Dj Dr fox arrested
Discussion
La Liga said:
Why would he be able to sue someone who made the decisions because he was found NG? An understanding of the process may help to realise that's not really going to be possible.
Because that person has ruined his life and the legal system does provide an automatic mechanism to recover all of his costs and lost and future earnings. SydneyBridge said:
someone or more than one person must have committed perjury in Court, so they deserve to be charged.
Not true. No one "must" have done so at all. Adrian W said:
Because that person has ruined his life and the legal system does provide an automatic mechanism to recover all of his costs and lost and future earnings.
Ok, so everyone who is charged but found 'not guilty' gets to sue the person who made the decision. Is that what you and others are proposing? La Liga said:
SydneyBridge said:
someone or more than one person must have committed perjury in Court, so they deserve to be charged.
Not true. No one "must" have done so at all. Adrian W said:
Because that person has ruined his life and the legal system does provide an automatic mechanism to recover all of his costs and lost and future earnings.
Ok, so everyone who is charged but found 'not guilty' gets to sue the person who made the decision. Is that what you and others are proposing? BBC said:
Westminster magistrates said the victims were believable but that the bench "could not be sure that in the context it was a criminal offence".
Hardly a vindication is it. One of the girls whose evidence was believed by the magistrates was 14 at the time. The guy's clearly a serial sleaze bag.TTwiggy said:
La Liga said:
SydneyBridge said:
someone or more than one person must have committed perjury in Court, so they deserve to be charged.
Not true. No one "must" have done so at all. Adrian W said:
Because that person has ruined his life and the legal system does provide an automatic mechanism to recover all of his costs and lost and future earnings.
Ok, so everyone who is charged but found 'not guilty' gets to sue the person who made the decision. Is that what you and others are proposing?1) Don't charge = a cover-up / conspiracy BS.
2) Charge but NG = witch hunting.
3) Charged and guilty for relatively minor offences = an agenda / attack the evidence that they haven't seen.
La Liga said:
t's the PH 'double-think' that's so good around these high-profile sex offences. The CPS get pinned no matter what.
1) Don't charge = a cover-up / conspiracy BS.
2) Charge but NG = witch hunting.
3) Charged and guilty for relatively minor offences = an agenda / attack the evidence that they haven't seen.
don't think that's really the case.1) Don't charge = a cover-up / conspiracy BS.
2) Charge but NG = witch hunting.
3) Charged and guilty for relatively minor offences = an agenda / attack the evidence that they haven't seen.
Issue I see is in the context of the DLT fiasco, this is yet another total waste of public money used to destroy the reputation and lives of public figures for no good reason other than some warped sense of "doing something" after the farce of Savile.
unrepentant said:
BBC said:
Westminster magistrates said the victims were believable but that the bench "could not be sure that in the context it was a criminal offence".
Hardly a vindication is it. One of the girls whose evidence was believed by the magistrates was 14 at the time. The guy's clearly a serial sleaze bag.Scuffers said:
La Liga said:
t's the PH 'double-think' that's so good around these high-profile sex offences. The CPS get pinned no matter what.
1) Don't charge = a cover-up / conspiracy BS.
2) Charge but NG = witch hunting.
3) Charged and guilty for relatively minor offences = an agenda / attack the evidence that they haven't seen.
I don't think that's really the case.1) Don't charge = a cover-up / conspiracy BS.
2) Charge but NG = witch hunting.
3) Charged and guilty for relatively minor offences = an agenda / attack the evidence that they haven't seen.
Plus you've just demonstrated points 2 and 3.
Scuffers said:
this is yet another total waste of public money used to destroy the reputation and lives of public figures for no good reason other than some warped sense of "doing something" after the farce of Savile.
Presumably it was just coincidental there was sufficient evidence for a prosecution (and for the trial to continue - unless the judge is in on it too!) to go along with the CPS's motive of "doing something". On the news it said he admitted he indulged in horse play, ultimately the question before the mags was whether horse play was so illegal to be criminal.
How can or do you legislate for what could be said to be human behaviour?
The other issue was the time scale (25 years) between the alleged offences and whether this led to the implication that it was serial.
CPS is trying to find out where the line is. Where is it?
How can or do you legislate for what could be said to be human behaviour?
The other issue was the time scale (25 years) between the alleged offences and whether this led to the implication that it was serial.
CPS is trying to find out where the line is. Where is it?
audidoody said:
I worked in publishing in the 1980's. There but for the grace etc go I and thousands of other horny 20-something blokes working with thousands of other up-for-it women. It was a different and (I'd argue) happier time. Before PC.
Made a habit of feeling up 14 year old girls did you?SydneyBridge said:
someone or more than one person must have committed perjury in Court, so they deserve to be charged.
hope he is back on Magic but cannot see it happening, his reputation cannot be repaired
Craig Charles managed it, but if I remember it took quite some time, I suppose it's never truly forgotten.hope he is back on Magic but cannot see it happening, his reputation cannot be repaired
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff