is it illegal for police to tell press of a raid etc?
Discussion
Lucid in every detail, logical reasoned argument. Made my contribution look shabby. Obviously we must all be as thick as each other. It's a shame, I'm sure they are quite nice fellows, but can't stop looking for points of conflict as a sort of practice session. When shedding light they forget there are two kinds - one is the glow that illuminates, the other the glare that obscures. All that happens is everyone gets bored and goes away.
La Liga said:
Variomatic said:
Simply, it's far easier to discredit a false accusation of a recent event than it is for a historic one.
I disagree. It's harder to prove an older offence (generally) than a recent one, especially since forensic evidence is often so relevant in sexual offending. In any case the witness statements have the same validity, and will be subject to the same test in court.
Some appear to think that the current system is broken, but what evidence is there that it is?
Thorodin's proposed reforms look extreme to me. A cut off date for complaints (duration of limitation period not stated). Testimony of alleged victim not to count as proof. No one allowed to say "the same thing was done to me". That leaves only physical evidence. CSI fans look away now, but often there isn't any physical evidence. This regime sounds to me unduly slanted in favour of the accused, who already has significant and appropriate protections, and insufficiently protective of victims of crime and the wider public interest in holding offenders accountable for offences.
In the case of child abuse, the victim is often silenced by shame and fear. Is Thorodin really proposing that the victim should also be silenced by law? Let's assume not, but that would be the effect of his suggestions. Thorodin, I am giving you a hard time because you don't appear to have thought through the consequences of your ideas. Please tell us what your fully thought through system would be.
Thorodin's proposed reforms look extreme to me. A cut off date for complaints (duration of limitation period not stated). Testimony of alleged victim not to count as proof. No one allowed to say "the same thing was done to me". That leaves only physical evidence. CSI fans look away now, but often there isn't any physical evidence. This regime sounds to me unduly slanted in favour of the accused, who already has significant and appropriate protections, and insufficiently protective of victims of crime and the wider public interest in holding offenders accountable for offences.
In the case of child abuse, the victim is often silenced by shame and fear. Is Thorodin really proposing that the victim should also be silenced by law? Let's assume not, but that would be the effect of his suggestions. Thorodin, I am giving you a hard time because you don't appear to have thought through the consequences of your ideas. Please tell us what your fully thought through system would be.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 21st August 13:58
Breadvan72 said:
Some appear to think that the current system is broken, but what evidence is there that it is?
I was wondering what the problem was they were trying to fix. There's some debate to be had around. Are we have lots of miscarriages of justice I am missing? There are some points raised around anonymity, but that's small fry compared to some of the reforms being unnecessarily suggested here.
Breadvan72 said:
Some appear to think that the current system is broken, but what evidence is there that it is?
Thorodin's proposed reforms look extreme to me. A cut off date for complaints (duration of limitation period not stated). Testimony of alleged victim not to count as proof. No one allowed to say "the same thing was done to me". That leaves only physical evidence. CSI fans look away now, but often there isn't any physical evidence. This regime sounds to me unduly slanted in favour of the accused, who already has significant and appropriate protections, and insufficiently protective of victims of crime and the wider public interest in holding offenders accountable for offences.
In the case of child abuse, the victim is often silenced by shame and fear. Is Thorodin really proposing that the victim should also be silenced by law? Let's assume not, but that would be the effect of his suggestions. Thorodin, I am giving you a hard time because you don't appear to have thought through the consequences of your ideas. Please tell us what your fully thought through system would be.
BV, you are not ‘giving me a hard time’. You are dissecting my posts and non-contextually re-presenting them to give a different angle that you can find something to find fault with. The latest example is the post to which this is a reply. You can do that and you are adept at it but thankfully, at least as far as I know, you can not edit them. They are there for all to see in their entirety, as I wrote them. Thorodin's proposed reforms look extreme to me. A cut off date for complaints (duration of limitation period not stated). Testimony of alleged victim not to count as proof. No one allowed to say "the same thing was done to me". That leaves only physical evidence. CSI fans look away now, but often there isn't any physical evidence. This regime sounds to me unduly slanted in favour of the accused, who already has significant and appropriate protections, and insufficiently protective of victims of crime and the wider public interest in holding offenders accountable for offences.
In the case of child abuse, the victim is often silenced by shame and fear. Is Thorodin really proposing that the victim should also be silenced by law? Let's assume not, but that would be the effect of his suggestions. Thorodin, I am giving you a hard time because you don't appear to have thought through the consequences of your ideas. Please tell us what your fully thought through system would be.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Thursday 21st August 13:58
With the possible exception of my last one they do not attack anyone and are reasonably polite and courteous. I believe they do not need further explanation than already given to get an idea of my opinion and, for the reasons given above, I do not want to give you further opportunities to play your rather silly games at adversarial challenges which inevitably become circular and unproductive.
As I said earlier in reply to another’s post, I am sure you are quite a nice fellow but your work habits and imperatives are for when you are at work and there are people on here who prefer not to be deliberately misquoted. My last on this.
So you believe the current system is wrong and you put forward ideas for improvement. When those with experience of how the system works raise valid concern and point out possible flaws in your argument you stick your fingers in your ears and look the other way.
the fact that you haven't responded to a question I asked you about 5 pages ago to do with 'contesting' evidence only seems to confirm my opinion
the fact that you haven't responded to a question I asked you about 5 pages ago to do with 'contesting' evidence only seems to confirm my opinion
Thorodin, I have not once misquoted you. If you claim otherwise, prove it.
You appear to be upset when someone disagrees with you. You appear to have some bizarre fixation on what I do for a living, but I am not at work here. I am simply asking for consistency, rigour and evidence based arguments. If you really think that you have been misinterpreted and are not just realising that your previous suggestions have been ill conceived, why not try simply telling us what you think?
You appear to be upset when someone disagrees with you. You appear to have some bizarre fixation on what I do for a living, but I am not at work here. I am simply asking for consistency, rigour and evidence based arguments. If you really think that you have been misinterpreted and are not just realising that your previous suggestions have been ill conceived, why not try simply telling us what you think?
Should be worth a watch - be plenty of finger pointing
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/22/cliff-r...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/22/cliff-r...
Many feel that the current system is broken, or at least in need of repair, but perhaps for other reasons than have been mentioned.
The conviction rate for serious sexual assault is notoriously low and many feel that 'something' should be done. The problem everyone has is 'what?'. The accused needs protection but so do victims.
Serious sexual assault is an offence which can have a traumatic effect on the victims. If some of the suggestions are taken on board then all an offender would have to do would be to keep his/her head down for whatever the period is and then they'd be off the hook.
Each case should be treated on its merits. There should be no crossing of fingers and then being allowed to offend again, as they do.
The use of similar complaints is a method that can negate the defence of a person making it all up, or the defence of the besuited bloke in the box of butter not melting in his mouth.
In general the current situation has minor problems and needs tweaking.
Not broke.
The conviction rate for serious sexual assault is notoriously low and many feel that 'something' should be done. The problem everyone has is 'what?'. The accused needs protection but so do victims.
Serious sexual assault is an offence which can have a traumatic effect on the victims. If some of the suggestions are taken on board then all an offender would have to do would be to keep his/her head down for whatever the period is and then they'd be off the hook.
Each case should be treated on its merits. There should be no crossing of fingers and then being allowed to offend again, as they do.
The use of similar complaints is a method that can negate the defence of a person making it all up, or the defence of the besuited bloke in the box of butter not melting in his mouth.
In general the current situation has minor problems and needs tweaking.
Not broke.
I get concerned when I see things like this.
--
The conviction rate for serious sexual assault is notoriously low and many feel that 'something' should be done.
--
That smacks of 'meeting targets' so to meet a new target, things get changed, clearly to increase a rate, a lowering of standards means higher convictions.
That's a really dangerous path to go down. But hey we can all crow over our new 'improved' conviction rate, so that's ok...
Secondly, the great unwashed aren't fit to know peoples identity pre charging, or really pre verdict if I'm honest, today's everything, everywhere media means there's no hiding place for anyone, and people are crazy enough to draw conclusions on even how a guy looks, remember the Guy in Bristol, the landlord of the murdered girl there, he was tried, found guilty, hung, and quartered by the media & general public before he even saw the inside of a police station. So yes, Anonymity is broken, completely broken. How it can be 'in the public interest' is beyond me, when year by year you see IQ's dropping and people believing any old rubbish they read on Facebook, or on Jeremy Kyle.
Which leads me to another thing mentioned. Despite what people think, there ARE people out there malicious enough to make false claims on people re sexual offences, in fact in the last few months, from memory I can recall at least two cases of false claims of rape, where the accused has gone through hell for a substantial period of time (over a year) before enough evidence was amassed to find them released without charge.
So in summary, there are things broken still, no question. What happens now is fine in a society where the population are 'grown ups' sadly we're now in a country full of dim witted 'Adult babies'
--
The conviction rate for serious sexual assault is notoriously low and many feel that 'something' should be done.
--
That smacks of 'meeting targets' so to meet a new target, things get changed, clearly to increase a rate, a lowering of standards means higher convictions.
That's a really dangerous path to go down. But hey we can all crow over our new 'improved' conviction rate, so that's ok...
Secondly, the great unwashed aren't fit to know peoples identity pre charging, or really pre verdict if I'm honest, today's everything, everywhere media means there's no hiding place for anyone, and people are crazy enough to draw conclusions on even how a guy looks, remember the Guy in Bristol, the landlord of the murdered girl there, he was tried, found guilty, hung, and quartered by the media & general public before he even saw the inside of a police station. So yes, Anonymity is broken, completely broken. How it can be 'in the public interest' is beyond me, when year by year you see IQ's dropping and people believing any old rubbish they read on Facebook, or on Jeremy Kyle.
Which leads me to another thing mentioned. Despite what people think, there ARE people out there malicious enough to make false claims on people re sexual offences, in fact in the last few months, from memory I can recall at least two cases of false claims of rape, where the accused has gone through hell for a substantial period of time (over a year) before enough evidence was amassed to find them released without charge.
So in summary, there are things broken still, no question. What happens now is fine in a society where the population are 'grown ups' sadly we're now in a country full of dim witted 'Adult babies'
Derek Smith said:
Many feel that the current system is broken, or at least in need of repair, but perhaps for other reasons than have been mentioned.
The conviction rate for serious sexual assault is notoriously low and many feel that 'something' should be done. The problem everyone has is 'what?'. The accused needs protection but so do victims.
Serious sexual assault is an offence which can have a traumatic effect on the victims. If some of the suggestions are taken on board then all an offender would have to do would be to keep his/her head down for whatever the period is and then they'd be off the hook.
Each case should be treated on its merits. There should be no crossing of fingers and then being allowed to offend again, as they do.
The use of similar complaints is a method that can negate the defence of a person making it all up, or the defence of the besuited bloke in the box of butter not melting in his mouth.
In general the current situation has minor problems and needs tweaking.
Not broke.
I agree with most of what you have said but not all of it. The conviction rate for serious sexual assault is notoriously low and many feel that 'something' should be done. The problem everyone has is 'what?'. The accused needs protection but so do victims.
Serious sexual assault is an offence which can have a traumatic effect on the victims. If some of the suggestions are taken on board then all an offender would have to do would be to keep his/her head down for whatever the period is and then they'd be off the hook.
Each case should be treated on its merits. There should be no crossing of fingers and then being allowed to offend again, as they do.
The use of similar complaints is a method that can negate the defence of a person making it all up, or the defence of the besuited bloke in the box of butter not melting in his mouth.
In general the current situation has minor problems and needs tweaking.
Not broke.
The inherent problem is this: having sex is a completely normal thing (although perhaps not for many on PH). So the mere act in itself isn't evidence that a crime has been committed. For that reason in some/many cases the only evidence is the word of the accuser. Because of this the whole process is a bit messed up. The alleged victim is upset because she has to stand and have her sex life dragged up in court, and the alleged perpetrator has to have the shame of being charged with a socially devastating crime, with no more than the say so of an alleged victim.
You tell me off another crime where the CPS will prosecute with nothing other than a witness statement? If I said someone had threatened to kill me, there were no witnesses and the arrested person gave a no comment interview or denied the act, it would never see the daylight of the court.
The courts have done an okay job in protecting the (alleged) victim. However the reality is the man is found not guilty will have already had his life destroyed. He will have whispers at work, people in his street will avoid him, and his childrens friends parents won't let the children go around to the house to play.
The solution seems simple to me. Have the same anonymity to the alleged man as the women has. Accept that it may harm some prosecutions because people won't come forward - however I feel that is a price worth paying to have a fair legal system.
I know this will offend/upset - but some women also need to take a look at their own actions. Getting horrifically drunk and going back with a guy doesn't give them the right to force themselves on you. However if I walked through Tottenham hammered at night with gold jewelry on then I'd expect there would be a good chance bad things would happen. Whilst it doesn't excuse rape - the simplest way to avoid it and the traumatic side effects are to not put yourself in a position where it can or is likely to occur.
photosnob said:
Derek Smith said:
Many feel that the current system is broken, or at least in need of repair, but perhaps for other reasons than have been mentioned.
The conviction rate for serious sexual assault is notoriously low and many feel that 'something' should be done. The problem everyone has is 'what?'. The accused needs protection but so do victims.
Serious sexual assault is an offence which can have a traumatic effect on the victims. If some of the suggestions are taken on board then all an offender would have to do would be to keep his/her head down for whatever the period is and then they'd be off the hook.
Each case should be treated on its merits. There should be no crossing of fingers and then being allowed to offend again, as they do.
The use of similar complaints is a method that can negate the defence of a person making it all up, or the defence of the besuited bloke in the box of butter not melting in his mouth.
In general the current situation has minor problems and needs tweaking.
Not broke.
I agree with most of what you have said but not all of it. The conviction rate for serious sexual assault is notoriously low and many feel that 'something' should be done. The problem everyone has is 'what?'. The accused needs protection but so do victims.
Serious sexual assault is an offence which can have a traumatic effect on the victims. If some of the suggestions are taken on board then all an offender would have to do would be to keep his/her head down for whatever the period is and then they'd be off the hook.
Each case should be treated on its merits. There should be no crossing of fingers and then being allowed to offend again, as they do.
The use of similar complaints is a method that can negate the defence of a person making it all up, or the defence of the besuited bloke in the box of butter not melting in his mouth.
In general the current situation has minor problems and needs tweaking.
Not broke.
The inherent problem is this: having sex is a completely normal thing (although perhaps not for many on PH). So the mere act in itself isn't evidence that a crime has been committed. For that reason in some/many cases the only evidence is the word of the accuser. Because of this the whole process is a bit messed up. The alleged victim is upset because she has to stand and have her sex life dragged up in court, and the alleged perpetrator has to have the shame of being charged with a socially devastating crime, with no more than the say so of an alleged victim.
You tell me off another crime where the CPS will prosecute with nothing other than a witness statement? If I said someone had threatened to kill me, there were no witnesses and the arrested person gave a no comment interview or denied the act, it would never see the daylight of the court.
The courts have done an okay job in protecting the (alleged) victim. However the reality is the man is found not guilty will have already had his life destroyed. He will have whispers at work, people in his street will avoid him, and his childrens friends parents won't let the children go around to the house to play.
The solution seems simple to me. Have the same anonymity to the alleged man as the women has. Accept that it may harm some prosecutions because people won't come forward - however I feel that is a price worth paying to have a fair legal system.
I know this will offend/upset - but some women also need to take a look at their own actions. Getting horrifically drunk and going back with a guy doesn't give them the right to force themselves on you. However if I walked through Tottenham hammered at night with gold jewelry on then I'd expect there would be a good chance bad things would happen. Whilst it doesn't excuse rape - the simplest way to avoid it and the traumatic side effects are to not put yourself in a position where it can or is likely to occur.
Edited by Bigends on Monday 25th August 20:20
Bigends said:
A woman (or man) whos been off their nut through drink or drugs is vulnerable and doesnt have capacity to give /refuse consent to sexual activity. You're right - it doesn't give any person the right to force themselves on that vulnerable person. If they wake up int e morning remembering little or nothing of the nights events but clearly having had sex then Police would correctly record as Rape. What happens from then on in from a prosecution point of view is in the hands of CPS.
I'm not trying to justify rape or sexual assault. What I was saying was that I think that some women need to take into account how their own actions put them in some situations. I'm a reasonably photographer. I've been paid for my photo's in newspapers on a freelance basis. If I went to Syria right now to take photo's and got murdered it would be awful. However I'd also have to accept that I put myself in that situation. That doesn't absolve the person who killed me, they are still murdering scum. But I personally feel that each person has a duty of care to themselves. Telling women that it doesn't matter if they get drunk or take drugs it's not their fault, whilst being politically correct isn't going to help prevent other women being taken advantage off. People would rightly call me a complete moron for going to Syria in this climate - so why can't people state fairly that a women has in some way put herself in that position?
Furthermore I think it's a bit unfair that a women if drunk cannot give consent. I've woken up to some complete horrors before after indulging too much. I didn't call the police and report them for sexual assault. I gave them some money for a taxi, had a shower and then got abused by my friends.
photosnob said:
...
...
I know this will offend/upset - but some women also need to take a look at their own actions. Getting horrifically drunk and going back with a guy doesn't give them the right to force themselves on you. However if I walked through Tottenham hammered at night with gold jewelry on then I'd expect there would be a good chance bad things would happen. Whilst it doesn't excuse rape - the simplest way to avoid it and the traumatic side effects are to not put yourself in a position where it can or is likely to occur.
As you say: "it doesn't excuse rape", and that really is all that needs to be said. Nothing excuses rape. The only person that is ever to blame for a rape is the rapist....
I know this will offend/upset - but some women also need to take a look at their own actions. Getting horrifically drunk and going back with a guy doesn't give them the right to force themselves on you. However if I walked through Tottenham hammered at night with gold jewelry on then I'd expect there would be a good chance bad things would happen. Whilst it doesn't excuse rape - the simplest way to avoid it and the traumatic side effects are to not put yourself in a position where it can or is likely to occur.
Breadvan72 said:
As you say: "it doesn't excuse rape", and that really is all that needs to be said. Nothing excuses rape. The only person that is ever to blame for a rape is the rapist.
Agreed - however notion that you shouldn't say some things I don't think helps the situation. The Police openly give advice on how to not to get robbed, there are signs in A&E stating if you get drunk you are more likely to get attacked (none sexually). However for some reason the same crime prevention message is not being sent to this sort of crime. I understand the reasons for that. They don't want to insinuate that the victim is at fault. However I'd rather them stopping this sort of thing at source, rather than having to prosecute people later.
Ultimately men/women who force themselves on people are pathetic scummy little creatures. However the easiest way to deal with them is to take away the opportunity for them to act in this manner.
photosnob said:
Breadvan72 said:
As you say: "it doesn't excuse rape", and that really is all that needs to be said. Nothing excuses rape. The only person that is ever to blame for a rape is the rapist.
Agreed - however notion that you shouldn't say some things I don't think helps the situation. The Police openly give advice on how to not to get robbed, there are signs in A&E stating if you get drunk you are more likely to get attacked (none sexually). However for some reason the same crime prevention message is not being sent to this sort of crime. I understand the reasons for that. They don't want to insinuate that the victim is at fault. However I'd rather them stopping this sort of thing at source, rather than having to prosecute people later.
Ultimately men/women who force themselves on people are pathetic scummy little creatures. However the easiest way to deal with them is to take away the opportunity for them to act in this manner.
That you talk of sorting this thing out at source and take the opportunity away, still, infers some lack of care on the behalf of victims contributing to their rape.
While I'd hope PH is not representative of the majority of the general public
the yewtree related threads provide ample instances of overt opinions that even if the victim isn't making it up (a big step for some) they still (even when children, in a different time and the perp was far more likely to believed) asked for it.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11056...
Looks like someone smarter than me shares my views.
Looks like someone smarter than me shares my views.
Unfortunately people lose the ability to think realistically when discussing sex offences. It is expected to discuss ways of protecting oneself from being a victim of crime by removing opportunity and temptation from criminals unless the crime is a sex offence. Then it is forbidden to discuss crime prevention.
The reality is that crime happens and it is naïve and dangerous to think that it can be prevented by the existence of the criminal justice system.
The reality is that crime happens and it is naïve and dangerous to think that it can be prevented by the existence of the criminal justice system.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff