What a huge waste of public money
Discussion
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.
Halb said:
By some random on YouTube?
No idea where it originated - but I have seen the same name repeated in the comments sections of several news sites carrying this story. They don't appear to be moderating the comments.Of course - there is no way to corroborate the rumours - unless the person themselves comes clean or the CPS decide to prosecute for PCOJ or similar - the person named may well be innocent themselves.
Moonhawk said:
Of course - there is no way to corroborate the rumours - unless the person themselves comes clean or the CPS decide to prosecute for PCOJ or similar - the person named may well be innocent themselves.
She won't be, because it would be to embarrassing to the CPS. They had the CCTV and chose to ignore it and believe her instead. Bring on the clowns said:
Halb said:
longshot said:
Are we any the wiser regarding who she is?
No.If 'she' is innocent, and not the one, why hasn't she replied to polite questions on her now moribund t
tter feed to say, "No, it wasn't me."? 
irocfan said:
Bring on the clowns said:
Halb said:
longshot said:
Are we any the wiser regarding who she is?
No.If 'she' is innocent, and not the one, why hasn't she replied to polite questions on her now moribund t
tter feed to say, "No, it wasn't me."? One just needs to look at this thread as an example of the type of bile that excretes instantly. I would give no-one any traction on my feed if people started asking looney questions...especially if I was gonna be in the world's biggest programme this year.
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'
This is what the Met commissioner is being told by the silly press he should apologise for: obeying instructions. Winsor is just the man for his job. He seems to look first to his buddies in the government rather than the police given by the way he opts for the next coming catchphrase.
The direction was stupid and showed a complete ignorance of the way the police should work. They are investigators and not prosecutors. One of the main problems an SIO has to deal with is minds being made up before all evidence is in. But Winsor knows better it seems.
The HMIC gives an order, the police follow it, as they must, but get all the criticism. It was not ever thus.
The problems with Yewtree and others have their base in the stupid pronouncements of the HMIC. It seems making nonsensical statements and wearing pretty dress is all he thinks the job entails.
La Liga said:
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.
I'd suggest that this case is a rather clear indication that they don't assess the evidence in front of them. Halb said:
irocfan said:
Bring on the clowns said:
Halb said:
longshot said:
Are we any the wiser regarding who she is?
No.If 'she' is innocent, and not the one, why hasn't she replied to polite questions on her now moribund t
tter feed to say, "No, it wasn't me."? One just needs to look at this thread as an example of the type of bile that excretes instantly. I would give no-one any traction on my feed if people started asking looney questions...especially if I was gonna be in the world's biggest programme this year.
s off sooner or later" is true. However in this era of twitter lynch mob mentality it would make sense to say "steady on people, it's not me" - especially as they do actually have a ttface account. Idiotboy naming and shaming needs to be careful though one would have thought?PurpleMoonlight said:
You can't give them credit for something they failed to instigate themselves.
The CPS don't investigate. They review the evidence gathered and prosecute. The point (as well as the others) still stands. If they're so apparently obsessed with believing the victim regardless of evidence to the contrary, why wouldn't they discontinue the private prosecution?
That's the point with unfounded generalisations based on an incident or two. They come apart quite quickly.
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
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.
I'd suggest that this case is a rather clear indication that they don't assess the evidence in front of them.La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
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.
I'd suggest that this case is a rather clear indication that they don't assess the evidence in front of them.That's kinda the whole point of this thread.
PurpleMoonlight said:
La Liga said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
You can't give them credit for something they failed to instigate themselves.
The CPS don't investigate. They review the evidence gathered and prosecute.What's your excuse for these prosecutions, including nearly all they instigated?
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-wom...
Rovinghawk said:
Because if they'd assessed the evidence (ie looked at the CCTV) they'd have realised that the offence as described didn't take place.
That's kinda the whole point of this thread.
Yet it still made it past the additional safeguards and went to a jury. On the face of it, it looks weak. No doubt. But until you've had the whole picture including the victim and suspect interviews, it's not possible to conclude definitively. And certainly not take 1 prosecution vs the volume as I was talking about and place them alongside one another. That's kinda the whole point of this thread.
Small samples have a much higher probability of yielding extreme results. Me speaking of thousands of cases reviewed by the CPS is a much better indication.
La Liga said:
What's your excuse for these prosecutions, including nearly all they instigated?
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-wom...
From the article:http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-wom...
"The CPS said it did not collate figures on how many individuals have been prosecuted for allegedly making false rape allegations."
Why is that I wonder?
irocfan said:
Halb said:
irocfan said:
Bring on the clowns said:
Halb said:
longshot said:
Are we any the wiser regarding who she is?
No.If 'she' is innocent, and not the one, why hasn't she replied to polite questions on her now moribund t
tter feed to say, "No, it wasn't me."? One just needs to look at this thread as an example of the type of bile that excretes instantly. I would give no-one any traction on my feed if people started asking looney questions...especially if I was gonna be in the world's biggest programme this year.
s off sooner or later" is true. However in this era of twitter lynch mob mentality it would make sense to say "steady on people, it's not me" - especially as they do actually have a ttface account. Idiotboy naming and shaming needs to be careful though one would have thought?She's been named by someone from abroad publicly, outside of the British courts jurisdiction. However, British media isn't allowed to even report that she's been named world wide.
Early reports said 'major BBC star'. I think that's misleading. However, she has a role coming up in a popular TV program which will probably make her a house hold name.
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
Because if they'd assessed the evidence (ie looked at the CCTV) they'd have realised that the offence as described didn't take place.
That's kinda the whole point of this thread.
Yet it still made it past the additional safeguards and went to a jury. On the face of it, it looks weak. No doubt.That's kinda the whole point of this thread.
t. Your 'additional safeguards' are worthless.La Liga said:
But until you've had the whole picture including the victim and suspect interviews, it's not possible to conclude definitively.
I disagree- the camera shows pretty much everything. Someone with a different story shouldn't take precedence over observed fact.La Liga said:
And certainly not take 1 prosecution vs the volume as I was talking about and place them alongside one another.
Small samples have a much higher probability of yielding extreme results. Me speaking of thousands of cases reviewed by the CPS is a much better indication.
It only needs one example of them not looking at the evidence to conclude that they don't always look at the evidence.Small samples have a much higher probability of yielding extreme results. Me speaking of thousands of cases reviewed by the CPS is a much better indication.
Rovinghawk said:
And yet they went ahead despite even a cursory examination showing that it's bullst. Your 'additional safeguards' are worthless.
They're not mine. They belong to the accused. t. Your 'additional safeguards' are worthless.Email his defence solicitor and ask him why he didn't apply to have the matter discontinued. It's easy to find him.
Rovinghawk said:
I disagree- the camera shows pretty much everything. Someone with a different story shouldn't take precedence over observed fact.
It's not possible to make a full judgement without seeing most / all the evidence. Rovinghawk said:
It only needs one example of them not looking at the evidence to conclude that they don't always look at the evidence.
1) How do you know they didn't? 2) Where did I say they 'always do'? I wouldn't say something like that as it's theoretically possible. La Liga said:
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.
TTmonkey said:
So her identity is known to many people, including all the reporters and to the employer ( BBC).
She's been named by someone from abroad publicly, outside of the British courts jurisdiction. However, British media isn't allowed to even report that she's been named world wide.
Early reports said 'major BBC star'. I think that's misleading. However, she has a role coming up in a popular TV program which will probably make her a house hold name.
Whats the point in going on about naming here? What difference would it make?She's been named by someone from abroad publicly, outside of the British courts jurisdiction. However, British media isn't allowed to even report that she's been named world wide.
Early reports said 'major BBC star'. I think that's misleading. However, she has a role coming up in a popular TV program which will probably make her a house hold name.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff