Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Brilliant Tweetie Pie
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
pete |
Allison Pearson has penned an excellent piece of this topic, expanding on the concerns JK raised with such perspicuity:
Alarm bells start clanging when I hear Ms Truss say that this will allow judges to cut out any inappropriate cross-examination of rape victims referring to their sexual history before it can be seen by a jury. Who decides what is inappropriate? Justice must be seen to be done, not doctored in some editing suite.
Ms Truss thinks all this is a jolly good idea because, in pilot schemes, it has led to more early guilty pleas, which relieve pressure on a system stretched to breaking point by a huge influx of sex cases. It will also “reduce the level of trauma for the victim” who was previously confronted in court by her attacker.
The Justice Secretary has no business referring to the accuser in a rape case as the “victim”. Women can lie. A man accused of rape might be telling the truth, although he will not have the protection of anonymity enjoyed by his accuser. An acquaintance of mine, wrongfully accused of rape by a woman he met on Tinder, was left alone in purgatory for 12 months while his malicious accuser had counselling and sympathy. Before a word of evidence was heard, the guilty woman was “believed” and the innocent man condemned.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/19/rape...ery-slope-injustice/
It seems that some of the more thoughtful and ethical journos are seeing through this half-wits sisterhood sycophancy for what it is: a means to cut time and costs and make convictions easier, at the expense of that trifling matter, justice. |
|
JK2006 |
All victims - oops claimants - pre recorded and edited beforehand ("could you cry a bit more?") instead of being live in court. Not proposed. Made law tomorrow.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/19/rape...rded-video-evidence/ |
|
Randall |
What exactly is being proposed? |
|
JK2006 |
How did she ever get the job? I suspect the May woman wanted more women in her Cabinet and so gave the jobs she regards as unimportant (i.e. the ones she did) to assorted token birds.
To be deadly serious, although Pete's total despair is fair and understandable, I actually think this might be a step too far. The straw that broke the camel's back.
We are inches away from conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Thank God, for the moment, we need to obey the European Court of Human Rights. Bringing in a law to allow criminals to avoid direct examination is very close to illegal. If somebody is intent on perverting the course of justice (say, for compensation or media cash or sympathy or attention or revenge or any other reason) and sets off on that course like, say, a Danny Day (can't say he's guilty; he is, after all, innocent until) and police, CPS and Parliament conspire to assist that crime - they all need prosecuting. |
|
Randall |
Of course, I agree with you wholeheartedly, Pete, except for...
Those of us who find these illiberal measures desperately dangerous have little choice but to go down with the ship.
You don't have to live there. |
|
|
|
