All defendents in court cases should be anonymous until a verdict is reached. I fail to see how knowing a certain person is on trial is in the public interest.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,570
Quote: Jennie @ 15th May 2014, 11:52 AM BSTNo, what's happened is that someone has made an allegation about him sexually assaulting them. What they are doing now is having a trial to see if it is true or not.
I can't cope with all this 'should be chucked out of court' nonsense that people spout. The point of court is to get to the truth. We examine everything in detail and the jury decide. If they decide "not guilty", that doesn't mean the process has been any less valuable.
Isn't the job of the CPS to decide whether the case is strong enough to go to court in the first place?
I have not been following the Rolf case, which sounds a bit grim, but with DLT some, perhaps all, of the charges would have failed any sort of objective assessment of whether their was a case to answer when considered on their own merit.
How do you feel about the practice of lumping together petty misdemeanours with more serious accusations, when they have no hope of succeeding in their own right and are clearly intended only to act as character evidence?
Quote: roscoff @ 15th May 2014, 2:45 PM BSTAll defendents in court cases should be anonymous until a verdict is reached. I fail to see how knowing a certain person is on trial is in the public interest.
I'm not sure about that. There are pros and cons. For example, I think in the Max Clifford case the publicity around his arrest led to more victims coming forward. This may have helped secure a conviction in the end. So, in such cases the publicity can help the guilty be convicted rather than walk free.
Quote: Badge @ 15th May 2014, 3:24 PM BSTI'm not sure about that. There are pros and cons. For example, I think in the Max Clifford case the publicity around his arrest led to more victims coming forward. This may have helped secure a conviction in the end. So, in such cases the publicity can help the guilty be convicted rather than walk free.
Or more people jumping on a bandwagon. The number of cases that have been dismissed and poured scorn on by the judge surely is a testament to this?
I don't think there's an easy right or wrong answer. What it relies on is a good police service and CPS only putting forward cases with credible evidence. That doesn't only mean ones where they are certain of a conviction
Interesting that the phrase "dirty old man" has been thrown at Rolf, which in this context carries the implication that the allegations are that much worse because of his age.
I think that's quite a primal thing.
Young bucks are seen as testicle thinking wildlings, more of a force of nature that needs to be controlled
but an old guy, is just being selfish and monsterous and has no excuse.
Goes all the way back to King Solomon and King Herod or in a way King Lear
Isn't the age difference in this instance relevant? If you are making advances to a woman approximately your own age, there is at least a chance your interest will be reciprocated. If you are making them to a female twenty tears younger in the hope of your interest being reciprocated then that is a deluded sexual fantasy (unless it is Jennie of course). Hence the dirty old man tag.
Quote: Tursiops @ 15th May 2014, 6:56 PM BSTIf you are making them to a female twenty tears younger in the hope of your interest being reciprocated
I think it depends on how old you are - certainly if you were 25 and hitting on girls 20 years younger, than that is far more sinister than a 60 year old female television chef (who I've only just heard of) showing her spam purse to a 40 year old male employee.
Quote: Jennie @ 15th May 2014, 11:52 AM BSTThe point of court is to get to the truth. We examine everything in detail ...
... while making a lot of money in the process.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-27414609
Yeah, yeah.
Whatever.
Quote: sootyj @ 15th May 2014, 6:43 PM BSTI think that's quite a primal thing.
Young bucks are seen as testicle thinking wildlings, more of a force of nature that needs to be controlled
but an old guy, is just being selfish and monsterous and has no excuse.
Goes all the way back to King Solomon and King Herod or in a way King Lear
Next time you book a pub for a meet up, could you make sure it's one with some young sorts in please?
'Baby With Two Faces' Survives Against Odds.
http://news.sky.com/story/1260378/baby-with-two-faces-survives-against-odds
This raises all sorts of issues.
They have a fine career ahead of them as a Lib Dem.
Quote: Chappers @ 16th May 2014, 12:36 AM BST... while making a lot of money in the process.
Do you actually want my Legal Aid rant again? Surely no-one wants that..no-one. But you asked for it...
FYI, average barrister in full time criminal work earns £36000. Before tax. And this is self-employed income, so no holiday/pension/maternity leave.
That is crap pay when compared to every single other public sector professional. Let alone those that regularly work 70 hour weeks, up until the early hours have judges/clients shouting at them, have to coax a heroin addict to put the razor down one minute and make a complicated legal argument the next. We do it because we f**king love it. Genuinely.
Quote: Tursiops @ 15th May 2014, 6:56 PM BSTIsn't the age difference in this instance relevant? If you are making advances to a woman approximately your own age, there is at least a chance your interest will be reciprocated. If you are making them to a female twenty tears younger in the hope of your interest being reciprocated then that is a deluded sexual fantasy (unless it is Jennie of course). Hence the dirty old man tag.
'Making advances' isn't a crime, unless the person is under 16, or 18 if you are in a position of trust.
What you aren't allowed to do is touch without permission,
Quote: Tursiops @ 15th May 2014, 3:09 PM BSTIsn't the job of the CPS to decide whether the case is strong enough to go to court in the first place?
I have not been following the Rolf case, which sounds a bit grim, but with DLT some, perhaps all, of the charges would have failed any sort of objective assessment of whether their was a case to answer when considered on their own merit.
How do you feel about the practice of lumping together petty misdemeanours with more serious accusations, when they have no hope of succeeding in their own right and are clearly intended only to act as character evidence?
Yes. CPS look at evidence and decide whether it is a) in public interest to prosecute and b) whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction. Very difficult to say if case is strong on paper, which is what they have to do. The witnesses in the DLT case may not have been very convincing. No way of knowing that before trial.
As for your last question, in sex cases, one allegation is capable of providing supporting evidence for another. It isn't great if you are defending but has a certain logic. If one woman wrongly accuses you, that's unfortunate, but 4?
Quote: Jennie @ 16th May 2014, 8:12 PM BST'Making advances' isn't a crime, unless the person is under 16, or 18 if you are in a position of trust.
What you aren't allowed to do is touch without permission,
In that case I have been assaulted on numerous occasions, sometimes to my complete delight.
As for your last question, in sex cases, one allegation is capable of providing supporting evidence for another. It isn't great if you are defending but has a certain logic. If one woman wrongly accuses you, that's unfortunate, but 4?
But over a period of forty years, after your arrest has been splashed all over the papers?
Seriously with some of the women in the DLT case, if they were sufficiently traumatised by what DLT is alleged to have done to contact the police twenty years later, then they really need to get out less.