ChatterBank25 mins ago
Well At Least Something Useful Has Come Out Of Yewtree
19 Answers
http:// news.sk y.com/s tory/13 94048/b ail-lim it-anno unced-a fter-ce lebrity -delays
And not before time too. Leaving people languishing on bail for months on end is ridiculous. 28 day is more than enough.
And not before time too. Leaving people languishing on bail for months on end is ridiculous. 28 day is more than enough.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I agree with hc...if it takes longer than 28 days, and it normally does for offences going back 20,30,40 years, than so be it.
Hardly any of the recent paedophiles found guilty, could have been successfully prosecuted if the 28 day had been in place. Now that the police have finally seen that they must act thoroughly, lets not tie one hand behind their backs for them.
Hardly any of the recent paedophiles found guilty, could have been successfully prosecuted if the 28 day had been in place. Now that the police have finally seen that they must act thoroughly, lets not tie one hand behind their backs for them.
One of the points of bail is conditions can be laid down where appropriate. For example, a person could be stopped from leaving the country.
If a suspect has to be de-arrested then there would be nothing to stop him (or her) from fleeing the country.
Another condition can be to prevent the suspect contacting the alleged victim and witnesses.
Curfews, specific place of residence, injunctions can all be conditions of bail designed to protect the alleged victim and ensure the suspect remains available for further questioning.
To stop all that after only 28 days is a nonsense.
If a suspect has to be de-arrested then there would be nothing to stop him (or her) from fleeing the country.
Another condition can be to prevent the suspect contacting the alleged victim and witnesses.
Curfews, specific place of residence, injunctions can all be conditions of bail designed to protect the alleged victim and ensure the suspect remains available for further questioning.
To stop all that after only 28 days is a nonsense.
-- answer removed --
.
There should be a statute of limitations - amid popular howls, a 19 y o SS man has just been acquitted over Oradour sur Glane - oh he is 89 now - on the grounds that no one can convincingly show he was there or that if he was, he fired a gun. http:// fr.wiki pedia.o rg/wiki /Oradou r-sur-G lane
There should be a statute of limitations - amid popular howls, a 19 y o SS man has just been acquitted over Oradour sur Glane - oh he is 89 now - on the grounds that no one can convincingly show he was there or that if he was, he fired a gun. http://
-- answer removed --
Hey mikey, in simple terms, if it has been decided you are to be bailed and it's in accordance with all the rules then you are bailed (the notice just basically tells you that you have been told). However, a person should always ask for the reason why police are extending bail and challenge the custody officers decision. I have heard a few stories where this has worked and people temporarily released on the grounds of insufficient evidence at that stage to charge having been bailed already several times (the police can re-arrest the same person again for the same case if any Fresh evidence comes to light).
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.