Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

Ken Barlow's Jury Out



L

Lenny Rider

Well-known member
Sep 15, 2010
5,434
I think he will walk out of the court a free man, and be back walking the dog around the Red Rec before Easter.

What a waste of time and public money, not to mention the stain on his character, because there will always be a minority who said he got away with it because of who he was.
 




B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Just reading the papers and the judges summing up with advice to the jury I am not so sure that he will but I think DLT could be found not guilty.

Mind you we dont hear all of the evidence so could be way off the mark.
 


Acker79

Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,864
Brighton
That really comes across as "lets not investigate claims of abuse, because it's expensive and not really worth it"
 


S

Shatner's Bassoon

The Puff Pastry Hangman
Feb 12, 2012
860
The CPS thought there was enough evidence to charge him with two counts of rape and four of indecent assault. How is putting that to a jury a waste of time and public money?
 






The Merry Prankster

The Merry Prankster

Pactum serva
Aug 19, 2006
5,577
Shoreham Beach
Lenny Rider said:
I think he will walk out of the court a free man, and be back walking the dog around the Red Rec before Easter.

What a waste of time and public money, not to mention the stain on his character, because there will always be a minority who said he got away with it because of who he was.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what makes someone think this. The CPS thought there was enough evidence to bring a prosecution, a jury will decide his guilt or innocence. What system would you prefer?
 


Steve.S

Steve.S

Well-known member
May 11, 2012
1,833
Hastings
We have a term called miscarriages of justice. CPS do not always get it right. I have no idea with this case and I am making no comment on this one. But Kevin Webster was found not guilty last year and looking at the evidence, it would seem that the case should not have gone to trial. Then you go back a few more years, after the riots, people were taking to court for minor offences, that before the riots or since would not get to court. So I do think its right to question our legal process.
 


L

Lenny Rider

Well-known member
Sep 15, 2010
5,434
The Merry Prankster said:
I have no idea what makes someone think this. The CPS thought there was enough evidence to bring a prosecution, a jury will decide his guilt or innocence. What system would you prefer?
Click to expand...

A fairer system, whether we will ever get one I dont know, ie where William Roache, DLT and Rolf Harris amongst others are called Messrs X, Y and Z until found guilty, and if its proved that the accusers made it up they get named and ultimately done for wasting Police time.

An apparent problem with the CPS is because the accused are known there is almost a culture that they have to go through with the prosecution for fear of being accused themselves of giving preferential treatment. if the CPS went with the X Y Z policy that wouldnt be an issue.
 




D

Da Man Clay

T'Blades
Dec 16, 2004
16,254
Lenny Rider said:
A fairer system, whether we will ever get one I dont know, ie where William Roache, DLT and Rolf Harris amongst others are called Messrs X, Y and Z until found guilty, and if its proved that the accusers made it up they get named and ultimately done for wasting Police time.

An apparent problem with the CPS is because the accused are known there is almost a culture that they have to go through with the prosecution for fear of being accused themselves of giving preferential treatment. if the CPS went with the X Y Z policy that wouldnt be an issue.
Click to expand...

The first paragraph is entirely reasonable and I imagine will happen at some stage (if it's proven - and that's the difficult bit - that a 'victim' has intentionally wasted police time they are already dealt with). The second paragraph is nonsense I'm afraid.
 




L

Lenny Rider

Well-known member
Sep 15, 2010
5,434
Da Man Clay said:
The first paragraph is entirely reasonable and I imagine will happen at some stage (if it's proven - and that's the difficult bit - that a 'victim' has intentionally wasted police time they are already dealt with). The second paragraph is nonsense I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

So Da Man are you saying with the evidence they had the CPS would have taken Michael Le Vell, 49, window cleaner to trial in the same way they did Michael Le Vell long running star of one of the biggest TV shows in the country?
 




glasfryn

glasfryn

cleaning up cat sick
Nov 29, 2005
20,261
somewhere in Eastbourne
why would a woman who claims she went to his house and was raped go to another house and the same happened


for me its a N/G
 


Acker79

Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 15, 2008
31,864
Brighton
Lenny Rider said:
A fairer system, whether we will ever get one I dont know, ie where William Roache, DLT and Rolf Harris amongst others are called Messrs X, Y and Z until found guilty, and if its proved that the accusers made it up they get named and ultimately done for wasting Police time.

An apparent problem with the CPS is because the accused are known there is almost a culture that they have to go through with the prosecution for fear of being accused themselves of giving preferential treatment. if the CPS went with the X Y Z policy that wouldnt be an issue.
Click to expand...


The problem with anonymity for the accused is that, as we saw with Stuart Hall, the naming of accused gives other victims the courage to speak up. Then when their stories corroborate one another justice is more likely to be served. If Stuart Hall wasn't named, he may have gotten away with his crimes. This works on smaller scales when the accused is not a celebrity, too.

As to the name of false accusers, that happens (here is an example, here is another, here is a third, and another - lots of them easily found by googling 'false claim of rape wasting police time'). When you are proven to have lied about an assault, you are shown to not be a victim of assault and thus not protected by anonymity, when you are guilty of wasting police time you are usually named.

The problem is with people thinking "person accused of rape found not guilty ergo victim lied about assault". It's very rarely that simple, so you can't just name the victim because the accused was found not guilty.


The celebrity bit is just a damned if they do, damned if they don't thing, so I'd like to think they treat each case on merit, and yes, Michael Le Vell, window cleaner would have been taken to court. In fact he'd probably be more likely as it would be easier to get a conviction against a stranger than that nice guy from TV.
 
Last edited:






D

Da Man Clay

T'Blades
Dec 16, 2004
16,254
Lenny Rider said:
So Da Man are you saying with the evidence they had the CPS would have taken Michael Le Vell, 49, window cleaner to trial in the same way they did Michael Le Vell long running star of one of the biggest TV shows in the country?
Click to expand...

Yep. Without any shadow of doubt. CPS have much less interest in having a case against a 'celebrity' thrown out than a case against anyone else. They are well aware with the costs involved of running a rape case and even more so with the additional media scrutiny that goes with it.
 


drew

drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,064
Burgess Hill
Steve.S said:
We have a term called miscarriages of justice. CPS do not always get it right. I have no idea with this case and I am making no comment on this one. But Kevin Webster was found not guilty last year and looking at the evidence, it would seem that the case should not have gone to trial. Then you go back a few more years, after the riots, people were taking to court for minor offences, that before the riots or since would not get to court. So I do think its right to question our legal process.
Click to expand...

I think therein lies the problem. Miscarriage of justice has nothing to do with the CPS as they do not decide whether someone is innocent or guilty, just whether there is a case to be heard. As for Kevin Webster, were you party to all the evidence or just what you read in the paper? I do agree with some of the cases that followed the rioting however part of that is not that someone just stole a bottle of water or whatever, but that they were engage in public disorder as well. Also, just because a jury has decided that you are not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, doesn't automatically mean you are totally innocent. In the eyes of law, you have been found not guilty. The victim could take you to a civil court where the onus of proving guilt is only 'on the balance of probabilities'.

Lenny Rider said:
A fairer system, whether we will ever get one I dont know, ie where William Roache, DLT and Rolf Harris amongst others are called Messrs X, Y and Z until found guilty, and if its proved that the accusers made it up they get named and ultimately done for wasting Police time.

An apparent problem with the CPS is because the accused are known there is almost a culture that they have to go through with the prosecution for fear of being accused themselves of giving preferential treatment. if the CPS went with the X Y Z policy that wouldnt be an issue.
Click to expand...

In a court of law, the accused is referred to as Mr or Mrs, even when convicted. You need to separate what happens in the court with what the media chose to print (and you subsequently read). There are arguments for and against anonymity but I tend to side on the view that the accused should not have automatic anonymity but that if the accuser is found to have lied then that person should lose their anonymity.
 


C

Czechmate

Well-known member
Oct 5, 2011
1,212
Brno Czech Republic
Personally , and I think this may be controversial , there should be a time limit to report on cases like this , now everyone is trying to jump on the bandwagon . Say if you don't report the accusation for 5-10 years , it needs thinking about but for now lets say 8 years , if a serious accusation is not reported within 8 years then it can no longer be taken to court (I only mean cases like this) 30-40 years ago is a long time to remember anything never mind exact times and what the accused has done , it is near impossible and to have a resulting conviction or acquittal with exact facts is near impossible.

Say the accuser is 14 when it happened (which I think is roughly the lowest age this has happened to someone) after 8 years they will be 22 years and adult enough to stand up and report the case , not when they are 40 or 50 when the accused is a well established celebrity . The sooner cases are reported the better , perhaps the accuser would realise that if she/he had done something about it earlier then perhaps another 10-15 people wouldn't of gone through the ordeal .

This may be controversial but it is a suggestion only and 8 years is just a time I put in as a sample . I know rape and sexual abuse is a serious case and I would not think otherwise.
 






B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
In the William Roache case it seems a straight she says he did it he says he didnt a straight denial with very little evidence either way just a case of who do the jury believe. If found guilty I would expect an immediate appeal.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here