Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY
Discussion
SamHH said:
TTmonkey said:
Guilty of one, cleared of another.
what a farce
Why is it a farce?what a farce
Scuffers said:
well, when you consider that *ALL* the original charges brought against him have now been dismissed, and the only think they got to stick was the new charge dreamed up after the first trial, I would call the whole process pretty much a total waste, would you not?
I don't see why. He's been found guilty of a crime according to the usual process. The fact that he has been found not guilty of some other crimes needn't undermine that.Surely it's not your argument that, if a person is found not guilty of a particular offence, they may not be found guilty of another, similar offence. So why do you say this conviction is a farce?
Scuffers said:
SamHH said:
TTmonkey said:
Guilty of one, cleared of another.
what a farce
Why is it a farce?what a farce
SamHH said:
Scuffers said:
well, when you consider that *ALL* the original charges brought against him have now been dismissed, and the only think they got to stick was the new charge dreamed up after the first trial, I would call the whole process pretty much a total waste, would you not?
I don't see why. He's been found guilty of a crime according to the usual process. The fact that he has been found not guilty of some other crimes needn't undermine that.Surely it's not your argument that, if a person is found not guilty of a particular offence, they may not be found guilty of another, similar offence. So why do you say this conviction is a farce?
what I am getting at is that the original case/charges/etc have all been to nothing.
all they managed to get on him was the new charge that would never have seen the light of day without the bogus charges being levelled.
so, after what? 2 years of faffing about wasting our money and his, they get him on some pathetic grope charge (that they could not get a unanimous verdict on)
do you consider this in the public interest to waste so much time and money on trivia?
hardly crime of the century is it? and yet every day 1,000's of crimes with real victims go un-investigated.
I am sure Ms. anonymous is now eagerly awaiting her compensation....
Scuffers said:
your miss understand my post.
what I am getting at is that the original case/charges/etc have all been to nothing.
all they managed to get on him was the new charge that would never have seen the light of day without the bogus charges being levelled.
so, after what? 2 years of faffing about wasting our money and his, they get him on some pathetic grope charge (that they could not get a unanimous verdict on)
do you consider this in the public interest to waste so much time and money on trivia?
hardly crime of the century is it? and yet every day 1,000's of crimes with real victims go un-investigated.
I am sure Ms. anonymous is now eagerly awaiting her compensation....
Could you not make the same argument about every prosecution that results in an aquittal? what I am getting at is that the original case/charges/etc have all been to nothing.
all they managed to get on him was the new charge that would never have seen the light of day without the bogus charges being levelled.
so, after what? 2 years of faffing about wasting our money and his, they get him on some pathetic grope charge (that they could not get a unanimous verdict on)
do you consider this in the public interest to waste so much time and money on trivia?
hardly crime of the century is it? and yet every day 1,000's of crimes with real victims go un-investigated.
I am sure Ms. anonymous is now eagerly awaiting her compensation....
Why is it a waste of money? And why were the charges bogus?
SamHH said:
Could you not make the same argument about every prosecution that results in an aquittal?
Why is it a waste of money? And why were the charges bogus?
yes.Why is it a waste of money? And why were the charges bogus?
the idea that it's right to basically play fast and loose with public money on a witch hunt is just wrong on several levels.
and yes, the fact that at 2 attempts, they failed to get a guilty verdict on the original charges pretty much says they were bogus, this is TWO sets of Jurors, not just a one off fluke.
their only face saving is finding the later charge and getting a 10/2 verdict on it.
let's face it, they have probably wasted well in excess of £1M of OUR MONEY on this witch hunt, and to what end? he's hardly a master criminal or sex offender, he's hardly a risk to the general public, they are not going to send him down for this are they?
I mean, what exactly is the point?
Scuffers said:
yes.
the idea that it's right to basically play fast and loose with public money on a witch hunt is just wrong on several levels.
and yes, the fact that at 2 attempts, they failed to get a guilty verdict on the original charges pretty much says they were bogus, this is TWO sets of Jurors, not just a one off fluke.
their only face saving is finding the later charge and getting a 10/2 verdict on it.
let's face it, they have probably wasted well in excess of £1M of OUR MONEY on this witch hunt, and to what end? he's hardly a master criminal or sex offender, he's hardly a risk to the general public, they are not going to send him down for this are they?
I mean, what exactly is the point?
The point, I suppose, is that criminals should be prosecuted.the idea that it's right to basically play fast and loose with public money on a witch hunt is just wrong on several levels.
and yes, the fact that at 2 attempts, they failed to get a guilty verdict on the original charges pretty much says they were bogus, this is TWO sets of Jurors, not just a one off fluke.
their only face saving is finding the later charge and getting a 10/2 verdict on it.
let's face it, they have probably wasted well in excess of £1M of OUR MONEY on this witch hunt, and to what end? he's hardly a master criminal or sex offender, he's hardly a risk to the general public, they are not going to send him down for this are they?
I mean, what exactly is the point?
I'm struggling to see how you make the leap from an acquittal to the conclusion that the charge is "bogus". Is it not possible that a charge can be legitimate, in the sense that it is supported by evidence, that, on a balance of probabilities, is sufficient to secure a conviction, but that nevertheless the defendant is acquitted?
If if were not, would that not mean that only charges that were certain to result in a conviction could legitimately be brought?
SamHH said:
The point, I suppose, is that criminals should be prosecuted.
I'm struggling to see how you make the leap from an acquittal to the conclusion that the charge is "bogus". Is it not possible that a charge can be legitimate, in the sense that it is supported by evidence, that, on a balance of probabilities, is sufficient to secure a conviction, but that nevertheless the defendant is acquitted?
If if were not, would that not mean that only charges that were certain to result in a conviction could legitimately be brought?
I was under the impression that the CPS's guidelines were only to proceed to trial with cases that had a realistic chance of conviction?I'm struggling to see how you make the leap from an acquittal to the conclusion that the charge is "bogus". Is it not possible that a charge can be legitimate, in the sense that it is supported by evidence, that, on a balance of probabilities, is sufficient to secure a conviction, but that nevertheless the defendant is acquitted?
If if were not, would that not mean that only charges that were certain to result in a conviction could legitimately be brought?
(if they went to trial on every charge made, that would be ridiculous)
let's face it, had this been joe bloggs, it would never have seen a court would it?
and yes an aquittal is not 100%, but I would argue 2 separate trials leading to acquittals says something about the lack of case to answer don't you think?
as I said before, hardly the crime of the century is it? worse things happen on the rush hour tube every day (if it actually happened at all?)
I guess he is now a sex offender and will be treated as if he is some serial rapist?
is that justice?
BoRED S2upid said:
I've not been following this too closely but what exactly is the punishment for groping boobs?
Prison is a possibility, but he will probably get community service.I must say that this prosecution should not have taken place. He has been singled out simply because of his celebrity status.
Scuffers said:
I was under the impression that the CPS's guidelines were only to proceed to trial with cases that had a realistic chance of conviction?
Yes. But why do you think that there was not a realistic chance in this case? The mere fact that he was acquitted cannot be enough on its own.Scuffers said:
let's face it, had this been joe bloggs, it would never have seen a court would it?
I've no idea. But if you're correct, shouldn't we be unhappy that a criminal would not have been brought to account, rather than commiserating the fact that this criminal has been convicted?Scuffers said:
I guess he is now a sex offender
Yes, he's been convicted of a sex crime.Scuffers said:
and will be treated as if he is some serial rapist?
No, of course not.Scuffers said:
is that justice?
Do a crime, get tried in the usual way with all the usual protections, get convicted.That seems quite just to me.
SamHH said:
Scuffers said:
I was under the impression that the CPS's guidelines were only to proceed to trial with cases that had a realistic chance of conviction?
Yes. But why do you think that there was not a realistic chance in this case? The mere fact that he was acquitted cannot be enough on its own.Scuffers said:
let's face it, had this been joe bloggs, it would never have seen a court would it?
I've no idea. But if you're correct, shouldn't we be unhappy that a criminal would not have been brought to account, rather than commiserating the fact that this criminal has been convicted?Scuffers said:
I guess he is now a sex offender
Yes, he's been convicted of a sex crime.Scuffers said:
and will be treated as if he is some serial rapist?
No, of course not.Scuffers said:
is that justice?
Do a crime, get tried in the usual way with all the usual protections, get convicted.That seems quite just to me.
This whole thing has, clearly, been a farcical waste of taxpayers money. No one, outside of the legal 'profession', has or will gain anything from it.
SamHH do you think that any further mention of DLT from this point onwards will be prefaced with "Convicted Sex Offender DLT" or "DLT, who in 2014 was convicted of deliberately brushing his hand across a woman's clothed chest at some point 19 years previously..."
Which is likely to make you feel repulsed and imagine all sorts of deviant wrongness and which is highly likely to make almost every man who has set foot in a tube train or night club think "there but for the grace of God go I..."
Let us also put this into the context of the Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris trials and the Saville (sp?) issues. Is it right and just that DLT should be put in the same group?
I have no problem with criminals doing the time for their crime. I do have an issue with, to put it into PH speak, someone being done for 105 on the M5 at 2am in the dry being treated by society after they have done their time, in the same way as a chap who has just mown down 15 school kids standing at a bus stop outside a School on a wet October afternoon in a car that was travelling at 40 mph. I think that most of us understand and can see that this is what will effectively happen to DLT.
Which is likely to make you feel repulsed and imagine all sorts of deviant wrongness and which is highly likely to make almost every man who has set foot in a tube train or night club think "there but for the grace of God go I..."
Let us also put this into the context of the Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris trials and the Saville (sp?) issues. Is it right and just that DLT should be put in the same group?
I have no problem with criminals doing the time for their crime. I do have an issue with, to put it into PH speak, someone being done for 105 on the M5 at 2am in the dry being treated by society after they have done their time, in the same way as a chap who has just mown down 15 school kids standing at a bus stop outside a School on a wet October afternoon in a car that was travelling at 40 mph. I think that most of us understand and can see that this is what will effectively happen to DLT.
Edited by Rude-boy on Tuesday 23 September 17:07
REALIST123 said:
This whole thing has, clearly, been a farcical waste of taxpayers money. No one, outside of the legal 'profession', has or will gain anything from it.
That old chestnut.No, I think you will find that the legal profession will cop it just as much as the rest of those involved. As I see it the only person who will have benefited from all of this was the poor lady DLT assaulted having finally seen her attacker convicted of the offence that left her so deeply traumatised for so many years that it is only just now that she has felt able to come forwards about it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff