So here we have another celebrity who has been through hell and for nothing ? Raises questions about the CPS and their ability not only to secure a conviction, but for the whole debacle to go to court in the 1st place. All those witnesses and not enough evidence for a beyond reasonable doubt.
And your point is...? If you're suggesting that celebrities should be exempt from the uncomfortable processes of criminal investigation and prosecution then I think you'll find that's how we got to this particular state of affairs! :wink: Law and order is for all of us. It can be equally distressing whether you are famous or not. Just a little less public, but isn't that the very nature of celebrity?
No not at all. But one of the criteria for going to court is a reasonable prospect of a conviction. Seemingly so far they got it wrong again. It raises questions about the evidence available and the CPS decision makers ability to estimate a probable outcome based on that evidence. Some people have been to court with 1 defendant and 1 witness in a rape case and been found guilty. Now i generalise there. But in this case seemingly there was a suggested pattern of behaviour and multiple witnesses. The evidence must have been weak at best...
Not all cases lead to a conviction - that's kind of how it works? I doubt that you or I - or the Daily Mail, or the Guardian etc etc - are in a better position to assess the evidence than the professionals at the CPS? Let's let them do their job eh?
There does seem to be an appetite on behalf of the CPS to pursue these cases against celebrities. Is there genuinly strong evidence, are they easy targets or are the CPS nervous in the wake of Jimmy Saville's crimes?
No doubt there is an element of public pressure to pursue any allegations precisely because of the inaction over Saville, but that only makes the CPS's job even more difficult... and now we want to complain that nobody's being convicted so therefore they've f*cked up? Give them a break...!
I have no connection at all with the CPS but it seems to me to be one of those exceedingly difficult jobs which it's easy to criticise, much harder to do...
We fund the CPS, right? Someone should get sacked for this one and Ken Barlow last week, plus countless others who have had their reputations ripped apart on the basis of 40 yr old unsubstantiated claims which subsequently when tested in court are clearly accusations of context to the time they took place. I hope he sues someone (yes I know we will end up paying it) as he has lost everything over something which even a blind rabbit could tell would fall apart.
Since it's so obvious to you Bradders, perhaps you should take up law and apply for a position at the CPS? It's really important work after all...
wheres the evidence against saville……….how much of that is a 40 year old yes you did……and he aint here to say….no i didn't?
The biggest issue for me is evidence. Where is it? And how, 40 years after the event, can you produce it? If there have been historical complaints which weren't followed up at the time due to "celebrity" status, then you at least have something to go on, but in these recent cases, DLT, Ken etc it is all unsubstantiated accusations. Yes, I know there are "similarities" but that is all they are, and as DLT pointed out, what was acceptable then, isn't now, and half the population would be in jail, if they were to be prosecuted and found guilty. Had these alleged victims complained at the time then there might have been physical evidence, they didn't, and probably because they didn't think they would be believed, which means we will never know the real truth. I do feel sorry for victims of abuse, and hope that with modern forensics they will get justice. But dragging up something from so long ago, without any evidence, couldn't, in my opinion, lead to a safe conviction. DLT and anyone else who suffers huge costs through such tenuous court cases should have that money refunded.
With Saville, there appears to be lots of 'evidence' of abuse which was witnessed independently. Sure i have no idea (too dim, me) to know how it would play put in court but there seems enough corroboration in the common world. And it was actual abuse, even in the 70's touching young girls as he is believed to have wasn't acceptable. DLT touching some groupie on the tit when he sticks his arm around her, intentionally or not, WAS acceptable and the norm. And that my friends is the point. Acceptable now? Nope. But nor is the black and white minstrels but no one is shouting for that lot to be hung for racial incitement, are they?!
There are so many things that have changed in our society, as you rightly say Bradders. What used to be acceptable then is now very much taboo, and in most cases quite correctly, but bringing cases to court, with only the flimsiest of evidence, is frankly ridiculous, and smacks of desperation by the CPS to get a conviction. Saville seems to be an exceptional case, with far more credibility, but alas, he isn't about to answer the charges, or even put his case. I really think the CPS would be better off chasing those who abuse the benefit system, crooked politicians, and terrorists, than chasing celebs using dodgy evidence!
there is always the public interest………what shoite would you all be bleating if they had said, nah theres no evidence…….lets not put it to the court?
