Dj Dr fox arrested
Discussion
Oakey said:
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?
No it isn't and its not how some of these posts are like either unless you're reading them through tinted specs.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?
What do you hope to gain by trying to rerun the trial?
As I said before the point of a justice system is to try to bring to an end ongoing witch hunts so if someones found guilty they are and if not theyre presumed innocent
What are you going to do keep bleating on until you convince yourself that innocent means maybe guilty, and guilty means maybe innocent forever and ever like a dog chasing its tail?
La Liga said:
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. La Liga said:
I'm not a sex offender like DLT so I need not worry about acquiring a conviction like that.
If you follow some of the reasoning here, you don't know you're not or a different kind (no-one does), so everyone needs to worry they might acquire one.At some point you have to trust the way the justice system works
La Liga said:
here 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.
Thanks for that. There's no need to 'find victims' to proceed under the transparency of publicity, the validity rots with the degree of false exposure. The accused is charged, or should be, on the evidence to hand. Hanging him out to dry is a 'con' too far in my view. And yes, I do question the historical method of justice, naughty of me I know, but I refuse to tug my forelock when faced with injustice! If, in my little world, he is found guilty then any other 'victims' would inevitably come forward. Until then he should be as anonymous as the accuser. "Evenhandedness"?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.
'We've seen several people have no further action taken against them because this threshold hasn't been met.'
Indeed we have, and entirely because of the point I'm making! And gone on to a miserable wretched existence all because of unfair treatment under the law and its manipulation.
Quanti habeus corpus?
You sound an honourable chap (forgive the gender guess) but you are bound to defend your standing and vocation. You might just take another view if you were named Fox/Webb(Richard)etc. You must have seen so many cases of asinine judgments based on flimsy charges - your fortitude is amazing!
Scuffers said:
it's clearly missed your notice, but what he was eventually convicted on was additional charges not present in the original trial, ie, they knew that they had little chance so threw a sled of additional stuff at the second trial with the hope something would stick.
It's irrelevant and doesn't void my point about why he was re-tried i.e. because it's standard policy not anything else as the person I was replying to suggested / stated. Why would they know they had "little chance" when they didn't have a majority verdict for a NG i.e. they'd convicted some beyond reasonable doubt? Do you think about what you write?
Charges? They added an additional charge for the retiral after an additional victim came forward (IIRC).
More made-up things; "hope something would stick", "threw a slid..." You have no idea whatsoever.
Scuffers said:
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'.
Or alternatively where it was found out that he behaved in manner where a jury would convict him. You may consider challenging a bloke at a work-place walking up to a female colleague and squeezing her breasts as "pathetic", I do not.
Scuffers said:
can you honestly stand there and say you think it was 100% right and proper what was done?
Yes, he shouldn't sexually assault colleagues. Scuffers said:
If you can, then god help you if anybody took and interest in destroying your life for public expediency.
I'm not a sex offender like DLT so I need not worry about acquiring a conviction like that. I also don't know any, not have met any police / CPS who a motivated by doing such things for "public expediency", so worry even less. Ken Figenus said:
La Liga said:
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. saaby93 said:
La Liga said:
I'm not a sex offender like DLT so I need not worry about acquiring a conviction like that.
If you follow some of the reasoning here, you don't know you're not or a different kind (no-one does), so everyone needs to worry they might acquire one.At some point you have to trust the way the justice system works
Yes, on here clear sexual offending gets confused with 'banter'.
saaby93 said:
La Liga said:
I'm not a sex offender like DLT so I need not worry about acquiring a conviction like that.
If you follow some of the reasoning here, you don't know you're not or a different kind (no-one does), so everyone needs to worry they might acquire one.At some point you have to trust the way the justice system works
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.TTwiggy said:
saaby93 said:
La Liga said:
I'm not a sex offender like DLT so I need not worry about acquiring a conviction like that.
If you follow some of the reasoning here, you don't know you're not or a different kind (no-one does), so everyone needs to worry they might acquire one.At some point you have to trust the way the justice system works
You might do it or something else, you might be ok or you may not, it depends entirely on circumstance.
It can take months to take you through the courts system to decide one way or another and you still get some people saying they know better.
ETA
How did this escalate - isn't that way beyond what was in the case?
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 15th December 16:35
La Liga said:
I'm not a sex offender like DLT so I need not worry about acquiring a conviction like that.
I'm sure if you asked him if he was a sex offender before all this crap, he would think the same.Maybe if the Police went on TV and asked for any 'victims' of your past would come forward (with the chance of a nice compo claim to bag) that would change your mind?
Scuffers said:
La Liga said:
I'm not a sex offender like DLT so I need not worry about acquiring a conviction like that.
I'm sure if you asked him if he was a sex offender before all this crap, he would think the same.It's not some lottery, it pretty much is entirely within a person's control...
Scuffers said:
Maybe if the Police went on TV and asked for any 'victims' of your past would come forward (with the chance of a nice compo claim to bag) that would change your mind?
I think I'd be rather unlucky to have 11 women from different work places over a 32 year period (very unlucky since I'd not be born!) who all wanted to pervert the course of justice for 'compo' and make allegations. Not to mention them being convincing enough actors and fraudsters to provide evidence sufficient for there to be charges brought and have their lies be missed by the investigators, CPS, defence, judge and jury. La Liga said:
think I'd be rather unlucky to have 11 women from different work places over a 32 year period (very unlucky since I'd not be born!) who all wanted to pervert the course of justice for 'compo' and make allegations. Not to mention them being convincing enough actors and fraudsters to provide evidence sufficient for there to be charges brought and have their lies be missed by the investigators, CPS, defence, judge and jury.
Is that what happened though?or are you saying something that didnt happen?
I cant tell whether youre making stuff up that didnt happen and arguing against it or that it did and you arent
saaby93 said:
La Liga said:
think I'd be rather unlucky to have 11 women from different work places over a 32 year period (very unlucky since I'd not be born!) who all wanted to pervert the course of justice for 'compo' and make allegations. Not to mention them being convincing enough actors and fraudsters to provide evidence sufficient for there to be charges brought and have their lies be missed by the investigators, CPS, defence, judge and jury.
Is that what happened though?or are you saying something that didnt happen?
The best part of that argument is they somehow, as independent people, conspire to describe the same behaviours as the other victims.
La Liga said:
hat was the prima facie for DLT. The bloke was clearly inappropriate at the work place with touching women.
so, the testimony of people who worked closely with him at the time must be liars then?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11092...
I really do wonder about you at times, I actually find I quite scary just how blinked and 'judge dread' like you seem to be....
If Fox was an anonymous member of the public and a number of women independently complained of similar illegal conduct, the police would have collated the statements and put the file to the CPS. Given the circumstances published, I would assume that the CPS would have been quite prepared to proceed.
There are a number of hoops the CPS has to jump through, such as, inter alia, having to have the case assessed by a judge, in such circumstances all to ensure that there is a realistic chance of prosecution.
The CPS has a high threshold of probability for a finding of guilt, some suggest the probability of a guilty plea.
This one went to trial. The defence could have suggested there was no case to answer at the start and the judge would have had to consider not even starting the case. At any time during the trial the judge can stop the case. After the prosecution evidence the defence could have suggested that the prosecution had not made out a case. However, this one went to the jury.
The prosecution can also withdraw a the case. What can happen at a big trial is that all the important stuff, especially that magic thing we call evidence, is challenged by the defence and if something is, in the opinion of the judge, likely to prejudice the jury, it is excluded. If it is something that renders a finding of guilt unlikely, the prosecution gives up.
So the choice would appear to be to be between:
1/ a conspiracy involving the police, the CPS, the magistrates, those in charge at the pre-trial hearings, the case judge and, remarkably, the defence,
2/ or not.
In a case such as this it is a matter of whether the jury believes the complainants or the accused.
What is sometimes a give-away is whether or not the accused sues. Evidence excluded from the trial is sometimes admissible in a civil court, and can be something the defendant doesn't want revealed.
The problem with trials, and the processes that go on before and during, is that unless you were intimate with the procedure of the specific case, and had seen the disclosure, it is impossible to come to a conclusion.
Any suggestion of the police, CPS, legal bods engaging in a witch hunt says much more about the poster than it ever could about the subjects of the accusations.
There are a number of hoops the CPS has to jump through, such as, inter alia, having to have the case assessed by a judge, in such circumstances all to ensure that there is a realistic chance of prosecution.
The CPS has a high threshold of probability for a finding of guilt, some suggest the probability of a guilty plea.
This one went to trial. The defence could have suggested there was no case to answer at the start and the judge would have had to consider not even starting the case. At any time during the trial the judge can stop the case. After the prosecution evidence the defence could have suggested that the prosecution had not made out a case. However, this one went to the jury.
The prosecution can also withdraw a the case. What can happen at a big trial is that all the important stuff, especially that magic thing we call evidence, is challenged by the defence and if something is, in the opinion of the judge, likely to prejudice the jury, it is excluded. If it is something that renders a finding of guilt unlikely, the prosecution gives up.
So the choice would appear to be to be between:
1/ a conspiracy involving the police, the CPS, the magistrates, those in charge at the pre-trial hearings, the case judge and, remarkably, the defence,
2/ or not.
In a case such as this it is a matter of whether the jury believes the complainants or the accused.
What is sometimes a give-away is whether or not the accused sues. Evidence excluded from the trial is sometimes admissible in a civil court, and can be something the defendant doesn't want revealed.
The problem with trials, and the processes that go on before and during, is that unless you were intimate with the procedure of the specific case, and had seen the disclosure, it is impossible to come to a conclusion.
Any suggestion of the police, CPS, legal bods engaging in a witch hunt says much more about the poster than it ever could about the subjects of the accusations.
Derek Smith said:
If Fox was an anonymous member of the public and a number of women independently complained of similar illegal conduct, the police would have collated the statements and put the file to the CPS. Given the circumstances published, I would assume that the CPS would have been quite prepared to proceed.
All very good, but now consider how the police, CPS, etc have/are dealing with Rochdale sex trafficking gang? (and consider there's good evidence that this is far from a one-off).Does that change your view?
saaby93 said:
I'm getting closer to thinking Laliga is making stuff up just to make an argument?
Such as? Scuffers said:
La Liga said:
hat was the prima facie for DLT. The bloke was clearly inappropriate at the work place with touching women.
so, the testimony of people who worked closely with him at the time must be liars then?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11092...
I really do wonder about you at times, I actually find I quite scary just how blinked and 'judge dread' like you seem to be....
La Liga said:
hat was he convicted for again? Or does a conviction (and rejected appeal) for him inappropriately touching women at the work place not amount to it being "clear" to you?
When they're not guilty they've been stitched up, when they're found guilty they've been stitched up. La Liga said:
hat was he convicted for again? Or does a conviction (and rejected appeal) for him inappropriately touching women at the work place not amount to it being "clear" to you?
he was denied leave to appeal, that's not the same as loosing an appeal is it?Lady Justice Hallett said:
"We are driven to the conclusion that there are no arguable grounds of appeal and accordingly the application for leave to appeal must be refused."
or, in other words, shut up and stop moaning, so what if your financially ruined, have your reputation in tatters etc. we got you.Look, get real, the whole conviction is so paper thin it's laughable, hell, the best they could do was a suspended sentence, just enough to deny him recourse for his looses.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff