Dj Dr fox arrested
Discussion
saaby93 said:
MarshPhantom said:
Fox had hardly been exonerated
Of course he's been exonerated or whatever you call it 
- thats the whole pint of the legal system
The case has been judged so everyone can move on
unrepentant said:
saaby93 said:
MarshPhantom said:
Fox had hardly been exonerated
Of course he's been exonerated or whatever you call it - thats the whole pint of the legal system
The case has been judged so everyone can move on
Scuffers said:
how nice of you to say so!
When you completely make things up like "the police and CPS were under political pressure / they had stuff all evidence", and present it as if it's true / factual, that what else can someone else conclude? You frequently litter these threads, presenting improbable excuses when someone's guilty (like DLT) or found NG. The CPS are 'witch hunting', the victims want 'compo', the victims are lying, the police / CPS are under political pressure etc etc. Perhaps this is a product of your beliefs which don't actually recognise behaviour as sexual offending / don't think the behaviour is wrong.
Scuffers said:
look, you can go on all you like with your hight and mighty attitude, simple facts are they had no hard evidence.
There you go with that "facts" word again and a lack of using it correctly. The facts are they had sufficient "hard evidence" to satisfy the threshold for a charge which requires there to be a realistic prospect of conviction, not a guarantee of one. Scuffers said:
they spent enough time and effort, that if there had been solid evidence, he would have not been acquitted.
Are you suggesting there can only be solid evidence if someone is convicted? They had sufficient 'solid evidence' to justify a charge and for the matter to be judged by those in the justice system whose job it is to judge guilt or not. This isn't the CPS's job. Scuffers said:
you obviously think you know better? well? what evidence tells you he was guilty of exactly what?
Where did I say he was guilty of anything? This story from todays local rag seems appropriate for this topic seeing as people were talking about anonymity
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/he-se...
No doubt the Wrong'un Defence Force will argue he's been stitched up.
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/he-se...
No doubt the Wrong'un Defence Force will argue he's been stitched up.
Scuffers said:
LOL!
you do make me laugh, all bluff and bluster but stuff all actual substance.
Really? no political pressure? Yea, right.
You may live in a simplistic world where you're willing to accept the first, made-up, speculative thing that comes into your head, but the reality of the world isn't like that. you do make me laugh, all bluff and bluster but stuff all actual substance.
Really? no political pressure? Yea, right.
If you can't comprehend the process and how things work then there's little I can do to help. If you believe the usual, established ways of working failed then the burden falls upon you to prove it. I see nothing here that is out of the norm. Multiple complaints resulted in a charge and the court decided it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Scuffers said:
Really? no political pressure? Yea, right.
Is that what you mean by "substance"? unrepentant said:
Jimboka said:
unrepentant said:
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.
I hope you have deep pockets. I reckon he'll be coming after people who make such slurs .. McAlpine style
BBC said:
The court had also heard from a woman who was 14 when Mr Fox allegedly kissed her and slid his hand up her skirt at a motor show in Bromley, south-east London, in July 1991.
BBC said:
Six women had made allegations, and one claimed she was 14 when Mr Fox took her to an underground car park at Capital Radio in Euston, central London, and kissed her.
BBC said:
One of the women alleged that Mr Fox had regularly touched her bottom, while another said he had approached her from behind and kissed her bare shoulders.
Sounds like a right charmer doesn't he.my observations
DLT, the CPS threw money at barristers till DLT ran out of cash to properly defend him self, or would have continued to throw cash at barristers till they won something, or a judge stopped them.
Gambaccini, wheeled him out as the poster boy to extend his bail every time Yewtree was in the news.
And then pretty much admitting they had nothing after 10 months.
Probably a huge behind the scenes telling off occured.
Fox, dealt with quicker as they had been told off about Gambaccini, well no, it was sept last year :/
They are trying to make up for nearly 40 years of looking the other way, but looked away so long they lost track of who the real scumbags where.
DLT, the CPS threw money at barristers till DLT ran out of cash to properly defend him self, or would have continued to throw cash at barristers till they won something, or a judge stopped them.
Gambaccini, wheeled him out as the poster boy to extend his bail every time Yewtree was in the news.
And then pretty much admitting they had nothing after 10 months.
Probably a huge behind the scenes telling off occured.
Fox, dealt with quicker as they had been told off about Gambaccini, well no, it was sept last year :/
They are trying to make up for nearly 40 years of looking the other way, but looked away so long they lost track of who the real scumbags where.
Edited by cirian75 on Tuesday 15th December 15:26
Du1point8 said:
unrepentant said:
saaby93 said:
MarshPhantom said:
Fox had hardly been exonerated
Of course he's been exonerated or whatever you call it - thats the whole pint of the legal system
The case has been judged so everyone can move on
cirian75 said:
my observations
DLT, the CPS threw money at barristers till DLT ran out of cash to properly defend him self, or would have continued to throw cash at barristers till they won something, or a judge stopped them.
Gambaccini, wheeled him out as the poster boy to extend his bail every time Yewtree was in the news.
And then pretty much admitting they had nothing after 10 months.
Probably a huge behind the scenes telling off occured.
Fox, dealt with quicker as they had been told off about Gambaccini.
They are trying to make up for nearly 40 years of looking the other way, but looked away so long they lost track of who the real scumbags where.
that can;t be right, La-Liga said so!DLT, the CPS threw money at barristers till DLT ran out of cash to properly defend him self, or would have continued to throw cash at barristers till they won something, or a judge stopped them.
Gambaccini, wheeled him out as the poster boy to extend his bail every time Yewtree was in the news.
And then pretty much admitting they had nothing after 10 months.
Probably a huge behind the scenes telling off occured.
Fox, dealt with quicker as they had been told off about Gambaccini.
They are trying to make up for nearly 40 years of looking the other way, but looked away so long they lost track of who the real scumbags where.
unrepentant said:
Jimboka said:
unrepentant said:
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.
I hope you have deep pockets. I reckon he'll be coming after people who make such slurs .. McAlpine styleBBC said:
The court had also heard from a woman who was 14 when Mr Fox allegedly kissed her and slid his hand up her skirt at a motor show in Bromley, south-east London, in July 1991.
BBC said:
Six women had made allegations, and one claimed she was 14 when Mr Fox took her to an underground car park at Capital Radio in Euston, central London, and kissed her.
BBC said:
One of the women alleged that Mr Fox had regularly touched her bottom, while another said he had approached her from behind and kissed her bare shoulders.
Sounds like a right charmer doesn't he.unrepentant said:
Du1point8 said:
unrepentant said:
saaby93 said:
MarshPhantom said:
Fox had hardly been exonerated
Of course he's been exonerated or whatever you call it - thats the whole pint of the legal system
The case has been judged so everyone can move on
I usually agree with a lot you say Liga but you are off for me on this one. You aren't considering the human impact at all and I think the accused has rights too. Innocent till proven guilty etc. And if you think there is no political pressure then that is baffling - they actively target DJ's and Soap Stars and the cases come crashing down - after destroying their lives first with rumour and allegation.
Prosecution and criminal law is all about proving allegations (sorry - granny suck/eggs moment there). Allegations are easily made but (as we see) harder to prove. Then add a 25 year gap before an allegation gets made. I also think that it is about degrees - something that was a bit off 25 years ago might be extremely unacceptable these days...but was it really that criminal (obviously 'yes' if underage). Morals, manners, values and society change over time but is it wise to go chasing the past in all cases of 'tried it on before I said no' moments? I don't know, and I suspect attitudes will be split, but failed high profile prosecutions one after another suggests a re-think, a time limit and some greater privacy until proven guilty may well be in order. This was a total f up after all wasn't it and no good came of it for absolutely anyone.
Prosecution and criminal law is all about proving allegations (sorry - granny suck/eggs moment there). Allegations are easily made but (as we see) harder to prove. Then add a 25 year gap before an allegation gets made. I also think that it is about degrees - something that was a bit off 25 years ago might be extremely unacceptable these days...but was it really that criminal (obviously 'yes' if underage). Morals, manners, values and society change over time but is it wise to go chasing the past in all cases of 'tried it on before I said no' moments? I don't know, and I suspect attitudes will be split, but failed high profile prosecutions one after another suggests a re-think, a time limit and some greater privacy until proven guilty may well be in order. This was a total f up after all wasn't it and no good came of it for absolutely anyone.
From the beginning there has been the contentious issue of publicity, exposing the accused to career damage and vilification, followed by irreparable damage to reputation in an industry that is always awash with ultimate face-fitting career advancement. Of course the accuser (or if you like supposed victim) remains anonymous. Whatever justification is dreamed up it's patently wrong headed and can never justify merely an anonymous accusation.
I maintain the reason for the blatant police-led publicity in these cases is entirely because the circumstantial evidence is either conspicuous by its absence or, possibly and, it is hoped further claimants will surface and corroborative evidence might just ensue that would improve chances of a guilty verdict. This is downright outrageous! It smacks of manipulation by protected slander with alleged victims being given more credence than, at that stage, innocent people. Stinks to the rafters and is anything but 'just'. It's not about 'getting away' with anything, it's about evidence based prosecution rather than guesswork. Of course, if you have money and position it is nowhere nearly so vital, there are so many rat-holes to escape down the very ground trembles.
I maintain the reason for the blatant police-led publicity in these cases is entirely because the circumstantial evidence is either conspicuous by its absence or, possibly and, it is hoped further claimants will surface and corroborative evidence might just ensue that would improve chances of a guilty verdict. This is downright outrageous! It smacks of manipulation by protected slander with alleged victims being given more credence than, at that stage, innocent people. Stinks to the rafters and is anything but 'just'. It's not about 'getting away' with anything, it's about evidence based prosecution rather than guesswork. Of course, if you have money and position it is nowhere nearly so vital, there are so many rat-holes to escape down the very ground trembles.
So what evidence would be acceptable to you for the CPS to pursue a case?
When you read some of these posts in these type of threads it's like some of you seem to think that rapists and sex offenders should videotape their crimes and leave semen all over everything so the police can have a watertight case. Unfortunately that's not how things work though, is it?
Again, some of you may want to read this:
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/he-se...
When you read some of these posts in these type of threads it's like some of you seem to think that rapists and sex offenders should videotape their crimes and leave semen all over everything so the police can have a watertight case. Unfortunately that's not how things work though, is it?
Again, some of you may want to read this:
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/he-se...
Article said:
She lived with the impact of the assault for two years until reading he was on trial, for raping a 20-year-old girl in Blackpool in January 2014.
She then bravely came forward to support the other woman.
She then bravely came forward to support the other woman.
cirian75 said:
DLT, the CPS threw money at barristers till DLT ran out of cash to properly defend him self, or would have continued to throw cash at barristers till they won something, or a judge stopped them.
Is this type of misconception, and frankly, made-up casual speculation which prevents people from understanding how things work. You present it as if it's an atypical occurrence. The reality is the result of the first DLT trial presumes there will be a retrial. That's the CPS policy and is applied consistently. It's nothing to do with "until the won something".
Read the first line: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/retrials/#a02
cirian75 said:
They are trying to make up for nearly 40 years of looking the other way, but looked away so long they lost track of who the real scumbags where.
The conviction rate is higher than regular like offences. People have the confidence to come forward after being used to and subject to a system that wouldn't listen to them previously. We've seen similar with domestic abuse reporting. Lots more gets reported these days due to victims having the confidence in order to do so.
Ken Figenus said:
I usually agree with a lot you say Liga but you are off for me on this one. You aren't considering the human impact at all and I think the accused has rights too. Innocent till proven guilty etc. And if you think there is no political pressure then that is baffling - they actively target DJ's and Soap Stars and the cases come crashing down - after destroying their lives first with rumour and allegation.
I think that's slightly arse about face. The victims are coming to the police. It's not a pro-active targeted activity. There's an element of publicity finding similar victims but that's the nature of serial offending (which nearly all of these are), which these often are, but that's something which has pros and cons. Ken Figenus said:
Prosecution and criminal law is all about proving allegations (sorry - granny suck/eggs moment there). Allegations are easily made but (as we see) harder to prove. Then add a 25 year gap before an allegation gets made. I also think that it is about degrees - something that was a bit off 25 years ago might be extremely unacceptable these days...but was it really that criminal (obviously 'yes' if underage). Morals, manners, values and society change over time but is it wise to go chasing the past in all cases of 'tried it on before I said no' moments? I don't know, and I suspect attitudes will be split, but failed high profile prosecutions one after another suggests a re-think, a time limit and some greater privacy until proven guilty may well be in order. This was a total f up after all wasn't it and no good came of it for absolutely anyone.
You raise some good points and all of which will need to be, and I expect, are, considered prior to charges being authorised. Some of the behaviour that has been alleged was no doubt acceptable in the past. Historical allegations are hard work for the lack of any forensic and more objective corroborative evidence. Equally these victims haven't had 'a voice' as they've never had a system which will listen to them.
The CPS can't put any old job to court or the defence can have it binned. Judges make short work of poor prosecutions. These people have cases to answer, either for the laws we have now or the laws at the time (helping to provide some context as to the standards of the day).
As I said above, the conviction rate of Yewtree is strong, and very strong for historical matters.
Thorodin said:
I maintain the reason for the blatant police-led publicity in these cases is entirely because the circumstantial evidence is either conspicuous by its absence or, possibly and, it is hoped further claimants will surface and corroborative evidence might just ensue that would improve chances of a guilty verdict. This is downright outrageous! It smacks of manipulation by protected slander with alleged victims being given more credence than, at that stage, innocent people. Stinks to the rafters and is anything but 'just'. It's not about 'getting away' with anything, it's about evidence based prosecution rather than guesswork. Of course, if you have money and position it is nowhere nearly so vital, there are so many rat-holes to escape down the very ground trembles.
There are pros and cons to any approach to find victims for serial offenders. The regular MO for these people is that they offended against different people in different locations at different times. All of whom were often offended against at times when they had no system to turn to. Where people have come unstuck is where multiple independent people are describing specific MOs. That is powerful corroboration and also helps filter out the occasional nutter.
Regardless of what evidence is gathered, if it doesn't create a case where there's a realistic prospect of conviction, then it won't be tried. We've seen several people have no further action taken against them because this threshold hasn't been met.
La Liga said:
cirian75 said:
DLT, the CPS threw money at barristers till DLT ran out of cash to properly defend him self, or would have continued to throw cash at barristers till they won something, or a judge stopped them.
Is this type of misconception, and frankly, made-up casual speculation which prevents people from understanding how things work. You present it as if it's an atypical occurrence. The reality is the result of the first DLT trial presumes there will be a retrial. That's the CPS policy and is applied consistently. It's nothing to do with "until the won something".
Read the first line: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/retrials/#a02
what they eventually got him on what quite frankly, pathetic, the the 'victim' had already been making hay out of it on her own 'shows'.
can you honestly stand there and say you think it was 100% right and proper what was done?
If you can, then god help you if anybody took and interest in destroying your life for public expediency.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff