Another prove your innocence case
Discussion
There’s a sexual offence case where someone has been on bail for two years before a decision has been made to discontinue. That sounds very excessive.
captain_cynic said:
Its more the police being afraid of bad press (they get a lot of that, so they're told to minimise it).
Where have you got that from? La Liga said:
There’s a sexual offence case where someone has been on bail for two years before a decision has been made to discontinue. That sounds very excessive.
Happened to me 2 years I spent in limbo, charged the second I was brought in, took them 8 months to then bother to start the court procedure, 6 months later I had pre-trial hearing at the high court right after Christmas, came to that date, high court was full, my trial was moved 6 months back, a week or so before the trial was to start it was flung out. captain_cynic said:
Its more the police being afraid of bad press (they get a lot of that, so they're told to minimise it).
Where have you got that from? Its f
king hellish, in those two years the only time I felt sort of decent/normal was when I left my lawyers office because at that time it was the longest I would have to go without seeing him again to discuss it. I used to physically shake in the lawyers waiting room, I was sick a few times after it hearing my ex thought id raped my child, even a f
king letter confirming the date we had agreed in the office that day used to make me fking shake or wait at the top of the stairs for the postman to come. I'd sooner have my head kicked in everyday than go through that. Seriously, honestly. Cancer, loose a limb f
king anything other than 2 years like that again.Edited by moanthebairns on Friday 19th January 11:14
irocfan said:
and another...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/18/oxford-...
what is particularly frightening to me (as a non-lawyer) is:
"... Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, raised eyebrows when she said photographs and social media accounts do not necessarily need to be fully checked in rape cases.
She insisted she does not believe anyone is in jail after being wrongly convicted because of failures to disclose evidence.
She might be righthttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/18/oxford-...
what is particularly frightening to me (as a non-lawyer) is:
"... Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, raised eyebrows when she said photographs and social media accounts do not necessarily need to be fully checked in rape cases.
She insisted she does not believe anyone is in jail after being wrongly convicted because of failures to disclose evidence.
The problem in all the ones gone so far is that judge/jury have been too wiling to extrapoltae from the 'evidence' given by the prosecution
You shouldnt need to rely on there being some defence evidence, or some evidence not disclosed, beacuse there may not be any available
This social media stuff. take Facebook, peope can archive messages, delete messages and alter them, so surely don't the police go to FB direct and get them them to pull off the original material from their servers.
Or is that too simple.
No he said, she said, just the facts, whatever they may be.
Or is that too simple.
No he said, she said, just the facts, whatever they may be.
A reasonable line of enquiry is when a suspect would cite specific messages that would aid in their defence (or give a general idea). These enquiries should absolutely be undertaken.
Purely speculative and wide-ranging search of social media is not a reasonable line of enquiry.
Purely speculative and wide-ranging search of social media is not a reasonable line of enquiry.
moanthebairns said:
Happened to me 2 years I spent in limbo, charged the second I was brought in, took them 8 months to then bother to start the court procedure, 6 months later I had pre-trial hearing at the high court right after Christmas, came to that date, high court was full, my trial was moved 6 months back, a week or so before the trial was to start it was flung out.
Sounds unacceptable when there wasn't even a trial. La Liga said:
Purely speculative and wide-ranging search of social media is not a reasonable line of enquiry.
Pretty sure they go through the suspects communications history with a fine tooth comb though, in finding something, anything that might be incriminating? Is that not equally speculative?kowalski655 said:
What is it about that generation that makes women so keen to report sex as rape...
.
They're not, HTH..
https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/false-allega...
PurpleMoonlight said:
Is it that women are more willing to lie or that the police are more willing to believe them.
For me, it's mostly the latter.
as I said earlier on the thread, the pressure to believe the (mainly female) victim is led by feminist ideology:For me, it's mostly the latter.
"This appears to be the case but no doubt one or two PH members will be along shortly to deny it. Breadvan kindly linked to another write up about such matters and the first few points he made support he idea that police objectivity has been weakened if not done away with as a matter of policy. Interestingly although the author doesn't say it the "we believe you mantra" is part of the feminist ideology:
https://crimbarrister.wordpress.com/2017/12/22/dis...
BOOM! 💥
The police approach to investigations in allegations involving anything sexual has become totally arse about face. The presumption of innocence which should apply to every criminal case, no matter what the alleged offence, seems to have gone out of the window, particularly where sex cases are concerned.
BOOM! 💥
This issue was identified in the report of Sir Richard Henriques which was published a year ago – see link here – in which the former senior judge highlighted that, in an apparent eagerness to increase the number of rape convictions under pressure from politicians and the media, the police appeared to have fallen into the trap of automatically treating all ‘complainants’ as ‘victims’ and repeating the mantra that ‘all victims must be believed’. Obviously this pre-supposes that all complaints are true and suggests that investigations should be conducted on this basis. This is plainly wrong and will undoubtedly have infected the mindset of officers investigating such allegations.
BOOM! 💥
The police have to stop adhering to the ‘we believe you’ mantra: they have no business usurping the function of the jury to decide whether a complainant is to be believed or not, just as I do not have to believe what anyone I defend tells me. This is not my role. And it’s not just me who thinks this. An ex-DPP has been publicly saying this today too: see the link here.
BOOM! 💥
The recommendations of the Henriques report appear to have fallen by the wayside, because senior police officers and the College of Policing didn’t seem to like its conclusions. The recommendations should be brought into effect as soon as possible and the police told to point themselves in the right direction.
BOOM! 💥
If the police have jettisoned all objectivity in such investigations, then the concept needs to be reintroduced and quickly. From what those of us working at the coalface see regularly, there are some (not all) officers dealing with sexual allegations in particular who lose all perspective and get too personally involved with the case and the complainants. Recently, as verdicts were returned in a multi-complainant sex case in which I defended, the officer in the case burst into tears in front of the jury. Such incidents suggest that some police involved in these cases might be all too keen to ‘sit on’ evidence which undermined the complainants with whom they had built up such a personal relationship.
There was also a piece in The Times supporting this view (but without mentioning feminism as that would be going against the narrative and would cause a s
tstorm) on or about 21st December which I commented upon:From the article
Police chief Sara Thornton wants rethink on ‘automatic belief’ of sex crimes
A piece in today’s Times by Fiona Hamilton (Crime Editor):
“The head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council wants forces to rethink their policy of automatically believing alleged victims of sexual crime, The Times has learnt.
Sara Thornton, the former chief constable of Thames Valley, also has concerns about police describing complainants as victims at the outset of an investigation before anything has been evaluated, let alone proven........”
If the police have to automatically believe the victim then it will sway their investigation into just that rather than being objective. Article goes on to say:
“The policy has been under review for more than a year since Sir Richard Henriques, a retired High Court judge who examined the Metropolitan Police’s disastrous VIP abuse inquiry, said that the automatic-belief policy warped the judgment of officers.
Sir Richard identified a string of failings in Operation Midland, which investigated false claims of a Westminster sex abuse ring, and recommended key changes to ensure similar mistakes were not repeated. He said that the instruction to “believe a victim’s account” should be withdrawn and detectives should approach allegations objectively, impartially and with an open mind.
The belief policy undermined the principle of innocent until proven guilty, he warned.”
Damn that pesky policy that ensures bias and lack of objectivity eh!
cookie118 said:
kowalski655 said:
What is it about that generation that makes women so keen to report sex as rape...
.
They're not, HTH..
https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/false-allega...
Im not for one moment suggesting all rape claims are bogus! I agree with the article about the perception, not helped by the low conviction rate, but that does not make a bloke automatically guilty, and most certainly doesnt mean the cops can withhold evidence in order to convict at any costs!
steveatesh said:
as I said earlier on the thread, the pressure to believe the (mainly female) victim is led by feminist ideology:
"This appears to be the case but no doubt one or two PH members will be along shortly to deny it. Breadvan kindly linked to another write up about such matters and the first few points he made support he idea that police objectivity has been weakened if not done away with as a matter of policy. Interestingly although the author doesn't say it the "we believe you mantra" is part of the feminist ideology:
Does this make the Police institutionally sexist as well as racist?"This appears to be the case but no doubt one or two PH members will be along shortly to deny it. Breadvan kindly linked to another write up about such matters and the first few points he made support he idea that police objectivity has been weakened if not done away with as a matter of policy. Interestingly although the author doesn't say it the "we believe you mantra" is part of the feminist ideology:
Jockman said:
Does this make the Police institutionally sexist as well as racist?
In regards to investigation of sexual offence accusations yes it does sadly. If you consider the impact of the Equal Treatment Bench Book on Sentencing you can see it’s not just the police but a broader system!
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/20...
steveatesh said:
Jockman said:
Does this make the Police institutionally sexist as well as racist?
In regards to investigation of sexual offence accusations yes it does sadly. If you consider the impact of the Equal Treatment Bench Book on Sentencing you can see it’s not just the police but a broader system!
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/20...
"Over 75% of 11–12 year old boys thought it was acceptable that men hit women if
they make them angry and more boys than girls, of all ages, believe that some
women deserve to be hit ....."
WTF?
Jockman said:
Thanks for the link, Steve.
"Over 75% of 11–12 year old boys thought it was acceptable that men hit women if
they make them angry and more boys than girls, of all ages, believe that some
women deserve to be hit ....."
WTF?
It's a survey - where's Yipper again"Over 75% of 11–12 year old boys thought it was acceptable that men hit women if
they make them angry and more boys than girls, of all ages, believe that some
women deserve to be hit ....."
WTF?
Isnt it like the survey where you ask how many boys have sex, then ask how many girls
boys over report, girls under, in practice both about the same
Jockman said:
Thanks for the link, Steve.
"Over 75% of 11–12 year old boys thought it was acceptable that men hit women if
they make them angry and more boys than girls, of all ages, believe that some
women deserve to be hit ....."
WTF?
The following was in an article in The Times around 16th Jan. it was written by a female journalist:"Over 75% of 11–12 year old boys thought it was acceptable that men hit women if
they make them angry and more boys than girls, of all ages, believe that some
women deserve to be hit ....."
WTF?
“The Equal Treatment Bench Book has a section on Gender Equality which might be more appropriately titled Gender Special Treatment.
It quotes Baroness Hale of Richmond, now the president of the Supreme Court, who argued that “a male-ordered world has applied to [women] its perceptions of the appropriate treatment for male offenders” and said: “The criminal justice system could . . . ask itself whether it is indeed unjust to women.” It also suggests that those sentencing must be “made aware of the differential impact sentencing decisions have on women and men”. All of which implies that if a man and woman have committed the same crime, the woman should be treated with more “understanding” and leniency. Her sex is a mitigating factor in itself.
It is no surprise, therefore, that according to the criminal justice figures from 2015, men were almost twice as likely to be put into immediate custody for an indictable offence as women. Under similar criminal circumstances, men were 88 per cent more likely to be sent to prison. For vehicle-related theft as a first offence, men were three times more likely to be imprisoned. For violence against the person, again as a first offence, it was almost three times as likely. Across the categories men were much more likely to do time for a first offence“
Baroness Hale describes herself as a “soft feminist”. It should come as no surprise they the ironically named Equal Treatment Bench Book should favour women!
saaby93 said:
Jockman said:
Thanks for the link, Steve.
"Over 75% of 11–12 year old boys thought it was acceptable that men hit women if
they make them angry and more boys than girls, of all ages, believe that some
women deserve to be hit ....."
WTF?
It's a survey - where's Yipper again"Over 75% of 11–12 year old boys thought it was acceptable that men hit women if
they make them angry and more boys than girls, of all ages, believe that some
women deserve to be hit ....."
WTF?
Isnt it like the survey where you ask how many boys have sex, then ask how many girls
boys over report, girls under, in practice both about the same
In this study on domestic violence - they found that women actually initiated physical violence far more often than men did (~70%). Other studies have found similar.
http://www.aeesq.com/2017/03/23/women-initiate-dom...
I don't find this surprising at all. Physical violence against men is still seen as acceptable. It's shown regularly in main stream media and is often played for laughs.
etc.. I'll content myself by laughing hollowly or perhaps crying instead.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff