This is frightening, no matter how tough you are.

[blackburn_stevie]

http://tinyurl.com/jw8rhxh

This is the video that will make most parents squirm. 

It's what happened when a man (vetted and given the job) tried to entice single boys and girls out of a Park or Swing area away from their parents. If you didn't see it earlier today on the News, take note and pass it on to all parents and other folk with responsibility over kids.

[lhasa.two]

Have you ever done jury service cee dee?

[lost.parrot]

Wrong. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 

Most trials  never even get mentioned in the local paper let alone national media.You focus on one exception and draw incorrect general inferences from those

He had a QC in the case of Turner, which did all those things you are suggesting he faced on his own. His QC has rights under existing laws of evidence to question his accuser/s, so again, incorrect.

The rest is largely nonsense as far as the legal process goes, which you appear to have conflated with the media in general

[cee-dee]

I was selected but managed to get out of it.

[ronnybabes]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

Ronny - simple question - do you believe in and support the basis of the British legal system that a person is innocent until found guilty?

I'd like to, but of course I do not, for, as soon as an accusation is made, and it gets into the media, then the person seems to be automatically guilty, until the trial......  and when a verdict of not guilty is delivered, the person is still guilty in the eyes of some.

So.. a resounding no to that question.

If you do then you cannot support the idea that the accuser in the LeVell case is guilty of lying without a court case where a jury brings in a verdict of guilty against her.

Well .. I 've said I don't,  so I guess that means I can .

If you don't support the basis of the British legal system then the verdict of not guilty delivered by that same system must be worthless.

You said it... because unfortunately that does appear to be the case, judging by the number of people who do not think the accuser was lying.

I answered your questions, now it's your turn.

1) Do you believe Miichael le Vell is innocent?

Yes, or no, or don't know, with your reasons if you like.

(no politicians's evasive replies)

2) Do you believe his accuser was telling the truth?

Yes, or no, or don't know. with your reasons if you like.

(no politicians's evasive replies)

If you answered don't know to both questions, then the Justice system would seem to be pointless and farcical in your opinion, I would have thought.

If you answered Yes to Q1 then obviously the accuser was telling untruths.

If you answered No to Q1 then obviously you believe the accused guilty. In which case the Justice System got it wrong.

If you haven't answered the questions as directly as asked... well at least I did, when you put your questions to me.

---

[lhasa.two]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

I was selected but managed to get out of it.

---

Why would you want to get out of it, as surely it's a civic duty to be a juror unless there's a life or death reason for not being one.

[cee-dee]

Busy, business.

[tommy.irene]

---

@lhasa.one wrote:

---

@cee-dee wrote:

I was selected but managed to get out of it.

---

Why would you want to get out of it, as surely it's a civic duty to be a juror unless there's a life or death reason for not being one.

---

I too got out of it ..I told them i didnt believe in sending people to Jail...

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@ronnybabes wrote:

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

Ronny - simple question - do you believe in and support the basis of the British legal system that a person is innocent until found guilty?

I'd like to, but of course I do not, for, as soon as an accusation is made, and it gets into the media, then the person seems to be automatically guilty, until the trial......  and when a verdict of not guilty is delivered, the person is still guilty in the eyes of some.

So.. a resounding no to that question.

If you do then you cannot support the idea that the accuser in the LeVell case is guilty of lying without a court case where a jury brings in a verdict of guilty against her.

Well .. I 've said I don't,  so I guess that means I can .

If you don't support the basis of the British legal system then the verdict of not guilty delivered by that same system must be worthless.

You said it... because unfortunately that does appear to be the case, judging by the number of people who do not think the accuser was lying.

I answered your questions, now it's your turn.

1) Do you believe Miichael le Vell is innocent?

Yes, or no, or don't know, with your reasons if you like.

(no politicians's evasive replies)

2) Do you believe his accuser was telling the truth?

Yes, or no, or don't know. with your reasons if you like.

(no politicians's evasive replies)

If you answered don't know to both questions, then the Justice system would seem to be pointless and farcical in your opinion, I would have thought.

If you answered Yes to Q1 then obviously the accuser was telling untruths.

If you answered No to Q1 then obviously you believe the accused guilty. In which case the Justice System got it wrong.

If you haven't answered the questions as directly as asked... well at least I did, when you put your questions to me.

---

---

Q1 - Yes he is innocent - found 'not guilty' so is presumed innocent

Q2 - I don't know - she may be or she may believe she did - BUT she is innocent of any crime, (lying under oath is a crime) - until such time she is found guilty of a crime

Is someone standing before the court for a crime innocent or guilty - the answer has to be that they are ALWAYS innocent UNTIL they are found guilty.  Does that mean that everyone brought before the court didn't do what they are accused of? - of course it doesn't!

Let me put your first question the way I think you meant it

1) Do you believe Miichael le Vell committed the offences he was accused of?

Personally I don't think he did but he might have - I don't know - but he IS innocent of the crime

[ronnybabes]

---

---

Creeky wrote: 

Q1 - Yes he is innocent - found 'not guilty' so is presumed innocent

Q2 - I don't know - she may be or she may believe she did - BUT she is innocent of any crime, (lying under oath is a crime) - until such time she is found guilty of a crime

Is someone standing before the court for a crime innocent or guilty - the answer has to be that they are ALWAYS innocent UNTIL they are found guilty.  Does that mean that everyone brought before the court didn't do what they are accused of? - of course it doesn't!

Let me put your first question the way I think you meant it

1) Do you believe Miichael le Vell committed the offences he was accused of?

Personally I don't think he did but he might have - I don't know - but he IS innocent of the crime

---

I have the utmost respect for you Creeky, while also acknowledging that we are poles apart, and will probably never agree, or even compromise on this one.

To me it is straightforward, to you it has so many other layered dimensions.

Let me tell you my line of thinking:

Accusations are made by the Accuser.

These accusations are strongly denied by the Accused.

Fact: Someone is lying.

Take out of the equation the result of the trial, the fact is one of the above is lying.

Now then going back to the Michael Turner case without going over the same ground over, and over, because I have conceded that you, and I are poles apart on this one.

The CPS  would be loathe to prosecute the Accuser because:

1, It would make them out to be useless, having decided (and lost) to prosecute the Accused.

2. If they did prosecute her and they won - the ramifications would be endless and destroy any faith we had in a Justice system that puts an innocent man through a historical case where it simply was one person's word against the other.

3. If she was found not guilty, it would also make a farce of our system, because one of the verdicts is simply the wrong one, and that can never be right.

I personally believe she should be prosecuted.

I personally believe she would be found "Guilty" because the accused was found to be not guilty.

I personally believe the decision (well not a decision, because it never was up for discussion) so... the reason she will not be answerable in any way is because whatever the outcome the CPS would be made to look the fools that they obviously were.  

I personally believe that it should never have come to Court in the first place.

But..... as Tommy's numerous cartoons show, if she were prosecuted it just may deter people from making scurrillous accusations, while being free from prosecution, or anonymity.

And before people say, that it will stop genuine cases from coming to light, well if they are really genuine it shouldn't.

If it is one word against another then the CPS should use their judgement more effectively.

A few more points, I am not in favour of historical offences, I believe that there should be a time limit.

I am not in favour of compensation - a successful prosecution should be enough.

I think anonymity should be afforded to both parties, until the outcome has been made.

Once again I stress that this Case should never have come Court, and certainly should never have got into the media circus.

[blackburn_stevie]

Ronnie ..... If you ever run for the post of Prime Minister you'll get my vote.

[bankhaunter]

And before people say, that it will stop genuine cases from coming to light, well if they are really genuine it shouldn't.

You mean that if the person accused is found not guilty it would be assumed the accuser must be a liar, wouldn't put people off making a complaint to the police?

The fact that the chances of getting a **bleep** conviction are not high, is enough to put many off let alone the automatic assumption they were lying, that would kill them stone dead.

Would that also apply to witnesses? Would for example where a conviction might depend on a witness testimony that they saw the accused on the street at night and the jury decided that the testimony was unsafe as the light was poor, mean the witness was lying.

[bankhaunter]

Forgot about '**bleep**', perhaps if no one is allowed to use the word we can pretend it doesn't exist.

[irene.tommy]

Tommy got gardening leave for the photo on here..at post 89..

[ronnybabes]

---

bankhaunter wrote: in response to my statement written in blue.

And before people say, that it will stop genuine cases from coming to light, well if they are really genuine it shouldn't.

You mean that if the person accused is found not guilty it would be assumed the accuser must be a liar, wouldn't put people off making a complaint to the police?

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

The fact that the chances of getting a **bleep** conviction are not high, is enough to put many off let alone the automatic assumption they were lying, that would kill them stone dead.

Where did that fact come from? The opposite is the case.

Also there is a strong school of thought that many plead guilty to a sexual offence, for a more lenient, or non custodial sentence, simply because they cannot prove an offence did not occur and also are unable, or unwilling to have it all aired in public.

If you plead guilty you get a significantly shorter sentence, or even a non-custodial one, and everything is fast tracked.

If you plead not guilty and lose then a long sentence is inevitable.

One terrible choice, when your nerves are shot, the Police are interrogating relentlessly, and your world has collapsed around you.

However if an offence of this gravity did occur, then nothing should, and surely nothing would, stop the victim going to the Police.

The CPS then make the next decision.

Would that also apply to witnesses? Would for example where a conviction might depend on a witness testimony that they saw the accused on the street at night and the jury decided that the testimony was unsafe as the light was poor, mean the witness was lying.

No. It would mean  that the testimony was unsafe as the light was poor, and the witness may have been mistaken.

---

[cee-dee]

Eye witness evidence is the most unreliable of all. Unless it can be substantiated by hard evidence, it shouldn't form any basis for a prosecution.

If the eyewitness says "I saw A......." do something, then that should form the basis for a search for other evidence tying A to the crime. If none can be found, I'd say "That's it, finit! Without hard evidence there's no basis for a prosecution."

[upthecreekyetagain]

Ronny - I'll try one more time

When someone is accused of a crime they are innocent at that stage.

When they stand in the dock and the charge is read out they are STILL innocent.

When the jury returns a verdict of not guilty they are STILL innocent.

Their state of innocence has not changed one iota - the trial has NOT proved their innocence because this was not necessary they were already innocent.

I agree that in a straightforward case where someone says you assaulted me and the other says no I didn't that one of the individuals is lying.  Simple logic dictates this.

A trial resulting in a 'not guilty' verdict does NOT prove that the accused was the one telling the truth.

What the verdict does do is say that the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were lying.

Michael LeVell is no more nor any less innocent than he was before the trial started.

[ronnybabes]

I appreciate your consistency, and your stamina, but I think you'll have to notch me up as your lost cause.

I think I will have to afford you that same courtesy.

[bankhaunter]

Also there is a strong school of thought that many plead guilty to a sexual offence, for a more lenient, or non custodial sentence, simply because they cannot prove an offence did not occur and also are unable, or unwilling to have it all aired in public.

If you plead guilty you get a significantly shorter sentence, or even a non-custodial one, and everything is fast tracked.

If you plead not guilty and lose then a long sentence is inevitable.

One terrible choice, when your nerves are shot, the Police are interrogating relentlessly, and your world has collapsed around you.

That I wouldn't disagree with, I have never been a fan of plea bargaining particularly in situations where the police have a lot of power to seriously damage someone's life should they not plead guilty to a lesser offence even where they may well have been found not guilty.

One case that comes to mind was the man who was in possession of two pictures of a girl that the police considered a judge might think was under eighteen, he accepted a caution and was put on the Sex Offenders Register as an alternative to at least six months investigation with all it's attendant publicity.

Of course the media too play their part.

[ronnybabes]

Absolutely BH and I will go even further.

In pursuit of more evidence, the word compensation is bandied about so much by the Police to people associated with the Accused, that it is more like a bribe, or an offer then a statement.

ie., "If you don't make a statement, and he's found guilty you'll've missed out on all that compensation" 

[irene.tommy]

Goodnight.