DLT re-trial

[columngollum]

Is this a constructive use of public funds?

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

Not really, Van, else there would never be a retrial in the event of a hung jury, instead of the default being that there would be unless various other factors came in - see link above.

[VanDerGaagTransporten]

I thought that one of the considerations made by the CPS in deciding whether to prosecute was that there was a reasonable chance of conviction.

So the issue has already been put to a jury, no decision could be reached so surely that test of a resonable chance has already been tested at the original trial?

[Animation]

These two women who haven't got a verdict are in limbo. Let them have a retrial.

[umpity]

All roads led from The J saville failure to prosecute

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/retrials/

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

See:

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/retrials/

"The presumption is that the prosecution will seek a retrial in the event of no verdict"

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

My understanding is that retrials are the "default" (for any crime) and not retrying would be the exception.

[columngollum]

It has been tried in court. The issue is whether or not it's good value for money to do it again.

[Dervel]

This issue IS very important. We need this to be in the public consciousness, and it is crucial we have the debate. Wether DLT is innocent or not should be established in a court. It is not a waste of money. The wider issues wether or not one writes off minor sexual assault or not I think we have to realise it is on the spectrum of rape culture, and whilst it is not as severe and as such should not attract similar penalties as actual rape it still shouldn't be acceptable.

ABH is not as severe as murder, but we all broadly agree violence is wrong and unacceptable, so should it be with unwanted sexual advance of any kind. Yes the 70s were worse, but we're still not there yet.

[Gymbob]

slug

[slug]

Women!! Shut Up!!

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

Lj
One of these accusations is from 2008 . Pretty sure that would fit into any statute of limitations.

[Lazyjaney]

Waste of time and money, DPP et al just trying to make up for Savile cock up. There needs to be a time limit on accusations.

[Animation]

Well MyCatIsFat and Gymbob don't think there should be a retrial with these 2 outstanding cases.

But be careful not to say MyCatIsFat 'can brush aside things' as that gets a strong reaction !

[NiceTabard]

So illegal sexual assaults on girls and women, which result in distress and consequences like job loss, should not be prosecuted because.... erm... not sure what the argument is TBH.

[MyCatIsFat]

Maggiemight.

Do not presume to tell me that I have 'brushed things aside'.

You have no right to say that as I have made it abundantly clear that I did not 'brush it aside'. I told you that I found it distressing. So how you can reach the conclusion that I 'brushed it aside' really surprises and shocks me. It shows quite a lack of comprehension and more than a little lack of empathy for someone who experienced a sexual assault. Or perhaps you are just determined to impose your own views in an attempt to belittle other people's actual experiences.

Sorry - I'm signing off. Discussion on this subject is impossible.

[maggiemight]

I lived through and worked during the 70s and disagree totally with your views. It's sad that you can brush aside things that destroyed some girls/women's lives just because you 'dealt with it'.

[MyCatIsFat]

Gymbob.

[Gymbob]

I'm not a victim either. I dealt with what happened to me as society expected me to at the time. Of course it's not right by today's standards, but it was right then. And there it should stay.

Yes, the 70's was like Life on Mars! But rather than accept being a called a tosspot, I'll call it life experience thanks.

[MyCatIsFat]

I lived through the 70s. I started work in 1974. I suppose that makes me as much of 'an oracle' on things 70s as anyone else who lived through that decade. I can claim a first hand perspective. I have never watched Life on Mars - I didn't need to, the real deal was shitty enough.

Exactly Doctrine In those days there was no CPS. The Police prosecuted crimes. That's why I said upthread that, had I gone to the Police and reported the groping, they would have laughed - just as they did with some of the more serious allegations the Saville accusers reported to the Police.

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

FYI the matters being retried are the allegations of sexual assault - seizing a journalist's breasts in his own home in 2008 and asking her to pose for photos and indecent assault - on a stage hand when he had a starring role in a panto in the early 90s,

I am not giving an opinion on his guilt or innocence but in either of those situations the "recipient" was clearly in a less powerful position compared to the homeowner in his own home/the low paid worker to the production's star. If the allegations are true, would a slap have been effective in either case, do you think, Gymboy?

Slug - well done you regarding the reference.

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

The jury make a judgement on crimes which are prosecuted, they do not decide what is prosecuted.

The CPS decides if it seems that the law has been broken and if sufficient evidence has been gathered to prosecute.

In the past, possibly police didn't take the first step in evidence gathering for various crimes that society found "acceptable" - couple violence being dismissed as a domestic springs to mind - doesn't mean they weren't crimes.

[MyCatIsFat]

Some poeple on here are talking nonsense with their facile attempts to make this 'victim-blaming', If that's the case I must be blaming myself as I was clearly a victim - but I am not blaming myself. Hell no.

You cannot equate the abuse of vulnerable people by preists to a quick grope in the workplace - which is what we are discussing here. Serious sexual assaults and other serious crimes have always has been investigated, in the 70s and now. It's just that in the 70s a quick grope was not seen as 'serious' at all. Criminal, but not serious.

There are things that we accpet these days that would have been prosecuted then, just as there are things we no longer see as acceptable which were seen as very minor transgressions in thise days.


You are the ones trying to rewrite history. I am telling you what women experienced in the workplace in the 1970s. If you were working in the 1970s then I expect you too encountered it. If you didn't you were lucky. Yes, it outraged and distrssed me. But it was a quick grope and I dealt with it, as did thousands of other women in those days.


One of the reasons for having a jury system is that the experience of 12 people is used to judge whether a person is guilty or not and those 12 views come from a cross-section of people who are local to the area so they bring that local knowledge and understanding of acceptability/seriousness to bear in making their judgement. Just because someone broke a law doesn't mean it is always appropriate to prosecute.

And yes, if someone touched me inappropraitely now I would report the matter because that's what society expects.

[slug]

Gym bob, for the record I'm 48. In my first job post graduation I dealt with a man who fondled the young girls by firing him and by being clear about why I did this when asked for a reference.