Remember when the British legal system was the envy of the world?

[Inoff the Red]

Remember when the British legal system was the envy of the world?

 

I recently spent three weeks on jury service and at the end wondered why on earth the case had been brought. Bad though it was , it was nothing compared with this (and while you read just muse on whether the attitude of the police and CPS may have been coloured by the politics of the accused.

 

Read this and weep!

 

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/07/richard-holden-my-nightmare-experience-at-the-hands-of-the-police-and-the-cps.html

[Peasgood]

18 minutes ago, Inoff the Red said:

Remember when the British legal system was the envy of the world?

You often hear people here saying such things, then you go to a different country and they say exactly the same thing about their system.

I have concluded that it is unlikely anywhere else in the world has even heard of our system and would find it a bit of a joke if they did.

[Vespasian]

3 hours ago, Inoff the Red said:

Remember when the British legal system was the envy of the world?

 

I recently spent three weeks on jury service and at the end wondered why on earth the case had been brought. Bad though it was , it was nothing compared with this (and while you read just muse on whether the attitude of the police and CPS may have been coloured by the politics of the accused.

 

Read this and weep!

 

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/07/richard-holden-my-nightmare-experience-at-the-hands-of-the-police-and-the-cps.html

Read it, I think the fella did grab her when he was drunk.. or otherwise intoxicated on drugs.. 

 

And, what kind of person has a party as well...  I mean a grown up person and not a half witted teenager. this bloke definitely did something creepy, if you're asking me..

 

Think about it, why would someone out the blue accuse a man of groping her for no reason at all?.. why did he invite her to a party ?..  why was he texting her beforehand?.  No, this fella set a trap for her, then pounced when he imagined he'd got the nod, or lost control of his emotions..

 

If your asking me he's trying too hard to paint a pic of saintly innocence, not working on me, he's a creep of sorts for sure..

 

[eggsarascal]

3 hours ago, Vespasian said:

Read it, I think the fella did grab her when he was drunk.. or otherwise intoxicated on drugs.. 

 

And, what kind of person has a party as well...  I mean a grown up person and not a half witted teenager. this bloke definitely did something creepy, if you're asking me..

 

Think about it, why would someone out the blue accuse a man of groping her for no reason at all?.. why did he invite her to a party ?..  why was he texting her beforehand?.  No, this fella set a trap for her, then pounced when he imagined he'd got the nod, or lost control of his emotions..

 

If your asking me he's trying too hard to paint a pic of saintly innocence, not working on me, he's a creep of sorts for sure..

 

I see someone stuck another ten bob in.

[westphalian]

I feel sorry for the young uns. You can’t even have drunken sex anymore. I didn’t know of any other kind til I was 25. My daughter knows of 2 women who have falsely accused a casual fling of rape

[nepia]

8 hours ago, Inoff the Red said:

 

I recently spent three weeks on jury service and at the end wondered why on earth the case had been brought. 

 

Read this and weep!

 

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/07/richard-holden-my-nightmare-experience-at-the-hands-of-the-police-and-the-cps.html

I've done jury service too and felt likewise but are you really happy to make judgement on just the word of an acquitted defendant?!  Sure something seems to have gone wrong but at the time the decision was made to prosecute (by the CPS, not the Police) a senior prosecutor considered that a properly directed jury was more likely to convict than acquit.

 

Much, much more detail needed to make judgements!  Of course Police should have done more digging into potential defence stuff like the complainant's phone history but this is where the ethereal dream world of the courts holds sway over the real world in which each day only has 24 hours.  Police, like most public services, are simply overwhelmed with work.

[eggsarascal]

13 minutes ago, nepia said:

 Police, like most public services, are simply overwhelmed with work.

The rest of your post I agree with, but this is no excuse. Allegations like the one in the link stay with people for life whether they are convicted or not. Ok, we are only hearing one side of the story, that said, if it's to be believed the old bill have been woefully neglectful. It's the courts/jury's belief that this woman has lied on oath, she and whoever the officer in charge of the case should stand trial, one for perjury and the other for neglect of duty. Imho.

[nepia]

Sorry Eggs but I don't see how it's not an excuse; they are simply overwhelmed - you can only do so much in a working day however desirable or even necessary it may be to do more.

You would not believe the time it takes to do even the simplest check.   If a request had been made, for example, to examine all phone communication between the alleged victim and the offender there would have been at least two forms to complete and submit through supervisors for authorisation to spend the money on it; then the phone company would take weeks to get back with a response if they did so without being chased.

And that would form but a tiny part of the whole investigation.

 

It's not right but it's the way it is.  If a surgeon capable of doing only three procedures in a day was given four to do day after day and something eventually went wrong with a patient would you say 'this is no excuse' that he was given more than he could handle effectively?

[eggsarascal]

15 minutes ago, nepia said:

Sorry Eggs but I don't see how it's not an excuse; they are simply overwhelmed - you can only do so much in a working day however desirable or even necessary it may be to do more.

You would not believe the time it takes to do even the simplest check.   If a request had been made, for example, to examine all phone communication between the alleged victim and the offender there would have been at least two forms to complete and submit through supervisors for authorisation to spend the money on it; then the phone company would take weeks to get back with a response if they did so without being chased.

And that would form but a tiny part of the whole investigation.

 

It's not right but it's the way it is.  If a surgeon capable of doing only three procedures in a day was given four to do day after day and something eventually went wrong with a patient would you say 'this is no excuse' that he was given more than he could handle effectively?

Again, if it's to be believed, the police were found to be lieing, they said they hadn't spoken to one of the defendants friends who was there on the night even though that friend had email evidence to prove the police had contacted him. The police have then gone ahead and provided the CPS with evidence that they have to make a "call" on. That imo simply isn't good enough. This bloke would/could have be sent to prison because the police haven't done their job properly. That's without the fact That he was put out of a job. 

 

In this case the police would have had more time for policing if they hadn't had officer wasting time following up non-leads, and attending court cases, yet they will still retire (at an early age) on a pretty nice pension. I'm not suggesting all coppers are bent, but someone, whoever the buck stops with should be brought to account.

Edited July 7, 2018 by eggsarascal

[difflock]

From my v limited experience with the Police, once Plod has formed an opinion, however falsely based, the do all they can to find evidence supporting their opinion, and ignore any to the contrary.

My case was a simple fender-bender RTC, where the other party drove into my stationary vehicle, for no reason whatsoever apart from inattention(prob on her mob  ph), then got carted away in an ambulance and 3 days later made a surprisingly(and clearly very well advised) short statement the I had driven out in front of her, and that she had sustained a suspected broken neck.

I made a full detailed statement at the scene, and repeatedly asked Plod to sieze her ph, he refused btw(cos it did not fit his narrative) said narrative instantly formed on the basis of a witness who did not witness the collision, only heard the bang and looked round to see the aftermath.(because she saw us at the last instant and braked as she swerved, she dragged both cars out into the other carrigeway)

Finally the case went to court, she chickened out of lying under oath, much tooing and frooing between the barristers, and it was apportioned 50/50, I would like to have compelled her to appear in Court, but from an early am start, it was already  the middle of the afternoon and we had left the dogs.

So I didnt, but still regret this decision.

Lying bitch wanted a meal ticket for the rest of her non-working life, was my opinion.

marcus

In sorry hindsight the fact that we did not make a personal injury claim probably went against us, when one thinks about it, a truely a sad reflection on the values of our current society. But we were not injured even though she had driven into us, so why would we claim?

Edited July 7, 2018 by difflock