What a huge waste of public money
Discussion
I still think the wrong end of the stick has been grasped by some.
By taking it to court the CPS has stopped any innuendo about whether the guy may or may not have done.
Without it going this far, there may have been endless stories in the newspapers about the allegation and never come to a close
By taking it to court the CPS has stopped any innuendo about whether the guy may or may not have done.
Without it going this far, there may have been endless stories in the newspapers about the allegation and never come to a close
saaby93 said:
I still think the wrong end of the stick has been grasped by some.
By taking it to court the CPS has stopped any innuendo about whether the guy may or may not have done.
Without it going this far, there may have been endless stories in the newspapers about the allegation and never come to a close
That's an interesting interpretation.By taking it to court the CPS has stopped any innuendo about whether the guy may or may not have done.
Without it going this far, there may have been endless stories in the newspapers about the allegation and never come to a close
If they'd dropped it as soon as they saw the CCTV and her story didn't even vaguely match no-one would have even heard of it. Putting someone through a sexual assault trial just publicises the whole thing.
Lucky for him the whole thing turns out to be so outlandish he should be saved the whole 'no smoke without fire' innuendo, so it's just the past 18 months of s
t he had to deal with. dandarez said:
Einion Yrth said:
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
I can now have 'fun' with SPAG mistakes.
No it shouldn't.Rovinghawk said:
What exactly is a 'fundamental tenant of English justice'? Dickens' Mr Bumble described the eye of the law as a bachelor but I've never heard justice described as a landlord.
I believe a singular noun requires an extra 's' even when it ends in an 's'. It should be, "Dickins's Mr Bumble". Put the shovel down.
Really need to know, you use the gospel, the bible, 'the' authoritative reference (well, it used to be once upon a time).
To be brutally honest, today, there are no (Hart's) rules, it's becoming a rarity to find someone who can string a sentence together properly, let alone argue right or wrong about a possessive case. In fact, like almost everything else these days, just about anything goes.
And it very usually does!
Back on topic.
La Liga said:
es, they thought they'd be cunning and alter the speed of time stamped CCTV. If it weren't for those pesky seconds constantly displayed on the images that the defense (who'd often send CCTV to an expert as standard) would spot it...
The police would prepare the CCTV, not the CPS. Who knows why it was slowed. Easier for interview? If the police didn't create a story board the CCTV was probably not that important to the prosecution. The prosecution apparently only used it to show he was there at the time, which I expect wasn't disputed in any event.
Go on then, oh great one. Explain....The police would prepare the CCTV, not the CPS. Who knows why it was slowed. Easier for interview? If the police didn't create a story board the CCTV was probably not that important to the prosecution. The prosecution apparently only used it to show he was there at the time, which I expect wasn't disputed in any event.
The Hypno-Toad said:
Who?
Anyway its gone beyond the identity of one vaguely famous actress. If the prosecution can be found to have manipulated the evidence on this one, then surely the pooh should be hitting the rotating device big time.
My client, Mr W t Pooh, has asked that you cease and desist from associating him from ordure - commonly known as 'poo'.Anyway its gone beyond the identity of one vaguely famous actress. If the prosecution can be found to have manipulated the evidence on this one, then surely the pooh should be hitting the rotating device big time.
saaby93 said:
I still think the wrong end of the stick has been grasped by some.
By taking it to court the CPS has stopped any innuendo about whether the guy may or may not have done.
Without it going this far, there may have been endless stories in the newspapers about the allegation and never come to a close
I would hope that the CPS, acting in the interests of the state, would prosecute people it genuinely believed to be guilty. Given the costs of defending a case, and the stress the accused go through, anything else is a gross abuse of state power IMO to say nothing of a waste of public money.By taking it to court the CPS has stopped any innuendo about whether the guy may or may not have done.
Without it going this far, there may have been endless stories in the newspapers about the allegation and never come to a close
I know some have tried to defend the CPS on here by saying there must be more to this. But I suspect, like with many areas these days, this has become political. Part of the reason for the low percentage of rape/sexual assault accusations will indeed by rapists getting away with it. Far more will be to do with false claims due to mentally ill women or ones with a grudge against the man concerned. Or with the large numbers of girls encouraged to cry rape when they get hammered and can barely remember the night before, least of all giving consent.
The CPS has been encouraged to deal with this by believing every "victim" and ensuring they have their day in court.
WinstonWolf said:
Timbergiant said:
Took all of about 3 minutes to fins out who the lying "victim" is, Paul Elam knows.
It's a fairly short leap to find out who she is from there...Loads of stuff from US based posters / twitter etc.
I imagine the e UK courts could little have influence over / or prosecute a foreign citizen outside of the UK for 'speculating' who the woman is . Seems to only be one name bandied about...( I'd be interested to hear a view from lawyers on whether someone overseas is safe if 'naming' the woman)
I imagine the e UK courts could little have influence over / or prosecute a foreign citizen outside of the UK for 'speculating' who the woman is . Seems to only be one name bandied about...( I'd be interested to hear a view from lawyers on whether someone overseas is safe if 'naming' the woman)
hornetrider said:
WinstonWolf said:
Timbergiant said:
Took all of about 3 minutes to fins out who the lying "victim" is, Paul Elam knows.
It's a fairly short leap to find out who she is from there...Gareth79 said:
birdcage said:
Why can't she be named in the media, what do they risk by naming her?
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. I thought it was imprisonable, but apparently not, maximum is a level 5 fine (£5000).TTwiggy said:
TTmonkey said:
What sexual offence? Surely they have proved that none took place, that this is just lies on her behalf. How can you be protected by an Act that doesn't apply to whats happened?
No. He's been found not guilty. That doesn't mean that no offence took place.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff