is it illegal for police to tell press of a raid etc?
Discussion
Thorodin said:
...
The testimony of the complainant should not be considered as proof of the charge.
...
So if someone comes up to you and punches you in the face and no one else sees this happen, nothing can be done? The testimony of the complainant should not be considered as proof of the charge.
...
Your beef appears to be with old complaints, but the age of the complaint and the reasons for not making it sooner are factors that can bear on its credibility. They don't make it necessarily incredible.
Breadvan72 said:
So if someone comes up to you and punches you in the face and no one else sees this happen, nothing can be done?
Your beef appears to be with old complaints, but the age of the complaint and the reasons for not making it sooner are factors that can bear on its credibility. They don't make it necessarily incredible.
Putting my earlier, slightly tongue-in-cheek, posts to one side for a moment, I can see his problem and agree that there is a problem.Your beef appears to be with old complaints, but the age of the complaint and the reasons for not making it sooner are factors that can bear on its credibility. They don't make it necessarily incredible.
In your punching analogy, if you were punched in the face wih no winesses and then took 10, or even 40, years to report it then nothing would be done.
Although you could reasonably argue that the much more serious harm caused by abuse warrants investigaion even after that time, whereas a black eye doesn't, that applies in both directions. If I say that Bob Smith punched me in the face in 1985 and acually manage to get an investigation started then Bob Smih will go about his life whether my allegation is true or not.
If, on the other hand, I say that Bob Smith raped me in 1985 then the subsequent investigation (and press interest if he happens to be famous) will more than likely destroy his life (and those around him) regardless of guilt or innocence.
This sort of allegation does not go away wih a decision not to charge, or even with a not guily verdict, because a great swathe of society is all too ready to burn paediatricians on sight.
Short of having a limitation period for crimes against the person (and there are good public policy arguments against that), it is hard to see how to solve that problem. Anonymity for suspects may be one solution, but that too has its downsides.
Back on the search, the Police have complained to the DG of the BBC about the coverage of the raid. The BBC have responded that the police effectively gave them an exclusive once the BBC had told the police that they (the BBC) knew of the planned raid. All a bit murky and unsatisfactory.
Back on the search, the Police have complained to the DG of the BBC about the coverage of the raid. The BBC have responded that the police effectively gave them an exclusive once the BBC had told the police that they (the BBC) knew of the planned raid. All a bit murky and unsatisfactory.
Zeeky said:
The strength of corroboration is related to the amount of similarity.
A 'striking' similarity would be strong evidence. Some similarity would be much weaker.
The similarity should be sufficient for its probative value to outweigh the obvious prejudicial effect of having a handful of separate complainants having their allegations heard at the same time.
I think we are probably as close as we can get without offending the above rule and possibly too close for complete comfort.
Yes, general principles, but you suggested the threshold has decreased over time with this comment: A 'striking' similarity would be strong evidence. Some similarity would be much weaker.
The similarity should be sufficient for its probative value to outweigh the obvious prejudicial effect of having a handful of separate complainants having their allegations heard at the same time.
I think we are probably as close as we can get without offending the above rule and possibly too close for complete comfort.
Zeeky said:
The threshold for admission nowadays is so low that the probative value of any similarities is, arguably, outweighed by the prejudice of having a handful of independent allegations of the same type of offence being considered at the same trial.
I was asking how you know this to be the case. I don't see how the safe-guards and structure which govern, dictate and define admissibility and weight have changed to allow this to be the case. Breadvan72 said:
Short of having a limitation period for crimes against the person (and there are good public policy arguments against that), it is hard to see how to solve that problem. Anonymity for suspects may be one solution, but that too has its downsides.
Back on the search, the Police have complained to the DG of the BBC about the coverage of the raid. The BBC have responded that the police effectively gave them an exclusive once the BBC had told the police that they (the BBC) knew of the planned raid. All a bit murky and unsatisfactory.
I can see your point but the thing that is worrying me is exactally what the police were trying to achieve in this particular raid. The alleged offence took place over 200 miles away from the property so they cannot be trying to determin if the victim remebered the details of the layout correctly, it took place over 40 years ago so any forensic evidence must be gone by now. What could they be looking for other than getting his name on the BBC and thus telling the BBC of the raid was the point.Back on the search, the Police have complained to the DG of the BBC about the coverage of the raid. The BBC have responded that the police effectively gave them an exclusive once the BBC had told the police that they (the BBC) knew of the planned raid. All a bit murky and unsatisfactory.
Had the warrant already been obtained when the BBC contacted the Police saying they were aware of the investigation?
Either way are the Police not concerned as to how the BBC got that information?
By striking their agreement the Police confirmed the investigation, for what? Apparently to preserve the secrecy until some weeks later. Regardless of what you might think of the BBC, if the Police had blanked them would they really report that Cliff was under investigation?
Agreement or not, since the secrecy was compromised why delay the search?
Either way are the Police not concerned as to how the BBC got that information?
By striking their agreement the Police confirmed the investigation, for what? Apparently to preserve the secrecy until some weeks later. Regardless of what you might think of the BBC, if the Police had blanked them would they really report that Cliff was under investigation?
Agreement or not, since the secrecy was compromised why delay the search?
The whole thing looks murky, whether or not there is any truth in the allegation against Cliff, as to which I have no opinion.
Derek seems to think that every single police operation should have a journalist along for the ride. An utterly bizarre proposal, but apparently put forward in seriousness.
Derek seems to think that every single police operation should have a journalist along for the ride. An utterly bizarre proposal, but apparently put forward in seriousness.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: There are enough ways if your friend felt strongly enough about it.
You seem to be working on the basis that this evidence is in his desk drawer. It's not. It's under lock and key. If he goes and gets it and then leaks it it'll be a bit obvious. The only other thing he could leak is what ice "leaked" on here. To give it credence then he'd have to put his name against it. Not very anonymous.
Thorodin said:
So your victim is now 40. What happened to him when he was 18? 25? 35? Why did he wait all those years to complain? It is now too late to establish the truth to a satisfactory level and, sadly for him, too late to complain. That the teacher may never be convicted is a travesty that might have been avoided if complained about earlier. As it is, the chance has gone. No, that is obviously not just. Neither is 'secondary' complainants being believed because they had the same teacher and have the same hatred of him for different reasons. Since when have courts unerringly handed down 'just' verdicts and sentences? An awful lot of bad stuff happens to people on the way to maturity, who knows what residual damage is done that can surface under a false premise?
How many times is this going to have to be explained to idiots like yourself? Sorry if that's harsh, but this 'blame the victim' sEdited by Thorodin on Sunday 17th August 21:32
Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 17th August 21:36
t for being afraid to speak out earlier is utterly pathetic. If you were violently raped right now, as a grown adult, how eager would YOU be to go to the police and report it? Oakey said:
How many times is this going to have to be explained to idiots like yourself? Sorry if that's harsh, but this 'blame the victim' st for being afraid to speak out earlier is utterly pathetic. If you were violently raped right now, as a grown adult, how eager would YOU be to go to the police and report it?
Oh please! Do try not to personalise, it all looks a bit rabid and does nothing to advance the argument. If you can't comprehend my meaning just remain polite and I'll accept the criticism and try harder by rephrasing! t for being afraid to speak out earlier is utterly pathetic. If you were violently raped right now, as a grown adult, how eager would YOU be to go to the police and report it? I'm not blaming anyone let alone the victim. Your last sentence above is irrelevant but to answer it fully: unlike in the case of BV's 10 year old, however difficult reporting such a thing might be I would have the maturity and strength of spirit to do so while (presumably) forensic material might still be present. The reluctance of a child to report is fully accepted and understood but, in the absence of a timely report, the incident can not properly be investigated. No matter how strong the disgust or hatred of such behaviour, it doesn't change the reality in the present day and to allow anonymous (or otherwise)historical complaints is merely compounding the crime.
That exhausts my mental resources in alternative explanations of my position. I hope this allows you to recover your composure and to refrain from derogatory name calling.
Breadvan72][... said:
In Thorodin world, allowing the adult who used to be that child to report the rape and have the rapist tried years later would be making the crime worse? Yes, that makes perfect sense.
No, I think that Thorodin is suggesting that in his world opening the doors to potentially spurious complaints of such a devastating kind, when there's no possibility of independent verification, is possibly more harmful to society than the failure of one victim to find justice. There are plenty of very believable and consistent liars out there who might just have a grudge against you from some time in the past.At least, that's what I hope he's saying because it's a valid argument which deserves room at the table when these things are debated.
Variomatic said:
No, I think that Thorodin is suggesting that in his world opening the doors to potentially spurious complaints of such a devastating kind, when there's no possibility of independent verification, is possibly more harmful to society than the failure of one victim to find justice. There are plenty of very believable and consistent liars out there who might just have a grudge against you from some time in the past.
At least, that's what I hope he's saying because it's a valid argument which deserves room at the table when these things are debated.
That's exactly what I am saying. It all gets a bit 'Diana's funeral' on here and legitimate reason barely gets a look in. At least, that's what I hope he's saying because it's a valid argument which deserves room at the table when these things are debated.
What sort of 'independent verifaction' are you talking about? Some people here seem to think that criminals are all sloppy idiots who leave masses of forensic evidence lying about afterwards solely to enable the police to catch them. It's incomprehensible to these people that criminals are capable of covering their tracks. Not every rapist is going to leave a puddle of spunk at the crime scene, nor are they going to film their vile act. nor are they likely to commit this crime in front of a load of witnesses. So what exactly are you expecting 'evidence' wise? As it's been explained numerous times from the lawyers and BiB on these forums these cases often come down to one persons word against another. Even DNA evidence isn't infallible. When my sister was raped there was semen present but the sample didn't provide enough markers for a match. In the end it came down to her testimony in court against the other guy.
Breadvan72 said:
Just to get this clear: the 10 year old is raped. In Thorodin world, allowing the adult who used to be that child to report the rape and have the rapist tried years later would be making the crime worse? Yes, that makes perfect sense.
Oh come on! You are an intelligent chap if I may say! You are well capable of understanding the use of my word 'compounding' as 'adding to' as opposed to making something worse. Especially when I used it concerning the acceptance of anonymous secondary complainants testifying. Please don't try to deliberately misread what is posted! You're getting ever closer to living down to the occasional criticisms of lawyers now! Is it too much to accept an alternative view to at least be aired free of attempts to ridicule? As usual, if the message is contrary, go for the messenger (and no, I haven't got a victim complex)! I have not once attacked you. I attack your policy arguments with vigour, because they are ill conceived and, if applied, would afford a charter to serious criminals. If you don't like having your arguments subjected to robust criticism, get some better arguments.
By the way, how do you add to a crime without making it worse?
I read exactly what you posted. Now you may you want to twist your meaning because your ideas have been challenged, but we can all see what you typed.
By the way, how do you add to a crime without making it worse?
I read exactly what you posted. Now you may you want to twist your meaning because your ideas have been challenged, but we can all see what you typed.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 18th August 15:21
Here, by the way, is what Thorodin said. Nothing here about secondary evidence, and he certainly isn't, on the face of the quoted post, limiting his proposed rule to such evidence.:-
Thorodin said:
...
... The reluctance of a child to report is fully accepted and understood but, in the absence of a timely report, the incident can not properly be investigated. No matter how strong the disgust or hatred of such behaviour, it doesn't change the reality in the present day and to allow anonymous (or otherwise)historical complaints is merely compounding the crime.
In plain English: to allow a historical complaint is to compound the crime. That means, Thorodin says, it adds to the crime. Apparently that doesn't mean that it makes it worse (it's just a "crime plus", perhaps), but most of us can probably understand English and know what compounding an incident conventionally means. ... The reluctance of a child to report is fully accepted and understood but, in the absence of a timely report, the incident can not properly be investigated. No matter how strong the disgust or hatred of such behaviour, it doesn't change the reality in the present day and to allow anonymous (or otherwise)historical complaints is merely compounding the crime.
Variomatic said:
No, I think that Thorodin is suggesting that in his world opening the doors to potentially spurious complaints of such a devastating kind, when there's no possibility of independent verification, is possibly more harmful to society than the failure of one victim to find justice. There are plenty of very believable and consistent liars out there who might just have a grudge against you from some time in the past.
At least, that's what I hope he's saying because it's a valid argument which deserves room at the table when these things are debated.
How many victims of crimes today would fail to find justice if such 'independent verification' were necessary? At least, that's what I hope he's saying because it's a valid argument which deserves room at the table when these things are debated.
And how harmful to society would that be?
Breadvan72 said:
In plain English: to allow a historical complaint is to compound the crime. That means, Thorodin says, it adds to the crime. Apparently that doesn't mean that it makes it worse (it's just a "crime plus", perhaps), but most of us can probably understand English and know what compounding an incident conventionally means.
The problem is I don't know enough about the law and you know all about it. Including how to set a hare running to draw the hounds away from Bambi's compound! Oh, yet another use of that word that you deliberately portray as ill-conceived! Your tone implies I have a tendency to lack sympathy for the victim and to be defensive of any other alleged rapists getting off. I thought I had made that redundant but you seem unable to accept that. Just for the record, my definition of 'compounding':'to compose of or be produced by the combining of two or more elements or parts: to composite as opposed to an element'. That's not a Wiki version, it's not a law book version, it's good old English plainly understood by open minded reasonable people.
Quote:
In plain English: to allow a historical complaint is to compound the crime. That means, Thorodin says, it adds to the crime.
Just how can other crimes committed at other times and in other places make the original crime 'worse'?
It just doesn't and I did not say that, it is your earlier misinterpretation being repeated and attributed to me. Secondary complainants are being used to validate the prosecution of another crime where there is no evidence other than the victim's testimony, however awful that testimony may be. I am sure you understand all this but are reluctant to accept the law may be rather stupid in certain respects and needs revision.
The arguments have once again become circular and I have nothing further to add.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff