In The Know wrote:
In The Know wrote:
How is NOT proceeding with one of Worboys' complainants fair ... but not proceeding with one of Bennells' unfair ?

sorry ... should have read -

How is NOT proceeding with one of Worboys' complainants fair ... but proceeding with one of Bennells' unfair ?

Simply "Context" (Blog already provides enough detail on Bennell and Worboys to identify fair / unfair points; Reasonable / unreasonable approaches etc)

Of course one needs to read the full verdict but is there a chance M'Learned Friends deliberately arrived at this decision as a way of enforcing police to investigate correctly & impartially as they give a Solemn Oath to do so?

It wouldn't be the first time activist judges have used their power to correct what has become an alarming system by police to 'pervert' justice.

About 4 years ago The High Court in Australian overturned a 100 year old precedent that prevented a wrongly convicted victim sueing police for malicious prosecution.

Of course it has to be proved but in the case taken to the High Court involving a woman wrongly jailed for 10 years after police mendacity..the police settled quietly (from rumours..about $5M)

This in turn is a new precedent that countries with English based law systems will be looking at closely.

Note the further mendacity of police fighting the Worboys case even though they had offered compensation they wasted £Ms fighting these victims...I think we have just seen the Supreme Court put Mr Plod in his place.

JK2006 wrote:
I think the point is - if police investigation has been faulty it must be examined.

Agreed.

The police have been criticised for failing to proceed (properly) with the initial complaint into Warboys ... and it would be just as wrong to not investigate (properly) each and every complaint against Bennell.

That will not go down well with the paedo apologists on here !

Justice must not only be done - it should be seen to be done.

There are no paedo apologists on here ITK but if there were they would tell you, loudly and clearly, so you understand, that everyone approves of investigating (properly) claims of abuse. I would hope you, too, would agree that unbalanced or shoddy investigation is the problem, and the CPS not pressing for total disclosure such as Danny Day's medical history and Geoff Long's pink sink and the Ched Evans false accuser's sexual past details. Without that the CPS cannot make the correct decision, whether or not to prosecute and possibly waste court time (as with recent dropped false rape claims).

Example - a loony comes in to local cop shop to claim ITK is a Communist Spy. Ludicrous but requires investigation (as with Corbyn and discovering he was the other end of the country the day after his Mother died). Very quickly Plod would decide - silly, false, drop it, go no further.

Plod should clearly have examined the first Warboys claims better. The Supreme Court got it right.
Plod should also clearly have examined the false claims made against me 18 years ago. If they had, I'd probably still be Chairman of a British EMI and England would be richer by billions, the Brits would be brilliant and there would be no Brexit.

Police doing their jobs properly can only be totally approved of by anybody. Our frequent complaint is that they don't and, indeed, sometimes deliberately or accidentally provoke, encourage or disguise evidence of innocence.

Paedo apologist or truth seeker*, ITK? Isn't one of the main problems with old claims the fact that evidence of truth is hard, if not impossible, to find? This doesn't mean I think incidents shouldn't be reported or for police to investigate them. On the contrary, I think it's extremely important and a courageous step for genuine victims to make. And shouldn't everyone reporting an incident, including those who could be hiding a false accusation, be listened to and treated respectfully?

*I'd like to emphasise the word seeker here.

md wrote:
Paedo apologist or truth seeker*, ITK? Isn't one of the main problems with old claims the fact that evidence of truth is hard, if not impossible, to find? This doesn't mean I think incidents shouldn't be reported or for police to investigate them. On the contrary, I think it's extremely important and a courageous step for genuine victims to make. And shouldn't everyone reporting an incident, including those who could be hiding a false accusation, be listened to and treated respectfully?

*I'd like to emphasise the word seeker here.

Good post, md

Try explaining that to some of the apologists on the Bennell thread ... who would never admit his guilt even after 400 convictions !

Thanks ITK, though I forgot to add something that I think the current police policy also seems to forget. When an allegation is reported, it's equally important to treat the accused respectfully and for their side of the story to be treated seriously, listened to and investigated. Who else apart from the accuser, the accused and eyewitnesses can tell who is telling the truth at this stage?

JK2006 wrote:


Example - a loony comes in to local cop shop to claim ITK is a Communist Spy. Ludicrous but requires investigation (as with Corbyn and discovering he was the other end of the country the day after his Mother died). Very quickly Plod would decide - silly, false, drop it, go no further.


Not so quick..why do you think he uses the initials "ITK"?..real name Ivan Tasha Kazankov ex KGB (booted as incompetent) and farmed out to the Stasi and a contemporary of Czechoslovakian spy and Jeremy Corbyn afternoon tea pal Ján Sarkocy.

Together they were known as the Laurel & Hardy of the "intelligence" world (for obvious reasons).

ITK was so useless they sent him to London with the sole purpose of reporting on what Margaret Thatcher had for breakfast each morning and what she was wearing each day and what the colour of her underwear was.

This had tragic consequences when Mrs ITK was sent to Harrods in an attempt to see if Thatcher was a customer and there she developed a taste for expensive shoes which has never diminished.

ITK (Ivan) now spends his twilight days trolling websites like this in the hope he may (fruitlessly) diminish the image of the coming Ruler Of Great Brittan Jeremy Corbyn..or The Cob as he is known to his pals and in MI5 files.

md wrote:
Thanks ITK, though I forgot to add something that I think the current police policy also seems to forget. When an allegation is reported, it's equally important to treat the accused respectfully and for their side of the story to be treated seriously, listened to and investigated. Who else apart from the accuser, the accused and eyewitnesses can tell who is telling the truth at this stage?

... again, spot on, md !

Innocent until proven guilty.

and by "proven" - I mean who do the Jury believe?

If you've been convicted (and jailed several times already) of hundreds of similar cases (like Bennell) ... who would believe anything that that the defendant says - unless there was overwhelming evidence to support it????

comrade hedda wrote:
ITK was so useless they sent him to London with the sole purpose of reporting on what Margaret Thatcher had for breakfast each morning and what she was wearing each day and what the colour of her underwear was.

This had tragic consequences when Mrs ITK was sent to Harrods in an attempt to see if Thatcher was a customer and there she developed a taste for expensive shoes which has never diminished.

I would have thought that YOU were more qualified to report on dresses, hedda?

In The Know wrote:

Innocent until proven guilty.

and by "proven" - I mean who do the Jury believe?

If you've been convicted (and jailed several times already) of hundreds of similar cases (like Bennell) ... who would believe anything that that the defendant says - unless there was overwhelming evidence to support it????

A "Burden of Proof" chart has been recently doing the rounds on Twitter. I agree totally with Elizabeth Yeld's comment. It's very easy to get confused with the meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt".

twitter.com/lizyeld