footy68 Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 It means was found not guilty that is all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) It means was found not guilty that is all Honestly. It means he didn't do it. Case should never have gone to court given the facts known by prosecutors at the time of the original and subsequent allegations. Answer this question and you're more than nearly there. Why, in a child rape case, did the defence introduce the defendant's marital infidelities as a material factor? Edited September 11, 2013 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Answer this question and you're more than nearly there. Why, in a child rape case, did the defence introduce the defendant's marital infidelities as a material factor? It seems fairly obvious what happened now, but I would still expect the CPS to consider cases where, "her mother is a bitch," is the defence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 On occasions. the guilty are proved innocent and the innocent are found guilty, :censored: happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 It seems fairly obvious what happened now, but I would still expect the CPS to consider cases where, "her mother is a bitch," is the defence There was never a reasonable chance of conviction. No medical backing. The CPS and the police should know when they're being played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 There was never a reasonable chance of conviction. No medical backing. The CPS and the police should know when they're being played. What medical backing was there for Stuart Hall, or Jimmy Savile? Each case on it's merits. He had the right to defend himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 What medical backing was there for Stuart Hall, or Jimmy Savile? Each case on it's merits. He had the right to defend himself. Fair enough Stuart Hall - but Jimmy Savile was dead and therefore incapable of mounting a defence in court. I reckon the CPS (not to mention the police) had enough alarm bells going off to press counter-charges of making a vexatious complaint. Even so, Kev should've had anonymity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Fair enough Stuart Hall - but Jimmy Savile was dead and therefore incapable of mounting a defence in court. I reckon the CPS (not to mention the police) had enough alarm bells going off to press counter-charges of making a vexatious complaint. Even so, Kev should've had anonymity. How do you make an actor who appears on one of the most watched TV shows in this country several times a week, who then stops appearing anonymous? Ryan Giggs is still subject to a super-injunction isn't he? But we all know that he is involved, (allegedly). I have absolutely no problem in making both sides in certain high-profile criminal cases anonymous, but sometimes it is ridiculously impractical to do so and not to mention costly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scratch2000uk Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 It shouldn't be just high-profile cases, it should be across the board, We wouldn't want ordinary folk thinking there's a law for them and one for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 It shouldn't be just high-profile cases, it should be across the board, We wouldn't want ordinary folk thinking there's a law for them and one for us.When I say high-profile cases, I meant stuff like the Rochdale/Heywood case as well as the celeb ones, in fact any case that is "newsworthy" probably counts as high-profile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 I think that justice should be seen to be done (children being a special case), It may well be that malicious evidence should be punished more severely, but only when proven guilty. It's a tough world sometimes and if you try to make the laws so that everyone comes out happy a lot of us will end up a lot worse off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Sinnott Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 So what's the crack with this MP? Do you all know something we don't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 So what's the crack with this MP? Do you all know something we don't...If you need a picture, draw yourself one of a man trying to grab cocks with 9 empty pint pots beside him. Not so sure about the rest of it, suspect a put up job tbh, but the court will decide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayItLivo Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) It means was found not guilty that is all Which means he didn't do it. Edited September 11, 2013 by PlayItLivo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Which means he didn't do it.Yes, in terms of his liability, but it says absolutely about whether his accuser was telling the truth or lying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayItLivo Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Yes, in terms of his liability, but it says absolutely about whether his accuser was telling the truth or lying. If you think like that then he was guilty the minute she accused him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 How do you make an actor who appears on one of the most watched TV shows in this country several times a week, who then stops appearing anonymous? Ryan Giggs is still subject to a super-injunction isn't he? But we all know that he is involved, (allegedly). I have absolutely no problem in making both sides in certain high-profile criminal cases anonymous, but sometimes it is ridiculously impractical to do so and not to mention costly. Superinjunction isn't even nearly as strong as a court-sponsored reporting restriction in a criminal trial. Different types of case altogether. What you do is report the trial in the normal way, saying Ms A and Mr B instead of the names. The newspapers have done their best under the reporting restrictions to inform readers exactly who the accuser is, so it turns out that revealing the identity of the accused has more or less blown the cover of the accuser. For that reason alone Kev should have been anonymous until the end of the trial. Actors go missing from soaps for all sorts of reasons and are quickly forgotten. They can even get abducted by aliens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 So what's the crack with this MP? Do you all know something we don't... Yes and no. He's a flirt and has been known to get a bit handy in the bars in Westminster. Rapist? Not sure. But then who'd want to do a put-up job on such a popular and inoffensive bloke? It's anyone's guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 If you think like that then he was guilty the minute she accused him.No. You are describing a civil case. "That's my car." "No, it's my car." Judge: "It's his :censored:ing car." A criminal case doesn't pick a side in the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Which means he didn't do it. Did oj Simpson murder his partner and her lover? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Did oj Simpson murder his partner and her lover? The glove don't fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Yes, in terms of his liability, but it says absolutely about whether his accuser was telling the truth or lying. That was the whole case. Are these accusations a malicious lie or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 That was the whole case. Are these accusations a malicious lie or not? Not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Not So. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 That was the whole case. Are these accusations a malicious lie or not?Probably something a jury should decide if there is a case to answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.