natural, native plants illegal seems disgusting to say the least...
http://www.mjreedsolicitors.co.uk/news.php?action=fullnews&id=50 wrote:
MAGIC MUSHROOMS and THE DRUGS BILL
06 April, 2005 by Celia Strange
The Drugs Bill received the Royal assent on 7th April 2005. (see Full Story for details of commencement of Clause 21)
Clause 21 inserts into Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 a fungus of any kind that contains the drug Psilocin or an ester of that drug. This has the effect of making such a fungus, often referred to as 'magic mushrooms', a Class A drug for the purposes of the 1971 Act.
Previously, such a fungus was only a class A drug where it was in a form which constituted a preparation or other product containing Psilocin or an ester of Psilocin for the purposes of paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
WHEN WILL THE NEW PROVISIONS BE IMPLEMENTED?
Clause 21 of the Act which relates to magic mushrooms will come into force on a date which the Secretary of State appoints. There may be secondary legislation concerning the implementation of the law as there are potential difficulties in enforcement, not least for those persons on whose land wild psilocibin mushrooms grow.
In the meantime,we advise that concerned parties should contact the Home Office or UK Parliament to find out information for themselves.
Home Office 0207 273 2620 or 0207 273 4000.
We do not think this change in the law will adversely affect the mushroom cases we have at present before the Crown Courts. However, it clearly has very serious implications for magic mushroom traders and users from the moment the relevant clause of the Drugs Act comes into force as they risk very lengthy custodial sentences. Many have ceased trading.
Useful websites : www.release.org.uk
www.tdpf.org.uk
www.parliament.uk
Protect against PEL taken from SJYOU WILL HEAR SOON if you haven’t already OF ANOTHER BIG WELL KNOWN RIG possibly two THAT has or have JUST BEEN PEL SUMMONSED FOR ANOTHER PARTY LAST YEAR.
I am not saying who yet either but the point is if you leave yourself open to attack it may come at a later date. and if they are on the ball now they will be noting every party advertised publicly, gathering evidence and if they collect a few you could find the book thrown at those with multi violatins if they plead or are found guilty.
no one need be arrested or interviewed and a summons may come at a later date. FREE PARTIES NEED TO BE PRIVATE FREEPARTIES it is the only defence but that may not be enough now and its likely going to be a case of taking it to court and even on to appeal or to the highest court as this law is not supposed to contrivien human rights. but to have a chance you need to have not givening them any good evidence.
new laws? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4366095.stm
if anyone can help, we are wondering what the new laws are exactly that stopped this rave getting busted.
new legislation::worried Anyone know the name of this bill? I hadn't heard about it, but it looks like it's been cooked up with raves in mind to some extent
while it mentions Fathers 4 Justice and the Windor palace stunt, it actually covers 10s of thousands of hectres of land right accross the south west, and i don't know how much of the rest of the county :noway:
don't the super-rich have enough laws to protect them already??? :obey:
Western Morning News (Plymouth)
March 12, 2005
SECTION: News; Other; Others; Pg. 2
LENGTH: 500 words
HEADLINE: Dartmoor ramblers fear trespass laws
BODY:
A tough new Bill cracking down on trespassing in sensitive areas has sparked fears that walkers could be arrested on Dartmoor. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill gives the Home Secretary powers to ban people from straying on to Crown land in the interests of national security.
It will make trespassing a criminal as opposed to civil offence and is intended as a disincentive to protesters looking for high-profile targets, such as the Fathers 4 Justice group or anti-hunt campaigners. But the legislation, which it is claimed has been "sneaked" through Parliament, could make criminals out of walkers and birdwatchers.
The Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society fear that, since the definition of Crown property applies to Duchy of Cornwall land - 19,000 acres of Cornwall and 51,250 acres of Devon, including vast swathes of Dartmoor - the region could fall under the Home Secretary's control. The groups have written to peers asking them to reject or "radically amend" the Bill when it passes through the House of Lords for a second reading on Monday.
"The proposals are dangerously loose and wide-ranging," said the Open Spaces Society's Kate Ashbrook. "We have a paranoid Government. What if they think there is a water poisoning threat? They could close off Burrator Reservoir, and that would be it for walkers." Gary Streeter, Tory MP for South West Devon, said the risk was small, but it was worth considering. "We have to be vigilant about guarding our civil liberties and it is good that people raise these things," he said.
But Colin Breed, Liberal Democrat MP for South East Cornwall, said he himself had asked for legislation to prevent trespassing to prevent stunts such as the anti-nuclear protesters' raid on Devonport naval base in Plymouth in September 2003.
He said: "If you have young men and women guarding sensitive sites and have foolish people trespassing to make a political point, then that's why you need this sort of law. It's by no means an attempt to block walkers from the wide open spaces of Dartmoor - that's just absurd." A Home Office spokesman said that after the Bill was passed, a second layer of legislation would go through Parliament specifying which sites the Home Secretary would want to protect. This would include Buckingham Palace, scaled by two Fathers 4 Justice protesters dressed as Batman and Robin last September, and Windsor Castle, where "comedy terrorist" Aaron Barschak gatecrashed Prince William's 21st birthday last June.
He said: "Whichever sites of this type are designated - it will certainly be key sites, not all Crown land - the threshold required to justify the measure will be high. A full list of sites will be set out in any regulations made under this power and laid before Parliament. If an individual is found in an area designated under these provisions he or she is liable to arrest. But in practice the police will make a judgment and will only use these powers if necessary."
.
UK: Scot : what does the "fiscal" do? Whenever I read news reports from Scotland or see programmes on telly they often mention people being "brought before the fiscal".
I understand its something legal, and it seems that most of these people who get involved with the "fiscal" are either in trouble/dead (or both) - so best to keep out of their way I suppose...
But what do they actually do and power does this person or office actually have?
Defence against burglars – what about *this* situation? A hypothetical situation (but one that could easily happen in an urban setting)
I' d be particularly interested to see a response from any law students who may be reading here..
OK suppose a bunch of people had a large shared house... They were mostly in their 20s-30s, mixed group, who all attended raves and other parties, and did small amounts of recreational drugs at the weekend but worked or attended a place of education during the week.
As you would expect, they have between them got enough cash to buy a few PCs, telly, DVD player, decks, music gear decent hi-fi and other stuff.
Every weekend they tend to have a loud gathering of people playing music, on occasions the Police have attended and told them to turn down the noise.
One of them rather misguidedly invites a random bunch of people over after a party to chill out, amongst whom is a lad (Person A) known to the Police for both drug use,dealing and burglarys of dwellings. He is also a regular crack cocaine user.
Some of the housemates are a bit wary of him but "he's sorted us out before so he's alright", although there is one chap in the house with whom he's never got on with as they have always mistrusted one another.
This chap (person B) is from an ethnic minority, slightly shyer and more reserved than the others (although he has occasionally used drugs, and has one formal adult caution for posession from some years back, which scared him into cutting down his drug use drastically). He has no other dealings with the criminal justice system and no history of using violence.
He raves occasionally but spends more time making music on equipment he purchased but has been installed in a communal music room in the basement for the use of all in the house. B sometimes also plays cricket, and keeps his cricket kit in his room, although he only plays for fun as he is short-sighted.
After the chillout session, A departs and everyone retires to bed. B is having difficulty sleeping, due to earlier consumption of stimulants (he hasn't done that for a while, hence the greater effect)
A later returns and breaks into the house by an insecure door, with the intention of stealing some of the music equipment to sell for drugs.
B is awakened by the noise. He picks up his cricket bat, and goes downstairs without putting on his spectacles (which he earlier mislaid).
He rushes into the basement, sees a figure their and swings the cricket bat - only aiming at the moving figure and unsure due to his eyesight of where the bat may land. The bat fractures A's skull and he falls to the ground.
Meanwhile, a young lady (C) living in a room above hears the commotion and dials 999 on her mobile. The Police attend; an Ambulance is called but paramedics pronounce A's life extinct.
B is arrested on suspicion of murder and detained at the Police Station, to be interviewed later by CID. As he is very jumpy initially and the cops say "they are always having parties at that house" a force doctor suspects he has taken class A drugs, and pronounces "not fit to interview until effect of these drugs has worn off" (i.e 12 hours bang up in cells!)
Now you would think this is a clear-cut case of self-defence but...
when cops attended A hadn't managed to nick anything yet; all they saw was B with a cricket bat standing over A's body.
the girl who called 999 (C) (perhaps not realising the implications of this statement) says in passing "A and B never liked each other"
the house had a "reputation" as mentioned above for noisy parties.
although B has difficulty signing his custody form the cops think its because of drugs affecting his vision, not that he can't see the damn forms!
B was also worried previously that A was "cracking on" to C - although B and C are not in a relationship they were very good friends and B was always worried about C's welfare. She also tells the cops this..
B is not white. A is. B went to comprehensive school but did relatively well in studies, whilst A went to fee paying school but "went bad". It is a predominantly middle class white suburb in SE England where this incident happens.
Can anyone see the makings of a big miscarriage of justice here, despite our "englishmans home is his castle" laws?
