Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Gambo and Cliff go forward
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
wjlmarsh |
JK2006 wrote:
I think the answer is to have strict conditions for the CPS to approve charge before any investigation.
I see Randall has promoted complete open transparency as opposed to this anonymity thing.
I agree in that whatever is done in these trials and other similar proceeding the need for fairness, transparency and accountability is paramount to protect all involved.
My observation is that in spite of all the investigations etc "accountability" by each group, police, judges CPS is what is missing more than anything else (even now with anonymity for a judge to conduct a fair trial that a "full verified account of the complainant's stated story is presented and established" e.g . Rolf Harris case do they know if the complainant was even in Cambridge at the initial stated year and then again the new time three years later even if call Ms C ). Anonymity should never ever be allowed to hide keys facts about the complainant and story as it is now.
NOW, whatever the rules, procedures are the difference groups just ignore them and pursue their latest thing. The CPS has a clear rule that evidence presented must before hand be examined and checked that it is "reliable" (Not just credible) Obviously in trials this "reliable" element is ignored by all. And where the evidence is reliable is more more chance than design. I do not know the rules for judges or the police but my guess is the police are suppose to pursue all "reasonable" steps as one would expect. And judges are ideally suppose to conduct fair trials which if they followed would not permit them to follow statue law of allowing one witness testimony only as it contradicts both human rights law and a fair trial and I suspect judges are suppose to put suggestions and recommendations as would be normal so judges been fair should be up and arms with the many things they can and can not do. Like the misleading way of warning against stereotypes without also emphasizing also because a report is delayed due to timidness does not detract from the fact the testimony can only be verified by solid evidence. The stereotype is only to challenge that the time element as evidence that it can not be true, is correct. The stereotype statement is used now as a indication if the person is now telling a late story it must be true (not stated but there is the implication). To my observation accountability in Parliament flowing downwards is the key element that is missing, not the only thing but the missing element. So appeals would not be as now a control element to keep the status quo but a chance to challenge each trial conduct not just on new evidence but the trial and jury itself. The court can misbehave and get it wrong. Last I heard the court was not filled with pre-programmed robots but people all with prejudices and personal agendas a recipe for disasters. |
|
JK2006 |
I think the answer is to have strict conditions for the CPS to approve charge before any investigation.  |
|
Misa |
Glad to see you, too, are concerned about this. It sounds dangerously close to calling for secret detention. Of course, that could never happen here... |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
I agree. I cant see any benefit at all to announcing it after charge, and it will encourage even more corruption.
Unless people are thinking that there has to be strong evidence before you can be charged?
Unfortunately, this is not true. |
|
JK2006 |
But I've told both of them; I think No Publicity Until Charge is a terrible mistake. Just as the changes to bail conditions have lead to more tragedies, not less. Police and CPS (they nearly always back each other up, including incompetence) will simply charge on arrest, then later cancel if they fail to invent sufficient "evidence". If this law were in place, both Cliff and Gambo would have been charged; far more damage would have been done and, what's more, dozens of further false accusers would have jumped on the bandwagon. Indeed; I think if this law had been in place then, both men would now be in jail.
www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/07/01/paul-gamba...on-crisisa-ahead-of/ |
|
|
|
