One thing that's come out of this virus

[trigger_andy]

Just now, tree-fancier123 said:

I say it's at least slightly better than donnk's - like a brick wall that's on the piss only by 3 degrees off plumb, as opposed to 10

Off's off. You need to be bang on if you're gonna slag someone else's grammar. Especially in the very post you're doing so.  

[eggsarascal]

1 minute ago, trigger_andy said:

Not so;

 

 

The Crown Prosecution Service has apologised for failing to pursue allegations of child abuse against Jimmy Savile after details of Scotland Yard’s probe into the late BBC presenter revealed allegations of more than 200 crimes committed over six decades.

 

A review of the scandal released on Friday found that Savile could have been prosecuted in three-quarters of the cases but that police and prosecutors had treated alleged victims with an unjustified “degree of caution”.

You have to have reliable witnesses, not young girls who have been brutalised by these bastards, or you are going nowhere fast, A good barrister will pull anything apart in crown court.

[donnk]

3 minutes ago, tree-fancier123 said:

I say it's at least slightly better than donnk's - like a brick wall that's on the piss only by 3 degrees off plumb, as opposed to 10

one of my many faults is spelling and typing. I apprecaite your pointing it out.

 

Should have seen it beofre spell checker.

 

[trigger_andy]

Just now, eggsarascal said:

You have to have reliable witnesses, not young girls who have been brutalised by these bastards, or you are going nowhere fast, A good barrister will pull anything apart in crown court.

Why appologise then?

Why did a review find that 3/4 of of the cases brought to the Police and CPS could have prosecuted Savile but chose not to.

To think a high profile case like this never crossed Starmer's desk is at best naive and at worse turning a blind eye. 

[eggsarascal]

2 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

Why appologise then?

Why did a review find that 3/4 of of the cases brought to the Police and CPS could have prosecuted Savile but chose not to.

To think a high profile case like this never crossed Starmer's desk is at best naive and at worse turning a blind eye. 

3/4 probably should have been sent to court, but with no one there to give their side of the story it's game over. How many times do cases collapse due to lack of evidence?

 

When was the last time you were on trial and actually saw how it works?

[donnk]

the whole criminal justice system is a farce. Just take a look at the sentancing guideling judges have to use for burglary. 

 

 

what this should look like is

 

 

good behaviour scrapped. Time added on for bad behavior. All sentances doubled for second offence.

 

 

 

 

 

[trigger_andy]

9 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

3/4 probably should have been sent to court, but with no one there to give their side of the story it's game over. How many times do cases collapse due to lack of evidence?

I dont agree with your interpretation. Where that the case they CPS would have no need to appologise. 

 

The failure to pursue the allegations has raised uncomfortable questions for some of Britain’s most trusted institutions. 

 

It could be argued this was deliberate, regardless, the whole situation was handled increadibly badly, for whatever reason. And the failings lie firmly at Starmers door. 

 

9 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

When was the last time you were on trial and actually saw how it works?

The one and only time Ive been to court was when I was 17, for breaking a lads jaw into three pieces. That was enough for me. Regardless, your frequent visits have no bearing on the facts as reported. That is the CPS had to appologise for their failings, no perceived failings. They could have prosecuted Savile on 3/4 of the cases, that would imply that 3/4 had enough evidence or they could not prosecute, and 1/4 could not be actioned on as they never had enough evidence. But for one reason or another the CPS, headed by Starmer refused to do so. 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by trigger_andy

[tree-fancier123]

5 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

 

I agree, whilst Starmer was head of CPS at the time they dropped the Ball on Savile it was not personally his fault.

 

Just now, trigger_andy said:

I dont agree with your interpretation. Where that the case they CPS would have no need to appologise. 

 

The failure to pursue the allegations has raised uncomfortable questions for some of Britain’s most trusted institutions. 

 

It could be argued this was deliberate, regardless, the whole situation was handled increadibly badly, for whatever reason. And the failings lie firmly at Starmers door. 

 

what a difference 5 minutes makes - I was rather envious looking at your trolley of refreshments the other day, now I remember what it can do to people.

[trigger_andy]

Just now, tree-fancier123 said:

 

what a difference 5 minutes makes - I was rather envious looking at your trolley of refreshments the other day, now I remember what it can do to people.

I was being intentionally and overly facetious the first post hence all the ..... at the end. Clearly irony does not translate well over the interwebs.......

 

 

And to be honest Ive hardly touched the Booze. Just not felt in the mood. Ive had two nips of the whisky and 6 330ml cans of beer. 

Edited May 16, 2020 by trigger_andy

[tree-fancier123]

Just now, trigger_andy said:

I was being intentionally and overly facetious the first post hence all the ..... at the end. Clearly irony does not translate well over the interwebs.......

that's not the only thing a bit funny about your behaviour in the last quarter hour - how come you think 250k way too high for covid deaths with no lockdown. Erudite armchair epidemiologist strikes again