29 minute jury deliberation
29 minute jury deliberation
I think you can ask the question whether or not this prosecution was in the public interest ie value for money ?
Re: 29 minute jury deliberation
Blimey...well his life is still buggered unless they make a spin off from coronation street starring all their peadophiles both proven and alleged.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Jonone
Of all the "celebs" who have been arrested following on from the Savile saga, I can only recall Stuart Hall being found guilty and that was when he, himself, admitted guilt.
It can't be easy to come up with sufficient evidence to get a prosecution when in some cases, the alleged offences took place 50 years ago.
Funny old legal system when it proved impossible to get a conviction against the policeman who was videoed carrying out a seemingly unprovoked attack on Ian Tomlinson, walking away from the demo with his back to the police and hands in his pockets. Tomlinson died hours later.
He didn't even lose his pension, never mind getting found guilty of anything.
It can't be easy to come up with sufficient evidence to get a prosecution when in some cases, the alleged offences took place 50 years ago.
Funny old legal system when it proved impossible to get a conviction against the policeman who was videoed carrying out a seemingly unprovoked attack on Ian Tomlinson, walking away from the demo with his back to the police and hands in his pockets. Tomlinson died hours later.
He didn't even lose his pension, never mind getting found guilty of anything.
Johno
David Johnson wrote:
> Of all the "celebs" who have been arrested following on from
> the Savile saga,
Where is this linked to the Savile saga? Its only link is that it happened after Jimmy Savile was exposed. I don't recall Andrew Lancel being arrested by any of the strands of that enquiry.
I'd be more concerned that the judge ordered the jury to find him not guilty on two of the charges. What if the jury thought him guilty on those?
> Funny old legal system when it proved impossible to get a
> conviction against the policeman who was videoed carrying out a
> seemingly unprovoked attack on Ian Tomlinson,
Or the two fanatics who murdered Lee Rigby and were seen doing it, indeed admitted it on camera minutes later and yet the media have been told to refer to them as "suspects" and not killers.
> Of all the "celebs" who have been arrested following on from
> the Savile saga,
Where is this linked to the Savile saga? Its only link is that it happened after Jimmy Savile was exposed. I don't recall Andrew Lancel being arrested by any of the strands of that enquiry.
I'd be more concerned that the judge ordered the jury to find him not guilty on two of the charges. What if the jury thought him guilty on those?
> Funny old legal system when it proved impossible to get a
> conviction against the policeman who was videoed carrying out a
> seemingly unprovoked attack on Ian Tomlinson,
Or the two fanatics who murdered Lee Rigby and were seen doing it, indeed admitted it on camera minutes later and yet the media have been told to refer to them as "suspects" and not killers.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Johno
"Where is this linked to the Savile saga? "
My oh so sensitive, literal pal!
They are linked only in the sense that the reporting of all the accusations that came to light after Savile's death, the subsequent vilification of the BBC and the suggestions raised about the police not taking such accusations seriously, appears to have led to a seemingly huge number of alleged sex offence accusations against celebs going way back.
"Or the two fanatics who murdered Lee Rigby and were seen doing it, indeed admitted it on camera minutes later and yet the media have been told to refer to them as "suspects" and not killers "
Well the absolutely obvious difference is that the policeman concerned, Simon Harwood was actually brought to court and acquitted for reasons that are in the public domain. That is why I use the word "conviction". Let's see if the two fanatics get off. I suspect not.
In the meantime, under British law, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Not a bad rule to go by, methinks! We wouldn't want the media deciding who is guilty, would we?
My oh so sensitive, literal pal!
They are linked only in the sense that the reporting of all the accusations that came to light after Savile's death, the subsequent vilification of the BBC and the suggestions raised about the police not taking such accusations seriously, appears to have led to a seemingly huge number of alleged sex offence accusations against celebs going way back.
"Or the two fanatics who murdered Lee Rigby and were seen doing it, indeed admitted it on camera minutes later and yet the media have been told to refer to them as "suspects" and not killers "
Well the absolutely obvious difference is that the policeman concerned, Simon Harwood was actually brought to court and acquitted for reasons that are in the public domain. That is why I use the word "conviction". Let's see if the two fanatics get off. I suspect not.
In the meantime, under British law, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Not a bad rule to go by, methinks! We wouldn't want the media deciding who is guilty, would we?
Re: Johno
David Johnson wrote:
> In the meantime, under British law, innocent until proven
> guilty in a court of law. Not a bad rule to go by, methinks!
> We wouldn't want the media deciding who is guilty, would we?
But innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction. If you were truly innocent, you wouldn't be in court in the first place. It's only because you are up before the beak that the police think that you are a wrong 'un.
> In the meantime, under British law, innocent until proven
> guilty in a court of law. Not a bad rule to go by, methinks!
> We wouldn't want the media deciding who is guilty, would we?
But innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction. If you were truly innocent, you wouldn't be in court in the first place. It's only because you are up before the beak that the police think that you are a wrong 'un.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Johno
"But innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction."
If that was the case, we wouldn't need a jury system.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, chummy.
If that was the case, we wouldn't need a jury system.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, chummy.
Re: Johno
David Johnson wrote:
> "But innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction."
>
> If that was the case, we wouldn't need a jury system.
>
> Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, chummy.
What do you mean if that was the case? That is the case. If someone was regarded as truly innocent why would they be accused? Cos the rozzers think they did it.
In addition, the EU isn't that keen on jury trials. And more and more cases in this country are being held without a jury.
> "But innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction."
>
> If that was the case, we wouldn't need a jury system.
>
> Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, chummy.
What do you mean if that was the case? That is the case. If someone was regarded as truly innocent why would they be accused? Cos the rozzers think they did it.
In addition, the EU isn't that keen on jury trials. And more and more cases in this country are being held without a jury.
Re: Johno
Judge Clement Goldstone QC said: "The defendant was acquitted on the evidence, and rightly so, but it is important that the complainant, who is clearly scarred by an experience, should understand that the jury verdicts does not necessarily involve rejection of his account of a sexual encounter or encounters with the defendant.
"It is a statement that the prosecution have failed to make the jury sure that abuse of the type alleged occurred during the period covered by the indictment and in particular before the complainant's 16th birthday, now more than 18 years ago."