dosxuk Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I wonder how many of these claims would not have been made if there was a limitation that meant they could not benefit financially from any conviction if a certain amount of time (in the scale of decades) had passed between the offence and the accusation being made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I wonder how many claims will be withdrawn if it becomes public knowledge the celebrities will go after and sue people who clearly make it up??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Moore Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 That's an entirely separate issue from determining someone's guilt or innocence. No it isn't it's just that you can't answer the question. You like asking questions but don't like answering them. Let's have another go. Imagine there are a few folk decide to make accusations against someone because they don't like the colour of his skin. They claim all sorts of things that happened 30 years ago. The court case finds the coloured chap not guilty, but the court case benkrupts him which is what his tormentors wanted. So was it right the CPS brought the case with no real evidence just because some white folk "wanted to fit up a darkie". Should the court then put costs onto the accusers. Should the court pay compensation from your pocket and my pocket, or should the poor chap be left to pick up the pieces of his life on his Jack Jones? ---------- Post added 14-02-2014 at 17:25 ---------- I wonder how many of these claims would not have been made if there was a limitation that meant they could not benefit financially from any conviction if a certain amount of time (in the scale of decades) had passed between the offence and the accusation being made? I suspect very few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 No it isn't it's just that you can't answer the question. No, you're suggesting that the potential consequences to the defendant should be considered when preparing charges that he could face. You like asking questions but don't like answering them. Let's have another go. Imagine there are a few folk decide to make accusations against someone because they don't like the colour of his skin. They claim all sorts of things that happened 30 years ago. The court case finds the coloured chap not guilty, I'm not sure what his colour has to do with it because as far as I know the court is blind in that respect. but the court case benkrupts him which is what his tormentors wanted. Again the two issues are unconnected and in respect of malicious prosecutions the 'victim' in that case would have recourse to public funds. So was it right the CPS brought the case with no real evidence just because some white folk "wanted to fit up a darkie". Should the court then put costs onto the accusers. Should the court pay compensation from your pocket and my pocket, or should the poor chap be left to pick up the pieces of his life on his Jack Jones? You continue to conflate the administration of justice with financial considerations, if your wife/sister/daughter accused someone of raping them would you expect the prosecution service to consider the financial implications to the accused before they pursued a prosecution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 perhaps in these type of cases the defendant should also be able to have a blank cheque toward their defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 There was as a matter of law a requirement for 'corroboration' in sexual allegations historically existed until 1994 when they were abolished. The vast majority of sexual 'incidents' occur in private and between just 2 people - hence the problem if one party alleges they did not in fact consent. Whilst the police will always look for support for an allegation over and above what the victim alleges (physical injuries and forensic evidence are not always as helpful to the prosecution as might be thought) there are many cases where it is word against word. Why should a sex offender escape prosecution because it was all a very long time ago? In familial sex cases it can often take many years for the victim to become free of the influence of those who commit such offences and even then huge courage to complain against a close relative (father, brother, uncle etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 How about Jimmy Savile, do you think he should have been left alone had he not had a prior engagement with his maker? Jimmy Savile was in a whole different league to these guys. He should have been dealt with at the time, when he was reported. This whole situation with celebrity trials seems to be a kneejerk reaction to the fact that this didn't happen at the time. In fact, if you ask me, taking people to court forty years after the event seems to be a diversion to mask the fact that there are still several culpable people in high office who effectively colluded with Savile allowing him to continue his evil practices. These are the people who should be on trial. But of course once again they are treating us like fools and hoping we will have forgotten the facts and allow these miscreants to go free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 Jimmy Savile was in a whole different league to these guys. He should have been dealt with at the time, when he was reported What was the evidence of his offending behaviour 'at the time', he was reported? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 So, DLT has been found innocent, yet has had his reputation trampled into the mud by the newspapers, which will stick, and had to sell his house to pay for the court case. Does this sound fair to you? If he's been acquitted, he should be reimbursed by the plaintiff. ---------- Post added 15-02-2014 at 12:47 ---------- So you're saying that the juries in these high profile cases were wrong and the celebrities were in fact guilty? Er, where did I say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizsterJones Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 If he's been acquitted, he should be reimbursed by the plaintiff. ---------- Post added 15-02-2014 at 12:47 ---------- Er, where did I say that? By that do you mean Her Maj ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.