King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: one thing seriously bothered me re Carl Beech
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Misa	This statement from Mark Watts of Exaro is suggesing the same thing hedda. twitter.com/bbcsimonwarr/status/1153432269845147648/photo/1
Randall	Here's the CPS guidance on bad character evidence. www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bad-character-evidence Carl Beech's convictions would be admissable under gateway 7, because he made attacks on the character of others. However, I'm not sure if this only applies to others involved in the trial, ie one of the men he accused giving evidence as a prosecution witness for example. The issue regresses to the basic question of how do we know Mr Beech was making it all up? An accusation on its own, without any supporting evidence, has been enough to convict tens of thousands of men (including our host, to name but one). How does the CPS distinguish between Carl Beech and any other historical complainant who is treated as a genuine victim?
hedda	it was repeatedly mentioned in the media that Beech was a "convicted pedophile" I though previous convictions cannot be mentioned? Could this be the basis for an appeal?