***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 14 *****
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 7 Nov 13 at 01:20
|
"I have no idea what year it was when he assaulted me your honour" has no chance of conviction."
Not so sure. It is notoriously difficult to recall dates of incidents even quite major ones. I have been in a couple of car crashes for example but would be hard pushed to tell you exactly what year they were. I could graphically describe the accidents though and provide detail that would be difficult to make up.
|
>> "I have no idea what year it was when he assaulted me your honour" has
>> no chance of conviction."
>>
>> Not so sure. It is notoriously difficult to recall dates of incidents even quite major
>> ones. I have been in a couple of car crashes for example but would be
>> hard pushed to tell you exactly what year they were. I could graphically describe the
>> accidents though and provide detail that would be difficult to make up.
This is a two year period it could have happened in! I know what year I had my car crashes in.
|
>> >> Not so sure. It is notoriously difficult to recall dates of incidents even quite
>> major
>> >> ones. I have been in a couple of car crashes for example but would
>> be
>> >> hard pushed to tell you exactly what year they were. I could graphically describe
>> the
>> >> accidents though and provide detail that would be difficult to make up.
>>
>> This is a two year period it could have happened in! I know what year
>> I had my car crashes in.
>>
If I went to plod and alleged that So and So punched me in the face sometime between 1981 and 1983 and I wanted him nicked I would be told to take a running jump.
|
|
I once went to the police and told them that somebody had knocked me to the ground and kicked me several times about half an hour earlier, and got a polite form of that response.
|
You well might but without checking documentary evidence I couldn't be exactas to mine . Late seventies would be my guess for the first.
I don't think that a jury would necessarily find the defendants ability to remember the actual year a bar to a guilty verdict. Depends on the quality of her testimony and whether there is any other corroborative evidence.
|
>> You well might but without checking documentary evidence I couldn't be exactas to mine .
>> Late seventies would be my guess for the first.
>>
>> I don't think that a jury would necessarily find the defendants ability to remember the
>> actual year a bar to a guilty verdict. Depends on the quality of her testimony
>> and whether there is any other corroborative evidence.
There has to be circumstances. You don't meet people like DLT purely by chance. Party, show, gig, event. "I met him at blah event" for example. "blah event" has a time line. Its part of the corroboration.
|
Say they met at a party. I'm sure he had lots of parties. Even if you could recall the names of other guests I doubt they would be able to recall for definite the date but they might remember seeing the girl there.
|
|
Might remember seeing the girl there? So now we are in the realms of witnesses, multiple people, also not knowing what year it was? Someone there would have a timeline trigger.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 15 Aug 13 at 18:57
|
>> Might remember seeing the girl there? So now we are in the realms of witnesses,
>> multiple people, also not knowing what year it was? Someone there would have a timeline
>> trigger.
Given that virtually no facts have been presented, why are you so keen to mount a defence?
There will be reasons that the charge has been brought, and it may well fail, but you are talking as if you know those reasons.
All you know is that the charge gives an indistinct year, but that seems enough for you to try to discredit the charge. What's your motivation?
|
>> You don't meet people like DLT purely by chance.
>> Party, show, gig, event. "I met him at blah event" for example. "blah event" has
>> a time line. Its part of the corroboration.
Nonsense. I actually met him in the street once. Couldn't tell you the year. I could give a range of maybe 3-4 years.
Anyway, they may well know when the met him and when they last saw him (hence the range of years), but not when a specific event happened.
We know which side of the fence you're on Zero, but if you want to discredit the complainant, you're going to have to try thinking a bit more.
|
>> Nonsense. I actually met him in the street once. Couldn't tell you the year. I
>> could give a range of maybe 3-4 years.
>>
>> Anyway, they may well know when the met him and when they last saw him
>> (hence the range of years), but not when a specific event happened.
>>
>>
If he'd stuck his finger up your backside I bet you'd remember the year.
|
I haven't noticed Zero justifying gross sexual abuse of women or children or boys.
Come to that Eddy Shah didn't say anything really objectionable. He just referred to a fairly well-known and widespread phenomenon in a slightly coarse and offhand way. Commonplace, hardly worthy of comment.
I must say the Dave Lee Travis case looks a bit silly unless it has hidden depths. Years and years ago involving an adult woman in her late twenties at the time... If it was a rape rape rape sort of rape, surely the clamour would have been made at the time too?
Jimmy Savile's last, posthumous miracle has been to set the cat among the pigeons yet again, not before time of course. Our tabloid tutting nation can't get enough of this gick.
|
>> Jimmy Savile's last, posthumous miracle has been to set the cat among the pigeons yet
>> again, not before time of course. Our tabloid tutting nation can't get enough of this
>> gick.
>>
>>
>>
And under the report on DLT's charges in the Telegraph appears this set of photos -
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationpicturegalleries/10244946/A-level-results-in-pictures-girls-jumping-for-joy.html?frame=2644750
No boys, no fat munters, just attractive young girls. And pretty much the same in all the other reports I've seen.
|
>> I haven't noticed Zero justifying gross sexual abuse of women or children or boys.
I'm sure he would be the first to condemn the rapist jumping out from behind a bush.
That give more credibility when he posts links suggesting that young girls are complicit in their abuse.
Of course, he has now distanced himself from that, by suggesting that he only posted it because he disagrees with it.
|
>> he posts links suggesting that young girls are complicit in their abuse.
Yes, the Eddy Shah link. Shah points out that some young girls are complicit in their abuse. What's wrong with that? Do you imagine it's never true?
|
>> Yes, the Eddy Shah link. Shah points out that some young girls are complicit in
>> their abuse. What's wrong with that? Do you imagine it's never true?
Depends what you mean by complicit.
Do you mean that they consent?
Either it is abuse or it isn't. If they can truly consent, then it isn't abuse (not allow, but consent).
If they can't consent, then it is abuse, and the abuser is the one who is at fault.
The argument is that these girls, who maybe have a crush on a teacher, are not consenting, because they don't fully understand the impact of their actions.
The teacher, on the other hand, is fully aware of what is going on, and so is the one at fault if something happens.
The argument that the child is partially to blame is no different to other victim blaming.
|
>> Depends what you mean by complicit.
>>
>> Do you mean that they consent?
>>
>> Either it is abuse or it isn't. If they can truly consent, then it isn't
>> abuse (not allow, but consent).
>>
>> If they can't consent, then it is abuse, and the abuser is the one who
>> is at fault.
>>
>> The argument is that these girls, who maybe have a crush on a teacher, are
>> not consenting, because they don't fully understand the impact of their actions.
>>
>> The teacher, on the other hand, is fully aware of what is going on, and
>> so is the one at fault if something happens.
>>
>> The argument that the child is partially to blame is no different to other victim
>> blaming.
>>
>>
You appear to be coming from the base that all young girls who had sex with an older man were sweet and innocent little things before they were cruelly taken advantage of. There are plenty of fourteen and fifteen year olds who are not only sexually experienced but loud and proud about it. Each case has to be judged on it's own merits and it needs to be recognised that not every girl is a poor little damaged victim who would have been happier at home playing with her dolls.
>>
|
>> If he'd stuck his finger up your backside I bet you'd remember the year.
If he did it there and then, I'm sure you're right.
But what if he had befriended me, and then abused me several times over a couple of years, and then, years later someone corroborated one of those times.
Do you think I'd definitely remember the date of the corroborated assault?
Who knows what the facts are here, he should be considered innocent until proved otherwise, but simply because the date is indistinct doesn't prove or disprove anything.
|
SS,
To quote from the Telegraph;
"ONE offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged between 26 and 28, on a date between 1981 and 1983"
|
>> SS,
>>
>> To quote from the Telegraph;
>>
>> "ONE offence of indecent assault relating to a woman, aged between 26 and 28, on
>> a date between 1981 and 1983"
Yes, thanks.
But we don't know the details do we? It could simply be that she met him once and she alleges that he assaulted her there and then.
But it could be a lot more complicated. Lots more alleged instances, but only one corroborated, for example.
Who knows? Nobody here, and yet some are keen to try to pull the charge apart, just because of the date.
|
>> just because of the date.
What do you mean, 'just'? A thirty-year time lapse and then this trivial allegation? FFS SS where have you been all your life?
We aren't talking about someone who was a poor intimidated nipper with bribed parents here. There may have been some of those but Travis isn't one of them.
|
>> >> just because of the date.
>>
>> What do you mean, 'just'? A thirty-year time lapse and then this trivial allegation?
What exactly do you know about the allegation?
All you know is the charge and the date.
So yes, you are arguing "just because of the date". For all we know there could be reams of evidence, and yet Zero starts pulling it apart because he thinks the date is a fundamental weakness.
|
>> because he thinks the date is a fundamental weakness.
Looks like one to me too. Naturally I look forward, with sinking heart, to further details if and when there is a trial.
|
>> Looks like one to me too. Naturally I look forward, with sinking heart, to further
>> details if and when there is a trial.
It may well be. Time will tell.
|
It makes me wonder where you have been all your life AC.
Yes, sometimes a woman might make up a story, but also many times a woman will be abused, and will be in a powerless position (even if she in in her 20s), and may not be empowered until years later (if ever).
Here we have a charge, that will go before a jury. Why are you so sure of where the truth lies, when all you know of the facts is the date on the charge?
|
>> Why are you so sure of where the truth lies
I'm not sure at all. I don't know the inner details of this case. I hope they will prove surprising.
I thought we were talking about Zero and Eddy Shah though. Do stop swerving about.
|
>> Do stop swerving about.
Sorry. I was talking on my mobile, while typing.
|
|
Thought you'd excel at one-handed typing....
|
The only reason that charge has been added is because it can be thrown in with a bunch of other charges that might have better evidence, and it bulks up the "bad man" image.
Its a fairly good guess that if it were a single charge, it wouldn't have passed the CPS test.
|
>> The only reason that charge has been added is because it can be thrown in
>> with a bunch of other charges that might have better evidence, and it bulks up
>> the "bad man" image.
>>
>> Its a fairly good guess that if it were a single charge, it wouldn't have
>> passed the CPS test.
There you go Zero. You know nothing about the evidence, but your bias is clear.
How on Earth would you know the reason the charge has been added?
You can guess, but your guess betrays your bias.
|
>>You know nothing about the evidence, but your bias is clear
That is so gobsmackingly pot/kettle/black that I cannot think of the words to express how ridiculous I think you are being.
|
>>The only reason that charge has been added is because it can be thrown in with a bunch of other charges that might have better evidence, and it bulks up the "bad man" image.
I find this practice (as reported: I don't go to court much) quite disturbing - the number of cases where partway through the trial some charges are dropped by the prosecution but the jury has still had evidence led about.
I imagine that at least some of the time the quality of testimony in court is not what the CPS expected after cross-examination and that is why it is dropped, but it does smack of building a house out of cards.
|
>> >>The only reason that charge has been added is because it can be thrown in
>> with a bunch of other charges that might have better evidence, and it bulks up
>> the "bad man" image.
>>
>> I find this practice (as reported: I don't go to court much) quite disturbing -
>> the number of cases where partway through the trial some charges are dropped by the
>> prosecution but the jury has still had evidence led about.
And don't forget any potential jurors will have seen this long list of charges, even if they get dropped before court and trial. I bet every one of the jurors will do some internet research when they find themselves on that jury, and this stuff will hit them..
Pity really, it clouds the whole case, one that might have some merit
|
>
>>
>> Pity really, it clouds the whole case, one that might have some merit
>>
The clouding of cases is in-built into the whole jury principle. Instead of selecting 12 ignorant people from the other side of the world, or a professional panel of disinterested people, the 12 good men and true are selected from the same community as the accused.
That necessarily and presumably deliberately means the newspaper-reading news-watching internet-browsing population of the UK.
|
Looks like Jim Davidson is *almost* in the clear.
Comedian Jim Davidson will face no further action over alleged sexual offences in the UK, the CPS has said.
A second man arrested at the same time as Mr Davidson, a 53-year-old from Hampshire, will also face no further action, the CPS said.
The Metropolitan Police said one allegation against Mr Davidson and referred to Operation Yewtree remains outstanding, but because it falls outside UK jurisdiction it has been referred to the relevant authority.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23787754
|
"TV presenter Rolf Harris charged in UK with nine counts of indecent assault and four of making indecent images"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23880768
If true, that's a bit more than a sneaky and unwanted grope.
added in link for you
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 29 Aug 13 at 12:42
|
>> making indecent images<<
Can you see what it is yet?
*I'll get me coat*
Pat
|
Was it Rolf that did 'two little boys' or was that Gary Glitter?
Where's that coat hook, Pat?
|
|
The thing that strikes me as odd is the four indecent images of children - made last year. Two things odd about this, most real perverts have loads, or so one would believe from reports of other investigations, and the the other point is, surely Rolf knew he was under investigation by last year so I'd have thought he'd been squeaky clean.
|
>> The thing that strikes me as odd is the four indecent images of children -
>> made last year. Two things odd about this, most real perverts have loads, or so
>> one would believe from reports of other investigations, and the the other point is, surely
>> Rolf knew he was under investigation by last year so I'd have thought he'd been
>> squeaky clean.
>>
Rolf was first questioned by police only last November. Making indecent images may not mean internet downloads, taking such pictures yourself would constitute the same offence.
We'll have to wait till the trial for the details to emerge.
|
I realised after I posted it....I should only have said that to another lorry driver Westpig....maybe the same for you:)
Pat
|
Met Rolf a few times, there used to be a cartoon studies just yards from my old primary school, they made things like danger mouse and count Dracula. Sadly ITV bought them out, moved the staff to their studies and the building has been pulled down to replaced by over priced old peoples flats who use heavy sales statics to scare elderly people into selling up their home (according to two of my customers). I think a few people here will know the firm involved they are infamous!.
Anyway because of these studies Rolf Harris was often at my primary school, I don't remember ever feeling anything funny about him.
|
>> Anyway because of these studies Rolf Harris was often at my primary school, I don't
>> remember ever feeling anything funny about him.
or felt up funnily?
|
>> Anyway because of these studies Rolf Harris was often at my primary school, I don't
>> remember ever feeling anything funny about him.
>>
But did he feel anything funny about you?
;-)
|
You mention those studios - must have been Cosgrove Hall... who also did Chorlton and the Wheelies hence the name of the character :-)
And to admit to feeling Rolf Harris.... you'll get into trouble for that :-)
|
|
That was the place indeed :).
|
Well, well, well ... this gentle man was a close friend of ours when we lived in Tenerife in the mid 90's.
www.theinquiry.ca/wordpress/rc-scandal/other-countries/u-k/british-priest-arrested-in-tenerife-for-sexual-abuse-of-altar-boys-related-articles/comment-page-1/
We used to go walking together, play cards together, have meals together, I always felt there was something 'funny' about him, but could never put my finger on it in the 3.5 years we knew him.
We used to have long discussions about religion on our walks, he used to impress upon me the fact that he is a practising Catholic, i.e. that he practices Catholicism, I used to reply, well Paul, if you were born in the Middle east instead of Ireland, you'd be practising Islam, my old son.
Funny ole life.
|
www.annaraccoon.com/ Ex Duncroft girl Anna reports again, seems Freddie Starr is taking the fight to them, well done Freddie.
|
Michael Le Vell not guilty.
Seemed a flimsy case from the off, no forensic of any description and apparently the complainants first instinct was to sell her story to the press rather than go to the police.
You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out her identity either, though to speculate or give any clues would be far from wise.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 10 Sep 13 at 19:21
|
He is not guilty - fair enough -it does seem odd that all these cases against "celebrities" are emerging into the light of day so many years after the alleged events.
A cynic would believe there might be money at stake!
OTH, Le Vell came across, (if reports are to be believed), in other respects as a pretty unwholesome individual.
Will this be the end of his soap career, knowing how twitchy broadcasters are about bad publicity in connection with so-called flagship programmes?
Last edited by: Roger on Tue 10 Sep 13 at 19:27
|
|
I wonder if this has damaged him - the things he's had to admit to (which are therefore true) to defend himself.
|
>> I wonder if this has damaged him - the things he's had to admit to
>> (which are therefore true) to defend himself.
>>
A boozer who's had affairs? Par for the course for an actor (or an MP).
|
>> Michael Le Vell not guilty.
>>
>> Seemed a flimsy case from the off, no forensic of any description and apparently the
>> complainants first instinct was to sell her story to the press rather than go to
>> the police.
>>
>> You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out her identity either, though to
>> speculate or give any clues would be far from wise.
I suspect the CPS found themselves between the rock of uncorroborated evidence and the hard place of a well publicised perceived 'let off'. In those circs the normal tests of substantial probability of conviction are discarded in favour of letting the jury decide.
As to her identity I'm failing the 'Sherlock' test. But my TV watching is very limited indeed.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 10 Sep 13 at 21:27
|
>>
>> As to her identity I'm failing the 'Sherlock' test. But my TV watching is very
>> limited indeed.
>>
I never watch Coronation Street either just follow the reports.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 10 Sep 13 at 21:39
|
>> Michael Le Vell not guilty.
Looks like he's come up smelling of Rosie.
|
Apparently she wants to become an actress.
Her name should now be made public and allow it to damage her aspirations too.
Pat
|
>> Apparently she wants to become an actress.
>>
The Jury seemed to think that's what she already was.
Interestingly, the CPS originally decided there was not enough evidence for a prosecution and only reopened the case after the girl's mother complained and the girl herself went to the police and told them about other rapes she had "Forgotten" about. The whole thing stinks.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Wed 11 Sep 13 at 11:46
|
>>
>> Interestingly, the CPS originally decided there was not enough evidence for a prosecution
I didn't realise the CPS were competent to make that decision. Don't they just hand over responsibility to the accused's professional body now?
|
|
I thought it was the CPS that made decisions. Police hand cases over to the CPS.
|
>> I thought it was the CPS that made decisions. Police hand cases over to the
>> CPS.
I suspect Cliff is being ironic but I cannot work out which case he means.
|
|
I suspect he's talking about the CPS's failure to bring cases against doctors for performing abortions for other than medical reasons - it was in the news last weekend
|
>> I suspect he's talking about the CPS's failure to bring cases against doctors for performing
>> abortions for other than medical reasons - it was in the news last weekend
Ahh yes, I was thinking of Equity or MU membership...
|
>> I suspect he's talking about the CPS's failure to bring cases against doctors for performing
>> abortions for other than medical reasons - it was in the news last weekend
>>
Is the correct answer.
|
|
I suspected you were being ironic but didn't know you were referring to a particular case.
|
>> Apparently she wants to become an actress.
>>
>> Her name should now be made public and allow it to damage her aspirations too.
>>
>> Pat
Why?
The fact that he's been found NG doesn't mean she's automaticaly a scheming lying minx. Memories of any sort, never mind of childhood, are not like playing back a DVD or computer log. Recollection can be muddied by time and confused with later experience. Remember all the fuss years ago about recovered memory syndrome?
Because of the need to protect the accusers ID there's a lot of stuff in this case, over and above her name, that has not been reported. That means that even more so than in an ordinary case it's difficult to draw any sensible conclusions from those of the available facts the media choose to report.
|
>> Why?
Because its patently unfair for the legally innocent to be permanently smeared in the public domain and the alleged victim to remain anonymous.
Even you must see the inequity in that.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 13 Sep 13 at 16:58
|
>> Because its patently unfair for the legally innocent to be permanently smeared in the public
>> domain and the alleged victim to remain anonymous.
>>
>> Even you must see the inequity in that.
I really do not see how any iniquity would be 'righted'. How would naming her make Le Vell's position any different.
One thing if she's proven to have fabricated the whole sorry tale. Another altogether if she's got a real conviction, even if based on false memory or other pyschological phenomenon.
If of course she were to sell her story to the press that would be another kettle of fish. Not that many editors would touch it.
|
Exactly Z, I agree.
If any allegations of rape are proven to be false the identity of the accuser should be revealed..at best it would make 99% of the women who make false claims think twice before doing so.
Can you imagine what it's like having to live with being cleared in court of rape for the rest of your life?
There are always people who believe there is 'no smoke without fire'.
Women want equality and this is one field where they should be treated equally.
Pat
|
>> Exactly Z, I agree.
>>
>> If any allegations of rape are proven to be false the identity of the accuser
>> should be revealed..at best it would make 99% of the women who make false claims
>> think twice before doing so.
>>
>> Can you imagine what it's like having to live with being cleared in court of
>> rape for the rest of your life?
>>
>> There are always people who believe there is 'no smoke without fire'.
>>
>> Women want equality and this is one field where they should be treated equally.
>>
>> Pat
The accused being found not guilty is not the same as the allegations - and charges - being proven to be false.
Releasing the identity of complainants if the case can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt might deter false accusers but it would deter real ones too. That has always been the problem.
I can't see what difference naming the complainer would make to the "smoke without fire" problem.
|
>> I can't see what difference naming the complainer would make to the "smoke without fire"
>> problem.
It might prevent many of the "jumping on the bandwagon" cases we have recently seen, some of which will prove to be groundless.
|
>> It might prevent many of the "jumping on the bandwagon" cases we have recently seen,
>> some of which will prove to be groundless.
So where are all these "jumping on the bandwagon" cases?
Those who jumped on Stuart Hall's bandwagon seemed to be vindicated.
If others prove to be groundless (i.e. fabricated and malicious) then it may be right, subject to a Judge's order to name the complainant. But naming the complainant after ANY not guilty verdict is perverse and inevitably deters reporting of viable cases.
|
>> >> It might prevent many of the "jumping on the bandwagon" cases we have recently
>> seen,
>> >> some of which will prove to be groundless.
>>
>> So where are all these "jumping on the bandwagon" cases?
Time will tell, and we probably will never know how many are "real" or how many are "jumpers" because the police will go for an "all or nothing" approach.
Still in your book its ok for people to smeared "for the greater good" so thats ok then.
|
"For the greater good"
Sorry I watched Hot Fuzz again last night, homework you know :)
|
>> Time will tell, and we probably will never know how many are "real" or how
>> many are "jumpers" because the police will go for an "all or nothing" approach.
>>
>> Still in your book its ok for people to smeared "for the greater good" so
>> thats ok then.
>>
>>
>>
>>
David Jones, the football manager is a classic case of someone whose life was nearly ruined by those bandwagon jumping liars.
|
>> David Jones, the football manager is a classic case of someone whose life was nearly
>> ruined by those bandwagon jumping liars.
You mean the allegations of child abuse from his career in care work?
It appears he might have been 'set up' by a group known to each other from the care home who fabricated a story for publicity and compo.
Very different from Hall or others where naming after one allegation has led people without any link other than having met the man in his work at different times to come forward and say, in terms, 'he touched me up as well'.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 13 Sep 13 at 21:39
|
>> Looks like he's come up smelling of .......
Careful there Vx. Somebody was hauled in front of the trial judge for posting a name on Twitter last week. The 'hint' you've given is only a Google away from same info.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 11 Sep 13 at 13:27
|
>> Careful there Vx.
I just copied it from a joke website (of which it's doing the rounds on quite a few). It was referring to a fictional soap character called Rosie Webster. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
I've not really followed this nor understand legal technicalities. I suppose I'd assumed that after the trial was over she could be identified, and it was just tough. That isn't the case then? Can she be identified when she gets to be a legal adult, assuming she isn't now? Or is it forever?
If not, why can't she?
|
>> I've not really followed this nor understand legal technicalities. I suppose I'd assumed that after
>> the trial was over she could be identified, and it was just tough. That isn't
>> the case then? Can she be identified when she gets to be a legal adult,
>> assuming she isn't now? Or is it forever?
>>
>> If not, why can't she?
>>
Complainants in cases of rape and other serious sexual offences automatically get a right to anonymity. Legislation for that goes back to the Wilson/Callaghan era and was passed because publicity was deterring legitimate complaints*. Anonymity is permanent so extends beyond the verdict though I think in truly egregious cases of falsehoods, such that a reference for prosecution might be applicable, the judge can remove it.
In this case there is not (or at least not yet) any realistic suggestion that complainant deliberately made a false allegation. Given two conflicting accounts and an absence of corroborating witness or forensic evidence the jury were not persuaded beyond reasonable doubt; verdict not guilty.
*As originally passed the legislation also gave defendants anonymity (result of pressure on a gov with no majority) but this was removed a few years later.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 11 Sep 13 at 19:17
|
Anonymity is for life.
I believe from what I've read of a previous case that should a complainant of sexual assault be prosecuted for perjury after being found to have made the whole thing up she retains her anonymity during her own trial until a guilty verdict whereas the falsely accused can still be named during the process.
This mess is a result of successive governments not having the courage to stand up to single issue pressure groups.
|
>> This mess is a result of successive governments not having the courage to stand up
>> to single issue pressure groups.
>>
I'm not sure it's really that much of a mess RR. Made up cases that get as far as a trial of the alleged abuser/rapist and then a perjury charge for the accuser are vanishingly rare. Far too few to use as a basis for deciding policy.
I've no doubt the 1977 anonymity legislation started with a pressure group as did many other changes in legislation.
It's not long since defence in a rape trial involved examinig the victims entire sexual history and experience. Sometimes by a defendant in person.
Stopping that and the placing of 'sex' cases in hands of specialist judges were also the result largely of pressure form women's groups.
It doesn't make them wrong.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 13 Sep 13 at 14:46
|
I read today that a sexual abuse prosecution against three men has been dropped following disclosure to the CPS or police of the content of some of the young alleged victim's tweets. The mind boggles a bit, but what is implied may be an example of collusion by the victim.
Twitter is obviously a baleful thing and I won't be trying to buy any shares.
|
It is fairly straightforward.
Anonymity for both sides until proven at court.
If it's a rare case that needs publicity to encourage other victims to come forward then that could be an exception...and the decision made by a judge.
I've deliberately not said anonymity up until 'charge', because political correctness and guidelines/targets etc can spill into that as well nowadays.
There IS a problem of some predatory men committing offences on women and I suspect it is hugely under reported....but equally so the 'cry wolf' women or the plain malicious can ruin an innocent persons life...and badly muddy the waters for true victims.
Perhaps some stiff sentencing guidelines for perjury and a considerably higher uptake of investigating perjury in court cases might do the trick...dream on.
|
>>Anonymity for both sides until proven at court.
The argument against that is once the accused is named, other victims are more likely to step forward, as in the case of Stuart Hall I believe.
Interestingly, in Le Vell's case there were no other accusers, apparently.
It does mean lying toe-rags will also surface, seeking compensation.
|
>> The argument against that is once the accused is named, other victims are more likely
>> to step forward, as in the case of Stuart Hall I believe.
>>
>>
The accused will be named following a guilty verdict, so any previous victims will have the opportunity to step forward then. The present rules are a desperate attempt to increase the low conviction rate for sexual offences, a worthy aim but not if they upset the balance of what is fair and just.
|
>> It's not long since defence in a rape trial involved examinig the victims entire sexual
>> history and experience. Sometimes by a defendant in person.
>>
>>
That's an interesting point you make Brompt, because Le Vell's perfectly legal if unsavoury sexual history was paraded in court by the prosecution for no other reason than to influence the jury's decision. So like disclosure of identity such things should be on an equal footing.
|
>> That's an interesting point you make Brompt, because Le Vell's perfectly legal if unsavoury sexual
>> history was paraded in court by the prosecution for no other reason than to influence
>> the jury's decision. So like disclosure of identity such things should be on an equal
>> footing.
>>
Such things should of course be on an equal footing. Le Vell's drinking and off piste shagging of mature women was of no relevance and should not, all things equal, have been admitted to evidence. I wonder if his legal team challenged it and if so why the judge overruled.
Or maybe he was content to admit to that stuff on grounds that an ample supply of other sexual outlets suggested he'd no need to be interested in little girls.
|
>> Or maybe he was content to admit to that stuff on grounds that an ample
>> supply of other sexual outlets suggested he'd no need to be interested in little girls.
>>
>>
Whichever way it was the prosecution used it to try and smear his character and point to the fact that it made him a dangerous sexual predator. Had the defence tried the same thing with the complainant there would have been a massive outcry.
|
|
Sometimes the defence will not challenge at the time, but if they lose, use it as basis for a retrial...
|
Upthread there were some mentions of
www.annaraccoon.com/
In case anyone is interested and hasn't seen it, her latest post is quite revealing on a personal level, apart from her Savile stuff.
|
>> Upthread there were some mentions of
>>
>> www.annaraccoon.com/
>>
>> In case anyone is interested and hasn't seen it, her latest post is quite revealing
>> on a personal level, apart from her Savile stuff.
>>
>
Is that the post from a few days ago about the return of 'Leo' or has she advanced the story from there?
I knew Anna in real life in the late nineties through my then work. She certainly wrote entertaining reports and was very engaging in conversation. Unfortunately those characteristics also acquired her a bit of a reputation as a loose cannon.
I'd like to offer her my good wishes for recovery but probably best to wait another few weeks until I'm free of official shackles.
|
|
Paul Gambaccini nicked now....
|
Now that is a surprise.
Though I suppose nothing should surprise us now.
|
|
Savilles driver did himself in,not surprised.Or was he knocked off ? One never knows.
|
The only reason it doesn't surprise me is because of a statement he made very early on in the entire debacle about how inappropriate he thought it to pursue people for stuff this old.
The thing that troubles me abou the entire thing is the whole witch-hunting by today's standards approach.
I can remember a particular incident between me and a girl of about my age in the office. We were both 19 I think and about a year later became boyfriend/girlfriend for quite some time.
However for that particular incident, by which I meant no particular harm, I would absolutely be prosecuted under today's laws and accepted behaviours. We're still friends, so I know she wouldn't, but if I was now in the public eye and worth millions, how likely would it be that that incident would crop up, be condemned and me prosecuted?
|
>> wouldn't, but if I was now in the public eye and worth millions, how likely
>> would it be that that incident would crop up, be condemned and me prosecuted?
Now you know why hanging is a bad idea.
|
>>Now you know why hanging is a bad idea.
No. Why?
I know why prosecuting someone on today's standards for an act of 30 years ago is bad, but that's not what you meant I guess.
|
>> Now that is a surprise.
not to me. I'd have named and shamed him well early on in this thread but for a bout of safety mindedness.
|
|
Good God Zero, he didn't abuse you did he? The absolute fiend!
|
Did anybody listen to the series of R4 plays ' The Corrupted' (series finished Episode 10 today - so still on Iplayer). I can only describe it as faction featuring some well known names from the 50s and 60s. Robust material - and a little Googling brings up additional interesting supposition on very well known figures who are still alive. There are a few who feature who cannot defend themselves.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03dfl00
Last edited by: sherlock1947 on Fri 1 Nov 13 at 19:13
|
In the early days of the revelations and enquiries it all sounded shocking and thoroughly deserving of the utmost pursuit.
But as time goes on, and more and more suspects are added to the list, it does I am afraid become harder and harder to take it all seriously. It's a bit like reading about decadence in the Roman Empire - a good read, but a long time ago in another far away country, where they did things differently.
It almost begins to feel as if we were all guilty, but the real crime is simply being famous. So the mob is turned loose to topple some pedestals.
|
|
That bloke Edward Gibbon could write a book about it! (From beyond the grave, tho')
|
>> Did anybody listen to the series of R4 plays ' The Corrupted' (series finished Episode
>> 10 today - so still on Iplayer). I can only describe it as faction featuring
>> some well known names from the 50s and 60s. Robust material - and a little
>> Googling brings up additional interesting supposition on very well known figures who are still alive.
>> There are a few who feature who cannot defend themselves.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03dfl00
>>
I think that particularly the ageing South Londoners and AC will thoroughly enjoy.
|
|
He probably features in it. By the way where's Dog these days ?
|
As a callow school leaver I worked in a factory which had a department staffed by women. Myself and the other young lads there avoided it like the plague, and the times we did have to venture in we were subjected to the sort of groping and "banter" that would net us a small fortune in compensation today should any of the ladies who worked there have any more than a pot to P in.
Different times, different standards. I wonder how many of the charges brought against these celebreties are for what was then considered no more than acceptable horseplay, even though with hindsight it would be seen as unacceptable now. But then so much of what we did back in the day would be too.
|
Paul Gambaccini says there were 'rumours' that Savile was a 'necrophiliac'.
Different times, different standards eh?
Yuck.
|
For all that has come out about Savile, the man pulled it off big time. He died without a stain on his character and dropped an atom bomb squarely in the midst of his former colleagues.
You'd have to class him as one of life's winners.
|
|
Ignoring all the assault stuff for a moment, one has to wonder why he survived on television so long since I don't think I've ever heard anybody with a good word to say for him or his presentation skills.
|
>> Ignoring all the assault stuff for a moment, one has to wonder why he survived
>> on television so long since I don't think I've ever heard anybody with a good
>> word to say for him or his presentation skills.
>>
When he died his former colleagues were queuing up to pay tribute to his character and his broadcasting skills. Now, of course, they never liked him and his shows were crap.
|
Savile Row (and others) - Volume 12 - CGNorwich
