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

Enter what you see:
This image contains a scrambled text, it is using a combination of colors, font size, background, angle in order to disallow computer to automate reading. You will have to reproduce it to post on my homepage Tip: Reload page if you have difficulty reading characters
Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
King of Hits
Home arrow Forums
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
Go to bottomPost New TopicPost Reply
TOPIC: Rare? Pt 157284
Rare? Pt 157284 2 Weeks, 2 Days ago Karma: 51
How many thousands of times do we have to hear these words?

The CPS said: ‘We will be reviewing the handling of this case at a senior level.’
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote

Re:Rare? Pt 157284 2 Weeks, 1 Day ago  
The common thread in all these recent cases is that the woman lied and the police and/or CPS knew she lied and deliberately tried to get an innocent man convicted.

I hope that people will start to see that this is how almost all so-called sexual offence trials are, not just a few isolated mistakes.
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote

Re:Rare? Pt 157284 2 Weeks ago  
The comments beneath the Mail article are interesting. But this one, in particular, made me chuckle.
Jock, Tavira, Portugal, a day ago
Do what the falsely imprisoned people do in Scotland have the chief constable and the officer in charge charged with kidnap. The police pay out at the rate of over £5000 a day very fast and there is a none disclosure clause written into the deal. That is why people are very rarely held in prison until trial in Scotland. Talk to a solicitor in Edinburgh called Fairburn.

Any legal eagles here care to comment?
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote

Re:Rare? Pt 157284 2 Weeks ago  
I make no claim to Legal Eagleship, but I can read. Here's kidnap in English law. Scottish law might be different.

'...the offence contains four ingredients as follows: (1) the taking or carrying away of one person by another; (2) by force or fraud; (3) without the consent of the person so taken or carried away; and (4) without lawful excuse.'
Lord Brandon in R v D [1984] AC 778

In a bogus arrest/prosecution such as the many in the recent news, (1) and (3) are self evidently present. If the police are in possession of evidence that shows the defendant is innocent, as they have been in the recently reported cases, then (2) is also satisfied in the fraud sense. It's self evidently satisfied in the force sense. Because the police were in possession of this evidence, they had no reasonable grounds to suspect the man (Mark Pearson, for example) of a crime and therefore no power to arrest him, so we have (4) as well.
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote
Re:Rare? Pt 157284 1 Week, 6 Days ago Karma: 51
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote

Re:Rare? Pt 157284 1 Week, 6 Days ago  
Yes, the possibilities are veritably effervescent.

Needs a test case from someone. I still think Mark Pearson's prosecution is the worst example yet. The police had the CCTV before they arrested him (he was found using Oystercard and CCTV records, remember?), so they must have known that he did not do what he was arrested for.
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote
Go to topPost New TopicPost Reply