Dj Dr fox arrested
Discussion
Scuffers said:
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?
You've got some cheek using the word evidence as after unrepentant mentioned evidence, actual evidence, brought up in court, and you posted:
Scuffers said:
If you believe a word of it....
And on the point of appearances:Ken Figenus said:
I am so relieved he was found not guilty - you couldn't imagine anyone less sleazy. Anyone who knew him was utterly gobsmacked by this allegation - particularly the girls from the team when we worked with him for years.
You can’t tell. People who commit such offences often have two styles of behaviour. Or more. They are one person to those they are not targeting and another to those they are. Many offenders pick on the vulnerable or those who cannot report them.
I’ve known the brother of a serial paedophile absolutely in denial first of all despite overwhelming evidence. I’ve worked alongside a fellow inspector who seemed genial enough who was nicked for indecent photographs of children. I’d known him for years. Not a sniff of anything similar. You just can’t tell.
Oakey said:
La Liga said:
That 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.Scuffers said:
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.I said it was rejected (read it again). Not lost. Rejected. Not lost. 'Rejected' is a strong synonym to 'refused', as opposed to 'lost', which is it not.
Your 'in other words' interpretation of the decision shows more ignorance to the system and processes. You could spend the energy learning about the subject matter you're keen to talk about. Although that takes some effort and isn't really conducive to the pub expert / bore / baseless opinion role you excel at.
Scuffers said:
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.
Of course it is. You know better than the jury. You keep telling yourself that. Poor DLT. He should be allowed to grope who he wants at work. If only it weren't for that meddling woman who didn't like having her tits grabbed. She should know her place.
Derek Smith said:
Ken Figenus said:
I am so relieved he was found not guilty - you couldn't imagine anyone less sleazy. Anyone who knew him was utterly gobsmacked by this allegation - particularly the girls from the team when we worked with him for years.
You can’t tell. People who commit such offences often have two styles of behaviour. Or more. They are one person to those they are not targeting and another to those they are.La Liga said:
You know better than the jury. You keep telling yourself that.
Oh c'mon Laliga you were doing the same thing yourself from the opposite perspectiveAs for bringing Hitler into it
Can't we side with the mags/jury/courts on all these?
The mags said here they didnt only have to decide the incidents happened but also whether they were criminal if 25 years ago or today and if a gap of 25 years could turn similar allegations into being serial.
You've read the judgement
Same for the DLT cases except the last that was said to have crossed into criminality and on assessment enough to earn a suspended sentence, but add the costs endured too.
Should there be a way of giving someone a hefty slap on the wrists if they're perceived to be going too far without going through the courts and without taking their house off them 25 years down the line? Is that preventative?
Who is going to set the scale and boundaries?
saaby93 said:
La Liga said:
You know better than the jury. You keep telling yourself that.
Oh c'mon Laliga you were doing the same thing yourself from the opposite perspectivesaaby93 said:
Can't we side with the mags/jury/courts on all these?
Of course. I have no reason to challenge any of their decisions regarding Yewtree. saaby93 said:
Should there be a way of giving someone a hefty slap on the wrists if they're perceived to be going too far without going through the courts and without taking their house off them 25 years down the line? Is that preventative?
Who is going to set the scale and boundaries?
Complex questions. Modern day work places, generally, can deal with low-level matters as gross misconduct and the victim may be satisfied if this is done so. Who is going to set the scale and boundaries?
Minor offences also have the option of a caution which is essentially a 'slap on the wrists'. This requires an admission though and is likely to be for a single offence.
La Liga said:
omplex questions. Modern day work places, generally, can deal with low-level matters as gross misconduct and the victim may be satisfied if this is done so.
Minor offences also have the option of a caution which is essentially a 'slap on the wrists'. This requires an admission though and is likely to be for a single offence.
To save going through the courts and the costs some may accept the caution guilty or not. Do you need a mechanism to undo those?Minor offences also have the option of a caution which is essentially a 'slap on the wrists'. This requires an admission though and is likely to be for a single offence.
If they do take it further what about the cases where they aren't deemed offences? What to do about those?
And the elephant in the room, the alleged perpetrator who ends up being a victim?
(If possible setting aside the higher level cases outside those here.)
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 15th December 22:06
saaby93 said:
If they do take it further what about the cases where they aren't deemed offences? What to do about those?
I don't understand what you mean. If the cases aren't offences then there's no criminal matter to answer to. saaby93 said:
And the elephant in the room, the alleged perpetrator who ends up being a victim?
The elephant I've directly address several times. Ken Figenus said:
Hitler? Paedophiles? These are rare extremes about genocidal psychopaths and extreme despicable, probably mentally ill, sexual deviants. Lets keep things in perspective - this was about people that seemingly haven't even crossed a line even...
The Hitler example was used in the context of illustrating a point about human behaviour and thinking from a specific experiment about 'the Halo effect'. It wasn't 'intensity matching' or drawing comparisons with anyone who has been subject to this operation. Kahneman said:
“If we think a baseball pitcher is handsome and athletic, for example, we are likely to rate him better at throwing the ball too.” On the other hand, the effect can also be negative. “If we think a player is ugly, we will probably underrate his athletic ability.”
We can be greatly unsettled by inconsistencies that go against the grain of our human feelings: Kahneman quotes a disturbing example in his book: He says, “Hitler loved dogs and little children,” is shocking no matter how many times you hear it, because any trace of kindness in someone so evil violates the expectations set up by the halo effect.”
We can be greatly unsettled by inconsistencies that go against the grain of our human feelings: Kahneman quotes a disturbing example in his book: He says, “Hitler loved dogs and little children,” is shocking no matter how many times you hear it, because any trace of kindness in someone so evil violates the expectations set up by the halo effect.”
La Liga said:
saaby93 said:
If they do take it further what about the cases where they aren't deemed offences? What to do about those?
I don't understand what you mean. If the cases aren't offences then there's no criminal matter to answer to. La Liga said:
Kahneman said:
“If we think a baseball pitcher is handsome and athletic, for example, we are likely to rate him better at throwing the ball too.” On the other hand, the effect can also be negative. “If we think a player is ugly, we will probably underrate his athletic ability.”
We can be greatly unsettled by inconsistencies that go against the grain of our human feelings: Kahneman quotes a disturbing example in his book: He says, “Hitler loved dogs and little children,” is shocking no matter how many times you hear it, because any trace of kindness in someone so evil violates the expectations set up by the halo effect.”
We can be greatly unsettled by inconsistencies that go against the grain of our human feelings: Kahneman quotes a disturbing example in his book: He says, “Hitler loved dogs and little children,” is shocking no matter how many times you hear it, because any trace of kindness in someone so evil violates the expectations set up by the halo effect.”
but cant see what you're saying there - because celebrities are attractive theyre more susceptible to claims against them? or more likely to repudiate than let go when claims are made?I still think youre trying to make stuff up to make an argument
Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 16th December 00:45
saaby93 said:
They're the cases where rather than accept a caution the accused chooses to defend. Do they have to take it through the expense of the courts where it's deemed it's not an offence or do you have an alternative system? What redress would you offer?
What are you talking about? A caution cannot be offered unless there's sufficient evidence for a prosecution. If someone is offered a caution but refuses it, then they go to court then they face either being found guilty or not guilty. saaby93 said:
Youre still bringing Hitler into it but cant see what you're saying there - because celebrities are attractive theyre more susceptible to claims against them? or more likely to repudiate than let go when claims are made?
It's a pretty simple concept to understand. Go back and read it and the original post where I wrote about it. but cant see what you're saying there - because celebrities are attractive theyre more susceptible to claims against them? or more likely to repudiate than let go when claims are made?The chap who helped develop it uses Hitler to illustrate the point and enable the layman to understand the concept through a pretty much unambiguous example. That's if the person reading it has the brainpower to get past the word "Hitler" and realise the context and relevance, of course.
saaby93 said:
I still think youre trying to make stuff up to make an argument
Yet you're unable to be specific on what you think I am apparently making up. La Liga said:
saaby93 said:
They're the cases where rather than accept a caution the accused chooses to defend. Do they have to take it through the expense of the courts where it's deemed it's not an offence or do you have an alternative system? What redress would you offer?
What are you talking about? A caution cannot be offered unless there's sufficient evidence for a prosecution. If someone is offered a caution but refuses it, then they go to court then they face either being found guilty or not guilty. saaby93 said:
Youre still bringing Hitler into it but cant see what you're saying there - because celebrities are attractive theyre more susceptible to claims against them? or more likely to repudiate than let go when claims are made?
It's a pretty simple concept to understand. Go back and read it and the original post where I wrote about it. but cant see what you're saying there - because celebrities are attractive theyre more susceptible to claims against them? or more likely to repudiate than let go when claims are made?The chap who helped develop it uses Hitler to illustrate the point and enable the layman to understand the concept through a pretty much unambiguous example. That's if the person reading it has the brainpower to get past the word "Hitler" and realise the context and relevance, of course.
saaby93 said:
I still think youre trying to make stuff up to make an argument
Yet you're unable to be specific on what you think I am apparently making up. Your name and face are going to be all over the paper, there will be lots of talk around the tea table and playground as my allegation must be investigated.
I assume you don't have a problem with people *thinking* La Liga touches girls inappropriately?
La Liga said:
saaby93 said:
They're the cases where rather than accept a caution the accused chooses to defend. Do they have to take it through the expense of the courts where it's deemed it's not an offence or do you have an alternative system? What redress would you offer?
What are you talking about? A caution cannot be offered unless there's sufficient evidence for a prosecution. If someone is offered a caution but refuses it, then they go to court then they face either being found guilty or not guilty. It can be offered on little more than hearsay in the hope the accused accepts it rather than going through the courts, which of course they may do for an easy life.
If they go through the courts there's still a chance of it going the wrong way, so you have to weigh that up and how much money you have before deciding not to accept the caution.
Once you're there it goes through the courts and a year and a half later youre vindicated, what redress should there be? Or should there be s simpler system?
Maybe it would be good to learn more about the way the justice system works, rather than the works of Hitler
saaby93 said:
It can be offered on little more than hearsay in the hope the accused accepts it rather than going through the courts, which of course they may do for an easy life.
Well, no, because the accused wouldn't go through the courts if the evidence were not sufficient. saaby93 said:
If they go through the courts there's still a chance of it going the wrong way, so you have to weigh that up and how much money you have before deciding not to accept the caution.
No s
t. As with any discounted offer within the criminal justice system e.g. an FPN. Why are you talking about cautions? saaby93 said:
Once you're there it goes through the courts and a year and a half later youre vindicated, what redress should there be? Or should there be s simpler system?
Who cares what I think about appeals / conviction quashes? It has nothing really to do with the topic. Oakey said:
He's a police officer isn't he? I suspect he knows how it works
Not compared to these experts. Experience and direct knowledge is no match for making things up. Perhaps if they have enough attempts they'll get one thing correct. Shoot enough and you'll eventually score and all that. WinstonWolf said:
saaby93 said:
Oakey said:
He's a police officer isn't he? I suspect he knows how it works
That's what was beginning to worry me 
La Liga said:
saaby93 said:
It can be offered on little more than hearsay in the hope the accused accepts it rather than going through the courts, which of course they may do for an easy life.
Well, no, because the accused wouldn't go through the courts if the evidence were not sufficient. saaby93 said:
If they go through the courts there's still a chance of it going the wrong way, so you have to weigh that up and how much money you have before deciding not to accept the caution.
No st. As with any discounted offer within the criminal justice system e.g. an FPN. Why are you talking about cautions? saaby93 said:
Once you're there it goes through the courts and a year and a half later youre vindicated, what redress should there be? Or should there be s simpler system?
Who cares what I think about appeals / conviction quashes? It has nothing really to do with the topic. Oakey said:
He's a police officer isn't he? I suspect he knows how it works
Not compared to these experts. Experience and direct knowledge is no match for making things up. Perhaps if they have enough attempts they'll get one thing correct. Shoot enough and you'll eventually score and all that. WinstonWolf said:
saaby93 said:
Oakey said:
He's a police officer isn't he? I suspect he knows how it works
That's what was beginning to worry me How would you personally feel if your name was spread across the papers?
There is nothing wrong with further prosecutions once someone has been found guilty, until that time we have a presumption of innocence in this country.
WinstonWolf said:
When you post something of greater substance than "Yeah, but 'e still dunit" I may.
Who have I posted that about? Do you mean I've said someone who was acquitted was in fact guilty and did it? If so, please be specific, if you're able to. WinstonWolf said:
How would you personally feel if your name was spread across the papers?
Who cares how I'd feel? I've already made my opinion known about how the accused should be treated in a sexual offence investigation / prosecution. It isn't too hard to draw inferences from that. WinstonWolf said:
There is nothing wrong with further prosecutions once someone has been found guilty, until that time we have a presumption of innocence in this country.
That doesn't make sense. Until what time? La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
When you post something of greater substance than "Yeah, but 'e still dunit" I may.
Who have I posted that about? Do you mean I've said someone who was acquitted was in fact guilty and did it? If so, please be specific, if you're able to. WinstonWolf said:
How would you personally feel if your name was spread across the papers?
Who cares how I'd feel? I've already made my opinion known about how the accused should be treated in a sexual offence investigation / prosecution. It isn't too hard to draw inferences from that. WinstonWolf said:
There is nothing wrong with further prosecutions once someone has been found guilty, until that time we have a presumption of innocence in this country.
That doesn't make sense. Until what time? Regardless of any guilt, your life will be significantly affected. The knowing looks, just the hint of suspicion that you actually did touch her. It will make your life considerably more difficult.
The time for fishing is after a guilty conviction, not before...
WinstonWolf said:
I care how *you* would feel. It's not someone else's picture in the local paper, it is *yours*. How will an accusation such as that affect relationships with friends and family and your ability to work?
You don't actually realise you're arguing against some theoretical position I am not taking. A straw man, if you will. I wouldn't want it reporting and I think there's a debate for legal reform to be had about pre-conviction sex offences to be reported about the accused. WinstonWolf said:
The time for fishing is after a guilty conviction, not before...
Unless there won't be a conviction without the corroboration, especially with historical matters. Like many, you like to think of this subject matter in black and white terms, when it's not as simplistic as that. La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
When you post something of greater substance than "Yeah, but 'e still dunit" I may.
Who have I posted that about? Do you mean I've said someone who was acquitted was in fact guilty and did it? If so, please be specific, if you're able to.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff