Been Accused

[Rights Fighter]

.................

This may give half an answer to why 'high profile' people (with a few 'bob'), are not challenging the police actions when they are arrested on suspicion and later NFA'd. Because like me they have been probably advised it will take shed loads of money and we might not be able to get all documents relating to the polices actions, even with a court judgement, because this would cut across the basic premise of the 'Data Protection Act' about the release of documents which are not factual. Yes, the law complex and conflicting.

Take the case of Freddy Starr. He did attempt to challenge it by prosecuting the accuser, and failed miserably, losing around £1M into the bargain, with the judge declaring that the allegation was true.

You have to ask yourself, "is it really worth it?"

A case I was involved with some years back, happened when the accuser and her mother initially contacted SS to prevent her stepfather and his wife from becoming foster-carers. They alleged sexual abuse. The accused decided to prosecute for defamation. The accuser then went to the police. He was convicted.

[Jerome Goulding]

Buggers Muddle

The judge (Mr Justice Nicol) gave a ruling that was quite 'odd', in the Freddie Starr case for libel and deformation of character. Freddie Starr lost the case on the grounds that Ms Ward's testimony was found to be true and too much time had been lost to support the prima facie witness evidence. Confused or what?

A CPS investigation into claims brought by Ms Ward and 13 others decided that no charges would be brought. This action by the CPS does cause confusion (in my opinion) in the public's mind. If a judge is making a declaration that some one is 'guilty' via another court ruling, surely that individual should be prosecuted? Yet the CPS, having made a big thing of 'taking offences seriously' effected have said (in my opinion) 'We only take some offences seriously'. I have not read the full court ruling (and I am playing devils advocate here), but surely in the interests of justice he should be pursued like Lord Janner with a determination to hear a case in a Criminal Court.

It truly shows what a 'buggers muddle' the whole process has become.

PS. for those not familiar with the term - 'Buggers Muddle' - term much used by the UK military in WW2. Became an accepted 'phrase', when used by Crown Court Judge Richard Lowden in February 2010 to describe a mess and the confusion caused by incompetence and/or lack of organisation; providing an unsatisfactory result and ultimately resulting the failure to recognise consequences of actions.

[Aidy]

The judge (Mr Justice Nicol) gave a ruling that was quite 'odd', in the Freddie Starr case for libel and deformation of character. Freddie Starr lost the case on the grounds that Ms Ward's testimony was found to be true and too much time had been lost to support the prima facie witness evidence. Confused or what?

A CPS investigation into claims brought by Ms Ward and 13 others decided that no charges would be brought. This action by the CPS does cause confusion (in my opinion) in the public's mind. If a judge is making a declaration that some one is 'guilty' via another court ruling, surely that individual should be prosecuted? Yet the CPS, having made a big thing of 'taking offences seriously' effected have said (in my opinion) 'We only take some offences seriously'. I have not read the full court ruling (and I am playing devils advocate here), but surely in the interests of justice he should be pursued like Lord Janner with a determination to hear a case in a Criminal Court.

It truly shows what a 'buggers muddle' the whole process has become.

PS. for those not familiar with the term - 'Buggers Muddle' - term much used by the UK military in WW2. Became an accepted 'phrase', when used by Crown Court Judge Richard Lowden in February 2010 to describe a mess and the confusion caused by incompetence and/or lack of organisation; providing an unsatisfactory result and ultimately resulting the failure to recognise consequences of actions.

I find this fascinating Jerome, and agree it does come across as very confusing!

[Jerome Goulding]

I find this fascinating Jerome, and agree it does come across as very confusing!

In my low mood days, I have referred to some of the madness that has evolved over the last ten years, when it comes to false allegations. I switch from believing that 'I am the completely mad one and every else is sane' to 'I'm the only sane one and the rest of the world are completely bonkers!' It is the bizarreness of events which stops me from topping myself, as I walk around the house chuntering. A psychiatrist would have a field day.

The current mess 'we' (society, the police, CPS, the Courts aided by the political bandwagons) have got ourselves into is mind boggling. We have been revved up by out of control Police services, who have been challenged about their ineffectiveness (and their past failures) to pursue genuine cases of serious sexual offences; leading them to working a Napoleonic Code of Justice (Guilty until proven innocent). The police are on an information bandwagon of making numerical claims which are unsupported by any empirical data. An example of which is Simon Bailey the Chief constable of Norfolk (it was reported in July 2015) saying that there could be as many as 750,000 paedophiles in the UK! Wow! that does mean there must be at least one on every park bench and on every street corner! Has he considered how many Police officers might be paedophiles on the strength of these numbers.

You then have a US female law professor, invited to speak in the House Commons, acknowledging on 109 actions against those who claimed rape, but were clearly perverting the course of justice, telling our politicians that the courts were too aggressive (in the UK) on those that make false allegations!

Today, we have been told the report by Dorset Police on the actions/procedures do with Leon Brittain, investigating the Metropolitan Police arrest of him, has concluded that the investigation was done in a proper manner. We must all accept this position, but hey-ho, the police investigating themselves? Could we have not found (to satisfy some of the sceptical public) a more independent organisation?

But then "when madness rules, the absurd is not far away"

[Jerome Goulding]

The latest idea for a script! It would be rejected by any serious producer but not the CPS.

You have just written a crime show script and you present it to a producer. The script is about a man walking across the concourse of Waterloo Underground. He is carrying in one hand a newspaper and the other a holdall. He brushes past a female making contact (not sure if it is with the newspaper or holdall). Later he is arrested on the allegation, made by the female that he has sexually assaulted here. The police investigate and the CPS decide there is sufficient evidence to take it to court . .after 45 minutes the judge stops the case as the CCTV shows that there was no sexual assault.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ult-claim.html

Now I with the wildest of imaginative thought I could not have put this script together. If I presented it as a possible play or TV show, I would have bodily been chucked out an office. But then the old adage of 'Fact is stranger than fiction' holds.

[terrifieddad]

Is it any wonder we're all terrified? Lucky for him, the CCTV evidence was not lost and the jury did not have to decide between one person's word and another. The rest of us aren't always so lucky.

[Jerome Goulding]

'I was only following orders!'

I have stated previously that i was following the trial of two police personnel in Bristol . .

Just a little recap "The Bijan Ebrahimi murder trial and prosecution of a PCSO and police officer, may start a process of police officers taking the needs of those falsely accused seriously. Bijan sought help from police officers in Bristol, fearful of vigilantes; he was treated by the police as a 'liar and nuisance'. It starts to bring home the polices impotence to support those falsely accused of being paedophiles. Bijan's limited contact with the police was when he was arrested for a 'breach of the peace'. This measure (according to court records) was to enable the police to 'shut him up' and quell his use of police time."

Yesterday, the sentencing of the two offenders (formerly serving Police personnel) was announced by the a Judge at Bristol Crown Court, The judge said: “I cannot go behind the jury’s verdicts and it is with a heavy heart that in each of your cases I take the view that only a custodial sentence is appropriate. “It doesn’t seem to me a proper consequence of your wrongdoing that the sentences need be long. You have already suffered greatly. You have already lost your careers and in each of your cases there is genuine justification for mercy. “You must not bear the responsibilities for the wider failings in the police which were beyond your control.”

PC Kevin Duffy was sentenced to 10 months, while PCSO Andrew Passmore was jailed for four months. Michael Borrelli QC, for Passmore, said his client was the carer for his elderly mother and stepfather and suffered from low IQ and memory recall.

The pair were convicted of misconduct in a public office after a jury decided they had made criminally serious errors over the case of Bijan Ebrahimi.

Comment: So the judge is apologising for the jury's decision and covertly that he needed to send a message to Police services to get their act together? 'Following orders' is not a defence we have allowed for far lesser criminal activity, why are we accepting it now? Finally, what's this public acknowledgement that we are employing persons with 'low IQ'?

[Don'tKnowWhatToDo]

I've got a question

During the investigation, social services said to a member of my family that I wasn't allowed contact with their children because I was currently on bail for rape (they actually said this after it had been NFA'd but only days after) are they allowed to disclose that information?

[Rights Fighter]

PC Kevin Duffy was sentenced to 10 months, while PCSO Andrew Passmore was jailed for four months. Michael Borrelli QC, for Passmore, said his client was the carer for his elderly mother and stepfather and suffered from low IQ and memory recall.

I always knew that not all police officers are particularly bright....

[Absolute_Innocent]

RF that tickled me - been laughing for the last 15 minutes!

[Rights Fighter]

The sad thing is, it is absolutely true. Some of them can be given strong evidence about something and they just cannot see it - not due to prejudice in these cases, but because they really cannot see what is there in front of their eyes. Some have no idea what are criminal offences - or they just don't want the paperwork.......

[Jerome Goulding]

Just what kind of Police do we want?

Just what kind of Police do we want?

According to Chief Constable Shawn Sawyer of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary (controlling one of the lowest crime areas of Britain) in October 2015, interviewed on a local BBC News article, he wants to see "more officers carrying guns and having the ability to drive high speed cars". God help us from having this city kid getting his way. His tinted view of what is going on in the two counties does not reflect what I see. We could become the 'Wild West Country' and end up renaming Exeter as 'Dodge City'.

[Blingguy]

Yes jobs that require Dbs (enhanced check etc)......can be confusing....and difficult.....to understand....

In my previous job....I was dbs enhanced checked.... Together with a counter terrorism check...as I worked for a government agency...involving... FNPS...foreign national prisoners.....

Which is why when I was falsely accused I was suspended..... And then sacked!....even though I have not been Charged.....


That's life....though....

Cruel.....

On what grounds were you sacked?

Did it appear on DBS?