Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 13:00:44 GMT
"Singer Sir Cliff Richard will face no further action over allegations of historical sex abuse, prosecutors say.
The Crown Prosecution Service said it had decided there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute"."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36546038
It is time that these high placed people/celebs were granted anonymity in such cases certainly unless convicted and maybe unless charged Tongues will wag, "No smoke without fire" will be quoted and so on, and careers ruined and blighted. S Yoekshire police have not exactly covered themselves in glory elsewhere, I hope Cliff sues them
|
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Jun 16, 2016 15:20:51 GMT
"Singer Sir Cliff Richard will face no further action over allegations of historical sex abuse, prosecutors say.
The Crown Prosecution Service said it had decided there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute"."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36546038
It is time that these high placed people/celebs were granted anonymity in such cases certainly unless convicted and maybe unless charged Tongues will wag, "No smoke without fire" will be quoted and so on, and careers ruined and blighted. S Yoekshire police have not exactly covered themselves in glory elsewhere, I hope Cliff sues them
I agree. Anonimity until charged and that would still give other alleged victims the opportunity to come forward. It's dreadful when lives are ruined on the strength of flimsy, or no evidence. I recall that lecturer who was named as the murderer of a young woman without a shred of evidence, simply because he 'looked a bit weird' - it destroyed him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 16:36:08 GMT
"Singer Sir Cliff Richard will face no further action over allegations of historical sex abuse, prosecutors say.
The Crown Prosecution Service said it had decided there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute"."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36546038
It is time that these high placed people/celebs were granted anonymity in such cases certainly unless convicted and maybe unless charged Tongues will wag, "No smoke without fire" will be quoted and so on, and careers ruined and blighted. S Yoekshire police have not exactly covered themselves in glory elsewhere, I hope Cliff sues them
I agree. Anonimity until charged and that would still give other alleged victims the opportunity to come forward. It's dreadful when lives are ruined on the strength of flimsy, or no evidence. I recall that lecturer who was named as the murderer of a young woman without a shred of evidence, simply because he 'looked a bit weird' - it destroyed him. It is classic "fishing" by the police who will go looking for other possible victims, even pointing out in some cases that compensation can be claimed on a conviction. It seems all too easy to make allegations about things supposed to have happened many years ago which depend on multiple complaints. Forensic evidence or witnesses should be required There are current allegations about Clement Freud, now conveniently dead and unable to defend himself. Why wait so long. Similarly the world is awash with allegations about Jimmy Saville who has never been convicted of anything but there is a compensation fund
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 11:17:27 GMT
On the face of it I agree that anonymity for both victim and alleged offender is a good idea before anyone is charged with an offence. However I think the law would have to be changed because as far as I understand this sort of thing a person can no longer be questioned by the police after they are charged. That is why the police ask for more time- so they can continue questioning.
So if as a result of publically naming a person after they are charged (which would of course happen) other people come forward the alleged perpetrator can not be questioned, other than to change the law so he can be questioned on those subsequent complaints.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 11:40:55 GMT
On the face of it I agree that anonymity for both victim and alleged offender is a good idea before anyone is charged with an offence. However I think the law would have to be changed because as far as I understand this sort of thing a person can no longer be questioned by the police after they are charged. That is why the police ask for more time- so they can continue questioning. So if as a result of publically naming a person after they are charged (which would of course happen) other people come forward the alleged perpetrator can not be questioned, other than to change the law so he can be questioned on those subsequent complaints. I think a suspect can he further questioned after being charged if other matters come to light. We saw on 24 Hours In Police Custody a defendant who had been charged already subsequently being asked other things as fresh evidence emerged |
|
