http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/celtic/5287664.stm
he must be a terrorist!
[quote]The Crown Office said Boruc’s behaviour had taken place before a crowd in the charged atmosphere of a match between Celtic and rivals Rangers.
As such it constituted a breach of the peace.[/quote]
sectarian sports… only in a certain part of the world…but probably coming soon to the USA.
does God love Ranger fans? 
:bravo:
How does being cautioned leave him with a criminal record?
How does being cautioned leave him with a criminal record?[/quote]The caution will be on his record, and may be taken into consideration in any future cases. A caution can only be given when he has admitted his guilt, and there is enough evidence that a conviction would have been very likely.
Besides, he’s a Glaswegian footballer, he must have been up to no good.
So instead of having to prove his guilt in a court of law, they simply declare him guilty. No wonder that country never amounted to more than a pimple on England’s ass.
[quote=“Taichung Social Club”]So instead of having to prove his guilt in a court of law, they simply declare him guilty. No wonder that country never amounted to more than a pimple on England’s ass.[/quote]No, They can’t declare him guilty. He has to admit his guilt first, he can choose to plead innocent and go to court instead, but he and the police agreed to dispense with all that and have a caution instead.
I’m more concerned how blessing himself can be a “breach of the peace”
It sounds awfully like a roadside kangaroo court. The police are judge and jury, are they his legal counsel also?
[quote=“Taichung Social Club”]It sounds awfully like a roadside kangaroo court. The police are judge and jury, are they his legal counsel also?[/quote]Sigh… it’s with his consent, he admitted his guilt, he had the option to go to court, he chose the caution. Which part of that don’t you understand ?
I understand all of it. I just don’t buy into it.
Due to a third party complaint, the police arrive after the fact and advise the accused he can admit his guilt. He does, and the police stick him with a criminal record.
The police are acting in lieu of a court and the accused has no counsel, ergo: Kangaroo court.
[quote=“dictionary.com”]
kangaroo court
Even if one wishes to plea guilty, the plea should be entered in a court of law. The police are not a court, nor should they act in lieu of one.
What are you talking about? The police arrive. They say “did you do this? If you say yes you’ll be cautioned, if you say no, you’ll go to court.” What on earth is “kangaroo” about that?
You’d prefer to be written up, go home, get a lawyer, wait for a court date, take time off work to appear, spend the morning attending court (assuming the court’s in your town and that you don’t have to spend the day traveling), plead guilty and … be cautioned.
Strange logic it is you have.
[quote]Even if one wishes to plea guilty, the plea should be entered in a court of law[/quote]It can be if he chooses. I have said in every one of my posts that he has the right to go to court, and that he consented to have a caution. When was he denied a lawyer ? When was he denied the option to go to court ? Never.
Please read my posts, or even better, something about the Police Caution system.
I don’t need to read your posts more carefully, I fully understand what you have written about the system and how it works. And from that I conclude it’s a shit system, end of story.
Yes, one might prefer to be written up. go home, get a lawyer, wait, go to court, :blah: :blah: :blah: But what if the police would rather not go to court? They are in a position to pursuade the accused. Does that ever happen? 
The point is it can. It’s not just about doing justice, it’s about justice being seen to be done. The police are the police, not judge, jury, and counsel for the defence.
The point is, the caution system is designed for minor infractions. Of course the police don’t want to go to court, just as most people don’t want to.
A caution is an easy way out in which everybody wins. You won’t be offered a caution for a serious offence, you can be sure of that.
And I sure as hell don’t want my tax pounds be spent on court trials for people caught spitting in the street and I’d much rather the police were on the beat rather than wasting their days in court appearing against jaywalkers and the like.
I suppose it could happen but if they really wanted to save time, they would just drop it completely. What would be the point in giving an innocent person a caution ? Most people see it as being let off. It can only be used for relatively minor offenses and I believe only for a first offence. If the police wanted justice to seem to be done, they would make up evidence and put innocent people away for a long time. From what I know of the police, and from the thread on the British Police, they would much rather go to court, even though they know the courts would probably go soft on them.
[quote]I fully understand what you have written about the system and how it works. And from that I conclude it’s a shit system, end of story.[/quote]I think you concluded that already when you called Scotland a “pimple on England’s ass”
Maybe a bit of kangaroo justice on some thugs without “I blame society” liberal judges would do a lot of good…
Ohhhh! Where’s your compassion Matthew? What about their feelings? Where’s my bleedin’ Rebus?
I whole-heartedly agree with your previous post, sandman. However, in this case at least, the accused ends up with a criminal record. Or at least that is what the article said.
While I respect the police and the work they do, I abhore the power they have. I’ve had too many first had experiences with how the cops persuade people. In my youth, and each time the cops were just salivating to get me to admit to something they couldn’t prove (they couldn’t prove anything because I wasn’t guilty of any offence. I simply kept the wrong company).
Even if I had admitted to any wrong doing, they would still have had to go to court. My admission would have been nothing more than evidence to bolster their case. But under the cautioning system your country has they would only have needed me to admit my guilt to saddle me with a criminal record.
A criminal record, even for the most minor of offences, can have severe repercussions in other aspects of one’s life. As such it is not appropriate for the police to have that kind of authority.
OK , I may be wrong, but as far as I know, there’s a difference between having received a caution and having a criminal record. In fact, I seem to recall having been officially cautioned in the past and I know I don’t have a criminal record.
We need Dangermouse to weigh in. He’ll know the score.
Ohhhh! Where’s your compassion Matthew? What about their feelings?[/quote]If they had their goolies removed at the first sign of trouble we wouldn’t be in this miss. But oh no… liberal wishy-washy do-gooders wouldn’t allow that. I say Off with their goolies!!
I may wear a dress but I’m no lady.
Sandman is right - it is not a criminal conviction, so it’s not on your criminal record. It is recorded internally by the police and may be brought up in case of later infractions of the law.
Ok, so storm in a teacup. The article is wrong.