ChatterBank3 mins ago
Is This Britain's Harvey Weinstein?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. 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.
//All a fault of our justice system really.//
No it’s not. The justice system has its faults but works reasonably well in most cases. But it relies on a number of things:
1. Alleged incidents being reported to the police in a timely manner
2. The police investigating those allegations properly and in a timely manner.
3. The CPS undertaking their two part test, one part of which involves examining the evidence to establish if there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction.
4. In the event of a prosecution and a Not Guilty plea, the court system hearing the evidence from witnesses.
5. Upon conviction the miscreant is suitably sentenced.
The presumption of innocence (which is not the same as the defendant being innocent) must be maintained until conviction. That does not mean those providing evidence are considered liars until then. It means their evidence is untested to a criminal standard.
What is happening in Mr Clarke’s case (and others) is that the system is failing at stage 1. As a result Stages 2-4 are not happening at all. Stage 5 is being implemented because the allegations made in Stage 1 are unconditionally accepted as truthful.
Detectives working in CID have a principle known as “ABC”. Accept nothing; Believe nobody; Check everything. This principle should apply to others before they take action against individuals on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. If victims want their allegations properly dealt with they have a responsibility to start the process off. I appreciate it’s sometimes difficult for them, but that’s life. The alternative is what we see here – alleged victims being automatically believed and actions taken without due process that seriously affect the alleged perpetrators’ lives. As Lady Brittan, Lord Bramall and Harvey Procter (among others) will attest, when allegations are automatically considered to be “credible and true”, untold damage can follow.
No it’s not. The justice system has its faults but works reasonably well in most cases. But it relies on a number of things:
1. Alleged incidents being reported to the police in a timely manner
2. The police investigating those allegations properly and in a timely manner.
3. The CPS undertaking their two part test, one part of which involves examining the evidence to establish if there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction.
4. In the event of a prosecution and a Not Guilty plea, the court system hearing the evidence from witnesses.
5. Upon conviction the miscreant is suitably sentenced.
The presumption of innocence (which is not the same as the defendant being innocent) must be maintained until conviction. That does not mean those providing evidence are considered liars until then. It means their evidence is untested to a criminal standard.
What is happening in Mr Clarke’s case (and others) is that the system is failing at stage 1. As a result Stages 2-4 are not happening at all. Stage 5 is being implemented because the allegations made in Stage 1 are unconditionally accepted as truthful.
Detectives working in CID have a principle known as “ABC”. Accept nothing; Believe nobody; Check everything. This principle should apply to others before they take action against individuals on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. If victims want their allegations properly dealt with they have a responsibility to start the process off. I appreciate it’s sometimes difficult for them, but that’s life. The alternative is what we see here – alleged victims being automatically believed and actions taken without due process that seriously affect the alleged perpetrators’ lives. As Lady Brittan, Lord Bramall and Harvey Procter (among others) will attest, when allegations are automatically considered to be “credible and true”, untold damage can follow.
Ok ty for the link. Just watched it.
I don't think what he did was sexually offensive.
it was a naff joke that got boring after a nanosecond. A "schoolboy" stupid sort of joke that he tried to carry on way too long.
Also the guestclearly says that the guy who did that for real (aka John Barrowman ) "is adorable" so why is it offensive when noel Clarke does it with a mic but not offensive when John Barrowman does it for real.
I don't think what he did was sexually offensive.
it was a naff joke that got boring after a nanosecond. A "schoolboy" stupid sort of joke that he tried to carry on way too long.
Also the guestclearly says that the guy who did that for real (aka John Barrowman ) "is adorable" so why is it offensive when noel Clarke does it with a mic but not offensive when John Barrowman does it for real.
Latest Posts
Starmer's Approval Rating Plummets,
News3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Crosswords21 mins ago
Charging Order On Leasehold Flat
Law28 mins ago
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.