Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY
Discussion
10 Pence Short said:
Chim said:
Not so, limitation for brining a case of this type is 1967, in addition, if the CPS pursue the case it is automatically eligible for CICA money as I outlined in my last post.
When I last looked (recently) claims had to be brought within 2 years, unless there are good reasons. Action by the CPS is not required, btw. In any case, the CICA claim value for a touch on the boob is small fry. I appreciate PH is a cynical place full of people all too willing to see the worst in people (yeah, yeah, I do it too), but in this case I believe the daschund has the wrong larch.A person must make a claim as soon as practicable, and in any case within 2 years of the incident.
If they were under 18 at the time of the incident, they must claim by their 20th birthday if it was reported to the police before they were 18, or within 2 years of reporting it to the Police if they reported it afterwards.
The time limit can only be extended in exceptional circumstances and where there do not need to be too many investigations by CICA.
And all this for £1k.
If they were under 18 at the time of the incident, they must claim by their 20th birthday if it was reported to the police before they were 18, or within 2 years of reporting it to the Police if they reported it afterwards.
The time limit can only be extended in exceptional circumstances and where there do not need to be too many investigations by CICA.
And all this for £1k.
mybrainhurts said:
Will somebody please take down the "Hairy Cornflake" thread title?
I believe he coined the nickname himself back at the height of his fame - something, I guess, to do with the breakfast show and his general hirsuteness. Edited by CAPP0 on Wednesday 26th February 23:34
Dave Lee Travis: Five things you didn't know by Alice Vincent and George Berridge on the Telegraph website 13 Feb 2014 said:
He never liked being called The Hairy Cornflake
Well, who would? In an interview with BBC News in 2012, a rather more groomed Travis explained that the nickname had been “driving [him] crazy”. The Hairy Cornflake started as “The Hairy Monster Living 200 Miles Up The M1”, a name Travis earned while living in Manchester and broadcasting in London. When Travis started working on the breakfast show "Monster" became "Cornflake". Its creator, however, is only referred to as “some idiot”.
Well, who would? In an interview with BBC News in 2012, a rather more groomed Travis explained that the nickname had been “driving [him] crazy”. The Hairy Cornflake started as “The Hairy Monster Living 200 Miles Up The M1”, a name Travis earned while living in Manchester and broadcasting in London. When Travis started working on the breakfast show "Monster" became "Cornflake". Its creator, however, is only referred to as “some idiot”.
Dave Lee Travis: Five things you didn't know by Alice Vincent and George Berridge on the Telegraph website 13 Feb 2014 said:
He was inducted as a member of the Hall of Fame in 2012 for being “a great ambassador for the sport” and a “constant and never matched high level promotion of drag racing”.
from:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/1063...
So, not content with a retrial on the 2 charges, they have magiced up another 1.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/28/dlt-fac...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/28/dlt-fac...
BBC reporting that DLT has now been charged with the mid-1990s offence. He will be pleased. My recollection is that he said he'd had to sell his house to pay the defence costs last time around.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27041407
No doubt Old Bill and his friends at the CPS are recruiting new complainants against Nigel Evans even as I type. Poor little Nigel was whimpering about a collection of weak cases not making a strong case - I guess we'll see what the lads can dig up to solve that for him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27041407
No doubt Old Bill and his friends at the CPS are recruiting new complainants against Nigel Evans even as I type. Poor little Nigel was whimpering about a collection of weak cases not making a strong case - I guess we'll see what the lads can dig up to solve that for him.
Ozzie Osmond said:
BBC reporting that DLT has now been charged with the mid-1990s offence. He will be pleased. My recollection is that he said he'd had to sell his house to pay the defence costs last time around.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27041407
No doubt Old Bill and his friends at the CPS are recruiting new complainants against Nigel Evans even as I type. Poor little Nigel was whimpering about a collection of weak cases not making a strong case - I guess we'll see what the lads can dig up to solve that for him.
But if he is innocent then he and others in the same situation can lose everything they have built up over a lifetimes worth of savings. Sell the house to rent a bed sit sell the cars get a bus and your too old to work again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27041407
No doubt Old Bill and his friends at the CPS are recruiting new complainants against Nigel Evans even as I type. Poor little Nigel was whimpering about a collection of weak cases not making a strong case - I guess we'll see what the lads can dig up to solve that for him.
This grates a lot why if found innocent are the legal costs not paid out in full and compensation for loss of earnings/defecting of character etc.
What if it happened to your father or you? Totally innocent and you lose everything yet the accuser remains unknown and has no detrimental impact to finances...
Welshbeef said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
BBC reporting that DLT has now been charged with the mid-1990s offence. He will be pleased. My recollection is that he said he'd had to sell his house to pay the defence costs last time around.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27041407
No doubt Old Bill and his friends at the CPS are recruiting new complainants against Nigel Evans even as I type. Poor little Nigel was whimpering about a collection of weak cases not making a strong case - I guess we'll see what the lads can dig up to solve that for him.
But if he is innocent then he and others in the same situation can lose everything they have built up over a lifetimes worth of savings. Sell the house to rent a bed sit sell the cars get a bus and your too old to work again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27041407
No doubt Old Bill and his friends at the CPS are recruiting new complainants against Nigel Evans even as I type. Poor little Nigel was whimpering about a collection of weak cases not making a strong case - I guess we'll see what the lads can dig up to solve that for him.
This grates a lot why if found innocent are the legal costs not paid out in full and compensation for loss of earnings/defecting of character etc.
What if it happened to your father or you? Totally innocent and you lose everything yet the accuser remains unknown and has no detrimental impact to finances...
mybrainhurts said:
I believe they call it justice.
What happens if say DLT cases keep coming and every-time he is found innocent but ends up utterly penniless then a new claim against him - would legal aid pay for his defence if not how could he stand trial? Should these stars and joe public move their wealth to spouse or blow all the money then go legal aid route? Welshbeef said:
mybrainhurts said:
I believe they call it justice.
What happens if say DLT cases keep coming and every-time he is found innocent but ends up utterly penniless then a new claim against him - would legal aid pay for his defence if not how could he stand trial? Should these stars and joe public move their wealth to spouse or blow all the money then go legal aid route? 
mybrainhurts said:
My sarcasm, your WHOOSH
I got your point but my question stands could he use legal aid if broke to try to clear his name? Likewise as the Gay MP who was cleared he has spent his life savings all gone so IF any other case were put against him he would have to use legal aid. Given legal aids budget has been cut significantly what would actually happen if the Legal aid budget had been fully spent as I'm sure it couldn't just take £150-300k legal fees hits
Welshbeef said:
mybrainhurts said:
My sarcasm, your WHOOSH
I got your point but my question stands could he use legal aid if broke to try to clear his name? Likewise as the Gay MP who was cleared he has spent his life savings all gone so IF any other case were put against him he would have to use legal aid. Given legal aids budget has been cut significantly what would actually happen if the Legal aid budget had been fully spent as I'm sure it couldn't just take £150-300k legal fees hits
- they could always save the defence costs by pleading guilty, I suppose. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/1300...
The Government brought in a measure restricting the recovery of costs by an acquitted defendant to the (very low) legal aid rates (even if the defendant had reasonably paid higher private rates). One of my colleagues at work won a judicial review and the Court overturned the measure, but the Government then re-imposed it. So, poor old Nigel Evans will only recover a fraction of his £130k from Central Funds, thanks to his own party's policy. Others, who did not vote for the policy, will also get clobbered by it.
The Government brought in a measure restricting the recovery of costs by an acquitted defendant to the (very low) legal aid rates (even if the defendant had reasonably paid higher private rates). One of my colleagues at work won a judicial review and the Court overturned the measure, but the Government then re-imposed it. So, poor old Nigel Evans will only recover a fraction of his £130k from Central Funds, thanks to his own party's policy. Others, who did not vote for the policy, will also get clobbered by it.
carinatauk said:
For someone that has been "cleared" and found not guilty, can they take this to European Court of Human Rights?
The "McLibel Two" won in Strasbourg because the absence of legal aid for their battle against McDonalds in its defamation claim against them was regarded as bringing about an un-level playing field. Therefore, there was a breach of the due process guarantee provided by article 6 ECHR. An article 6 challenge based on having to foot your own bill might have wings, but would face difficulty, as the point here is not that the defendant is denied access to justice, but that he or she has to pay heavily for it. The Convention does not in general address socio-economic inequalities, or inverse inequalities such as property holders being ineligible for legal aid.
More generally, the Convention does not oblige the State to provide more than a minimal legal aid system in most contexts. As the legal aid cuts bite, however, and competent lawyers give up doing legal aid work as it is uneconomic, an argument may emerge that the playing field is slanted against the defendant in a criminal case or the poorer party in a civil case.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission have expressed some views on this:-
EHRC said:
Cuts to legal aid may compromise the right to a fair trial
Proposed changes to legal aid for civil law cases, by limiting people’s access to legal advice and representation, may compromise rights to a fair hearing under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The review shows that:
The current ‘fixed fees’ system can act as a barrier to those with complicated and unusual cases.
Removing legal aid from areas of civil law may mean some people do not have access to a fair hearing.
The policies aimed at mitigating the impact of legal aid cuts may not be sufficient to ensure that everybody has access to justice.
Changes to contracts for criminal legal aid may have an impact on the quality and supply of criminal defence lawyers.
Proposed changes to legal aid for civil law cases, by limiting people’s access to legal advice and representation, may compromise rights to a fair hearing under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The review shows that:
The current ‘fixed fees’ system can act as a barrier to those with complicated and unusual cases.
Removing legal aid from areas of civil law may mean some people do not have access to a fair hearing.
The policies aimed at mitigating the impact of legal aid cuts may not be sufficient to ensure that everybody has access to justice.
Changes to contracts for criminal legal aid may have an impact on the quality and supply of criminal defence lawyers.
Breadvan72 said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/1300...
The Government brought in a measure restricting the recovery of costs by an acquitted defendant to the (very low) legal aid rates (even if the defendant had reasonably paid higher private rates). One of my colleagues at work won a judicial review and the Court overturned the measure, but the Government then re-imposed it. So, poor old Nigel Evans will only recover a fraction of his £130k from Central Funds, thanks to his own party's policy. Others, who did not vote for the policy, will also get clobbered by it.
So if an individual is not guilty and cannot reclaim his/her fees can that individual then go to a civil court to claim damages from the accuser? Seems only fair really. The Government brought in a measure restricting the recovery of costs by an acquitted defendant to the (very low) legal aid rates (even if the defendant had reasonably paid higher private rates). One of my colleagues at work won a judicial review and the Court overturned the measure, but the Government then re-imposed it. So, poor old Nigel Evans will only recover a fraction of his £130k from Central Funds, thanks to his own party's policy. Others, who did not vote for the policy, will also get clobbered by it.
Also what if you actually cannot get legal representation for the case your facing from the allowed legal aid fees and lets say you actually cannot afford it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff