Or is it summary conviction because they're over 16?
So, I think I just witnessed a murder. What are my obligations to report this to the police?
The applicable state law would be Qld as it happened at Suncorp Stadium.
....since someone charged with a summary offence aren’t fingerprinted, even if they are convicted?
Unless I’m mistaken, the way I understand it, anyone charged with a indictable offence who has been fingerprinted & photographed has a criminal record despite the outcome of the case. (Whether it be a Conviction, an acquittal, stay of proceeds, charges not approved, charges dropped/withdrawn, dismissed, etc)
Someone charged with a summary offence aren’t fingerprinted and even if they are found guilty in court, a conviction may not show up on a criminal record check since there are no fingerprints to match to the accused.
How is that possible that someone can have a criminal record despite never being convicted or found guilty but someone convicted of a summary offence could be spared a criminal record (not considering a discharge, of course)?
This is one thing I could not understand. Mike explains that Axe can transfer Axe Bank, Axe Holding and the asset management arm, including Taylor Mason Carbon, for 2 billion. If he now has the bank, why couldn't Chuck have arrested him the next day in his office on the same 'dealing in illegal drug money' charge as he did Axe. Lack of due diligence should apply to Mike as well shouldn't it?
I am 31. Was filling up one of those Lindt truffle boxes for my wife when the security guard came over to me and accused me of putting sweets in my pockets. I literally had a trolly full of groceries and was ticking items off my list. Again I am 31 years old! Not 8!
I was so rattled by the accusation I couldn't focus on the rest of my shop.
Edit: damn! This blew up! Well I'm very much looking forward to reading all these comments. I have called sainsburys and filed a complaint and so we will see what comes of it in 3 to 5 days when they call me back. I will post an update when that happens. Thank you everyone for the advice and anecdotes, I will try to reply to as many as I can.
Also to the snarky prat who called me out for using the word groceries instead of 'shopping' you get all the Queens points for being the most British of all the British Brits. Well done you! I was born in the US but live here and recently got British citizenship. Yay!
I'm pretty desparate to find housing for next term.
While jail isn't my first choice of residence, it does allow for consistent meals and a roof over my head.
Of course, this plan relies on being able to escape easily to write the midterms and final exams. I'll also need a partner who is willing to smuggle in class notes for me.
I see this time and time again.
Why has the SEC not arrest anyone?
Well the TL;DR of it is: They can't as they are a regulator, not a law enforcement agency. They legally cannot arrest anyone. Ever.
So how do I know this? Because they freaking say so:
>SEC investigations are civil, not criminal. The SEC can charge individuals and entities for violating the federal securities laws and seek remedies such as monetary penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, injunctions, and restrictions on an individual’s ability to work in the securities industry or to serve as an officer or director of a public company, but the SEC cannot put people in jail.
It goes on to say: >Enforcement may refer potential criminal cases to criminal law enforcement authorities for investigation or coordinate SEC investigations with criminal investigations involving the same conduct.
If only the DOJ was around. Oh wait! They are.
(Source: https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-bulletins/ib_investigations.html)
Whether it is MUD or FUD it is not within the SEC's remit to arrest people for indictable offences. That lays solely with law enforcement. It is in someone's interest that this is confused.
You want some tasty sauce with that? Here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/096466390201100403 (an actual acedemic journal on the subject. Body behind paywall but abstract freely available)
So this leads to the question is GG the big bad that is being espoused? or is it a misdirection?
Tinfoil time: If I wanted to remove a thorn in my side from a previously compliant regulator how would I do it? Smear them everywhere and hard. Drum up the people to make the complaints then put in a willing puppet. :Tinfoil off.
Regulators generally have as little power as possible, because the industries are self-regulating. Ofcourse all of the big players will have a seat at the table because the industry is self-regulating
Organisations like the SEC and the FCA exist purely to keep the self-regulating markets unregulated for as long as possible. Their only power is wimpy fines and drawing up rules and exemptions.
The SEC can not arrest anyone because they simply do not have the lawful authority to. Nor can they demand financial records, search buildings etc.
Hence the DOJ investigation, because they do. They can wiretap, get access to emails and financial statements etc but investigations like this take a while.
We can blame the SEC all
... keep reading on reddit ➡England, attack happened in England also
A little bit over 8 years ago when I turned 18 I was the victim of an attack which left me paralysed. I didn't know who orchestrated it or who my attackers were, until now.
The thing is. Three out of the seven attackers now live in other countries and I don't have much evidence, just the apparent orchestrator's step-sister's confession to me over Facebook. There could be more but I'm waiting to meet with the step-sister in person before I go to the police (if there's even any point.) I have a hunch she might have some more evidence although I'm doubting there's gonna be a boatload.
Is this worth pursuing legally or trying to press charges? I'm not looking for monetary compensation but if you look at my other post you'll probably understand why I want to see them rot.
Edit --- should have clarified, but the step-sister was not one of the attackers.
I mean.. what is it? It’s such a confusing concept to me
After watching vigilante paedophile hunter groups videos, I’ve noticed they all say the same thing, “I’m detaining you. You’re under citizens arrest”. This would be under 24a of PACE, but this is only for indictable offences. My question is, who gets to decide whether the offence is indictable or summary? Because people throw around ‘citizens arrest’ all the time without knowing what that really means.
