What a huge waste of public money
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
Pothole said:
There is no presumption in crime recording, it's just crime recording, it doesn't have any bearing on the way a trial is conducted or any presumption of innocence.
There is though. If every reported rape is counted as rape - then there is a presumption that the report was true. This presumption may have little or no bearing on the case (questionable) - but If the false positives are not taken back off - at the very least it could lead to an over estimation as to the level of crime, or a misreporting of the type of crime committed (i.e. if the accusation is false and/or malicious - then a crime of rape has been recorded despite not happening - and the actual crime committed is PCOJ despite not being recorded).
Bigends is quite right.
Police recorded data is only ever going go be an indication of crime. However, if it's recorded consistently then trends and changes can become valid indications used for analysis.
For the past 10-15 years at least, recorded police data has been inappropriately linked to performance. New Labour were very keen in measuring 'detections and reductions'. This resulted in the data becoming very political and, shall we say, scrutinised. Perversely, this meant the police were indirectly 'punished' for recording crime and incentivised for not recording it.
Police recorded data is only ever going go be an indication of crime. However, if it's recorded consistently then trends and changes can become valid indications used for analysis.
For the past 10-15 years at least, recorded police data has been inappropriately linked to performance. New Labour were very keen in measuring 'detections and reductions'. This resulted in the data becoming very political and, shall we say, scrutinised. Perversely, this meant the police were indirectly 'punished' for recording crime and incentivised for not recording it.
hornetrider said:
Can I ask what that evidence might possibly have been? Other than her word, of course.
The CCTV is conclusive, nothing happened, they're can be no physical evidence because nothing happened. At all.
The CCTV is conclusive, nothing happened, they're can be no physical evidence because nothing happened. At all.
///ajd said:
I generally consider La Liga has a point to defend extant court/CPS procedures - but in this case I can't imagine a scenario that explains their actions given the evidence available effectively & comprehensively covers the whole case & allegation.
I wrote a few pages ago I am struggling with this one and it deserves a greater explanation (certainly at least to the accused) as to why it went from accusation to the jury. longshot said:
Are we any the wiser regarding who she is?
I'm struggling with her motive.
It obviously didn't happen and I can't see how this could help her career.
Is she simply deluded or a bit nutty?
Is it that they crave attention , when the fame starts to slide and they're young all they have to do to make the papers is get out of a Ferrari with no knickers on .I'm struggling with her motive.
It obviously didn't happen and I can't see how this could help her career.
Is she simply deluded or a bit nutty?
A guilty charge and they're 'on daytime TV as the victim next day
Bigends said:
It may well be that he bumped into her - she looks round at him as he passes - and shes then gone on to make more of the incident than there actually was for some reason
And what that reason may be is now of some legitimate interest to people beyond the accused and innocent party, given the publicity and the circumstances.We can all babble on but fundamentally unless the accused or the victim come out with more what can be done to make the CPS tell us more about why the evidence was sufficient to take it to court? Is there any route to challenge?
Is it psosible to obatin the court bundles of evidence?
I am stil lsceptical that there wasn't more to it but I am sure we would all liek to know all of the evidence.
Is it psosible to obatin the court bundles of evidence?
I am stil lsceptical that there wasn't more to it but I am sure we would all liek to know all of the evidence.
Mojooo said:
We can all babble on but fundamentally unless the accused or the victim come out with more what can be done to make the CPS tell us more about why the evidence was sufficient to take it to court? Is there any route to challenge?
Is it psosible to obatin the court bundles of evidence?
I am stil lsceptical that there wasn't more to it but I am sure we would all liek to know all of the evidence.
There are the newspaper reports and the accused has been on TV. There really doesn't appear more than the 'victims' claims and the CCTV.Is it psosible to obatin the court bundles of evidence?
I am stil lsceptical that there wasn't more to it but I am sure we would all liek to know all of the evidence.
I keep coming back to the overzealous PC mantra of the CPS that the female 'victim' must be believed regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
PurpleMoonlight said:
I keep coming back to the overzealous PC mantra of the CPS that the female 'victim' must be believed regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
The CPS discontinue / decide not to prosecute far more sexual offence allegations than they actually prosecute. I'd suggest that's a rather clear indication they're assessing the evidence in front of them. The CPS took over a private prosecution against Eleanor de Freitas for perverting the course of justice over an alleged false rape claim. The DPP (the same one as now) was very clear the prosecution of her was justified after she Eleanor killed herself, because, and this is a reoccurring theme, both the tests were met.
Where was the 'PC mantra of the CPS that female 'victim' must be believed regardless of evidence to the contrary' there?
La Liga said:
The CPS took over a private prosecution against Eleanor de Freitas for perverting the course of justice over an alleged false rape claim. The DPP (the same one as now) was very clear the prosecution of her was justified after she Eleanor killed herself, because, and this is a reoccurring theme, both the tests were met.
You can't give them credit for something they failed to instigate themselves.williamp said:
Sir Thomas Winsor, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, declared on November 18, 2014, referring to cases of rape: ‘The police should immediately institutionalise the presumption that the victim is to be believed'
Why not institutionalise belief in phone calls to police reporting abduction and probing by aliens. Anyone would think there was some political football being kicked around the higher ranks.
tter feed to say, "No, it wasn't me."? Bring on the clowns said:
True, but no one has (as yet). My post was more a general question about why she/anyone is protected when the accused isn't even post trial. Unless they are planning to pursue her for the falsehood?
They say the name of the accused in sex offence cases is not kept secret so as to encourage other 'victims' to come forward.Would the same argument not apply here. If she has made a malicious allegation against this guy - then it may not be the first time. Releasing her name may encourage other 'victims' to come forward.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff