sadoldgit Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Yeah, Im sure Ill be really glad I was able to clear my name after potentially ruining all of my relationships from friends, to work, to family after my name was leaked in order to potentially raise further 'victims' that may, or may not have been assaulted despite the fact that I am innocent. This isnt a ****ing omelette. In making an omelette it is necessary to break a few eggs, are you saying you are happy with the collateral of ruined lives despite the possibility of still having no convictions ? Or on another note, how many boxes of eggs do you want to throw at the wall in order to make said omelette ? I have been through it too. There is no perfect system. How many more lives are ruined by people who perpetrate crime? At least we no longer have capital punishment so that any miscarriages are justice are not irreversible. Again, I don't agree with names being leaked before a charge is brought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Thats just plain bizarre. Its okay to put people through hell because some of them might emerge okay at the end of it? Are you saying that the vast majority of people tried in court are innocent? I am saying that if there is enough evidence to charge then I don't see anything wrong in releasing the name of the alleged offender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 I think the accused should not be named, until charged , as a matter of course, however the police can apply to a judge to relax this . If plod feel that they have compelling evidence that naming the accused will bring forward other victims , then its up to them to persuade the judge of the case to do so. At present they seem to be conducting fishing expeditions and leaving people on bail for unacceptable lengths of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Yes but my point is that many people think he got away with it. Which is precisely why the accused in these sex cases that we are discussing should remain anonymous until the verdict. There are plenty of people who take the view that there is no smoke without fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 As someone once said, you cant make an omelette with breaking some eggs. It is very sad but it is part of the criminal justice system. Does everyone who has been through it have a ruined life? I am sure many people move on and are pleased that they had the opportunity to clear their name. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/03/paul-gambaccini-police-flypaper-for-almost-a-year-abuse-mps-bail-limit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Given the number of false rape claims there are and the fact that even those accused who are cleared have had their lives ruined... No, emphatically and totally no. False rape claims are a few percentage points max. It's incredibly rare that false accusations are brought and the culture is society is completely stacked against people coming forward due to disbelief or intimidation. The overwhelming majority of rapists and sex criminals get away with it. That's the depressing reality. This isn't to say false accusations do not happen, just that they are incredibly rare. As for anonymity of the accused, I think on the whole it should remain consistent with other crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Yes it is, but that is not my point. There are plenty of people who have walked free when the police know full well it was they that did the crime. Nothing is black and white. No it isnt, but our justice system happens to be the best in the world, is it infallible ? No, but considering your alternative seems to be to punish innocents to try and get a couple more of the guilty verdicts Id rather stick with what we have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 False rape claims are a few percentage points max. It's incredibly rare that false accusations are brought and the culture is society is completely stacked against people coming forward due to disbelief or intimidation. The overwhelming majority of rapists and sex criminals get away with it. That's the depressing reality. This isn't to say false accusations do not happen, just that they are incredibly rare. As for anonymity of the accused, I think on the whole it should remain consistent with other crimes. You are totally missing the point. Sex crimes are different because they usually hinge on consent, not on what acts took place. Nearly every other crime is about what happened - you either stole / attacked / damaged or you didnt -its often provable. The fact that two people may have different recollections or perceptions of whether consent was given doesnt mean most accused are getting away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 You are totally missing the point. Sex crimes are different because they usually hinge on consent, not on what acts took place. Nearly every other crime is about what happened - you either stole / attacked / damaged or you didnt -its often provable. The fact that two people may have different recollections or perceptions of whether consent was given doesnt mean most accused are getting away with it. Consent either happened or it didn't. If one side thinks the other side is consenting, and then they actually weren't, then it wasn't a consensual act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Consent either happened or it didn't. If one side thinks the other side is consenting, and then they actually weren't, then it wasn't a consensual act. If only life were as simple as you would like it to be. 1. A couple have been together happily for years. She's asleep when he starts having sex with her. Is that rape? 2. A couple have split up over his unfaithfulness. They later meet and he promises he has ditched the other woman and will never see her again. She believes him and they sleep together again that night. In the morning he says hes going back to other woman. Does gettingh somebody into bed under on false pretences counts as rape? 3. Two friends go out for the night. They both drink too much and end up having sex. Her boyfriend finds out. In the morning she blames the alcohol for clouding her judgement and says he took advantage of her, he says she was responding enthusiastically and so consented. Is that rape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Does getting somebody into bed under on false pretences counts as rape? I fucking hope not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 If only life were as simple as you would like it to be. 1. A couple have been together happily for years. She's asleep when he starts having sex with her. Is that rape? 2. A couple have split up over his unfaithfulness. They later meet and he promises he has ditched the other woman and will never see her again. She believes him and they sleep together again that night. In the morning he says hes going back to other woman. Does gettingh somebody into bed under on false pretences counts as rape? 3. Two friends go out for the night. They both drink too much and end up having sex. Her boyfriend finds out. In the morning she blames the alcohol for clouding her judgement and says he took advantage of her, he says she was responding enthusiastically and so consented. Is that rape? Jesus wept there is some desperation in there. Also, being married has absolutely no bearing on anything. If a man/woman rapes their wife/husband then it is rape. Whether or not they are married is neither here nor there. If she's asleep and he has sex with her, of course it is rape. You cannot consent if you are asleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 I fucking hope not! 'My Lambourghini is in for a service, that why Im driving this 15 year old Fiesta' works everytime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 If she's asleep and he has sex with her, of course it is rape. You cannot consent if you are asleep. My ex used to love that. It was her favourite way to wake up. I'll tell her you are outraged and will be approaching CPS on her behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 My ex used to love that. It was her favourite way to wake up. I'll tell her you are outraged and will be approaching CPS on her behalf. Lol, why exactly am I outraged? It's Friday, I'm perfectly happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Lol, why exactly am I outraged? It's Friday, I'm perfectly happy. err because you said was desperate stuff and clearly rape. It sounded like outrage to me. Are you now backtracking coz life and the law aint black and white after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 If only life were as simple as you would like it to be. 1. A couple have been together happily for years. She's asleep when he starts having sex with her. Is that rape? 2. A couple have split up over his unfaithfulness. They later meet and he promises he has ditched the other woman and will never see her again. She believes him and they sleep together again that night. In the morning he says hes going back to other woman. Does gettingh somebody into bed under on false pretences counts as rape? 3. Two friends go out for the night. They both drink too much and end up having sex. Her boyfriend finds out. In the morning she blames the alcohol for clouding her judgement and says he took advantage of her, he says she was responding enthusiastically and so consented. Is that rape? I'm not going to pretend to be the world expert on consent - but as I understand it. The first one is definitely rape, regardless of how long they have been together. If she is unconscious, she can not consent. You should not presume consent because you are married. The second one, assuming that there was enthusiastic consent is not rape assuming that at the time of the act, they both consented and were in a sound mind to do so. It is however a completely ****ty and manipulative thing to do. The third one is admittedly more tricky. For me, it is not rape assuming that they were both intoxicated and that they both consented at the time. It becomes rape if there is a uneven state of mind - i.e one is too drunk to give informed consent, but the other isn't. So, and I urge others to correct me if they think I am wrong, consent either exists or it doesn't. It must be equal (i.e both individuals are at a level state of mind), and it can not be presumed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 My ex used to love that. It was her favourite way to wake up. I'll tell her you are outraged and will be approaching CPS on her behalf. +1 wake up blow job is best way to wake up! Even the worst wake-up bj i ever had, i still didn't ring police cos a bj is a bj, and my dad has always been pretty decent to me generally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 20 March, 2015 My ex used to love that. It was her favourite way to wake up. I'll tell her you are outraged and will be approaching CPS on her behalf. You dirty rapist! How dare you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 +1 wake up blow job is best way to wake up! Even the worst wake-up bj i ever had, i still didn't ring police cos a bj is a bj, and my dad has always been pretty decent to me generally ,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 20 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 20 March, 2015 If I wake up and I have my girlfriend on top ****ging me, is that rape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 If I wake up and I have my girlfriend on top ****ging me, is that rape? need more info pls! spare no detail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxford_lou Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Sorry to hear some of you are struggling to understand the concept of consent. But this nice tea metaphor might help! http://www.theloop.ca/this-woman-just-explained-consent-with-the-most-perfect-metaphor/ Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Sorry to hear some of you are struggling to understand the concept of consent. But this nice tea metaphor might help! http://www.theloop.ca/this-woman-just-explained-consent-with-the-most-perfect-metaphor/ Hope that helps. who wouldn't want to wake up to nice cup of tea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxford_lou Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 who wouldn't want to wake up to nice cup of tea? You didn't read it properly Bear! The answer is within. No way you could read it in 30 seconds even if you were the best skim reader! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Sorry to hear some of you are struggling to understand the concept of consent. But this nice tea metaphor might help! http://www.theloop.ca/this-woman-just-explained-consent-with-the-most-perfect-metaphor/ Hope that helps. edit: too bleeding slow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 You didn't read it properly Bear! The answer is within. No way you could read it in 30 seconds even if you were the best skim reader! i didn't read it at all tbh. I just assumed. I basically raped that article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Sorry to hear some of you are struggling to understand the concept of consent. But this nice tea metaphor might help! http://www.theloop.ca/this-woman-just-explained-consent-with-the-most-perfect-metaphor/ Hope that helps. This good. Given the other responses on this thread though, I think I am out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxford_lou Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 This good. Given the other responses on this thread though, I think I am out. Yeah, me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 my mum just offered to make me a cup of tea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Sorry to hear some of you are struggling to understand the concept of consent. But this nice tea metaphor might help! http://www.theloop.ca/this-woman-just-explained-consent-with-the-most-perfect-metaphor/ Hope that helps. But what if the woman (or man) said that he/she really wanted a cup of tea, was really up for having a cup of tea, drank said cup of tea with relish, thanked their host for the best cup of tea thay had ever drunk but then later complained that they didn't actually want the cup of tea in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Is that likely, whitey? I've had sometimes that ppl complain they did not like my tea, although v.rarely cos my tea is v.nice, but they've never come back to me and said, look bro! That tea you made me yesterday, i didn't even want it FFS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 I prefer coffee. I think I might be gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 err because you said was desperate stuff and clearly rape. It sounded like outrage to me. Are you now backtracking coz life and the law aint black and white after all? I said it was desperate, the same way I do whenever people come up with all these alternative scenarios to try and demonstrate why men are really the victims, and the world is being ruined by all the nasty false rape claims, which has already been demonstrated as a tiny percentage. Also, you prove your own point to be daft by saying how much your ex enjoyed it. For you to know that, you've probably had a conversation about it, that's starting to sound a bit like consent? But hey, shift the goalposts and tell us all about what you and your ex used to get up to to win interweb points. Nah, still not outraged. Just y'know discussing viewpoints, which a forum is for. Funny how whenever this topic comes up I'm either angry, confused, outraged etc. attributing feelings to me that I'm not expressing. Bletch has explained this previously, in a much more eloquent way than I can. Speak to him about how silly and disingenuous a thing to do this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 No it isnt, but our justice system happens to be the best in the world, is it infallible ? No, but considering your alternative seems to be to punish innocents to try and get a couple more of the guilty verdicts Id rather stick with what we have I don't think it is possible to have an infallible justice system but I would say ours is pretty good. My alternative is not to punish innocents so not sure where you get that from. The prosecution is assuming guilt and the defendant only becomes innocent in the eyes of the prosecution when the verdict comes back as not guilty. You make it sound like I am saying put X people on trial in the hope of getting Y convictions. Unless the defended pleads at some point during the process the prosection will only know how many Ys there are when the jury returns a verdict. At that point the prosecution has a "broken egg." If the prosecution thought that person was probably innocent initially there would not have been a trial. If you are saying that no defendants should be named until found guilty, I am not sure how that would work. We have a transparent criminal justice system and to do this would need closed courts and all kinds of reporting restrictions. I am also not sure that it is in the best interest of the CJS to have a closed system. Yes, it does mean that a person found innocent has been through a tough ordeal, but it also shows that anyone can look at the case as presented in court and see that it was conducted properly and that person have been acquitted as part of due process. If that hasn't happened there are appeal procedures. I take the point that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty but as part of our CJS this decision remains in contention until a verdict is arrived at - it follows that the prosecution believe the evidence to be such that the defendant is guilty and to that end, it is in the public interest to know the name of the person who is going to trial in any given case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 I said it was desperate, the same way I do whenever people come up with all these alternative scenarios to try and demonstrate why men are really the victims, and the world is being ruined by all the nasty false rape claims, which has already been demonstrated as a tiny percentage. Also, you prove your own point to be daft by saying how much your ex enjoyed it. For you to know that, you've probably had a conversation about it, that's starting to sound a bit like consent? But hey, shift the goalposts and tell us all about what you and your ex used to get up to to win interweb points. Nah, still not outraged. Just y'know discussing viewpoints, which a forum is for. Funny how whenever this topic comes up I'm either angry, confused, outraged etc. attributing feelings to me that I'm not expressing. Bletch has explained this previously, in a much more eloquent way than I can. Speak to him about how silly and disingenuous a thing to do this is. You dont sound relaxed to me, rather outraged. Its not about winning innerweb points its about getting you to take the righteous blinkers off and think about what consent really is - and why it can sometimes be ephemeral, withdrawn, conditional, implied, coerced or invalid - and what that means for criminal cases in the absence of independent witnesses. Of course most complaints of rape are genuine but in most cases will not result in prosecution. Thats a reflection of the nature of relationships and the crime and not a reflection of a problem of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 I don't think it is possible to have an infallible justice system but I would say ours is pretty good. My alternative is not to punish innocents so not sure where you get that from. The prosecution is assuming guilt and the defendant only becomes innocent in the eyes of the prosecution when the verdict comes back as not guilty. You make it sound like I am saying put X people on trial in the hope of getting Y convictions. Unless the defended pleads at some point during the process the prosection will only know how many Ys there are when the jury returns a verdict. At that point the prosecution has a "broken egg." If the prosecution thought that person was probably innocent initially there would not have been a trial. If you are saying that no defendants should be named until found guilty, I am not sure how that would work. We have a transparent criminal justice system and to do this would need closed courts and all kinds of reporting restrictions. I am also not sure that it is in the best interest of the CJS to have a closed system. Yes, it does mean that a person found innocent has been through a tough ordeal, but it also shows that anyone can look at the case as presented in court and see that it was conducted properly and that person have been acquitted as part of due process. If that hasn't happened there are appeal procedures. I take the point that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty but as part of our CJS this decision remains in contention until a verdict is arrived at - it follows that the prosecution believe the evidence to be such that the defendant is guilty and to that end, it is in the public interest to know the name of the person who is going to trial in any given case. Aren't the alleged victims allowed anonymity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Is that likely, whitey? I've had sometimes that ppl complain they did not like my tea, although v.rarely cos my tea is v.nice, but they've never come back to me and said, look bro! That tea you made me yesterday, i didn't even want it FFS! I was thinking hypothetically, but I suppose it might depend on how much milk you put in it and how much you stir it first. I have had people say 'I think that tea you gave me has given me a dodgy tummy'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 You dont sound relaxed to me, rather outraged. Its not about winning innerweb points its about getting you to take the righteous blinkers off and think about what consent really is - and why it can sometimes be ephemeral, withdrawn, conditional, implied, coerced or invalid - and what that means for criminal cases in the absence of independent witnesses. Of course most complaints of rape are genuine but in most cases will not result in prosecution. Thats a reflection of the nature of relationships and the crime and not a reflection of a problem of the law. Taking the blinkers off? You presented a hypothetical, and then after the fact said it is something that you used to do, and your partner liked it. That's deliberately misleading. It's a cheap trick to get a 'Gotcha' moment. Also, really can't help yourself can you. I don't have to be outraged to disagree with people. Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true. I really wish I could remember the thread where Bletch made this point, as it is something that happens a lot on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Taking the blinkers off? You presented a hypothetical, and then after the fact said it is something that you used to do, and your partner liked it. That's deliberately misleading. It's a cheap trick to get a 'Gotcha' moment. Also, really can't help yourself can you. I don't have to be outraged to disagree with people. Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true. I really wish I could remember the thread where Bletch made this point, as it is something that happens a lot on here. It was to illustrate my point that life is more complicated than that. I said it was a long standing relationship, which implies consent. Despite that you said "If she's asleep and he has sex with her, of course it is rape. You cannot consent if you are asleep". Thats why you would be a danger on a jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 You dont sound relaxed to me, rather outraged. Its not about winning innerweb points its about getting you to take the righteous blinkers off and think about what consent really is - and why it can sometimes be ephemeral, withdrawn, conditional, implied, coerced or invalid - and what that means for criminal cases in the absence of independent witnesses. Of course most complaints of rape are genuine but in most cases will not result in prosecution. Thats a reflection of the nature of relationships and the crime and not a reflection of a problem of the law. Not sure if this is entirely the case. The law itself isn't the problem but the legal process can be. Many rape victims don't feel believe and find the cross examination by the Defence as being almost as traumatic as the offence. In court that are often made to feel like liars, like old slappers, like they were asking for it. Out of court they have to go through invasive processes in gathering of forensics. Getting victims to court and to see a case through is not easy. Getting convictions is not easy. If the victim hasn't had bruises and shows evidence of fighting back and trying to escape the jury often think that means consent. If the defendant has previous the prosecution has a battle to get bad character admitted as the defence will object. Anonymity for the victims has helped more come forward but still there are many who dread the legal process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 It was to illustrate my point that life is more complicated than that. I said it was a long standing relationship, which implies consent. Despite that you said "If she's asleep and he has sex with her, of course it is rape. You cannot consent if you are asleep". Thats why you would be a danger on a jury. Interesting. Married men and men in long standing relationship have been tried for rape. If the woman says no a man is not entitled to go ahead no matter what type of relationship they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Not sure if this is entirely the case. The law itself isn't the problem but the legal process can be. Many rape victims don't feel believe and find the cross examination by the Defence as being almost as traumatic as the offence. In court that are often made to feel like liars, like old slappers, like they were asking for it. Out of court they have to go through invasive processes in gathering of forensics. Getting victims to court and to see a case through is not easy. Getting convictions is not easy. If the victim hasn't had bruises and shows evidence of fighting back and trying to escape the jury often think that means consent. If the defendant has previous the prosecution has a battle to get bad character admitted as the defence will object. Anonymity for the victims has helped more come forward but still there are many who dread the legal process. Sure, Im not disputing that -it would be a horrible process to go through and I would think that in the absence of independent corroboration most people would choose not to go through it, knowing there is little likelihood of conviction. My point is that that doesn't mean the law should be changed. In the large majority of cases you cant and shouldn't convict based on one persons word against another's unless there is some other compelling evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Getting convictions is not easy. I thought the law was they shouldn't go to trial then? I mean, I thought CPS was like no-win-no-fee bros, in that they don't care about actual guilt or innocence, they only care if there's more than 50% chance of winning the trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Interesting. Married men and men in long standing relationship have been tried for rape. If the woman says no a man is not entitled to go ahead no matter what type of relationship they have. Saying no is a totally different situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 I thought the law was they shouldn't go to trial then? I mean, I thought CPS was like no-win-no-fee bros, in that they don't care about actual guilt or innocence, they only care if there's more than 50% chance of winning the trial? Bringing cases to court is very expensive Bear and while the money comes from the public purse, it has to be totally justified. We prosecute a number of cases in house but all of the major offences are briefed out to Chambers and the CPS has to pay for that. If cases are lost the senior CPS lawyers have to review them and report back on why we lost. We have to be reasonably confident of a successful prosecution (and you can never second guess a jury) and it has to be in the public interest to bring the prosecution. Public spending cuts mean that running the CPS (and the police and court service) is becoming more and more difficult but cases still need to be brought to court and there is no restriction on prosecuting cases based on cost. Cases do get dropped if we think the evidence is not strong enough but sometimes a case will still be prosecuted if deemed important enough by senior prosecutors. We would find it very difficult to justify taking a case to court without the CPS lawyers believing in the guilt of the defendant. If the reviewing lawyer has doubts the case is passed up the management chain for further advice. As you can imagine, cases where people walk free cause the CPS a lot of grief so blindly prosecuting innocent people is not encouraged! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Is that likely, whitey? I've had sometimes that ppl complain they did not like my tea, although v.rarely cos my tea is v.nice, but they've never come back to me and said, look bro! That tea you made me yesterday, i didn't even want it FFS! Ive never been told that they dont wamt my tea, ive been told I brew it a bit too long, and sometimes not long enough. Or maybe I spend too much time preparing the tea, but in general my tea goes down well I think. It gets a bit messier when you're making tea for more than one person, because you've got to figure out what everyone wants, but I just give them what I think they might like. Its even worse when someone videos you making the tea.. V embarrassing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Interesting. Married men and men in long standing relationship have been tried for rape. If the woman says no a man is not entitled to go ahead no matter what type of relationship they have. Is that the same as not saying yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Is that the same as not saying yes? Good point. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 20 March, 2015 Share Posted 20 March, 2015 Ive never been told that they dont wamt my tea, ive been told I brew it a bit too long, and sometimes not long enough. Or maybe I spend too much time preparing the tea, but in general my tea goes down well I think. It gets a bit messier when you're making tea for more than one person, because you've got to figure out what everyone wants, but I just give them what I think they might like. Its even worse when someone videos you making the tea.. V embarrassing Do you like to warm the pot first and do you use a strainer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now