What a huge waste of public money
Discussion
Coverage in NZ said:
Mr Pearson wonders whether he is "a victim of the way the CPS is rigorously trying to redress the balance". One of his supporters, author Erin Pizzey, the family care activist who founded the world's first shelter for victims of domestic violence, certainly believes so.
"The CPS have recently been wrongly targeting men and it has got to stop," she said. "The CPS had no business going after him [Mr Pearson] because there wasn't a case there from the very beginning. At the moment, women seem above the law. They can do it in domestic violence cases - simply pick up the phone, no evidence required, and have a man removed from his family and his children - and they can do it with rape, too."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11585958"The CPS have recently been wrongly targeting men and it has got to stop," she said. "The CPS had no business going after him [Mr Pearson] because there wasn't a case there from the very beginning. At the moment, women seem above the law. They can do it in domestic violence cases - simply pick up the phone, no evidence required, and have a man removed from his family and his children - and they can do it with rape, too."
She's hit the nail on the head there.
The woman should be named because there's no valid reason not to.
saaby93 said:
Bring on the clowns said:
saaby93 said:
Whats the point in going on about naming here? What difference would it make?
Er, justice?!What else do you need?
PurpleMoonlight said:
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?
What about the alleged 109? Have we come away from the:
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.
There's a view within that article that the UK is more aggressive on false allegations along with anecdotal evidence the police were looking at that from the off with one investigation. Why don't you add as much weight to those things? They're just as credible, if not more, than you making up that the CPS believe the victim regardless of evidence to the contrary.
saaby93 said:
Bring on the clowns said:
saaby93 said:
Whats the point in going on about naming here? What difference would it make?
Er, justice?!What else do you need?
If I was unfortunate enough to be in (what appears to be) his position, I'd be suing both the CPS and her for thousands plus a full, protracted, excruciating apology, plus resignations in the CPS. There are several on here saying "it only means he's not guilty, not innocent". Bugger that, I'd want total closure and retribution.
If she doesn't lose her casting on that big show, one must consider her actions are not only going unchallenged, but in effect seen as no problem/tolerated. What message to send is that?
La Liga said:
...making up that the CPS believe the victim regardless of evidence to the contrary...
Part of what's wrong at the moment takes place before the CPS are anywhere near the scene of the non-crime, if you get my drift. It was set out plainly and accurately by family violence campaigner Erin Pizzey.In comments on the bizarre nature of this case she said:
The CPS have recently been wrongly targeting men and it has got to stop. At the moment, women seem above the law. They can do it in domestic violence cases - simply pick up the phone, no evidence required, and have a man removed from his family and his children - and they can do it with rape, too.
Uncorroborated allegation. No evidence. No investigation. Bearing in mind the severity if what happens as a result at that point as outlined by Pizzey, and the fact that the woman remains anonymous, that's just wrong.
saaby93 said:
///ajd said:
I'd want total closure and retribution.
Maybe you do. Luckily to save us all hopping around missing an eye and a few teeth we gave up retribution years ago.
You cant lock people up for being mistaken - otherwise youd take a good part of PH with you
But incompetent or malicious?
When the accuser said Mark had done unspeakable with three fingers during the incident, at what point do you think she should have considered - I might be mistaken? I'd suggest well before court when it became clear she could ruin his WHOLE LIFE, on the basis of a total fabrication/lie.
I'm somewhat staggered that you don't seem to think this matters. People who would ruin someones life on a whim certainly are candidates for locking up, or at least medical treatment.
///ajd said:
I'd agree, you can't lock up people for being mistaken.
But incompetent or malicious?
When the accuser said Mark had done unspeakable with three fingers during the incident, at what point do you think she should have considered - I might be mistaken? I'd suggest well before court when it became clear she could ruin his WHOLE LIFE, on the basis of a total fabrication/lie.
I'm somewhat staggered that you don't seem to think this matters. People who would ruin someones life on a whim certainly are candidates for locking up, or at least medical treatment.
Youre playing the game of strawman now But incompetent or malicious?
When the accuser said Mark had done unspeakable with three fingers during the incident, at what point do you think she should have considered - I might be mistaken? I'd suggest well before court when it became clear she could ruin his WHOLE LIFE, on the basis of a total fabrication/lie.
I'm somewhat staggered that you don't seem to think this matters. People who would ruin someones life on a whim certainly are candidates for locking up, or at least medical treatment.
Taking something I hadn't said then arguing against it as if I had
Is that worse than being mistaken?
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
...making up that the CPS believe the victim regardless of evidence to the contrary...
Part of what's wrong at the moment takes place before the CPS are anywhere near the scene of the non-crime, if you get my drift. It was set out plainly and accurately by family violence campaigner Erin Pizzey.In comments on the bizarre nature of this case she said:
The CPS have recently been wrongly targeting men and it has got to stop. At the moment, women seem above the law. They can do it in domestic violence cases - simply pick up the phone, no evidence required, and have a man removed from his family and his children - and they can do it with rape, too.
Uncorroborated allegation. No evidence. No investigation. Bearing in mind the severity if what happens as a result at that point as outlined by Pizzey, and the fact that the woman remains anonymous, that's just wrong.I do think the accused should have anonymity the same as the victim as a general principle.
On a more general note (I don't suggest this is your view). The idea there are hordes of women out there willing to make something up, go through a detailed interview, intimate examination (trick the police, CPS, defence, judge and jury) is one which I believe is without evidence. I think it's grossly over-estimated. Again, most sexual offence allegations do not result in a charge. Why is this? Do the complainants in those cases (where there is also a suspect) not insist the matter occurred? According to some on here, that's all it takes. It's a complex area of society and law. Simplistic, crude views are unlikely to have much accuracy.
turbobloke said:
saaby93 said:
Bring on the clowns said:
saaby93 said:
Whats the point in going on about naming here? What difference would it make?
Er, justice?!What else do you need?
"the administering of deserved punishment or reward."
If this woman has made a malicious allegation and lied in court - then it's arguable that justice has not been served because she has not received commensurate punishment for her misdemeanour.
The guy has arguably received due process - but not justice.
saaby93 said:
///ajd said:
I'd agree, you can't lock up people for being mistaken.
But incompetent or malicious?
When the accuser said Mark had done unspeakable with three fingers during the incident, at what point do you think she should have considered - I might be mistaken? I'd suggest well before court when it became clear she could ruin his WHOLE LIFE, on the basis of a total fabrication/lie.
I'm somewhat staggered that you don't seem to think this matters. People who would ruin someones life on a whim certainly are candidates for locking up, or at least medical treatment.
Youre playing the game of strawman now But incompetent or malicious?
When the accuser said Mark had done unspeakable with three fingers during the incident, at what point do you think she should have considered - I might be mistaken? I'd suggest well before court when it became clear she could ruin his WHOLE LIFE, on the basis of a total fabrication/lie.
I'm somewhat staggered that you don't seem to think this matters. People who would ruin someones life on a whim certainly are candidates for locking up, or at least medical treatment.
Taking something I hadn't said then arguing against it as if I had
Is that worse than being mistaken?
When you read her accusation and see the CCTV, it is very clear that her story does not tally with what occurred. Given the "fingers" element of the story, it is hard to not take the view it was completely fabricated, rather than just a mistake. That fact she looks around in the CCTV suggests this is the incident she decided to report.
///ajd said:
Given this thread is about this incident, saying "you can't lock people up for being mistaken" might be taken to mean you think the lady & CPS in this case were just "mistaken". Is that what you believe?
When you read her accusation and see the CCTV, it is very clear that her story does not tally with what occurred. Given the "fingers" element of the story, it is hard to not take the view it was completely fabricated, rather than just a mistake. That fact she looks around in the CCTV suggests this is the incident she decided to report.
You'd make a good court room lawyer by asking double edged questionsWhen you read her accusation and see the CCTV, it is very clear that her story does not tally with what occurred. Given the "fingers" element of the story, it is hard to not take the view it was completely fabricated, rather than just a mistake. That fact she looks around in the CCTV suggests this is the incident she decided to report.
I'm not rising to it
///ajd said:
Given this thread is about this incident, saying "you can't lock people up for being mistaken" might be taken to mean you think the lady & CPS in this case were just "mistaken". Is that what you believe?
When you read her accusation and see the CCTV, it is very clear that her story does not tally with what occurred. Given the "fingers" element of the story, it is hard to not take the view it was completely fabricated, rather than just a mistake. That fact she looks around in the CCTV suggests this is the incident she decided to report.
I have to agree. I simply do not see how you can innocently mistake a split second knock on the shoulder with having an intimate area penetrated for a couple of seconds.When you read her accusation and see the CCTV, it is very clear that her story does not tally with what occurred. Given the "fingers" element of the story, it is hard to not take the view it was completely fabricated, rather than just a mistake. That fact she looks around in the CCTV suggests this is the incident she decided to report.
There are of course other options:
1. She took umbrage to the knock and decided to make a malicious accusation as revenge.
2. She has mental health problems and imagined the event.
3. An incident did occur how she described - but she mistook the time/place/person.
Whichever scenario is the truth - further action needs to be taken. This case should not simply be left as is.
1. Prosecution for her lying under oath and making false accusations.
2. Referral for mental heath evaluation and treatment to help guard against her imaginings leading to false allegations against anybody else.
3. Further investigation to find the actual sex offender because we have a potential sexual predator still on the lose.
saaby93 said:
///ajd said:
Given this thread is about this incident, saying "you can't lock people up for being mistaken" might be taken to mean you think the lady & CPS in this case were just "mistaken". Is that what you believe?
When you read her accusation and see the CCTV, it is very clear that her story does not tally with what occurred. Given the "fingers" element of the story, it is hard to not take the view it was completely fabricated, rather than just a mistake. That fact she looks around in the CCTV suggests this is the incident she decided to report.
You'd make a good court room lawyer by asking double edged questionsWhen you read her accusation and see the CCTV, it is very clear that her story does not tally with what occurred. Given the "fingers" element of the story, it is hard to not take the view it was completely fabricated, rather than just a mistake. That fact she looks around in the CCTV suggests this is the incident she decided to report.
I'm not rising to it
If you you meant can't lock people up for mistakes but were not referring to this case, then fair enough.
If you think this accuser does not deserve scrutiny for what was in the CCTV, I'd be interested to know why you think that? Or if in fact you agree she should face some questions & perhaps sanction?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff