From: NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid 
  
 On 16/08/2025 23:40, Jon Ribbens wrote: 
 > On 2025-08-16, Jethro_uk  wrote: 
 >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 11:47:01 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote: 
 >>> On 2025-08-16, Jethro_uk  wrote: 
 >>>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 20:06:46 +0100, GB wrote: 
 >>>>> In particular, she claimed she didn't understand the consequences of 
 >>>>> pleading guilty, which the COA found 'incredible' - which is fairly 
 >>>>> close to calling her a blatant liar. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> So she really is a bit dim ? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> I am reminded of people who subsequently discover that accepting a 
 >>>> caution is pleading guilty. 
 >>> 
 >>> I've got a lot more sympathy for that - it doesn't involve standing up 
 >>> in court and saying "guilty", and the police often do not inform you in 
 >>> any clear way at all that you're pleading guilty to a crime by signing 
 >>> the papers and that you will therefore have a criminal record. They'll 
 >>> be stressing that if you sign you can go home straight away and not have 
 >>> to stay overnight in jail and not have to go to court. 
 >> 
 >> Is that justice ? 
 > 
 > Well no I don't think so, hence my comment. 
 > 
  
 For the sort of offences cautions might be used for, the trial would be 
 in the Magistrates Court, and assuming there's reasonable evidence a 
 conviction is highly likely. So, there'll still be a criminal record. 
  
 So, I suppose the point you are making is that in practice the Crown 
 might not bother to prosecute, or would lose the papers, etc. The police 
 would still record the incident on their computer, and it could show up 
 on a DBS check, but there'd be no conviction to disclose. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)