I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,296

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 7 2013, 1:28 PM BST

Absolutely, only from what we've generally heard (or more aptly consumed) from this case. Surely there's a scale of plausibility of evidence or something and I don't see how this case can match up to it. 'Neutral medical evidence', association and just plain allegations. Where's the evidence for this heinous crime alleged?

And for me, where's the balance of considered thought by the legals here? A man on telly with a decent career wanting to make a clear decision to continually rape a girl over several years starting at the age of six! Personally he doesn't strike me as that alcoholic or insane.

View original

How do you decide how plausible the evidence is without a trial? Who decides how plausible it is? What about the high possibility of corruption and injustice that comes from a system where a trial can be secretly preventing from even happening?

Maybe it would be better to try and fix this attitude of "no smoke without fire" that the public seem to have, even when the defendant is found not guilty.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 7 2013, 1:28 PM BST

A man on telly with a decent career wanting to make a clear decision to continually rape a girl over several years starting at the age of six! Personally he doesn't strike me as that alcoholic or insane.

View original

Quote: Jennie @ September 7 2013, 1:18 PM BST

You hear about this kind of thing in the papers precisely because it is so very rare.

View original

I'm not an expert, I just scan through the books and websites like many others but I wouldn't call the rate 'so very' rare, it seems rare given so many cases but it still happens regularly enough in murder convictions for some thought to be given by our justice system to how badly wrong they often are, especially in very high profile cases, G'ford 4, B'ham 6, Stagg, George, this latest one, etc etc.

Evidence has to be key surely, and in all the above cases there was none or it was doctored or manufactured. So for me, if the doctors here say there is in effect none against him, then CPS, save our money, your dwindling reputation and in this instance, don't add to the already horrendously poor figures on rape convictions, because for me, they're going to get worse with this one. (Unless some real evidence suddenly turns up from nowhere.)

It's very sad for the victim if it's the truth, but she still needs evidence surely? Or potentially any man in trousers is open to this kind of allegation from anyone so inclined to make it.

Quote: Jennie @ September 7 2013, 1:56 PM BST

View original

I do have to commend you on your selection of Savile photo! That's a cracker, note the curious symbolism of the shape he's standing under. Get's better and better!

On a more serious note, this rather illustrates my point about Levell, this allegation is a one off, unless it brings others out of the woodwork. One person, not a string of them, doesn't mean it's not true, it just suggests it's not an alleged serial trait, unlike in the Savile enquiry cases. A point which should imo go in his favour when 'deciding the truth'.

Sure, but that truth should be decided in a court, not outside it in secret.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 7 2013, 2:19 PM BST

I'm not an expert, I just scan through the books and websites like many others but I wouldn't call the rate 'so very' rare, it seems rare given so many cases but it still happens regularly enough in murder convictions for some thought to be given by our justice system to how badly wrong they often are, especially in very high profile cases, G'ford 4, B'ham 6, Stagg, George, this latest one, etc etc.

View original

We live in a fallen world. There will always be miscarriages of justice. The IRA cases are in a slightly different category due to the political considerations. Stagg was never convicted of the Rachel Nickell murder. However Barry George and Barri White were indeed wrongly convicted.

I have my own doubts about Michael Stone's conviction for the murders of Lin and Megan Russell in 1996. I think Levi Bellfield is a more likely suspect there.

But we don't right these wrongs by refusing to have trials at all. As Raymond says, isn't it far more sinister to make these decisions in private?

I also think you are confusing "evidence" with "independent evidence". The girls testimony in court is evidence, just as medical/DNA evidence is. It is for the jury to decide whether they accept it or not.

Being human, we all like to discuss these cases when they're going on, but the truth is - the media only give us selective bits of what goes on in Court. We would have to be there for every minute of the trial before we could know what the evidence is. So it's really silly for any one of us to talk about 'scant evidence'. I've often been amazed by Court verdicts because the reporting all along has led me to believe the verdict might be the opposite, but then out comes all the info about other evidence which the media didn't report at the time. Let's face it, they go for what they think will make the juiciest stories.

Quote: keewik @ September 7 2013, 2:34 PM BST

Being human, we all like to discuss these cases when they're going on, but the truth is - the media only give us selective bits of what goes on in Court. We would have to be there for every minute of the trial before we could know what the evidence is. So it's really silly for any one of us to talk about 'scant evidence'. I've often been amazed by Court verdicts because the reporting all along has led me to believe the verdict might be the opposite, but then out comes all the info about other evidence which the media didn't report at the time. Let's face it, they go for what they think will make the juiciest stories.

View original

Preezunctly.

Bastards!

Humans will end up killing the last Elephant, Tiger and Shark because of these stupid oriental medicine myths.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23991510

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And it seems British farmers would be happy to kill the last Badger for the myth that it's the badgers that give their cows TB, rather than blame their own bad practices .

The far more likely scenario is that the cows give TB to the badgers. http://www.bovinetb.co.uk/article.php?article_id=41

'I think the most interesting observation was made to me by a senior politician who said, "fine John we accept your science, but we have to offer the farmers a carrot. And the only carrot we can possibly give them is culling badgers".'

And after they kill all the Badgers and find that didn't fix it will they start culling the Cats?

Whilst the primary host of bovine TB is cattle, the organism has been isolated from a wide range of species, including deer, pigs, sheep, horses, alpacas, dogs, cats, moles, mice and rats. There is currently little active surveillance in the UK of bovine TB in other mammals. These species are usually referred to as 'spillover' or 'dead end' hosts as they are not believed to be involved in sustaining the disease. However, this is only an assumption as research to date has concentrated only on the badger. Cats (estimated populations of well over 1 million feral and 7.5 million domestic pets - ref 4) and around 60 million rats (ref 5), in particular, are far more numerous than badgers (around 288,000 - ref 6) and likely to live in closer proximity to cattle. Cats are more likely to drink raw milk from dairy cows. Apparently (ref. 7) 'all mammals, including cats, are susceptible to the disease to a varying degree; cats can contract the causative bacteria (M bovis) if they come into close contact with the source of infection' (so can presumably spread it). There have been cases of other domestic animals, such as goats and alpacas that have become infected with bovine TB. Whilst such incidents are still rare the Welsh Assembly government has ploughed ahead for power to enter land for the purpose of testing cattle, sheep, goats, other ruminants and swine for bovine TB (ref 8).

Time to cull the politicians, maybe.

Quote: billwill @ September 7 2013, 2:52 PM BST

Time to cull the politicians, maybe.

View original

Definitely.
And everyone who believes in those pathetic medicine myths, while we're at it.

Quote: Jennie @ September 7 2013, 2:33 PM BST

Stagg was never convicted of the Rachel Nickell murder.

View original

Not in court of law but in public opinion he was. Hence the heavy criticism many rightly make of the open or public trial system. If the paper readers were his jurors then he'd still be in jail now. And he did serve a lengthy spell because he was refused bail, in other words already convicted by the police who invented the whole case against him. The Stagg case is a huge case in point still, it was a major blow to our justice system at pre trial level, namely the dodgy ol' police.

So what is the solution?

Maybe it would be worth trying to tackle the public opinion that anyone who is accused of something is guilty even if they're found innocent. How, I don't know.

Imlo twofold, one for getting true conviction, has to be your fastest growing sector by far, forensics, science and technology. DNA's the big one, I can see a proper workable system for it coming together before long. I can even envisage an age where we may be required to wear little cameras when we have sex or are murdered. You know what I mean. I do think the Orwellian age awaits us, as some stage, no doubt in my mind about it.

And secondly for fairness for all involved in criminal cases, certainly violent and/or sex crimes, I think private trials are a must and could be set up in a matter of mere years from now, ie. much sooner than for the above solution. But I mean just for the duration of it, the press can be there but can't report until the trial is completed. Delayed reporting. It happens in some cases already doesn't it, I think it should become the norm. Could be expensive to run though.

Meanwhile in the absence of DNA in violent/sex crime trials then I think the Americans' admissible use of the lie detector should really be looked at by us. Is it right to ignore its incredibly high proof rate in the US? In a case like the one we're talking about, I'd have thought it's an ideal last resort. Use it then give the result to the jury to help with their decision. Seems fair enough.

One million of Britain's lowest paid employees will be classed as "not working enough" and could find themselves pushed with the threat of sanctions to find more income under radical changes to benefits, the Department for Work and Pensions has said.

DWP internal documents seen by the Guardian reveal that people earning between £330 and around £950 a month - just under the rate of the national minimum wage for a 35-hour week - could be mandated to attend jobcentre meetings where their working habits will be examined as part of the universal credit programme.

Some of those deemed to be "not working enough" could also be instructed to take on extra training - and if they fail to complete tasks they could be stripped of their UC benefits in a move which departmental insiders conceded is controversial.

The DWP said that their overall plans for those in low-paid work were not yet definite and recognised that supporting working families to increase their income was a complex area into which the state hadn't previously intervened. But the department estimates there are one million people in this lower-paid bracket.

Not all of those will be forced into jobcentres, with individuals with caring responsibilities or other constraints preventing them taking on full-time work highly likely to be excluded.

The DWP said: "There isn't any real clear, definite plan as to how this [part] would work."

However the department did confirm that docking social security payments for those who are categorised as "not working enough" formed part of their plans.

The shadow work and pensions minister, Liam Byrne, said that the policy was attempting to push people into work that wasn't there. "What this out-of-touch government fails to realise is that there simply aren't that many extra shifts to go around. Millions are locked out of work and millions more are desperate to increase their hours."

The senior ministers involved in heading up welfare reform have spoken about how their flagship reform would completely change the culture of benefits.

Speaking in parliament during answers to urgent questions on Thursday, Iain Duncan Smith said: "Universal credit isn't just about IT, it is massively about cultural change, to get people back to work and to ensure those who do go to work, particularly the poorest, benefit the most."

Documents seen by the Guardian show how millions of people currently in receipt of some sort of benefit will be categorised into seven classes including, "too sick to work", "too committed to work", a category including lone parents, and those deemed to be "not working enough".

UC aims to merges six different benefits with the claimant receiving a single monthly household payment, although earlier this week the National Audit Office warned that the underlying IT project had been beset by "weak management ineffective control and poor governance" and that £34m of the £303m spent on technology had already been written off.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ September 7 2013, 2:55 PM BST

But crucially I don't think they're allowed to misreport or misrepresent. Jennie will tell you there are very strict rules on what can be reported. It has to be a true facsimile of the case or the journalism itself can be deemed subjudice, spelling wizard help. If you've been in court you will find human content (good soapy stuff) in almost every case. We just find it interesting do we not.

View original

You miss the point. I didn't say they misreport or misrepresent. I said they just don't tell you everything. Without you being told every last detail, you don't have a full picture of what's happened in Court.