***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 20 *****
Continuing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 02:10
|
Guardian reports that Travis will face one new charge in addition to those on which jury could not agree last time.
|
The CPS are doing their best to make Manchester United appear a winning team..
No bonuses for them...I trust...
|
The CPS seems to have been taken over by some militant "All Men are Rapists" pressure group. Most of the "Victims" did not even consider themselves as such.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/10/how-case-against-nigel-evans-fell-apart
|
Such was Lancashire Constabulary's zeal to pursue the case that when Tory MP Conor Burns told police he only had a vague recollection of one of the incidents and did not feel in a position to provide a statement, he was warned if he did not comply he would be forced to attend court and treated as a “reluctant witness”.
tinyurl.com/os8m2mz
|
>> Such was Lancashire Constabulary's zeal to pursue the case that when Tory MP Conor Burns
>> told police he only had a vague recollection of one of the incidents and did
>> not feel in a position to provide a statement, he was warned if he did
>> not comply he would be forced to attend court and treated as a “reluctant witness”.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/os8m2mz
>>
Words fail me !
|
There is More:
Speaking after the trial has finished...and Evans was found not guilty Detective Superintendent Ian Critchley of Lancashire Police defended the decision to prosecute - and implied that the same decision would have been taken again.
"We have recognised and considered the views and needs of the victims throughout this case, while ensuring we provide support to them and the witnesses through what has no doubt beeen a very difficult and challenging ordeal.
No guilty verdict = NO victims...
Plonkers..
Last edited by: madf on Thu 10 Apr 14 at 18:39
|
>> No guilty verdict = NO victims...
>>
Not true.
A guilty plea requires the jury to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that offences took place. If they're not unanimous the judge can accept a 10/2 majority.
It's quite possible for something fishy to happen but for reasons of presentation in court or demeanour of witnesses jury are not convinced.
Not the same thing as proving conclusively there were NO victims.
Failure to convict alleged murderer doesn't mean nobody died.
|
:s/guilty plea/guilty verdict/ I think Bromp?
I've spent the last couple of evenings reading through a judgement given by Mr Justice Warren in a case that I have more than a passing interest in.
I must say that I'm seriously impressed by how much work he must have put in to understand the most minute detail.
Very impressed indeed.
|
>>A guilty plea requires the jury to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that offences took place.
Following on from your own pedantry, surely the point the Jury have to decide is that beyond a reasonable doubt this person committed those offences, not simply that those offences took place.
|
>> >> surely the point the Jury have to decide is
>> that beyond a reasonable doubt this person committed those offences, not simply that those offences
>> took place.
>>
And if no one else was involved, but it was found that the accused was innocent, then it must follow that there was no offence. It would be ridiculous to conclude that therefore someone else must have committed the offence, unlike the murder analogy.
|
"then it must follow that there was no offence."
The fact that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt to convince a jury that no offence took place means exactly that. There is insufficient evidence. It does not mean no offence took place.
It is easy to envisage "a one word against the other case" where the accused is lying but convincing and the victim is a poor witness but telling the truth and the jury brings in a not guilty case,
Not that I think that that is what happened here.
|
Mark,
I certainly did not intend to make a fine or pedantic point, rather to point out a fundamental misunderstanding by those who say 'no victim'.
It's not right to to treat criminal cases as a black/white issue and infer that a not guilty verdict means nothing happened and that the allegations were a pack of lies.
CGN's subsequent post makes the point more fully.
|
Where is it, perhaps Scotland? where the verdict can be "Not Proven" ?
Because we should have the options of Guilty, Not Proven, and Not Guilty, IMO.
|
"Not Proven"
Otherwise known as "not guilty and don't do it again" I believe.
|
>>
>> "Not Proven"
>>
>> "don't do it again"
or what?
|
>> >> No guilty verdict = NO victims...
>> >>
>>
>> Not true.
In this case, yes true. There was never any claim of potential doubt about who the abuser was, there was no identity parade. It was a specific claim against a specific person. The person was found not guilty of that claim, hence there was no assault hence there no victim
You body analogy does not hold water because there is proof of a body. Here there is no proof.
|
>> >> >> No guilty verdict = NO victims...
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not true.
>>
>>
>> In this case, yes true. There was never any claim of potential doubt about who
>> the abuser was, there was no identity parade. It was a specific claim against a
>> specific person. The person was found not guilty of that claim, hence there was no
>> assault hence there no victim
>>
>> You body analogy does not hold water because there is proof of a body. Here
>> there is no proof.
>>
Thank you Zero for following my logic impeccably. :-)
|
|
It does seem from the reportage of the whole sorry saga that Mr Evans is not a nice person with whom it is necessary to interact in the course of one's work.
|
...............in the meantime, Guido Fawkes, stirring the pot as is his wont, has this on order-order.com
Chief Whip Emails: Keep Your Hands Off the Staff
Code of Conduct is “Entirely Voluntary”
The Nigel Evans case will have lasting repercussions it seems:
Dear Colleague,
From time to time, colleagues approach me for guidance in terms of handling grievances which may have arisen in the course of their employing staff.
The Prime Minister has therefore asked me to draw up a code of conduct and grievance procedure which you may be interested in adopting within your office, mindful that Members’ staff are employed directly by the Member. Adoption is entirely voluntary for colleagues and copies of the code of conduct and the grievance procedure are available either by emailing gcwo@parliament.uk or by writing to me, c/o the Government Chief Whip’s Office.
We intend to undertake a review of the code and procedure in early 2015. Meanwhile, the 1922 Committee are continuing to develop their own ideas for the best form of grievance procedure, which they are hoping to bring forward shortly and these will also form part of the review.
Chief Whip
If MPs “pork the payroll” there could be consequences…
Last edited by: Pigs-Might-Fly on Fri 11 Apr 14 at 12:19
|
>> It does seem from the reportage of the whole sorry saga that Mr Evans is
>> not a nice person with whom it is necessary to interact in the course of
>> one's work.
Alas being an odious fatty is not yet a crime.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 4 Sep 14 at 21:32
|
Alas being an odious fatty is not yet a crime.
But come the glorious day, they'll be first against the wall...
Power to the people :o)
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 4 Sep 14 at 21:32
|
>> Alas being an odious fatty is not yet a crime.
>> But come the glorious day, they'll be first against the wall...
>> Power to the people :o)
>>
Ah Citizen Smith....
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 4 Sep 14 at 21:32
|
A cursory reading of the relevant item in today's comic could easily lead a naive person to believe that most MPs are constantly drunk and that more than half of them are unpleasant predatory homosexuals constantly asking young men to accompany them to the lavatory.
Even if it is true or toned down, this isn't the sort of thing that should be published. It's bound to send the wrong signals to the hoi polloi reinforcing their dark suspicions.
Has anyone else noticed that there hasn't been a single reference to Michael Fabricant anywhere in the media since his sacking the other night for dancing on Maria Miller's grave when the PM was feeling sensitive about all that? It's as if the fellow had never existed, let alone been deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. An unperson (1984). Funny but sinister.
:o}
|
|
Fabricant is still active on Twitter.
|
>> still active on Twitter.
I mean the real media Rastaman, not the 'social media' which I never consult except through links.
Obviously Fabricant thinks he exists. It's just that everyone else of any importance seems to have blanked him out completely.
|
A cursory reading of the relevant item in today's comic could easily lead a naive person to believe that most MPs are constantly drunk
And?
|
>> And?
See what I mean Sp? If that 'and' doesn't express dark hoi polloi-style suspicions - unworthy of you I would have thought, a man with a sound attitude to the automobile - I'm a Dutchman (where he by the way?) or a banana if you prefer.
Tsk. Honestly.
|
|
Satire does not come across well in plain text!
|
Well OK, I suppose the freesheet Evening Standard might still pass for real media, as might Radio 4 and even, just, the Birmingham Mail... but mostly these yarns are published on online media tasters, not the media themselves, and are clearly driven by the man's frantic twittering.
To the great and good and their media toadies, he's an unperson at the moment.
|
>> Has anyone else noticed that there hasn't been a single reference to Michael Fabricant anywhere
>> in the media since his sacking the other night for dancing on Maria Miller's grave
>> when the PM was feeling sensitive about all that? It's as if the fellow had
>> never existed, let alone been deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. An unperson (1984). Funny
>> but sinister.
He was on R4 last night at about 5:40pm
Neil
|
Perhaps AC meant there hasn't been a single mention of Fabricant in the Daily Toryguff?
;-)
|
>> Ah Citizen Smith....
>>
Freedom for Tooting and Fulham for the Cup. At least one of those has a realistic prospect of happening (in there before any bubble botherers chime in).
I note his father-in-law (Grouty to some, of course) is still working - appearing in Game of Thrones still.
|
.....but being a train spotter may be a crime :-)
tinyurl.com/oqubaov
Last edited by: Pigs-Might-Fly on Fri 11 Apr 14 at 14:02
|
>> In this case, yes true. There was never any claim of potential doubt about who
>> the abuser was, there was no identity parade. It was a specific claim against a
>> specific person. The person was found not guilty of that claim, hence there was no
>> assault hence there no victim
>>
>> You body analogy does not hold water because there is proof of a body. Here
>> there is no proof.
The analogy was intended to be illustrative. NG does not mean nothing happened and that there is nobody entitled to be, and remain, aggrieved as to their treatment by X even after X is acquitted of a specific offence.
|
>>
>> The analogy was intended to be illustrative. NG does not mean nothing happened and that
>> there is nobody entitled to be, and remain, aggrieved as to their treatment by X
>> even after X is acquitted of a specific offence.
>
Ah but in this specific case, where only one person could ever have to been found guilty, as the case was all about the alleged acts of Evans... to refer to his accusers as "victims" after the trial found him Not Guilty is an obvious and blatant Contempt of Court.
I believe since the original publication, the word "victim" has been replaced.
|
>> In this case, yes true. There was never any claim of potential doubt about who
>> the abuser was, there was no identity parade. It was a specific claim against a
>> specific person. The person was found not guilty of that claim, hence there was no
>> assault hence there no victim
I don't follow your logic.
There may or may not be a crime, whatever the crime.
When it gets to court, it's left to a jury of average Brits to decide whether it happened or not.
If they decide it did, but in reality it didn't, then some poor sod goes to jail unnecessarily.
If they decide it didn't, but in reality it did, then some scum bucket gets away with it.
The other two options would be justice.
Obviously all the checks that are put in make it far easier for someone to unnecessarily get off, than then other way around, but just because a court comes to a verdict, that doesn't mean the truth has been established, far from it. The whole things a big game to some, inc the lawyers.
|
>> inc the lawyers.
Their job is to turn open-and-shut cases into nonsense, or to persuade judge or jury that some more or less innocent blighter is a villain. They must sometimes feel a bit guilty and wish they had lost.
|
>> The other two options would be justice.
Not really - I wouldn't trust anyone else to decide.
|
>>The person was found not guilty of that claim, hence there was no assault hence there no victim
Not Guilty doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it, although perhaps he did not. It just means that there was insufficient proof in the opinion of the Jury.
However, in this case it would seem that he did do it, they just weren't that bothered about it. And the one that was bothered, wasn't very credible.
Two things that I would have assumed that the CPS would have grasped beforehand..
|
We are splitting hairs here. If we are talking one particular case, we can argue there may have been an assault. Or not.
But we are talking more than one case. Several (3?) that the "victims" denied were actual assaults.
And he was found NOT GUILTY on each case. Within less than 2 days of jury deliberations... So pretty conclusive... and in under 2 hours deliberation for each case...
So either they did not happen, or they did but his lawyer is a genius..
And if they did happen #, and his lawyer is NOT a genius the CPS are a bunch of plonkers...
Take your pick. None reflect well on the CPS.
# and by "victim" testimony, three did not happen...
Last edited by: madf on Fri 11 Apr 14 at 19:29
|
There's more to this case than meets the eye.
Why did Sara Wollaston, MP and former GP with experience of sexual assault casework get involved? It seems her intervention, both in providing a link to the Police for one accuser and in 'whistleblowing' Evans's conduct with Speaker and Commons authorities, was key step. Difficult to piece other bits together but there's more than a hint of a subtext the Evans's drinking and behaviour with junior staff, even given all parties were gay, was a cause for concern either to the Tory party, house authorities, or both.
Probably need to wait for the thirty year rule for any facts to get in public domain.
Press reports* suggest a key witness, probably the man accusing rape, told a much firmer story to the police than that he gave in evidence. Cast iron witnesses who either 'corpse' in court or, fronted with reality of judge, jury and oath, lose all certainty are an occupational hazard for prosecutors in any adversarial legal system.
Never had any professional involvement with Criminal law but I've seen my share of Counsel in civil and tribunal cases looking as if they'd like to take their 'star witness' up Bell Yard and give him a damn good kicking.
*www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/10/how-case-against-nigel-evans-fell-apart
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 11 Apr 14 at 20:52
|
>> And the one that was bothered, wasn't very credible.
Credibility is very important.
My ex was in the legal team representing a guy sent down for murder well over 20 years ago.
There were two brothers, one of whom killed their apparently nasty father. Each brother blamed the other.
My ex was convinced that the other brother did it. He was apparently a nasty piece of work with a record and training in the forces so knew how to kill. In court he came across very professionally whilst her client was very nervous.
In the end the jury believed the well presented one. We are all human after all.
|
what we have here is a fundamentally flawed strategy by the CPS. In this trial and in all the other yew tree cases.
The CPS think they have a better chance of "mud sticking" if they load the cases up with lots of complainants. The good the bad and the ugly. The trouble is the numerous "make weight" complainants and cases who wouldn't get put near a court by the cps in a single case, drag down the whole case and make the better supported co-complainants a worse looking case.
Unless they get the idea of each complaint being heard on its own merits, they are going to destroy british justice totally. They have, in short, made the court system a laughing stock.
|
>>what we have here is a fundamentally flawed strategy by the CPS.
I'm not normally one for conspiracy theories, yet I cannot help but feel that there is a zealot of some description in the middle of all of this.
|
Z,
Yewtree is about abuse of position by Savile and others in broadcast media etc. While founded on similar grounds Evans was not part of that exercise.
As I've already posted there are odd political overtones and a witness who seemed sound supporting prosecution of Evans.
In DLT etc multiple people came forward independently and claimed AN Other star had groped them. There were lots of complainants because lots of people complained.
If any came forward singly at time they were disbelieved and ridiculed. Only now, after publicity about Savile, were they believed by Police and prosecutors.
For whatever reason cases that have come to court so far have not thus far produced a guilty verdict. It may be that, as in Evans, witnesses who seemed convincing at police interview resiles, hesitated or corpsed in the courtroom. It maybe that the 12good men and true are as septical of 'reality' of historic sexual abuse allegations as the 'bench' of individuals here. In that case CPS will learn and plead DLT etc as reason to be cautious of future prosecutions.
Immediately post Savile etc it was nigh on impossible for CPS to 'not proceed' sex assault cases where there was
As research on jury verdicts is illegal it's unlikely we'll know what reasoning has lead to NG verdicts in high profile cases to date.
Barring a mendacious public campaign, led by press, I doubt a few acquittals will really make the court system a laughing stock. If it does then the public deserve the 'reform' that follows.
Stuart Hall pleaded guilty but I bet he now wishes he'd stuck with NG and hned his arm in out.
|
>> Z,
>>
>> Yewtree is about abuse of position by Savile and others in broadcast media etc. While
>> founded on similar grounds Evans was not part of that exercise.
I am fully aware of that but there are matching parallels in how the case was approached and handled by the CPS, with the same singular lack of success. Its valid to lump this in the same debacle as the others.
If you think this current horror show will, in any way, reassure abuse victims that they will get a fair hearing, then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Its a horrific balls up that shows no signs of stopping.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 11 Apr 14 at 23:46
|
Here is what the head of the CPS says:
"Alison Saunders said the CPS was not "on a mission" to pursue famous people and insisted it would not "shy away" from difficult cases.
.....
But Ms Saunders rejected suggestions the CPS was "star-struck".
She told the BBC: "We apply the same test no matter who the offender or the victim is, and it's very important that we do that."
She said she would look at the Evans case to see if lessons could be learned - as was normal with all acquittals - but she rejected any widespread change to CPS procedures in such cases.
"I think we made the right decision in taking it before the court," Ms Saunders said.
So on that basis, the CPS have done nothing wrong, will continue as is...
Woman on a mission? Or just deluded?
|
>>to see if lessons could be learned <<
That phrase seems to be used as an apology for everything during the last few years.
Can any of us actually recall a situation where it shows a 'lesson was learned' and someone actually benefitted from it?
I'm sick of hearing it trotted out as an excuse for everything.
Pat
|
>> She told the BBC: "We apply the same test no matter who the offender or
>> the victim is, and it's very important that we do that."
That is utter rubbish.
|
>> >> She told the BBC: "We apply the same test no matter who the
>> offender or
>> >> the victim is, and it's very important that we do that."
>>
>> That is utter rubbish.
>>
>>
>>
And demonstrably untrue...
|
>> And demonstrably untrue...
In what way?
|
I'd say the DPP is star struck.
The regulators and supervisory bodies I've had the job of dealing with have always gone for the big scalps. It gets them a grandstanding opportunity (when it doesn't go wrong) and sends a message to the hoi polloi about whatever it is.
I doubt if the police find it easy to apply the same criteria to every case either. There's a different level and kind if scrutiny for the rich, famous or powerful and always will be, whether it leads to harsher or more lenient treatment depends on who's doing the scrutinising.
|
>>
>> >> And demonstrably untrue...
>>
>> In what way?
>>
You just need to look at the resources devoted to the case... A Detective Superintendent, using witnesses there people who did not consider they had been assaulted , and what I believe was a high profile prosecuting team...
And one final point, it is always difficult to prosecute an MP. It does not normally happen very often. One would think the CPS would ensure they had a watertight case - if only because of the political backlash if it transpires they had prosecuted on flimsy evidence. Given that the main complainant - who alleged rape - changed his story at least twice in significant ways - forced down on the bed/raped vs undressed himself etc - taking the case to court required extreme bravery on behalf of the CPS . As any failure would lead to the sort of reaction evident in the HOC and in the Press and here. The CPS head claimed they had a strong case. Bull excrement.
tinyurl.com/mh9na38
Last edited by: madf on Sat 12 Apr 14 at 11:02
|
>> And one final point, it is always difficult to prosecute an MP.
"How the Liberal party, police and MI5 concealed MP Cyril Smith's industrial-scale child abuse"
(but it is from the DM)
tinyurl.com/pf7pb72
|
>>
>> >> And demonstrably untrue...
>>
>> In what way?
I know your comment was aimed at madf, but as mine wasn't far off his, I'll bung my oar in anyway.
The Full Code test that the CPS apply is riddled with subjectiveness....and...it is applied differently in differing circumstances, so to say it's a one size fits all is complete balderdash
For example, if a police officer committed a crime or the average citizen committed the same crime...the police officer is more likely to be prosecuted...(and most people would think that right and proper).
However, if the evidence was extremely limited or there's a 50/50 decision to be made, the 'public interest stage' should not outweigh the 'evidential stage', trouble is, it sometimes does.
Who is making these decisions? How accountable are they? Do they get it right?
|
tinyurl.com/pvs4z7b
Dan Hodges thinks the same as us (Is that a good thing? :-)
|
>> Dan Hodges thinks the same as us (Is that a good thing? :-)
>>
No.
He's rabble rousing and coming from a different angle. He's coming from the 'police taking on politicians' angle...rather than what is reality.
The way I see it is thus:
The modern police have no real ability to make their own minds up, they are so afraid of someone moaning that they haven't done something, that they constantly cover their backside by 'doing' something, even if it should be left alone.
In this case, you have the added mix in our changed world that spices it up..in that powerful men in positions of authority who are gay, are empowered to such a degree, that they are virtually untouchable (no pun intended)..so, some overstep the mark or badly overstep the mark...because they can....and eventually if it gets too bad, there's all hell let loose...rather than it being managed properly at the level it should have been...(I'm not talking about genuine assault cases, which should go via the police).
Same principle with race, feminism, etc.
The bad old days whereby homophobia, racism, sexism etc was rife and no one could do much about it, is plain wrong...but so is a situation where people can get away with things because of their sexual orientation, race or sex...and the only thing that eventually happens is well over the top.
Welcome to modern Britain.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 12 Apr 14 at 18:06
|
>> The modern police have no real ability to make their own minds up, they are
>> so afraid of someone moaning that they haven't done something, that they constantly cover their
>> backside by 'doing' something, even if it should be left alone.
While I might quibble over the detail I can see the point. Too much decision making is bound by decision tree tools and matrices. We need to go back to letting informed/skilled people sort things out - even if they get them wrong occasionally.
>> In this case, you have the added mix in our changed world that spices it
>> up..in that powerful men in positions of authority who are gay, are empowered to such
>> a degree, that they are virtually untouchable (no pun intended)..so, some overstep the mark or
>> badly overstep the mark...because they can....and eventually if it gets too bad, there's all hell
>> let loose...rather than it being managed properly at the level it should have been...(I'm not
>> talking about genuine assault cases, which should go via the police).
Now OTOH if you introduce prejudice like that into the equation I can see why tools /rules might be needed. If people, whatever their sexual proclivities, are in position of authority to extent that they're untouchable you have a problem but I don't accept premise that current SoP on gender/sexuality/race has a real positive bearing in the 'getting off with it' sense.
It may be that, given it involves two males both with the drive that goes hell for leather for instant gratification then stuff that wouldn't be acceptable in a man/woman encounter (hands in pants etc) passes as OK between gay men. Need o be sure of your ground though. To some extent it was evidence in that vein that sunk Evans's prosecution.
I'm deeply sceptical of idea that folks are getting away big time with offences that would turn Anglos puce on grounds that perps are gay/feminist/racial minority.
Without intending to offend WP the idea that people who think that way were in mid ranking positions in the MPS inside last two years is a bit worrying.
|
>> I'm deeply sceptical of idea that folks are getting away big time with offences that
>> would turn Anglos puce on grounds that perps are gay/feminist/racial minority.
>>
>> Without intending to offend WP the idea that people who think that way were in
>> mid ranking positions in the MPS inside last two years is a bit worrying.
>>
>>
Whether you believe it or not, I know it is an opinion held by quite a few in the police. I know quite a few police who would be of WP's 'police generation' his post is near identical to their views. Bosses paralyzed by fear of being labelled xyz, so back off when it comes to racial, in their case, minorities crime.
None of them MPS btw.
|
>> Now OTOH if you introduce prejudice like that into the equation
Interesting that you've gone straight to 'prejudice'.
There was nothing prejudicial in my post. I am posting 100% fact.
I wasn't saying that people in general who are gay, black, female are getting away with crime.
I was saying that 'some' who are gay, black, female etc feel empowered enough by the legislation and change in society that has allowed them to be treated like everyone else (and quite right too), but then go one stage further and get way with things that others would/could not....and...
....I find it ironic that the behaviour of the past that was wrong for a generally white man in a position of authority to commit...is equally wrong of those who were once downtrodden.
For the record, I support the shift in society that gives more equality to all...and resent your automatic assumption.
>> Without intending to offend WP #
You have.
the idea that people who think that way were in
>> mid ranking positions in the MPS inside last two years is a bit worrying.
Why? If that's what is happening on occasions, would you prefer I ignore it?
|
>> >> Now OTOH if you introduce prejudice like that into the equation
>>
>> Interesting that you've gone straight to 'prejudice'.
I'll return to this point later when I've got time - presently taking a break form re-pointing a patio.
I see Nigel Evans wants his full legal costs for a QC etc met by the state. Now I actually think that's quite reasonable provided costs are examined for 'reasonableness'. An it used to be pretty much the case.
How did Nigel Evans vote on the clauses in the Legal Aid, Punishment and Sentencing of offenders bill (as it then was) which limit recovery to Legal Aid rates?
It maybe his honour is preserved by presumption that speaker and deputies abstain but the phrase 'hoist by own petard' comes to mind.
|
>> Interesting that you've gone straight to 'prejudice'.
Because thats how I read your comment.
>> I was saying that 'some' who are gay, black, female etc feel empowered enough by
>> the legislation and change in society that has allowed them to be treated like everyone
>> else (and quite right too), but then go one stage further and get way with
>> things that others would/could not....and...
My issue was with the specific phrase 'in that powerful men in positions of authority who are gay, are empowered to such a degree, that they are virtually untouchable. I struggle to see that as anything other than a sort of stereotype. Now if in reality it's one or two who might exploit it, in same way as one or bosses exploit their power, that's a different thing.
Evans seems to have been in the opposite group. He hid his homosexuality only gradually easing himself out of the closet in last few years.
Ironically, once the Civil Service (or at least the bit I worked in), took equality seriously it was more difficult for that minority in a minority who wanted to do so to exploit their protected characteristic. The stuff was on the table, managers had access to informed advice. Where there was a real issue it could be accommodated. Muslims, Friday prayers and post rotas were a case in point. Where there was nothing to protect proper action took its course.
Cannot ever remember a real issue with gay men (or women), certainly not recently.
I doubt there is any system for catching and dealing openly with such issues where an MP's behaviour gives cause for concern. That's why this case went as it did. The Whips and Speaker both seemed to be like rabbits in the headlights. Another MP (Sara Wollaston) introduced the Police into the equation. Quite what happened between there and the car crash in the Crown Court needs to be examined in public. The Home Affairs Select Committee seem to be on the case.
>> ....I find it ironic that the behaviour of the past that was wrong for a
>> generally white man in a position of authority to commit...is equally wrong of those who
>> were once downtrodden.
>>
>> For the record, I support the shift in society that gives more equality to all...and
>> resent your automatic assumption.
The bit that worries me is the apparent assumption that all of them are so empowered and that we need to assign that motive to them even though exploiting it is rare. A way of thinking that says 'they're all at it'.
>> Why? If that's what is happening on occasions, would you prefer I ignore it?
No, but see above.
|
>> My issue was with the specific phrase 'in that powerful men in positions of authority
>> who are gay, are empowered to such a degree, that they are virtually untouchable. I
>> struggle to see that as anything other than a sort of stereotype.
Well IMO your struggles have come up short.
The fact that a wide body of people have been empowered, doesn't mean that all, most or many use that empowerment...but if some do, I'm willing to discuss it. Many are not...or as in your case, seem to want to close down the discussion so it's not discussed at all.
Now if in
>> reality it's one or two who might exploit it, in same way as one or
>> bosses exploit their power, that's a different thing.
Agreed.
>> Ironically, once the Civil Service (or at least the bit I worked in), took equality
>> seriously it was more difficult for that minority in a minority who wanted to do
>> so to exploit their protected characteristic. The stuff was on the table, managers had access
>> to informed advice.
That might be your experience. Others might have experienced things differently. The other thing is, managers might well have access to various advice etc..but it is the brave one who acts on it if the consensus says otherwise.
>> Cannot ever remember a real issue with gay men (or women), certainly not recently.
I can recall many. As I can recall many from the other angles I have mentioned...and I am happy to state that they are very much in the minority of the people they 'represent'.
>> I doubt there is any system for catching and dealing openly with such issues where
>> an MP's behaviour gives cause for concern. That's why this case went as it did.
It doesn't really matter if there is a system or not..if..no one is willing to use it anyway if the subject matter comes up on the 'too difficult' pile.
>> The Whips and Speaker both seemed to be like rabbits in the headlights.
As do many managers in many outfits who will not challenge bad behaviour from someone who comes from a 'minority'.
Another MP
>> (Sara Wollaston) introduced the Police into the equation.
Yes...and I have no doubt whatsoever she did so from a stance of utter integrity and exasperation that the matter was not dealt with sooner and more robustly..but everyone was afraid to do so, because it was a gay man being accused.
If Nigel Evans was managerially warned off nearer the beginning and had not felt so comfortable acting the way he did, this sorry debacle would not be being discussed now.
>> ....I find it ironic that the behaviour of the past that was wrong for
>> The bit that worries me is the apparent assumption that all of them are so
>> empowered and that we need to assign that motive to them even though exploiting it
>> is rare. A way of thinking that says 'they're all at it'.
Your thinking not mine. That is what annoys me. The fact that all are empowered, but only a few take the 'p' sits comfortably with me....if you think differently, that's your prejudice, not mine.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 13 Apr 14 at 20:06
|
Actually, what bothers me is the inference that treating minorities as equals in some way implicitly empowers them over the 'majority'.
A few people will take the p in any circumstance and, if it fits, will plead discrimination in support. If the Police have a disportionate problem, and they're being regularly hauled in front of courts and tribunals suggests they do, then attitudes need adjusting from a senior level down to the 'canteen' and the firearms training area.
The issue with Evans as a conduct/discipline matter is symptomatic of a much wider Parliamentary problem also seen re Maria Miller - they cannot manage themselves or their staff in an open and fair way. The guidance issued by the Tory party immediately after his acquittal is telling in that regard.
|
I've never been asked or had to do anything with all this stuff - but tomorrow I'm signed up for my very first "Equality and Diversity" training session. So by Wednesday I might be a changed man in some way I can't fathom at this moment.
I'll let you know.
|
>> I might be a changed man
>>
You'll have to watch out for unthinking use of traditional cliches that embody sexist stereotyping.
|
>> You'll have to watch out for unthinking use of traditional cliches that embody sexist stereotyping.
>>
Oh Lawks. Well perhaps I'll just order the black coffee and have a gay old time then.
|
>> Actually, what bothers me is the inference that treating minorities as equals in some way
>> implicitly empowers them over the 'majority'.
That's exactly what I am saying, I am not inferring it, I am stating it.
If everyone else doesn't dare say anything ...IF...someone from a minority starts to take the 'p' then there's an imbalance the other way.
I should imagine it's most galling if you are from a minority and are one of the very high percentage of that minority who just get on with it like everyone else does..but some within that minority take the 'p' and no one does anything about it..
Fortunately that sort of thing isn't a huge problem...nevertheless it is a problem...because it is brushed under the carpet or ignored by people who don't dare mention or challenge it..and your reaction to me stating it, is a good example of why..you went straight to 'prejudice'.
The Nigel Evan's of this world get themselves into the mire, because they weren't checked when they should have been.
>>
>> A few people will take the p in any circumstance and, if it fits, will
>> plead discrimination in support.
Yes, they do
>> If the Police have a disportionate problem, and they're being regularly
>> hauled in front of courts and tribunals suggests they do, then attitudes need adjusting from
>> a senior level down to the 'canteen' and the firearms training area.
I think a more pressing need is for a corporate shrugging off of political correctness and a willingness for all management to properly manage everyone fairly...not leave some alone because they don't dare deal with them.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 14 Apr 14 at 08:17
|
>>>If everyone else doesn't dare say anything ...IF...someone from a minority starts to take the 'p' then there's an imbalance the other way.
Very true. There's a lesbian couple in our wider contact circle and also a post op transsexual.... all three concerned share this same trait of elevating their status above that of those who choose to be more conventional. Their whole lives seem to be based around sniffing out perceived discrimination where none exists and making it the pivotal point of any interaction with others.
Very wearing to be in their company.
|
>>Their whole lives seem to be based around sniffing out perceived discrimination where none exists and making it the pivotal point of any interaction with others.<<
That is exactly the difference between 'Lady Truckers' and female lorry drivers!
Pat
|
Of those I've met in various minority groups, most were far more tolerant of descriptions applied than the PC brigade who get insulted on someone else's behalf.
I've even had one object to my mention of the disabled - despite the fact that according to official criteria, I am. And she knew!
|
>>I've even had one object to my mention of the disabled
The translations here for disabled and used on parking spaces and the like are;
1) Deficientes
2) Minus-validos
Makes English seem not so bad, really.
|
>> Makes English seem not so bad, really.
I dunno FMR. I'd rather be less valid or deficient than specially abled or the like. But I've never seen what's wrong with crippled. That's what cripples were called before everyone got so pathetically genteel.
|
A standard adjective applied by a motor trade colleague of mine to disabled badge holders, their parking spaces and Motabilty cars was "Limpies".
Thus, a disabled driver's reserved parking space became a "slot for limpies!. Very Non PC.
|
"slot for limpies!. Very Non PC.
>>
Equally non-PC- a friend uses "raspberries"
(raspberry ripples)
I, of course, would never say that.
8o)
|
>> Very true. There's a lesbian couple in our wider contact circle and also a post
>> op transsexual.... all three concerned share this same trait of elevating their status above that
>> of those who choose to be more conventional. Their whole lives seem to be based
>> around sniffing out perceived discrimination where none exists and making it the pivotal point of
>> any interaction with others.
>>
>> Very wearing to be in their company.
I worked with a transexual for several years, including transition and surgery. Came into our outfit as Robert and left six years later as Helen.
Some of the stories she told about discrimination, and I don't just mean thoughtless remarks, made me surprised she didn't slap people. A descent into pavlovianism would have been entirely understandable.
|
>> I worked with a transexual for several years, including transition and surgery.
>>
>> Some of the stories she told about discrimination, and I don't just mean thoughtless remarks,
>> made me surprised she didn't slap people. A descent into pavlovianism would have been entirely
>> understandable.
>>
...and I worked with one in a very loose sense of the word...(worked in the same building).
Her work standard was truly appalling...my staff and others constantly gave me negative feedback.
I personally went to the head of the police unit that had responsibility liaising with her unit, as she is not a police employee...and he was well aware of the problems and could confirm the feedback had come from all angles...trouble was, no one was willing to stick their head above the parapet....so on it continued. It will still be like it now.
That is as wrong as is lumping them all together, because the danger is the good ones get tarred with the same brush.
I'm being cagey as to what I write as you might well know or know of the person, I cannot imagine there are many in that field.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 14 Apr 14 at 15:51
|
Interview with Evans accuser. (Guido Fawkes blog)
I have not really been following this closely, so make no comment.
tinyurl.com/k82h67x
|
Police Comissioner says CPS are a bunch of fools..and the Head of the CPS is a lying old cow...
Well indirectly..
"Historic sex abuse allegations will be subject to stricter tests before prosecutions, the country's most senior police officer has said.
Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said police and prosecutors will apply more rigorous tests after a string of celebrities who faced historic allegations have been cleared."
tinyurl.com/ob9kjfq
|
>>
>> Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe,
I always want to call him Sir Bernard Coogans-Bluff for some reason.
|
So, we had a load of publicity following the Savile stuff, including suggestion that he was only the most egregious of a number of sixties/seventies 'slebs' when it came to assaults by groping or worse.
Unconnected parties make allegations against those 'slebs' which indicate a pattern of consistent offending by each of them. Those allegations appear credible and strong enough to pass the CPS prosecution threshold. As I've said before, in prevailing atmosphere, CPS are in rock/hard place even if threshold is only narrowly cleared. No alternative but to proceed.
At trial, and only then, witnesses lose a degree of conviction and certainty and 12 bods from the street are unexpectedly sceptical of allegations and sympathetic to more 'slebs' going in the box to say what a wonderful man the defendant is.
Resultant acquittals lead to 'a more rigorous test' per the Commissioner and 'Lessons Learned' per the DPP.
Who exactly is foolish or lying?
|
>> Who exactly is foolish or lying?
>>
Old stuff is more difficult to prove.
One person's word against another's with no other real evidence is difficult to prove.
Both together is more difficult to prove again.
Surely anyone with any semblance of sense could see that in the CPS?
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 16 Apr 14 at 21:38
|
WP,
The reference to stupid/lying was in response to Madf's post about Hogan-Howe/Saunders.
More generally I don't suppose for a minute the CPS were ignorant of the word/word issue or that about old stuff. I'd go further and state that acquittals in historic cases and reputational fall out was on the Service's Risk Register.
But I'm still struggling to convert that to a sustainable public position to discontinue or No Action cases where there were multiple consistent allegations, particularly in the post Savile atmosphere. Acquittals prove the system is working, not that prosecution was the action of misguided knaves.
Also, although DLT was not convicted neither was he comprehensively acquitted; the jury failed to agree on the most recent charge. He's not out of the woods yet on that one and IIRC another instance has been added.
As a further aside, where have we got to in R v Clifford?
|
>> Acquittals prove the system is working, not that prosecution was the action of misguided knaves.
The problem is, especially with such high profile cases, that the defendant is found guilty by media and/or association.
The fact that they were found not guilty, and perhaps were in fact totally innocent, no longer matters - their life is in tatters...
|
>>As a further aside, where have we got to in R v Clifford? <<
www.prweek.com/article/1289335/max-clifford-trial-jury-continue-deliberations-tomorrow
So at least the jury are having to think about it!
If you Googled the case in the last few days there was not a lot of information on the progress of the case - his PR expertise seems to have kept the press quiet? Maybe his budget plans will not include prweek in the future :)
|
CORRECTION
>>f you Googled the case in the last few days there was not a lot of information on the progress of the case <<<
It was not shown on the first page (or subsequentpages) of Google, however if you used 'explore in depth' options there was upto date information.
|
. Acquittals prove the system is working, not that prosecution was the action of misguided knaves.
Acquittals prove the court system works, A train of consistent acquittals prove the CPS are wasting a lot of time , money and public trust in the justice system..
No doubt on your argument , if we were prosecuted on a whim and spent ££££s on our defence amid a heap of unfavourable publicity, we should be grateful if we were found not guilty even although the court did not believe one word of the CPS's case.
On that basis, arbitrary prosecutions could become a useful political tool...
|
If the Yewtree and associated prosecutions were really 'arbitrary' or 'on a whim I could see your point.
According to my dictionary arbitrary means not bound by rules; despotic, absolute; capricious: arising from accident rather than rule.
It seems that rules were applied and some cases (De'Ath, Tarbuck, Davidson and other less well known individuals) were deemed to not warrant further action.
Others (Hall, Travis, Clifford, Harris, Le Vell and Roache) were charged while a few (Gambaccini and Starr) are still in process as to whether to prosecute or not.
Hall pleaded guilty. Le Vell and Roache were acquitted of all charges and DLT of the majority, though he faces re-trial on at least one - relatively recent where accuser is a working journalist*. The jury in Clifford is out. Harris's trial has yet to begin.
In so far as acquittals are concerned there is no evidence whatsoever that the court did not believe one word of the CPS's case. Nothing in a quick verdict spells 'pack of lies' just that, perhaps with a good foreman, the jury quickly realised that accounts, all be they credible did not convince then to point of certainty required. They might have convicted on balance of probability but not beyond reasonable doubt. As research into jury verdicts is illegal we're never likely to find out.
Acquittals do suggest historic allegations, albeit credible, don't stand up well to cross examination. No doubt the CPS and police will learn from that. I've still to see anyone refute my case that once a case was built up against say DLT the CPS had in the post Savile atmosphere, no choice, even though the risks were known, but to put it to a jury.
As a nation we flip/flop on dealing with sexual crime. First of all we agree that people have been getting away with it too long, prosecutors reluctant to act, court process demeaning for complainant etc. Then we get a few cases to court and after acquittals public opinion flips back and to 'how awful it is for the accused'.
* I suspect it's not difficult to work out who she is - I think I've got it.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 17 Apr 14 at 13:35
|
You've said that a few acquittals is good and shows the system is working well. I don't agree.
The CPS do not prosecute anything unless they feel they have more than a 50/50 chance of success, although,my suspicion is that the 50/50 figure is actually greater than that.
Then there's the likely public/press scrutiny in a high profile case, where you'd think The CPS would indulge in a bit of backside covering...and yet they still keep losing case after case.
Someone somewhere has got something fundamentally wrong.
|
|
I can't get past how the CPS can think that uncorroborated, contested accounts could be seen by a jury as proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
|
>> I can't get past how the CPS can think that uncorroborated, contested accounts could be
>> seen by a jury as proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Because the presence of multiple independent accounts of a perp with same MO provides an element of corroboration?
ANY allegation of sexual assault in private involves contested and uncorroborated accounts as does rape if forensic evidence is absent or not collected. Are you saying no such case could meet the threshold for prosecution? - even it involved your own daughter or son.
|
>>even it involved your own daughter or son.
Why would my relationship with the alleged victim have any bearing one way or the other on whether or not something met a threshold?
Is actually meeting the threshold based upon how much I want it to?
|
>> The CPS do not prosecute anything unless they feel they have more than a 50/50
>> chance of success, although,my suspicion is that the 50/50 figure is actually greater than that.
So they still anticipate they'll lose some such cases? What's the 'raw' conviction rate for defended trials on indictment - I suspect 20-30% are acquitted across the board and without the complications involved in historic cases.
>> Then there's the likely public/press scrutiny in a high profile case, where you'd think The
>> CPS would indulge in a bit of backside covering...and yet they still keep losing case
>> after case.
I'm struggling for a specific word here but scrutiny in the popular press (OK I mean the Mail) tends to amount to condemnation whatever.
If the CPS had not prosecuted DLT the feature would have been about 'victims' betrayed.
Had he been found guilty there was a headline and interminable pages already typeset describing the 'bearded pervert' and setting out dozens more barely substantiated allegations about his activities.
Not guilty then it was the sympathetic stuff about the wrongly accused popular DJ and the personal and professional cost of his 'unjustified victimisation'.
The public services cannot win in such a twisted arena. WP must have some inkling of that from treatment of the MPS.
I'm still waiting for a post forensically refuting my contention that CPS had, post Savile etc, no alternative but to proceed.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 17 Apr 14 at 20:54
|
>>
>> I'm still waiting for a post forensically refuting my contention that CPS had, post Savile
>> etc, no alternative but to proceed.
>>
>>
It's called the courage to do what is right. Firstly stand up and admit you got it disgracefully wrong in not investigating Savile and secondly not bringing cases against people where there is no evidence, little chance of a conviction and dragging someone's name through the mud despite three of the "Victims" telling you there was no crime committed against them.
Trying to cover a previous record of gross incompetence with more of the same just makes you look a joke.
|
>> It's called the courage to do what is right. Firstly stand up and admit you
>> got it disgracefully wrong in not investigating Savile and secondly not bringing cases against people
>> where there is no evidence, little chance of a conviction and dragging someone's name through
>> the mud despite three of the "Victims" telling you there was no crime committed against
>> them.
>>
>> Trying to cover a previous record of gross incompetence with more of the same just
>> makes you look a joke.
>
So still no forensic refutation then, just thepreviously rehearsed stuff about about groping being routine at the time.
I it was, then Savile has no case to answer either.
|
>> So they still anticipate they'll lose some such cases? What's the 'raw' conviction rate for
>> defended trials on indictment - I suspect 20-30% are acquitted across the board and without
>> the complications involved in historic cases.
They like to go in with a realistic chance of conviction...and then when you get the good old British jury doing it's bit...you plan for some acquittals.
Why then would you go in, in circumstances where you're likely to take a beating?
>> I'm struggling for a specific word here but scrutiny in the popular press (OK I
>> mean the Mail) tends to amount to condemnation whatever.
>>
>> If the CPS had not prosecuted DLT the feature would have been about 'victims' betrayed.
If you anticipate the Daily Mail or whoever giving you a slating, you make sure it's right before you dive in, don't you?
>> The public services cannot win in such a twisted arena. WP must have some inkling
>> of that from treatment of the MPS.
Agreed...but see above re making sure you get it right if you're likely to be under close scrutiny..what you don't do is bung it before a jury and see what happens and then claim 'oh well, that's the court system'.
>> I'm still waiting for a post forensically refuting my contention that CPS had, post Savile
>> etc, no alternative but to proceed.
I'm not sure about forensic...but what should happen is if a case has merit to be put before a jury, then off it goes...and if it doesn't, it shouldn't.
Just because Savile was a perve, it doesn't mean any other high profile t.v. type person should automatically be sent before a court.
|
>>I it was, then Savile has no case to answer either.
I don't know, the media are so free with their words when the person is dead that I;m not close enough to know how credible each individual case is.
However, is it correct to use a multitude of cases to give each one credence? If so, then why is one not allowed to call upon previous convictions in evidence?
Surely each case should stand and fall on its own merit? (I presume that the charge(s) are individual ones of assault, and not a general charge of being an overall git and each victim called as a witness to that general accusation?)
>> The CPS do not prosecute anything unless they feel they have more than a 50/50
I doubt its 50/50, but I am sure that there is a notional value or level.
However, how would either the potential "feature about 'victims' betrayed" or the "sympathetic stuff about the wrongly accused" have any bearing at all on that assessment?
>>The public services cannot win in such a twisted arena.
I didn't realise that they were trying to win, I thought that they were trying to do the right thing by prosecuting cases that fulfilled certain criteria? Does their desire for popularity colour that?
>> I'm still waiting for a post forensically refuting my contention that CPS had, post Savile
>> etc, no alternative but to proceed.
[I'm not sure that you mean by "forensically"]
The CPS pursues prosecution when there is a reasonable chance of success or it is in the public interest - that's something like it, isn't it?
So, it meets the criteria and they proceed, or it doesn't and they don't.
As in;
That DJ may or may not have grabbed your bits, but we'll never prove it, never gain a prosecution and its not in anybody's interest to drag the victim or the defendant through the public furour.
or
That DJ allegedly grabbed your bits, we think that we can prove that beyond reasonable doubt.
or
That DJ allegedly grabbed your bits, and whilst we're not sure about our chances, its in the public interest to get it out in the open.
Any lack of choice should be driven by the criteria, not the media or a desperate need for a crusade. Where else does "choice" come in?
I think your confusing two different things; trying to do the "popular" thing and trying to do the [proscribed] "right thing".
|
I could have probably shortened that considerably down to "what Westpig said".
[sigh]
|
>>
>> Acquittals do suggest historic allegations, albeit credible, don't stand up well to cross examination.
>>
The defendants stood up well enough to the same sort of cross examination, and they were the ones under the real pressure.
|
A contested case, over 20 years ago in the most part, will have no forensic evidence and will boil down to she/he says he did, she/he says he didn't. Irrespective of guilt, a jury deciding she/he is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt has got to be going it a bit.
Could you say were you were on the 17th April 1985?
|
DLT new charge - Bromptonaut
