***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 18 *****
Continuing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 24 Feb 14 at 12:50
|
I've just realised why it's called "Yewtree".
Yews live to a very great age, and can regenerate themselves with fresh shoots from old roots.
|
I think they are poisonous too....
Pat
|
|
Yes - poisonous so churchyards mainly. Not many cows in churchyards...
|
I understand that in a sort of botanical pun the IRS in Washington has a Yew hedge. Latin name for Yew is Taxus so it reads taxus, taxus, taxus.............
Curious - Why is it operation Yewtree and not Yew Tree?
|
The Gardai are running a similar operation in Ireland.
"Yew tree are under arrest, Yew tree are bailed, Yew tree are charged, and Yew tree have been acquitted".
|
>> The Gardai are running a similar operation in Ireland.
>>
>> "Yew tree are under arrest, Yew tree are bailed, Yew tree are charged, and Yew
>> tree have been acquitted".
Was it Dave Allen who joked about pair of Irish mates in a van seeing a sign saying 'Tree Fellers Needed'.
Pity there's only two of us says Paddy.
|
|
There was a brilliant Dave Allen tribute night on BBC4 the other week....hilarious.
|
DLT jury still out.
No quickie like Roache...
|
Witnesses were more certain as to dates than in R v Roache with some allegations in recent past. Defence was limited to 'it never happened' and folks attesting to his character - no disputing whether it was actor A or B who warned people off.
My bet says guilty to some charges but not necessarily all.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 11 Feb 14 at 21:07
|
The things he was accused of seemed perfectly likely, and perfectly 'normal' for the period. That's not to excuse them, and it certainly wouldn't be acceptable behaviour in today's society. I do think there should be some sort of statute of limitations, not because the crime reduces in importance as the years recede, but because what is socially acceptable changes over time.
I think it'll make for some very complicated analysis in the jury room:
1. Did he do it at all?
2. Even if we think he did do it, are we actually going to find him guilty of this as 'if everybody who patted a secretaries bottom in the 1970s was convicted *everybody* would be in jail now.'
I think '1' might be pretty difficult to agree on unanimously. And I suspect some of the jury would be less than likely to comprehend the subtleties in '2'.
And then, as Bromp says, the same analysis has to be applied to each of the charges. They may be some time...
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 12 Feb 14 at 10:11
|
>> what is socially acceptable changes
>> over time.
Some changes work in one direction, some in the other.
It is now not only acceptable, but virtually compulsory, for mearest aquaintancies to inflict hugs and kisses on others when they meet. No thought is given to the possibility that someone might not want this intrusion.
I'm keeping records of these assaults, and hope that the perpetrators are questioned by Yewtree in about 50 years time when the social climate has changed again.
|
"Some changes work in one direction, some in the other.
It is now not only acceptable, but virtually compulsory, for mearest aquaintancies to inflict hugs and kisses on others when they meet. No thought is given to the possibility that someone might not want this intrusion."
"I agree. I was going to say a firm handshake is the only form of greeting a man should be offered but thinking about it that might be misconstrued!
|
|
Any bloke who tried to hug me would be walking funny for a few months afterwards.
|
|
It may be because he walks funny that he wants to hug you, Ducky.
|
|
Poring down here, Force 12 predicted for around 3.00pm...my feet are wet.
|
>> Poring down here, Force 12 predicted for around 3.00pm...my feet are wet.
>>
Boots do a good line in incontinence pads:-)
|
|
Is there any need for this sort of effluent these days? Have you just been beamed here from 1970, you two?
|
>> Is there any need for this sort of effluent these days? Have you just been
>> beamed here from 1970, you two?
>>
You hug all you want mate, but unless you're female and a decent looker leave me out.
|
>> Any bloke who tried to hug me would be walking funny for a few months
>> afterwards.
>>
Huh.
I know the type.
Methinks he doth protest too much!
;-)
|
My Welsh mate from Anglesey whom I've known since we met in Uni always kisses me on the cheek.
A lot of Polish guys do that. Lots of hugging too. One bloke and his wife on our street always meet me with a hug. He's an ex-bouncer, the size of a Polar bear and doesn't speak much English but starts the conversation with a hug. There'll be a lot of that in London when we haven't met for a few months.
My closest, bestest, long-life mate in Manchester won't even bother shaking hands, let alone hugging - no physical contact whatsoever.
|
Northerners. Repressed. Or scared of their own hidden desires. Or both.
;-)
|
>> Northerners. Repressed. Or scared of their own hidden desires. Or both.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
Is that what you'd say to a woman who complained when you threw your arms round her and gave her a kiss?
|
Dunno. Never had any complaints. You?
;-)
|
Of course I was raised from 1938 to 1958 (say) as a straight upper-middle-class male who tended to go rigid and red in the face when approached too closely by some foreigner or person of dubious sexual orientation. But age and experience have mellowed me (and others it seems).
Arabs habitually kiss each other on both cheeks, sometimes four or five times. I've got used to doing that. Two unshaven blokes doing it in the street used to get funny looks in London, even down de Grove. More recently, I have noticed that people even from the better public schools have adopted the habit of a brisk hug, with a bit of back-patting.
The Arabs were the thin end of the wedge, but it's habitual now. Perhaps I will resume the affectation of wearing eye shadow and glitter. That used to get funny looks too, even back in the day. It's a bit tiresome painting on the slap, but you gotta suffer to be gorgeous innit mate?
You have to doubt your own sexuality to worry about that sort of thing.
just tidying up things as AC's post had nothing to do with Freddie Starr
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 01:11
|
>> You have to doubt your own sexuality to worry about that sort of thing.
>>
I must have dreadful doubts about my sexuality then...(not that I've ever noticed though).
I am most stand offish in that context...the most non tactile person I know.
You stand over there..I stand over here...and don't get any closer.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 01:10
|
>> You stand over there..I stand over here...and don't get any closer.
Just as well you don't know any Arabs then Westpig.
None of this stuff really matters. It's well known to everyone that foreigners are weird and don't know how to behave. You can usually get away with being who you are. People make allowances being humane and tolerant.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 01:10
|
>> Just as well you don't know any Arabs then Westpig.
You are probably right.
I did make a boo-boo when I flew in to Muscat once wearing shorts...how ignorant of me. Customs made me wait an hour or two whilst they rifled through my suitcase.
My mate who lived there put me right..and ever after that I wore long trousers when out and left the bare flesh for the swimming pools.
No men tried to kiss me though..or women come to that, (but that's the story of my life).
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 01:10
|
>> I flew in to Muscat once wearing shorts.
Ah, shorts. Herself who has always hated being cold kept commenting in the Smoke over the las couple of days on the number of cyclists, joggers and fat guys puffing along at walking pace who were wearing shorts. I started to notice them too. God how I hope Bromptonaut wears Speedos...
Of course during a formative part of my childhood the adult men usually dressed in longish khaki shorts with longish stocking sort of socks below them. It's hard for the uninitiated to imagine how crap they looked. But that was the way things were.
No doubt the authorities at Muscat airport took exception to the colonial reference Wp. We British were everywhere once with our khaki shorts and weird non-American ideology.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 01:09
|
>> No doubt the authorities at Muscat airport took exception
My mate said they didn't like shorts and bare arms...and that's their way of showing it.
Perhaps I should have thought of that.
Seemed strange to have to stroll around with everything covered in such intense heat..but hey ho, it's their place.
|
>Of course during a formative part of my childhood the adult men usually dressed in longish
>khaki shorts with longish stocking sort of socks below them.
Ah, the Safari Suit AC. Very comfortable in warm climates and could be quite smart if tailored.
My shotgun mentor in the early 80s:
tinyurl.com/o526k8b
Of course you really needed a comb stuck down the top of one sock to look the biz in southern Africa.
|
>> Ah, the Safari Suit AC. Very comfortable in warm climates and could be quite smart if tailored.
They didn't call them that in the forties in Asia. Nor were they often tailored, nor to my embarassed child's eye did they look anything but ghastly. I wore shorts. Grownups didn't, or shouldn't have anyway. And they were a much paler, washed-out khaki than your skeet-shooting buddy's safari suit.
My old man had a driver for long journeys or small errands and so on. He very sensibly wore a white sarong and drove I seem to remember with his bare feet.
Those white lounge lizard dinner jackets looked OK though, with proper knee-hiding strides and a red cummerbund... I liked it when they gave parties, ponceville...
|
>> along at walking pace who were wearing shorts. I started to notice them too. God
>> how I hope Bromptonaut wears Speedos...
The raison d'etre for a Brompton is that you ride it in your work clothes. Arrive at door, quick fold, shove it under a table and you're another delegate. Just remember to untuck your trousers from your right sock......
Other bikes may see me in shorts or zip-offs but not skinny lycra.
|
Nothing like a bit of contact with a chain and main sprocket to give a well-chewed, ragged-trousered philanthropist look to the turnups, I seem to remember...
Of course I was only joking about the speedos.
(Wonder if Humph wears them?)
|
>> if Humph wears them?
No he chuffing doesn't !
Cargos and a T-shirt ( Ramones variant thereof for a particular fave ) er, for the record... ( + yellow lensed Oakley wraparounds, fingerless gloves, Goretex Timbie trainers and a G-Shock, natch )
|
>> No he chuffing doesn't !
Heh heh... that's a relief, I was worrying a bit. I trust the cargos don't often become wrapped around the 72-speed derailleur thingies?
Those shades sound cool...
|
>> Those shades sound cool...
Touchy subject in the Westpig household.
I need sunglasses, because I get headaches in bright sunlight or that all over bright white light you get on bright cloudy days...
..and yesterday...for the second time in 4 months...I drove over my £130 Raybans..totally mullahed them.
I got a bit vexed about it...and wifey thought it was funny. I didn't.
|
|
Does rather beg the question as to why you leave your sunglasses under the car as a matter of practice but it's probably the same reason I seem to leave my wallet on the car roof with monotonous regularlity. Usually traps itself under one one the roofrails in the windrush though. So it's not really a problem.
|
>> Does rather beg the question as to why you leave your sunglasses under the car
>> as a matter of practice but it's probably the same reason I seem to leave
>> my wallet on the car roof with monotonous regularlity. Usually traps itself under one one
>> the roofrails in the windrush though. So it's not really a problem.
>>
Twelve months back my mobile fell out of my pocket as I got in the car. I didn't miss it till a few hours after I got home and remembering where I last had it I made the 20 mile journey back to find it flat as a pancake in the gutter. it still rang, but nothing else.
|
>>
>> None of this stuff really matters. It's well known to everyone that foreigners are weird
>> and don't know how to behave.
It's not foreigners that bother me, it's the ordinary English people I grew up with who have suddenly decided to try and hug and kiss me, when in the past a curt nod and a smile would have been enough to renew a lifetime's friendship.
Good joke spotted recently on a card:
Wife: Henry, Mr Brown next door always kisses his wife on the doorstep when he leaves for work. Why don't you do that?
Husband: Oh, I couldn't do that - I hardly know the woman.
|
>> It's not foreigners that bother me,
CP, I did say it was well known to everyone that foreigners don't know how to behave. That 'everyone' includes all foreigners, to whom we are foreigners... they know that we don't know how to behave, capisce?
But it doesn't matter much.
|
>>
>> You have to doubt your own sexuality to worry about that sort of thing.
>>
No you don't, we're all different and some of us value our personal space. I'm not a hugger, full stop.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 01:09
|
>>Arabs habitually kiss each other on both cheeks, sometimes four or five times. I've got used to doing that.
>>
When in the Gulf what seemed even more odd to me, was the sight of a civilian walking had in hand with another in military uniform.
I soon got used to that and ignored it.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 01:10
|
>> The things he was accused of seemed perfectly likely, and perfectly 'normal' for the period.
>> That's not to excuse them, and it certainly wouldn't be acceptable behaviour in today's society.
Mrs F was telling me about her first day at work, as an 18 year old in the international trading section of a big name bank in London in the late 70s. Some chap put his hand up her skirt, but at least one other person saw him do it and without any formal complaint from Mrs F he was fired the same day. Quite a start :)
|
Freddie Starr held over new sex abuse claims.
He has been arrested for a fourth time by detectives investigating allegations of sexual abuse as part of Operation Yewtree.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26157647
|
I must admit I was rather hoping that the DLT verdict would be in by now.
Some years ago I realised that the decision to withdraw the death penalty, here in the UK was probably correct, but in DLTs case I would be happy to make an exception if he is found guilty or perhaps even if he is not.
He has always struck me as someone that would be likely to “blub” on his “way to the chair”, should we be lucky enough to have that luxury reserved for him here, in the UK (film ref: Angels with Dirty faces for those that do not know).
However this is wishful thinking; but if noncing were to be made a capital offence here in the UK we would have to make do with hanging him.
As far it goes for DLT, he is someone for whom I for would happily pull the lever myself etc. etc.
(If only to escape the endless TOTP repeats on Dave et al. et al.)
As always
Mark
Last edited by: Mark on Wed 12 Feb 14 at 20:56
|
|
I see the jury have been told the judge will accept a majority verdict. Presume that means they are having trouble agreeing.
|
|
That is quick. Not guilty then?
|
One could not say. All that can be said is some jurors think he did it - and others don't think he did it.
Also in this case, there is more than one charge and, perhaps, they are unanimous on some but not all.
We still have to wait.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 13:08
|
>> Also in this case, there is more than one charge and, perhaps, they are unanimous
>> on some but not all.
That would be my surmise too. If they're hung on all the charges then a re-trial is likely.
|
>> Not guilty then?
Depends whether they treat him like Marmite (i.e. either like or hate him).
|
|
Not guilty on 12 of the charges, 2 left undecided.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 14:26
|
CPS covering themselves in glory: bringing the Criminal Justice Injustice System into (further) direpute
Last edited by: madf on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 14:34
|
|
They'd be mad to have another go at the remaining two.... if that's the case where would that leave him I wonder?
|
|
I did think he'd be found not guilty. And yes he will have done most of what he's accused of. But what price has he paid? Who will cover his legal costs - or will he be left out of pocket?
|
|
I would never have found him guilty based on the evidence I have heard, but it should never have been brought to court in the first place. How much more of tax payers money are the CPS going to waste on these ridiculous "historic" cases ?
|
BBC news banner saying he's been cleared of the lot now
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26177136
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 14:49
|
>> I would never have found him guilty based on the evidence I have heard, but
>> it should never have been brought to court in the first place. How much more
>> of tax payers money are the CPS going to waste on these ridiculous "historic" cases
>> ?
>>
They will keep going until they can't afford to prosecute a few burglars , murderers or rapists...
|
I'm surprised. The accusers sounded convincing and the defence of 'they're making it up' augmented by witnesses averring what a cuddly chap he was seemed thin.
Perhaps jury thought like some here and applied the 'it was OK back then' template.
Will be interesting if (a) Crown push for re-trial on the undecided charges or (b) further complaints come forward.
|
>> Will be interesting if (a) Crown push for re-trial on the undecided charges or (b)
>> further complaints come forward.
>>
If they do then they will make themselves look even more ridiculous than they already do. Operation Yewtree should be shutdown now, they have wasted enough time and money and destroyed enough peoples lives and reputations.
|
>> CPS covering themselves in glory: bringing the Criminal Justice Injustice System into (further)
>> direpute
I'm sorry to be blunt but that's rubbish. As with Roache once there were credible allegations the CPS had to proceed and let the jury decide. To do otherwise would have been an untenable conclusion leading to a campaign that would have created exactly the disrepute you allege.
|
|
That's right, Bromps. If the CPS only prosecuted 100% guaranteed convictions, well we wouldn't need the courts, would we?
|
|
Wonder if DLT sees the trial as a necessary evil ie. given that the allegations were made, at least he's now been found (mostly) innocent.
|
>> That's right, Bromps. If the CPS only prosecuted 100% guaranteed convictions, well we wouldn't need
>> the courts, would we?
I believe usual test is better than 50% chance of conviction but I suspect a case like this might go through on evens.
|
>>
>> I believe usual test is better than 50% chance of conviction but I suspect a
>> case like this might go through on evens.
>>
I suspect in the Yewtree cases it goes to court on a good deal less than 50% with the police and the CPS bowing to political pressure from various quarters.
|
>> I suspect in the Yewtree cases it goes to court on a good deal less
>> than 50% with the police and the CPS bowing to political pressure from various quarters.
One of those quarters is the 'popular' press. A decision not to prosecute would have had to go to the DPP personally and they'd have made his position untenable. I don't believe, with possible exception of the Attorney General a politician would stand up for him.
|
>> >> CPS covering themselves in glory: bringing the Criminal Justice Injustice System into
>> (further)
>> >> direpute
>>
>> I'm sorry to be blunt but that's rubbish. As with Roache once there were credible
>> allegations the CPS had to proceed and let the jury decide. To do otherwise would
>> have been an untenable conclusion leading to a campaign that would have created exactly the
>> disrepute you allege.
>>
Stand by for lots more unsubstantiated allegations.
Eventually the CPS will have to decide. Or we have a Statute of Limitaions for some crimes (not murder of course).
Mrs madf and I have discussed it fairly thoroughly and the allegations are barely credible - especially given the social scene at the time of the alleged offences. The CPS acts as if it has unlimited resources... which it does not have..
Two lengthy trials and the combined jury time is under a week tells you what a shambles it has been. In any normal life, whomever authorised it would be now demoted and reduced to a position where they make no value judgements.
If the comments of the previous head of the CPS - Keith Starmer - on the treatment of rape cases are typical of the culture and thinking of the organisation, I am not surprised that not guilty verdicts have been given.
Edit . see the Paul Chambers case.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keir_Starmer
Last edited by: madf on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 15:18
|
How the Prosecutions case fell apart... from the Guardian...
Halfway through the trial, a member of the public contacted the DJ's legal team after reading about the claims in the Sun.
He told them he had an amateur video, filmed at the opening of a hospital radio station where Travis was alleged to have sexually assaulted a carnival princess while they were alone, touring the wards.
The video was crucial, Travis's barrister Stephen Vullo said, because it suggested that at no time was Travis away from his wife, Marianne, and therefore he could not possibly have molested the girl.
In a separate blow to the prosecution, Travis's lawyers were allowed by the judge, Anthony Leonard, to tell the jury that one of the alleged victims had served jail time in 2010, in what they said was evidence of her unreliability as a witness.
tinyurl.com/puvpklk
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 21:38
|
The last para of that report says
"Professionally, the trial is a cruel end to a distinguished five-decade broadcasting career. Little more than three years ago, Travis celebrated achieving a lifetime's ambition when he was inducted into radio's hall of fame. Now the star has been left to piece together what is left of his twilight years."
So sad, whether or not you like the bloke.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 21:38
|
Whatever the outcome of the various trials, all of the accused 'celebs' seem to fit somewhere along the 'slimy git' spectrum* - with (IMHO) the exception of good old Rolfe.
* Savile fell off the end.
|
Quote from Paul B over in Cyclechat:
That banging we can hear is Stuart Hall punching the walls of his cell reckoning he should have gone 'not guilty' and we could all enjoy his mellifluous descriptions of this weekend's football matches.
|
I detect a distinct "they may have got off but they're still guilty in my eyes" view from our resident leftists.
I'm truly fascinated as to why there is such an obvious political divide here between the guiltys and the notguiltys.
Stuart Hall pleaded guilty; DLT and Roache didn't. And the juries agreed with them.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 13 Feb 14 at 17:58
|
>> I detect a distinct "they may have got off but they're still guilty in my
>> eyes" view from our resident leftists.
>>
>> I'm truly fascinated as to why there is such an obvious political divide here between
>> the guiltys and the notguiltys.
>>
>> Stuart Hall pleaded guilty; DLT and Roache didn't. And the juries agreed with them.
No political edge at all Mapmaker. As a former professional officer of the Superior Courts I accept verdicts as correct but that's no hurdle to trying to rationalise how juries get where they are. My speculation about DLT was, as everybody else's, based on what was reported. It seems The Guardian has now covered some stuff pertaining to credibility that had not been covered before - that may have been crucial.
The comment about Stuart Hall had irony on/irony off switches at start and finish of post. If your computer's not showing them you might wish to consult an IT professional ;-P
|
>> The comment about Stuart Hall had irony on/irony off switches at start and finish of post.
>> If your computer's not showing them you might wish to consult an IT professional ;-P
I think you'll find that's italics, not irony, used to indicate a quotation... Google doesn't show up any obvious hits for a convention of using italics to indicate irony.
Definitely you and Alanovic who are keener on sending these people down than the average poster here. I was thinking about it earlier; of all my friends and colleagues, there isn't a one who expresses leftist views.
|
Eh? What have I said to justify that statement?
I suppose you're one of those people who thinks I'm a "left winger". Sigh.
|
>> I suppose you're one of those people who thinks I'm a "left winger". Sigh.
I am sometimes taken for a left whinger too. But like others here I am merely bien-pensant on a part-time basis.
The bien-pensant individual tends to support a woman's right not to be sexually harassed. But he/she is also less keen on harsh punishment than the average reactionary or rightist, preferring the idea of some sort of regenerative treatment when possible.
What you lose on the roundabouts you gain on the swings innit?
|
>>
>> I think you'll find that's italics, not irony, used to indicate a quotation... Google doesn't
>> show up any obvious hits for a convention of using italics to indicate irony.
>>
There has been an attempt to popularise a new "backwards italics" called "ironics", to indicate irony, but it never caught on.
The paradox is that once you have to explain irony, it ceases to be ironic. Irony is something you detect, reading between the lines and applying a sixth sense. The best irony is deliberately pitched so that 90% of people do not notice it, but it raises a chuckle from those who do.
|
|
There is a huge confusion as to what irony is. Often confused with coincidence.
|
>> I think you'll find that's italics, not irony, used to indicate a quotation... Google doesn't
>> show up any obvious hits for a convention of using italics to indicate irony.
I used italics to show I was quoting a comment from someone else in another forum. The comment itself was clearly intended to be humour/irony not serious comment.
>>
>> Definitely you and Alanovic who are keener on sending these people down than the average
>> poster here. I was thinking about it earlier; of all my friends and colleagues, there
>> isn't a one who expresses leftist views.
Unlike Alanovic I do identify myself as of the left. Mixed economy with decent medical, social etc welfare equality of opportunity etc. In old labour terms Croslandite rather than Bennite. Which oddly puts me on the party's left these days along with that well known extremist Roy Hattersley.
If a commitment to wanting sexual harassment identified and properly prosecuted/punished is a 'left' thing then so be it. I think plenty of Tories, at least the younger ones think that too though.
DLT has been found not guilty and I accept that. As a follower of legal news, process etc I'm interested in how thee jury came to the conclusion it did. The piece from the Mail about the jury's question to the judge suggests they thought some or all prosecution witnesses were truthful but in absence of corroboration struggled to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
|
>>If a commitment to wanting sexual harassment identified and properly
>>prosecuted/punished is a 'left' thing then so be it.
I didn't (mean to) say that. Obviously, wanting sexual harassment identified and properly prosecuted is the right thing.
I think the difference is in perception of "properly prosecuted" - and "correctly identified".
And I don't see the irony in the Stuart Hall. Unless they did have better evidence/he had other reasons for not wanting evidence making public, I should think he quite possibly *is* beating the cell walls.
Jury question looks like typical jury question, pondering the imponderable.
‘Miss Moore (the prosecutor), in summing up, said if we believe that the complainant was telling the truth, then we must find the defendant guilty. Can you give us any guidance on how that should be weighed with the lack of supporting evidence and the passage of time so we are sure beyond reasonable doubt?’
The reality is that the judge will have responded by saying exactly the same thing as last time. He will have redefined reasonable doubt (using the same words as the previous time). And he will have told them that they have been presented with the evidence and they should look at it.
Which will have helped them not one jot. And will have caused endless discussion in the jury room as to the law; not the case in hand. (IME of a jury room.)
|
>> The reality is that the judge will have responded by saying exactly the same thing
>> as last time. He will have redefined reasonable doubt (using the same words as the
>> previous time). And he will have told them that they have been presented with the
>> evidence and they should look at it.
From the DM link I posted earlier (a few posts down):
'In response, the judge reminded them the prosecutor had said that, if they concluded what the complainant said was accurate and truthful, then they should convict.'
Last edited by: Focusless on Fri 14 Feb 14 at 13:38
|
>> Quote from Paul B over in Cyclechat:
>>
>> That banging we can hear is Stuart Hall punching the walls of his cell reckoning
>> he should have gone 'not guilty' and we could all enjoy his mellifluous descriptions of
>> this weekend's football matches.
>>
But the Hall case never came to court so we have no idea what the strength of the evidence against him was. He may have had little choice if it was sufficiently strong.
|
|
But of course being a slimy git is not yet illegal. Might need a few more gaols.
|
"But of course being a slimy git is not yet illegal. "
But it would be if I wuz in charge :-)
|
DM (sorry) points out an interesting note sent from jurors to judge:
‘Miss Moore (the prosecutor), in summing up, said if we believe that the complainant was telling the truth, then we must find the defendant guilty. Can you give us any guidance on how that should be weighed with the lack of supporting evidence and the passage of time so we are sure beyond reasonable doubt?’
tinyurl.com/pceh45v
Last edited by: Focusless on Fri 14 Feb 14 at 10:48
|
Article on today's Guardian by Kier Starmer:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/13/dave-lee-travis-william-roache-sex-cases
Contrasts with other cases involving historic sex crimes, particularly those involving teachers. Points to convictions but also situation of witnesses particularly in a hung jury/retrial scenario.
Important point is that it's quite possible to take a correct decision to prosecute only for case to be equally properly thrown out by a jury.
|
A witness can be honest and truthful, yet mistaken.
Being truthful doesn't mean you speak the truth, it means you think you speak the truth.
|
Former head of CPS defends CPS.
Shock Horror,
I treat anything Starmer says on the subject as biased and not objective...
I note he also attempts to defend the CPS for not prosecuting Saville..
|
"I note he also attempts to defend the CPS for not prosecuting Saville."
Wouldn't this have been a bit tricky, though, because he was dead?
|
>>
>> Wouldn't this have been a bit tricky, though, because he was dead?
>>
He wasn't dead during the 50 years he was (allegedly) offending, some of which was brought to the attention of the police. And he certainly wasn't dead in the early seventies when he admitted to spending the night with an underage girl in his autobiography.
|
>> I note he also attempts to defend the CPS for not prosecuting Saville..
I'm not clear how explaining that police were stung by earlier criticism of 'trawling' for victims becomes an excuse. Classic can't do right territory.
Or have I missed something?
|
You have missed Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones being prosecuted for admitting he had sex with a 14 year old...
tinyurl.com/ow57gyn
No "he said" "she said".. factual.
But Operation Yewtree is not about facts.. It's about backside covering post event.
Last edited by: madf on Sun 16 Feb 14 at 12:42
|
The decision not to prosecute Wyman was based on the fact they'd got married before the offence came to light and in those circumstances it was not considered that a prosecution would serve any purpose. The same happened to a mate of mine thirty years ago when he was in his mid twenties, his girlfriend produced a baby three months after her sixteenth birthday, which came as a shock to everyone because she'd kept the pregnancy hidden from him and everyone else. By the time the stuff hit the fan and her parents went running to the police they'd moved in together so no action was taken (they're still married now, BTW).
In any case I believe that before the law changed in 2003 unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl over thirteen had to be reported within twelve months of the offence or no action could be taken.
|
>> being prosecuted for admitting he had sex with a 14 year old...
Jerry Lee Lewis married a girl of 12 or 13 I seem to remember.
Apart from the facts that they are sometimes cute and usually ignorant, I can't for the life of me understand why people bother with very young girls (unless they are very young themselves of course). It seems to me somewhere between perverse and insane to become sexually entangled with an unpredictable semi-child.
God knows adult women can be risky enough. People may rib you about their looks but at least no one will call you a nonce.
:o}
|
The DPP has set out in an interview with Times reasons why pushing on with historic cases is justified/worthwhile. Full version is paywalled but a summary from Guardian is here:
www.theguardian.com/law/2014/feb/20/historic-sex-case-prosecutions-continue-cps
link edited due to mystake
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 20 Feb 14 at 21:11
|
|
I notice she always refers to perpetrators as "alleged", but never similarly qualifies "victims", even after an aquital. I wonder why?
|
|
Perhaps because you can be sued for the former?
Last edited by: Focusless on Fri 21 Feb 14 at 08:58
|
>> I notice she always refers to perpetrators as "alleged", but never similarly qualifies "victims", even
>> after an aquital. I wonder why?
>>
You think the CPS is logical? That's your assumption.
|
Operation Yewtree - Volume 17 - Cliff Pope
