Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
Perhaps people are reading too much into standard CPS wording.
'Insufficient evidence' is wording usually used if a matter is discontinued pre-charge due to wording of the first test being, 'sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction'.
'No case to answer', is wording usually used post-charge e.g. a successful 'half-time' submission or other discontinuation.
If there's 'no evidence', then the CPS shouldn't / won't even have the matter as it'll be filtered out by the police.
'Insufficient evidence' is wording usually used if a matter is discontinued pre-charge due to wording of the first test being, 'sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction'.
'No case to answer', is wording usually used post-charge e.g. a successful 'half-time' submission or other discontinuation.
snuffy said:
The CPS make my piss boil when they always say "insufficient evidence to prosecute".
What they mean is there is no evidence because he's not done anything but they will under no circumstances admit to that fact.
No, they mean there's insufficient evidence. They're not trying to 'prove innocence' - that's exists by default - they're looking to prove guilt. What they mean is there is no evidence because he's not done anything but they will under no circumstances admit to that fact.
If there's 'no evidence', then the CPS shouldn't / won't even have the matter as it'll be filtered out by the police.
Forget for a moment that you don't like CR's music or politics etc.
This is about unaccountable and anonymous powers destroying someone's life.
Was it a conspiracy? Was it incompetence? Was it some other element of corruption?
Who knows?
All I know is having the national state broadcaster televise a raid on your house when you are out of the country and citing the alleged reasons for the raid when you haven't been charged with a crime is not far removed from the actions of a police state.
Never mind "lessons have been learned". Heads need to roll Hillsborough-style.
This is about unaccountable and anonymous powers destroying someone's life.
Was it a conspiracy? Was it incompetence? Was it some other element of corruption?
Who knows?
All I know is having the national state broadcaster televise a raid on your house when you are out of the country and citing the alleged reasons for the raid when you haven't been charged with a crime is not far removed from the actions of a police state.
Never mind "lessons have been learned". Heads need to roll Hillsborough-style.
La Liga said:
o, they mean there's insufficient evidence. They're not trying to 'prove innocence' - that's exists by default - they're looking to prove guilt.
If there's 'no evidence', then the CPS shouldn't / won't even have the matter as it'll be filtered out by the police.
1. They are far from thick. They are fully aware of what words mean and they are aware that the public take the real world meaning of words rather than the rarified world of court-room argument. If the default really is 'innocent', what's wrong with saying so? The phrase 'insufficient evidence' may be the practice, but it needs changing to the default of 'innocent'. Everywhere else the word 'insufficient' means not quite enough.If there's 'no evidence', then the CPS shouldn't / won't even have the matter as it'll be filtered out by the police.
2. Do you really believe that happens?
audidoody said:
Forget for a moment that you don't like CR's music or politics etc.
This is about unaccountable and anonymous powers destroying someone's life.
Was it a conspiracy? Was it incompetence? Was it some other element of corruption?
Who knows?
All I know is having the national state broadcaster televise a raid on your house when you are out of the country and citing the alleged reasons for the raid when you haven't been charged with a crime is not far removed from the actions of a police state.
Never mind "lessons have been learned". Heads need to roll Hillsborough-style.
I absolutely agree with the televised issue, there needs to be an investigation about that. and thinking back to that poor chap from Brisol whose tenant was murdered, the papers outed him as prime suspect only for him to be absolutely innocent.This is about unaccountable and anonymous powers destroying someone's life.
Was it a conspiracy? Was it incompetence? Was it some other element of corruption?
Who knows?
All I know is having the national state broadcaster televise a raid on your house when you are out of the country and citing the alleged reasons for the raid when you haven't been charged with a crime is not far removed from the actions of a police state.
Never mind "lessons have been learned". Heads need to roll Hillsborough-style.
We have reached a gutter level when it comes to reporting, even the BBC now resorts to clickbait headlines.
snuffy said:
The CPS make my piss boil when they always say "insufficient evidence to prosecute".
What they mean is there is no evidence because he's not done anything but they will under no circumstances admit to that fact.
No, I think what they mean is that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute.What they mean is there is no evidence because he's not done anything but they will under no circumstances admit to that fact.
HTH
So back to the debate of whether men should be publicly named after an accusation of rape is made about them.
People who have had, what turned out later to be false, accusations made against them, have lost their jobs, their career, I understand that by making it public more people might come forward, - the pros of this do not weight out the cons of ruining someone's life, - just in case.
If the CPS need to make it less intimidating, or whatever else, to encourage more people/victims to come forward, - than do that... - but immediately naming and shaming an accused rapist from nothing more than hearsay, I think is wrong.
People who have had, what turned out later to be false, accusations made against them, have lost their jobs, their career, I understand that by making it public more people might come forward, - the pros of this do not weight out the cons of ruining someone's life, - just in case.
If the CPS need to make it less intimidating, or whatever else, to encourage more people/victims to come forward, - than do that... - but immediately naming and shaming an accused rapist from nothing more than hearsay, I think is wrong.
Fastpedeller said:
La Liga said:
they're looking to prove guilt.
Shouldn't they be looking to find the truth? Or are they looking to pin something on someone? After all this is South Yorkshire Police.The job of the police is to establish truth and fact.
The CPS's job is to present a case against a person accused of a crime, attempting to prove the matter beyond reasonable doubt AKA to prove guilt.
The defence's job is to defend that case and cast reasonable doubt.
Thorodin said:
La Liga said:
o, they mean there's insufficient evidence. They're not trying to 'prove innocence' - that's exists by default - they're looking to prove guilt.
If there's 'no evidence', then the CPS shouldn't / won't even have the matter as it'll be filtered out by the police.
1. They are far from thick. They are fully aware of what words mean and they are aware that the public take the real world meaning of words rather than the rarified world of court-room argument. If the default really is 'innocent', what's wrong with saying so? The phrase 'insufficient evidence' may be the practice, but it needs changing to the default of 'innocent'. Everywhere else the word 'insufficient' means not quite enough.If there's 'no evidence', then the CPS shouldn't / won't even have the matter as it'll be filtered out by the police.
2. Do you really believe that happens?
2) It happens every day day. The CPS would be somewhat overwhelmed if the police sent everything (the the CPS would decide upon) to them to discontinue.
Username888 said:
So back to the debate of whether men should be publicly named after an accusation of rape is made about them.
People who have had, what turned out later to be false, accusations made against them, have lost their jobs, their career, I understand that by making it public more people might come forward, - the pros of this do not weight out the cons of ruining someone's life, - just in case.
If the CPS need to make it less intimidating, or whatever else, to encourage more people/victims to come forward, - than do that... - but immediately naming and shaming an accused rapist from nothing more than hearsay, I think is wrong.
Or the other way is to make it better known these are merely allegations, most people will suffer an allegation against them of one sort or another during their life time, and it's nothing to lose your job over.People who have had, what turned out later to be false, accusations made against them, have lost their jobs, their career, I understand that by making it public more people might come forward, - the pros of this do not weight out the cons of ruining someone's life, - just in case.
If the CPS need to make it less intimidating, or whatever else, to encourage more people/victims to come forward, - than do that... - but immediately naming and shaming an accused rapist from nothing more than hearsay, I think is wrong.
Presumed innocent unless found guilty.
La Liga said:
We have seen more people come forward with the 'celebrity' investigations given the high-profile nature, which has resulted in more convictions.
However, given the stigma attached to people under investigation, I'd support anonymity until conviction.
Agree with that. The publicity can come after charges and naming.However, given the stigma attached to people under investigation, I'd support anonymity until conviction.
I'd like to know who decided live TV was an appropriate vehicle to fail to arrest an innocent suspect.
eldar said:
La Liga said:
We have seen more people come forward with the 'celebrity' investigations given the high-profile nature, which has resulted in more convictions.
However, given the stigma attached to people under investigation, I'd support anonymity until conviction.
Agree with that. The publicity can come after charges and naming.However, given the stigma attached to people under investigation, I'd support anonymity until conviction.
I'd like to know who decided live TV was an appropriate vehicle to fail to arrest an innocent suspect.
Having said that it wasn't very pleasant viewing, and the apparent relish with which it was reported was rather out of order.
I would like to think that he would start legal proceedings of some discription against the Beeb and The Yorkshire Police but I doubt. He's not a spring chicken anymore and it would probably be pointless.
However an hour long interview with ITV running through the process of what happened will probably happen.
However an hour long interview with ITV running through the process of what happened will probably happen.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff