harvey19 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 That's a good point, but nonetheless the police aren't going to prosecute high profile cases unless there's a good chance of conviction, after all high profile cases get reported nationally and coppers associated with those which result in acquittals don't tend to progress up the career ladder..the egg is too sticky on their faces! The police collect the evidence and the CPS decide whether to prosecute. After allegations of complaints not being acted on in the Saville cases I think they will have been reluctant not to proceed on complaints against other celebrities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Do you have evidence to back that up or you just stating something that you made up? Im speaking from experience. Senior police officers are alpha creatures, they don't want to be associated with failure or cocking something up, those who rise tend to have unblemished and usually unspectacular CVs. Prosecutions of this nature are decided by several case reviews between a senior team of detectives and experienced prosecutors at the CPS, who consider the evidence. They're very conscious of the PR consequences of taking someone who's high profile to court and failing..as are there senior colleagues, so it's not something they tend to be gung-ho about. ---------- Post added 17-01-2014 at 16:30 ---------- The police collect the evidence and the CPS decide whether to prosecute.You'll find the relationship between the two is closer than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Don't you think that's setting a standard that's too high? What would you think if one of your middle aged relatives revealed they'd been assaulted as a young teenager by a manipulative adult? I would think it is far to late to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the accused can't even defend the allegation because they are unlikely to know where they were or who they was with at the time of the alleged assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I would think it is far to late to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the accused can't even defend the allegation because they are unlikely to know where they were or who they was with at the time of the alleged assault. Im not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it wouldnt serve the public interest if serious cases such as rape were time barred, I understand the difficulties defendants face in such cases but on balance I think it's fair that a jury hears the case and decides the outcome, taking account of the evidence and the points you raise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I would think it is far to late to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the accused can't even defend the allegation because they are unlikely to know where they were or who they was with at the time of the alleged assault. Im not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it wouldnt serve the public interest if serious cases such as rape were time barred, I understand the difficulties defendants face in such cases but on balance I think it's fair that a jury hears the case and decides the outcome, taking account of the evidence and the points you raise.It is too late, with those incidents that happened decades ago, and i have doubts about them serving public interest, or being helpful to other rape victims. Its become so sensational now, with more cases due to be heard in the coming months, then what, more people charged? with an on going "witch hunt" Much as I condemn sex crimes, and empathise with victims of rape. Despite the best intentions I do think these "Operation Yewtree" investigations will receive some criticism in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 It is too late, with those incidents that happened decades ago, and i have doubts about them serving public interest, or being helpful to other rape victims. Its become so sensational now, with more cases due to be heard in the coming months, then what, more people charged? with an on going "witch hunt" Much as I condemn sex crimes, and empathise with victims of rape. Despite the best intentions I do think these "Operation Yewtree" investigations will receive some criticism in the future. I agree, I don't see how it benefits anyone other than the possibility of some compensation for the accusers. Some members of the jury will simply base their guilty or not guilty opinions on how much they like or dislike the accused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Of all these " celebrities" who have been charged with ALLEGED offences, Only Stuart Hall has been convicted. It's very wrong that the media know all the alleged criminals names, but no one knows the name of any of the so called victims. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonj Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Of all these " celebrities" who have been charged with ALLEGED offences, Only Stuart Hall has been convicted. It's very wrong that the media know all the alleged criminals names, but no one knows the name of any of the so called victims. Angel. Stuart Hall pleaded guilty, he was never convicted. #pedantic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Stuart Hall pleaded guilty, he was never convicted. #pedantic I'm sure he was guilty. I just worry that some might plead guilty in the face of overwhelming spurious accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 It is too late, with those incidents that happened decades ago, and i have doubts about them serving public interest, or being helpful to other rape victims. It's a handy defence is "30yrs ago? I can't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday" The thing is most can't remember what they had for breakfast the day before..but raping or assaulting someone I would presume is something that would be indelibly imprinted on the brain. Loss of memory is your friend. Its become so sensational now, with more cases due to be heard in the coming months, then what, more people charged? with an on going "witch hunt" Much as I condemn sex crimes, and empathise with victims of rape. Despite the best intentions I do think these "Operation Yewtree" investigations will receive some criticism in the future. No it hasn't, it's always been sensational. The means by which it has is the thing that's changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.