Huw Edwards

[smithy]

I don't comment on here much at all, but I was disgusted at SOG's post the moment I read it.  Trying to score points and wind people up is one thing, but saying that Huw Edwards crimes are "Hardly the crime of the century" and "relatively trivial" is way beyond the pale. The pictures and videos he PAID FOR are utterly disgusting and the sentence he received is a complete joke. It got the media attention it deserved because Edwards was the news anchor for the countries main broadcaster, that we all pay a fee for. There's no getting out of it, it was the worst post ever on this forum by a long way. 

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Anyone who watches kids being raped must have some sort of mental health issue, no defence IMO

I take your point, but I can't help but think that many of those such people would 'pass' most mental health assessments. 

It's all but impossible to ascribe the kind of depravity that drives people to watch this material to a simple mental illness. Doesn't mean there isn't something wrong with them though.

But using a transient period of poor mental health as an excuse for those actions is just shirking responsibility, and doesn't wash with me. I don't believe for s second that Edwards only did what he did because his mental wellbeing was poor. People don't just choose to seek out videos of kids being raped because they're feeling under the weather. That's bullshit. I guarantee this wasn't the first time he did it, it was just the first time he got caught. 

[The Kraken]

17 minutes ago, smithy said:

I don't comment on here much at all, but I was disgusted at SOG's post the moment I read it.  Trying to score points and wind people up is one thing, but saying that Huw Edwards crimes are "Hardly the crime of the century" and "relatively trivial" is way beyond the pale. The pictures and videos he PAID FOR are utterly disgusting and the sentence he received is a complete joke. It got the media attention it deserved because Edwards was the news anchor for the countries main broadcaster, that we all pay a fee for. There's no getting out of it, it was the worst post ever on this forum by a long way. 

No doubt SoG will deflect his atrocious comments and claim he’s been taken out of context, or that it’s just the “usual suspects” having a go at him.  The fact is that there so many people on here that have condemned his comments, and yet he is still continuing to post on this thread and others on this site without retracting anything speaks volumes about the man. He’s a deeply unpleasant person who has made some frankly appalling comments and yet is (so far) much too arrogant and narcissistic to even begin to own up to his awful behaviour.

[Turkish]

20 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I take your point, but I can't help but think that many of those such people would 'pass' most mental health assessments. 

It's all but impossible to ascribe the kind of depravity that drives people to watch this material to a simple mental illness. Doesn't mean there isn't something wrong with them though.

But using a transient period of poor mental health as an excuse for those actions is just shirking responsibility, and doesn't wash with me. I don't believe for s second that Edwards only did what he did because his mental wellbeing was poor. People don't just choose to seek out videos of kids being raped because they're feeling under the weather. That's bullshit. I guarantee this wasn't the first time he did it, it was just the first time he got caught. 

Oh I completely agree with you, just saying that that sort of depraved behaviour are not the actions of any normal, sane person. 

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

No doubt SoG will deflect his atrocious comments and claim he’s been taken out of context, or that it’s just the “usual suspects” having a go at him.  The fact is that there so many people on here that have condemned his comments, and yet he is still continuing to post on this thread and others on this site without retracting anything speaks volumes about the man. He’s a deeply unpleasant person who has made some frankly appalling comments and yet is (so far) much too arrogant and narcissistic to even begin to own up to his awful behaviour.

Not for the first time he’s made some very disturbing comments and tried to deflect or argue he’s right whist failing to recognise his behaviour. 
 

I suspect he’ll do what he always does and disappear for a few days before returning again pretending it never happened preaching on some other subject 

[Guided Missile]

Meanwhile, Elon Musk tweet on the controversy:

Quote

Critics have claimed that the sentence gives the impression that sex crimes against children are taken less seriously than offences involving comments posted on social media.

Wading into the controversy on Tuesday, Mr Musk accused Britain of having “misplaced priorities”. He was reacting to a post by another user on his social media platform X that branded Edwards’s sentence “unbelievable”.

I love our slimeball PM's response to the sentence:

Quote

Commenting on the case, Sir Keir Starmer said he was “shocked and appalled”. He refused to be drawn on the sentence, saying it was a matter for the court to decide.

Remember that this wooden hypocrite was in charge of the CPS when they did fuck all about Jimmy Savile. No wonder the BBC continues its bias towards the the centre and right wing. No wonder, many years ago, they commissioned a Paedophile, Eric Gill to create a statue in front of BBC house and the Beeb have never been prepared to remove it. 

For those that are interested, Eric Gill admitted to sexually abusing his own daughters. Savile, Edwards, Gill, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris et al. All paid for by our license fees, under the threat of imprisonment. WTF?

[whelk]

3 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

Meanwhile, Elon Musk tweet on the controversy:

I love our slimeball PM's response to the sentence:

Remember that this wooden hypocrite was in charge of the CPS when they did fuck all about Jimmy Savile. No wonder the BBC continues its bias towards the the centre and right wing. No wonder, many years ago, they commissioned a Paedophile, Eric Gill to create a statue in front of BBC house and the Beeb have never been prepared to remove it. 

For those that are interested, Eric Gill admitted to sexually abusing his own daughters. Savile, Edwards, Gill, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris et al. All paid for by our license fees, under the threat of imprisonment. WTF?

For some reason I thought you’d be sympathetic towards Edwards

[Lord Duckhunter]

13 hours ago, Turkish said:

 

I suspect he’ll do what he always does and disappear for a few days 

Fingers crossed 

[hypochondriac]

4 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Fingers crossed 

Guaranteed he will pop up on another topic after a short break pretending that nothing has happened. 

[sadoldgit]

12 hours ago, smithy said:

I don't comment on here much at all, but I was disgusted at SOG's post the moment I read it.  Trying to score points and wind people up is one thing, but saying that Huw Edwards crimes are "Hardly the crime of the century" and "relatively trivial" is way beyond the pale. The pictures and videos he PAID FOR are utterly disgusting and the sentence he received is a complete joke. It got the media attention it deserved because Edwards was the news anchor for the countries main broadcaster, that we all pay a fee for. There's no getting out of it, it was the worst post ever on this forum by a long way. 

I am sorry that you feel that way and clearly I did not make my points particularly well. I used the “trivial” word as it had been used in another post earlier and I ran with it. A better choice of words would have been “less serious.” My mistake and I apologise for it unreservedly.

As for the not crime of the century comment, it wasn’t and pointing that out does not lessen the actual crime committed. Would you put it in the same category as those carried out by Harold Shipman or Lucy Letby? When put into context his crimes of being in the possession of indecent images are on the lesser end of the scale. Many offenders are in possession of hundreds if not thousands of these images. That is not to mitigate his actions, but he is on the lower end of sex offenders in this category.

I have no idea about his mental health situation, but he does seem to have gone through some kind of breakdown. Again, it doesn’t mitigate his actions in obtaining these images but it is reflected in the sentencing. Whether he ended up with a custodial sentence or not, his life as was is over and he will carry this shame to the grave, so I’m not sure if he can be seen to have avoided a just sentence. His face is known everywhere across the country. Wherever he goes he will know that the people he comes into contact with will know what he has done. In itself, that is a life sentence of shame. 

Of course it should have been reported on, I have not disputed that. If you feel that the news coverage was proportionate that’s your opinion. Mine is that it wasn’t proportionate over the whole period since the original story broke. Again, that is not to try and mitigate his actions, it is just an opinion about certain editorial decisions made in the news media. We all have opinions on things that should be in the news more, or less. Some people think there is too much reporting from Gaza, some not enough.

I worked for the CPS for many years and the last few involved managing the paralegal team in the RASSO (rape and serious sexual offences) unit in Kent. The management of the indecent images cases was always strictly controlled and access to the images was highly restricted so, fortunately, I have never seen these types of images. I have no idea of what the images were of but 7 were in the worst category A, 12 in the next category B and 22 in the lesser category C. Whilst all of the cases were dealt with seriously (hence the setting up of specialist units) the more serious cases were those where the perpetrators were a direct threat to the public. I’m assuming that the sentence that Edwards was given was based on him being a first time offender, being no direct threat to the public, suffering mental health problems and number of the images possessed being relatively low in comparison with other offenders. 
 

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

Meanwhile, Elon Musk tweet on the controversy:

I love our slimeball PM's response to the sentence:

Remember that this wooden hypocrite was in charge of the CPS when they did fuck all about Jimmy Savile. No wonder the BBC continues its bias towards the the centre and right wing. No wonder, many years ago, they commissioned a Paedophile, Eric Gill to create a statue in front of BBC house and the Beeb have never been prepared to remove it. 

For those that are interested, Eric Gill admitted to sexually abusing his own daughters. Savile, Edwards, Gill, Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris et al. All paid for by our license fees, under the threat of imprisonment. WTF?

Your condemnation of sexual offenders is commendable. Do you therefore still give convicted sexual offender Donald Trump your full support?

[Guided Missile]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Your condemnation of sexual offenders is commendable. Do you therefore still give convicted sexual offender Donald Trump your full support?

Donald Trump has never been convicted of any criminal sexual offence.

One for you. Were you involved with the CPS when it ignored the allegations about Jimmy Savile? 

[badgerx16]

49 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Donald Trump has never been convicted of any criminal sexual offence.

One for you. Were you involved with the CPS when it ignored the allegations about Jimmy Savile? 

Were you happy to see Maggie Thatcher photographed with Saville and being 'close' friends with him ?

[a1ex2001]

59 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Donald Trump has never been convicted of any criminal sexual offence.

One for you. Were you involved with the CPS when it ignored the allegations about Jimmy Savile? 

Trump was found liable for sexual abuse (rape) in a court of law, it is just semantics arguing that he doesn't have a conviction he has what amounts to one.

Do you hold everyone who worked at the CPS at the time of Saville responsible?  The cleaners the door men etc etc.  I'm not sure why you think it is relevant in the crimes of others  either but I guess the Tory media keeps reminding you to b angry about it so you concentrate on that and the boats while they eat your cake

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I am sorry that you feel that way and clearly I did not make my points particularly well. I used the “trivial” word as it had been used in another post earlier and I ran with it. A better choice of words would have been “less serious.” My mistake and I apologise for it unreservedly.

As for the not crime of the century comment, it wasn’t and pointing that out does not lessen the actual crime committed. Would you put it in the same category as those carried out by Harold Shipman or Lucy Letby? When put into context his crimes of being in the possession of indecent images are on the lesser end of the scale. Many offenders are in possession of hundreds if not thousands of these images. That is not to mitigate his actions, but he is on the lower end of sex offenders in this category.

I have no idea about his mental health situation, but he does seem to have gone through some kind of breakdown. Again, it doesn’t mitigate his actions in obtaining these images but it is reflected in the sentencing. Whether he ended up with a custodial sentence or not, his life as was is over and he will carry this shame to the grave, so I’m not sure if he can be seen to have avoided a just sentence. His face is known everywhere across the country. Wherever he goes he will know that the people he comes into contact with will know what he has done. In itself, that is a life sentence of shame. 

Of course it should have been reported on, I have not disputed that. If you feel that the news coverage was proportionate that’s your opinion. Mine is that it wasn’t proportionate over the whole period since the original story broke. Again, that is not to try and mitigate his actions, it is just an opinion about certain editorial decisions made in the news media. We all have opinions on things that should be in the news more, or less. Some people think there is too much reporting from Gaza, some not enough.

I worked for the CPS for many years and the last few involved managing the paralegal team in the RASSO (rape and serious sexual offences) unit in Kent. The management of the indecent images cases was always strictly controlled and access to the images was highly restricted so, fortunately, I have never seen these types of images. I have no idea of what the images were of but 7 were in the worst category A, 12 in the next category B and 22 in the lesser category C. Whilst all of the cases were dealt with seriously (hence the setting up of specialist units) the more serious cases were those where the perpetrators were a direct threat to the public. I’m assuming that the sentence that Edwards was given was based on him being a first time offender, being no direct threat to the public, suffering mental health problems and number of the images possessed being relatively low in comparison with other offenders. 
 

You should have taken Turkish’s advice & fucked off for a few days. 

[Gloucester Saint]

4 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

Donald Trump has never been convicted of any criminal sexual offence.

One for you. Were you involved with the CPS when it ignored the allegations about Jimmy Savile? 

Now crawl back under your rock https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23355531

PS - Trump was found to be a sexual abuser. And you support him fervently https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/29/donald-trump-rape-e-jean-carroll/72295009007/

[Gloucester Saint]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You should have taken Turkish’s advice & fucked off for a few days. 

Fair enough, as long as he takes Guided Missile aka John Misselbrook with him.

Edited September 18 by Gloucester Saint

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Fair enough, as long as he takes Guided Missile aka John Misselbrook with him.

SOG and GM in the same place - that's like mixing matrter and anti-matter.

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

SOG and GM in the same place - that's like mixing matrter and anti-matter.

Ever heard of horseshoe theory? 

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Ever heard of horseshoe theory? 

I assume that isn't "For want of a nail the shoe was lost,.....".

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I assume that isn't "For want of a nail the shoe was lost,.....".

For want of the word disproportionate, the remaining shred of dignity for sadoldgit was lost? 

[sadoldgit]

19 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

Donald Trump has never been convicted of any criminal sexual offence.

One for you. Were you involved with the CPS when it ignored the allegations about Jimmy Savile? 

The only thing that was in question was if he penetrated her with his penis or digitally. He was found guilty of sexual abuse.

The CPS did not ignore allegations about Jimmy Savile as has been explained many times. Yes I worked there at the time but in a different area to where the case was handled.

It has been explained very clearly that for a case to be taken to court, it has to be in the public interest and have a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution. Once the two witnesses withdrew their evidence the reviewing lawyer along with the particular area Chief Crown Prosecutor concluded that the case did not have a chance of a successful outcome. You make the mistake in believing that the information available to the CJS that became available after Savile’s death was available before his death. If only hindsight was available at the time eh?

Does it ever strike you as hypocritical that one the one hand you become apoplectic about one sex offender avoiding justice yet are more than happy to defend another sexual predator and even claim he was convicted of sexual assault in court?

Back to the Savile case, a prosecution is reliant on the testimony of credible witnesses. Many people and firmer evidence came to light after he died. The same is happening with Al-Fayed now. There have been several witnesses coming forward now, after his death, accusing him of rape and sexual assault. Why now? They were afraid to come forward when he was alive.

It is well documented about how difficult it is to bring sexual assault cases to court. This is not due to the lack of will by the CPS to bring the cases to court. It is down to the difficulties to find witnesses prepared to go through what is often a hard and harrowing experience. Witnesses are put through the wringer by the defence lawyers and have to relive what was a major trauma all over again in a courtroom. The more rich and powerful the alleged perpetrators, the harder it is for the victims and witnesses in the courtroom.

If those two witnesses had stood by their statements and presented in court, the trial would have gone ahead. I know it doesn’t suit your agenda, but that is the truth of the matter.
 

[Guided Missile]

22 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

The CPS did not ignore allegations about Jimmy Savile as has been explained many times. Yes I worked there at the time but in a different area to where the case was handled.
 

I assume this was nothing to do with you or TTK:

Quote

Sir Keir Starmer has come under fire over the failure to charge Mohamed Fayed with sexual assault while he was chief prosecutor. In 2008, Fayed, the then owner of Harrods, was interviewed by the Metropolitan Police under caution after a 15-year-old girl told detectives he had sexually assaulted her at the London department store. In February 2009, when Sir Keir was director of public prosecutions (DPP), the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced that no charges would be brought because there was “no realistic prospect of conviction”.

[Gloucester Saint]

Guess which newspaper GM just cut and pasted from?

[badgerx16]

A bit of advice for GM: not everybody interviewed by the Police is guilty, and the CPS have a responsibility, if only to the public purse, to assess each case to test whether there is a reasonable chance that a prosecution might be successful. 

[a1ex2001]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

I assume this was nothing to do with you or TTK:

Do you really believe the DPP signs off on every case the Crown Prosecution service does and doesn't take to trial?

[Guided Missile]

2 hours ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Guess which newspaper GM just cut and pasted from?

That well known organ of the far right, the BBC, numbnuts

[pingpong]

Be fair to GM they are being quite woke and enlightened on this topic, with a "believe all women" stance that is refreshing when you look at how the law still deals with SA cases.

[a1ex2001]

42 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

That well known organ of the far right, the BBC, numbnuts

Finally taking my advice and branching out of your right wing echo chamber, odd that you seem to think every case that the CPS failed to prosecute during SKS's time was his own personal failure I assume you also credit him with every successful prosecution carried out during his time and also with the increase in prosecutions for rape during that time?

https://pa.media/blogs/fact-check/rape-convictions-rose-between-keir-starmer-becoming-cps-boss-and-him-leaving/

[Gloucester Saint]

32 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

That well known organ of the far right, the BBC, numbnuts

Which doesn’t mention Starmer once you dopey old dick. 

You know that the bar to actually build a successful prosecution against people with that wealth, level of connections and the lawyers they can buy is extremely high right? I don’t think the fact it’s like that but always has been. A trial where you think you might win, but aren’t sure, and don't is highly embarrassing, let’s the celebrity if they are probably guilt off free with sympathy and wastes tens of millions of pounds, seeing as you hate any form of public expenditure.

Look at the match-fixing arrests of the mid-90s, there was apparently a strong case against all three, and the CPS went to trial, and of course the famous Sun video. Still couldn’t secure a conviction https://www.lfchistory.net/Articles/Article/1893

If you are determined to politicise this then Thatcher kept close company of quite a few proven pedophiles - Savile, Peter Morrison, awarded Cyril Smith a gong. David Steele had to resign from the Lords over Smith. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23355531

https://news.sky.com/story/thatcher-turned-blind-eye-to-paedophile-mps-10368694

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/02/thatcher-peter-hayman-named-paedophile-archives

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11381191/Margaret-Thatcher-warned-of-paedophile-scandal-secret-documents-reveal.html

https://www.dw.com/en/uk-politicians-turned-a-blind-eye-to-child-sexual-abuse-for-decades/a-52527161

Personally I don’t want to blame Thatcher or Starmer, these type of wealthy, powerful and well connected abusers are very adept at covering their tracks and manipulating others. But if you and others want to be partisan and immature then I’ll keep rubbing your nose in it.  

issue is as well that many of the victims are often intimidated until the accuser is deceased as we’ve seen, and the critical mass could have made a difference as the Weinstein case showed. But look at how difficult that was. 

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

Sir Keir Starmer has come under fire over the failure to charge Mohamed Fayed with sexual assault while he was chief prosecutor. In 2008, Fayed, the then owner of Harrods, was interviewed by the Metropolitan Police under caution after a 15-year-old girl told detectives he had sexually assaulted her at the London department store. 

Hardly “crime of the century “. 

[Gloucester Saint]

10 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Hardly “crime of the century “. 

See the post above I made - unlike GM you actually tend to discuss these topics rather than cut and paste then hide, even though we come from different perspectives. This country has a historic problem with dealing with and getting prosecutions on very high profile historical abuse cases. Which the libel laws are not helpful in. But when the authorities go too early and/or there’s a weak or false accusations - Sir Leon Brittain, Sir Cliff Richard seemingly, our former manager - look at the damage caused. Yes, Thatcher, Steele, Starmer would turn the clock back with hindsight if they were all still alive, but they made decisions what with they had available evidence/witnesses/resources and in the context and culture of the time. Far easier with hindsight, hindsight is never wrong. 

Edited September 20 by Gloucester Saint
Sir

[Guided Missile]

43 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Which doesn’t mention Starmer once you dopey old dick. 

You should read the BBC piece a bit closer, then and realise who was in charge of the CPS at the time:

Quote

The Metropolitan Police confirmed it was "aware of various allegations of sexual offences made over a number of years" against Fayed.
It said each of the allegations reported to the force had been "investigated and, where appropriate, advice from the Crown Prosecution Service was sought".
But Fayed was never charged with a crime.
On Thursday, the Met confirmed it had spoken to more than one witness and analysed telephone data in Ellie's case. The force said it handed a file of evidence to the CPS - but prosecutors decided no further action should be taken.
The CPS advised the Met in 2018, 2021, and 2023 - but in those instances, police did not provide prosecutors with a full file of evidence. It is also not clear if all of those investigations relate to separate women.

I highlighted the mentions of the service Starmer was responsible for at the time. As you well know, I have had some experience with the CPS and the prosecution of such crimes. It took a while to persuade the fuckers and the chief constable to pursue the case I was involved in, while the Eastleigh Lib Dems protected the piece of shit involved . You might also be interested to know that one of the posters on here was abused by him and his neighbour, a young man from Netley, who was also abused, committed suicide.

Still you have the news article and my name. How about PM'ing me and meeting up before a game, if you ever go to one? I'd love to hear your insults face-to-face, but my guess is you're a gutless prick hiding behind a keyboard. 

[Gloucester Saint]

54 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

You should read the BBC piece a bit closer, then and realise who was in charge of the CPS at the time:

I highlighted the mentions of the service Starmer was responsible for at the time. As you well know, I have had some experience with the CPS and the prosecution of such crimes. It took a while to persuade the fuckers and the chief constable to pursue the case I was involved in, while the Eastleigh Lib Dems protected the piece of shit involved . You might also be interested to know that one of the posters on here was abused by him and his neighbour, a young man from Netley, who was also abused, committed suicide.

Still you have the news article and my name. How about PM'ing me and meeting up before a game, if you ever go to one? I'd love to hear your insults face-to-face, but my guess is you're a gutless prick hiding behind a keyboard. 

Thatcher was Prime Minister and still pushed for Savile’s knighthood, Steele Liberal leader and should have done better on Cyril Smith, I’d blame Thatcher less for that as Smith treated Rochdale as his personal fiefdom. Harriet Harman represented some groups she really shouldn’t have done in the 1970s. Just because Starmer was CPS Head for some of that time it doesn’t mean Al Fayed would have been a slam dunk case and the evidence was probably a lot weaker than today. Look at the Stephen Lawrence case, obvious who did it but what, only two of them prosecuted to this day. Daniel Morgan case too.

Get it wrong and you are looking at a £50-100m trial against a plaintiff with bottomless pockets to buy the best lawyers on the planet. I don’t know what evidence he had presented but I’m not going on a witch-hunt by the Telegraph which was very slow on Thatcher’s 1980s errors of judgement. 

Thanks for the reminder about the Bursledon/Netley case I did note the poster who disappeared from here for a while and saluted his courage at the time in sharing what had happened to him and his late neighbour which was dreadful. Without giving any identities, people close to me experienced something similar historically and perpetrators are devious bastards quite often which makes justice very difficult to get. Someone living their life without re-opening a can of worms is not cowardice. 

I’d rather not meet up with someone to exchange insults with someone, I’ll pick my posters to socialise not be provoked to do so. Call me old fashioned, but the games I do attend this season will be old friends and family from Soton, maybe the odd poster on here who I can discuss Dibling’s step over in the previous game with, or Martin’s formation. You know, fun.

I’d be happy to have a pint with say Duck or Hypo even though we disagree on non football, but I don’t voluntarily spend time with abusive, adversarial people where I’m not paid well for the hassle. That’s for the workplace. If your posting style changed, even if our views don’t agree, then the door would be open as we are Saints fans if nothing else. Buctootim’s experience doesn’t hold out much hope.

Ball in your court.

Edited September 20 by Gloucester Saint

[hypochondriac]

Good post Gloucester Saint. I disagree with you a lot but of late I've found your responses to be respectful and reasonable. Much better to have a discussion that doesn't get personal. 

[Gloucester Saint]

22 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Good post Gloucester Saint. I disagree with you a lot but of late I've found your responses to be respectful and reasonable. Much better to have a discussion that doesn't get personal. 

Quite and thanks mate. I do agree with you and Duck a lot on the football generally, whereas that might not be true for all posters I agree on with non-football topics. 

Edited September 20 by Gloucester Saint

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, a1ex2001 said:

Do you really believe the DPP signs off on every case the Crown Prosecution service does and doesn't take to trial?

Of course they don’t. You don’t have to understand that people running large organisations do not do the day to day work.

The country is divided up into areas and each area is controlled by a Chief Crown Prosecutor. They manage a team of Area Crown Prosecutor who in term manage team of lawyers. When a case is presented by the police a reviewing lawyer will look at the case and if it meets to prosecution guidelines (is it in the public interest to prosecute and is there a realistic prospect of a successful prosecution). If so they will also decided under what laws the case will be prosecuted. The reviewing lawyer will work with their line manager on more difficult cases and they both will work with the CCP for the area on even more difficult cases. If they feel that the evidence is not strong enough they will e ask the police to provide more. If that is not forthcoming the case will be dropped until such time as stronger evidence is available.

I don’t know about the evidence presented by the Met about Al-Fayed but assume that it didn’t meet the threshold for prosecution at that point. To try and pin the blame on Starmer for the lack of a prosecution for either Savile or Al-Fayed is just as dumb as blaming the CEO of a brewery if your local pub serves you a dodgy pint. You wouldn’t expect them to be involved directly with the way the beer is served at customer level. You wouldn’t expect the DPP to spend his days reviewing charging decisions at local level either.

Given GM’s problem with major public institutions, he might be slightly placated to hear that, certainly during the time I was employed by the CPS, it was regularly drummed into us that we had to make every penny count. Thanks to the Government’s austerity measures, every year the police, the CPS, the court service and probation faced budget cuts which made a hard job even harder. Fewer police meant that fewer cases had the resources needed to build the initial case. Fewer prosecutors meant that backlogs grew as did pressure to get the work done. GM is desperate to lay blame at Starmer’s feet when the real culprits are those who spent the last 14 years cutting public services to the bone.

* I seem to remember Starmer saying that he wasn’t happy that the case wasn’t referred to him at the time, given its high profile, and changed the system subsequently so that any future high profile cases were to be referred to the DPP if there were any charging issues.

 

Edited September 20 by sadoldgit

[sadoldgit]

6 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

I assume this was nothing to do with you or TTK:

What is that famous saying?

When you assume you make an ass out of you and me.

I should suggest that you make fewer assumptions and do more research into how the Criminal Justice System operates. It is not perfect, never has been never will be, but is still respected around the world despite the best efforts of the last Government to run it into the ground.

For information, paralegals (caseworkers) are not lawyers and do not make charging decisions. People who manage paralegals have even less input into charging decisions so no, no charging decisions had anything to do with me or the people that I managed.

Edited September 20 by sadoldgit
Added text

[a1ex2001]

33 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Of course they don’t. You don’t have to understand that people running large organisations do not do the day to day work.

The country is divided up into areas and each area is controlled by a Chief Crown Prosecutor. They manage a team of Area Crown Prosecutor who in term manage team of lawyers. When a case is presented by the police a reviewing lawyer will look at the case and if it meets to prosecution guidelines (is it in the public interest to prosecute and is there a realistic prospect of a successful prosecution). If so they will also decided under what laws the case will be prosecuted. The reviewing lawyer will work with their line manager on more difficult cases and they both will work with the CCP for the area on even more difficult cases. If they feel that the evidence is not strong enough they will e ask the police to provide more. If that is not forthcoming the case will be dropped until such time as stronger evidence is available.

I don’t know about the evidence presented by the Met about Al-Fayed but assume that it didn’t meet the threshold for prosecution at that point. To try and pin the blame on Starmer for the lack of a prosecution for either Savile or Al-Fayed is just as dumb as blaming the CEO of a brewery if your local pub serves you a dodgy pint. You wouldn’t expect them to be involved directly with the way the beer is served at customer level. You wouldn’t expect the DPP to spend his days reviewing charging decisions at local level either.

Given GM’s problem with major public institutions, he might be slightly placated to hear that, certainly during the time I was employed by the CPS, it was regularly drummed into us that we had to make every penny count. Thanks to the Government’s austerity measures, every year the police, the CPS, the court service and probation faced budget cuts which made a hard job even harder. Fewer police meant that fewer cases had the resources needed to build the initial case. Fewer prosecutors meant that backlogs grew as did pressure to get the work done. GM is desperate to lay blame at Starmer’s feet when the real culprits are those who spent the last 14 years cutting public services to the bone.

* I seem to remember Starmer saying that he wasn’t happy that the case wasn’t referred to him at the time, given its high profile, and changed the system subsequently so that any future high profile cases were to be referred to the DPP if there were any charging issues.

 

What a sensible system, I wonder how GM thought the DPP managed to review 50'000 cases a quarter all by himself....

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

What is that famous saying?

When you assume you make an ass out of you and me.

I should suggest that you make fewer assumptions and do more research into how the Criminal Justice System operates. It is not perfect, never has been never will be, but is still respected around the world despite the best efforts of the last Government to run it into the ground.

yes the last government were desperate to run the CJS into the ground, makes you wonder why they didn't just scrap it and be done with it. Fuck me you really are on another planet arent you.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Good post Gloucester Saint. I disagree with you a lot but of late I've found your responses to be respectful and reasonable. Much better to have a discussion that doesn't get personal. 

Gloucester is an excellent poster. Puts me to shame in his restraint in abuse. Although I struggle for any word that doesn’t begin with C to describe that GM cunt. See can’t help myself.

i assume Gloucester was Saint1977 previously 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

Gloucester is an excellent poster. Puts me to shame in his restraint in abuse. Although I struggle for any word that doesn’t begin with C to describe that GM cunt. See can’t help myself.

i assume Gloucester was Saint1977 previously 

Yes I assume so. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

Of course they don’t. You don’t have to understand that people running large organisations do not do the day to day work.

The country is divided up into areas and each area is controlled by a Chief Crown Prosecutor. They manage a team of Area Crown Prosecutor who in term manage team of lawyers. When a case is presented by the police a reviewing lawyer will look at the case and if it meets to prosecution guidelines (is it in the public interest to prosecute and is there a realistic prospect of a successful prosecution). If so they will also decided under what laws the case will be prosecuted. The reviewing lawyer will work with their line manager on more difficult cases and they both will work with the CCP for the area on even more difficult cases. If they feel that the evidence is not strong enough they will e ask the police to provide more. If that is not forthcoming the case will be dropped until such time as stronger evidence is available.

I don’t know about the evidence presented by the Met about Al-Fayed but assume that it didn’t meet the threshold for prosecution at that point. To try and pin the blame on Starmer for the lack of a prosecution for either Savile or Al-Fayed is just as dumb as blaming the CEO of a brewery if your local pub serves you a dodgy pint. You wouldn’t expect them to be involved directly with the way the beer is served at customer level. You wouldn’t expect the DPP to spend his days reviewing charging decisions at local level either.

Given GM’s problem with major public institutions, he might be slightly placated to hear that, certainly during the time I was employed by the CPS, it was regularly drummed into us that we had to make every penny count. Thanks to the Government’s austerity measures, every year the police, the CPS, the court service and probation faced budget cuts which made a hard job even harder. Fewer police meant that fewer cases had the resources needed to build the initial case. Fewer prosecutors meant that backlogs grew as did pressure to get the work done. GM is desperate to lay blame at Starmer’s feet when the real culprits are those who spent the last 14 years cutting public services to the bone.

* I seem to remember Starmer saying that he wasn’t happy that the case wasn’t referred to him at the time, given its high profile, and changed the system subsequently so that any future high profile cases were to be referred to the DPP if there were any charging issues.

 

 🥱 

 

Edited September 20 by Lord Duckhunter

[Gloucester Saint]

57 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Yes I assume so. 

That’s right. I’d been on since the start but when it moved to logging on with email, I’d changed it so long ago that it was easier to start again!

Meant that I never was able to take up Turkish’s CoT offer after getting the Wilcox departure prediction right when he was hired 😉

[egg]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Gloucester is an excellent poster. Puts me to shame in his restraint in abuse. Although I struggle for any word that doesn’t begin with C to describe that GM cunt. See can’t help myself.

i assume Gloucester was Saint1977 previously 

Yep. He doesn't avoid the issues, plays the posts not the posters, and all without argy bargy. A very constructive and dignified poster. 

[Gloucester Saint]

15 minutes ago, egg said:

Yep. He doesn't avoid the issues, plays the posts not the posters, and all without argy bargy. A very constructive and dignified poster. 

Blimey fellas, I’ll have to come down for a game soon and get the 🍺 in

[a1ex2001]

44 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Blimey fellas, I’ll have to come down for a game soon and get the 🍺 in

Don't be silly nobody on the forum is allowed to actually attend a game, next you'll be saying you met a girl on the internet!

Edited September 20 by a1ex2001

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Blimey fellas, I’ll have to come down for a game soon and get the 🍺 in

I owe you a beer as I believe you contributed to my record breaking lol response post. That’s worth a pint of Carling in spoons in anyone’s book. 

[The Kraken]

Far too nice in here.

Gloucester Saint is a big wally and his farts smell of cabbage.

[Gloucester Saint]

47 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said:

Don't be silly nobody on the forum is allowed to actually attend a game, next you'll be saying you met a girl on the internet!

Nearly 20 years ago…and still with her 😉