Sergeant Wilson Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 10 minutes ago, BrigtonClyde said: Which is exactly why civil courts are inappropriate for such cases I've read the summation in full and it's so full of contradictions it's sadly indicative of what's happening more broadly in our criminal and civil courts where hearings are not held before a jury For specific alleged offences involving specific groups of society, CPS guidelines have been issued which contradict law. They are of course an advisory body who should issue guidance in direct line with legislation passed by Acts of Parliament. Unfortunately, there have been and continue to be contraventions in the veracity of the advice they provide due to political pressure brought to bear on them, often triggered by pressure groups of various descriptions relating to different issues This is the literal meaning of corruption - a corruption of judicial process perpetuated by a small number empowered to do so, and executed where a jury is conveniently not present to consider a case using fundamental principles of law You mentioned Harry Clarke. Incredibly he was told he would face no charges prior to any investigation taking place and even subsequently when found to have given false statements about his health condition. At the time of that incident he was a public sector worker carrying out his duties. There are CPS guidelines in existence which afford public sector workers "special considerations" above private members of the public without any basis in law to do so. There is separate legislation for some members of the emergency services A number of pressure groups have lobbied politicians to set percentage targets of successful rape convictions. This is not a commercial enterprise, it's the legal system on which our democracy is based. Setting and accommodating percentage targets for successful convictions of any offence is extremely dangerous and highly likely to result in gross miscarriages of justice. If you find all this hard to believe, understandable, ask any criminal lawyer. He or she will acknowledge what I've written here, it's a scandal waiting to happen As for the specific case, I have no idea what happened that night. Rape is a horrific crime, but like any other offence, there has to be sufficient evidence to convict on the basis of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise all of us have a right to be assumed innocent and have our names cleared The severity of this allegation means that 'balance of probability' decided behind closed doors in the background of questionable CPS processes isn't appropriate The summation states that they found the pursuer to be a credible witness, one who gave evidence some considerable time after the alleged incident and who conceded she could not rebut anything to which the two alleged of committing a crime testified In a much broader sense folks, be careful what you wish for CPS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pride Of The Clyde Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 Crown Prosecution Services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Pride Of The Clyde said: Crown Prosecution Services. What is their role in Scotland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endieinreekie Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, Pride Of The Clyde said: Crown Prosecution Services. Doesn't exist in Scotland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarto Mutiny Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 Isn't it odd how all these self appointed legal experts can't differentiate between Scottish and English law.Yes, that is odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrigtonClyde Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 46 minutes ago, Sarto Mutiny said: Isn't it odd how all these self appointed legal experts can't differentiate between Scottish and English law. Yes, that is odd. For the benefit of the pedantic such as yourself who doesn't appear to be an expert in anything, I clearly meant COPFS What's odd is given the information provided and potential consequences any member of the public, that's the sum total of your input I genuinely hope for everyone's sake, no matter how much you doubt what's written, you're never in a position sitting in a courtroom where that post comes to mind. Verification is available from multiple sources if you care to check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarto Mutiny Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 For the benefit of the pedantic such as yourself who doesn't appear to be an expert in anything, I clearly meant COPFS What's odd is given the information provided and potential consequences any member of the public, that's the sum total of your input I genuinely hope for everyone's sake, no matter how much you doubt what's written, you're never in a position sitting in a courtroom where that post comes to mind. Verification is available from multiple sources if you care to check If you clearly meant that, perhaps you should have typed it. Because referring to terms relating to an entirely different legal system makes you look utterly fucking clueless about the whole thing. Just a little tip for future reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrigtonClyde Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 44 minutes ago, Sarto Mutiny said: If you clearly meant that, perhaps you should have typed it. Because referring to terms relating to an entirely different legal system makes you look utterly fucking clueless about the whole thing. Just a little tip for future reference. That's fine, but you knew that's what I meant and decided to point to that as opposed to anything else to try and pour doubt on what's written You used the term expertise. That comes from experience and that's where the difference lies. You are speculating without it I've already said that for any interested enough to double check what's written, speak with a lawyer who regularly attends criminal court. It's an "understood" within legal circles this is what's happening verified to me by such a source. The first procedure in a criminal hearing is a "diet hearing". Purpose of this should be a formality, defence and prosecution confirming they have all the evidence and witnesses in place to go to trial usually a month later. Where both confirm, the date is confirmed If you doubt what I've written, but have access to a lawyer as suggested, ask them if it's true that such is the level of adjournments due to prosecution not in fact having the required evidence / witnesses, the COPFS are seriously considering removing this due process Everyone understands a basic principle of law that an accused should be deemed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's your basic legal right If you have access to a lawyer as suggested in the Glasgow area, ask them their understanding of a current sheriff's default position who was once the chief prosecutor, and the level of evidence, or lack of it, he would deem necessary to pass judgement. Again this is only in the case where a jury isn't present Some criminal cases can be heard without a jury. These are deemed relatively minor, where if found guilty in the opinion of one person, no imprisonment is possible and there are lesser consequences such as a fine and usually short term minor criminal record In a like for like courtroom situation, a lesser civil case has been empowered to label someone a criminal in the public domain, not based on conclusive evidence, but an instinct. This is why civil courts should only handle cases for which they were originally designed So a little tip for future reference, don't speculate, if in doubt, double check. Good lad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haufdaft Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 A few more pages of this thread and I'll be able to take my bar exam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 4 hours ago, AndyCameron88 said: Attention seeking hoor consorts with equally desperate press once again. Streuth. At least she has the backing of several clueless mongrels tho. Someone even mentioned Harry Clarke?! A guy who refused to take his medication or declare his physical fitness and murdered several people as a result; perfectly relatable to a guy with absolutely no prior being accused of rape on hee-haw evidence. Fucking shame on you for even suggesting the comparison. People be absolutely desperate to see Goodwillie swing for this, truly sickening for all the wrong reasons. It takes someone special to stand out in this thread, but you managed it. Clarke was mentioned in the context of the victims recourse to civil action, not in terms of his punishment. Now, can someone explain to me why I'm bothering trying to explain anything to this ignoramus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 18 hours ago, Elementary Penguin said: The legal ones abandoned this case for a reason. Sorry, I've got my head in my hands here. Are you suggesting that the Court of Session is not a "legal" court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, Elementary Penguin said: No, but i am saying the verdict is not a legal one. I should retract the above statement. It should read 'The PF did not even take the case in order to abandon it'. My head is not coming out of my hands here. Just to be entirely clear, are you saying that a decision of the Court of Session is not a "legal one"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karpaty Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 Jack Jarvis and Victor McDade, your worship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thom & Gerry Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 A criminal verdict was not reached as it did not go to a criminal court. A cival verdict was reached in a cival court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 16 minutes ago, Thom & Gerry said: A criminal verdict was not reached as it did not go to a criminal court. A cival verdict was reached in a cival court. Thank you, M'lud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 16 hours ago, AndyCameron88 said: Attention seeking hoor consorts with equally desperate press once again. Streuth. At least she has the backing of several clueless mongrels tho. Someone even mentioned Harry Clarke?! A guy who refused to take his medication or declare his physical fitness and murdered several people as a result; perfectly relatable to a guy with absolutely no prior being accused of rape on hee-haw evidence. Fucking shame on you for even suggesting the comparison. People be absolutely desperate to see Goodwillie swing for this, truly sickening for all the wrong reasons. That is an utterly disgusting post. 7 hours ago, Elementary Penguin said: The best line in the Sunday Post (why a Dundee-based paper is fronting the lynchmob i still don't quite get) is from either her legal team or some social worker hoping to get the rates up, saying how she has made the world 'safer for women everywhere'. How'exactly? No convicted rapists have been locked up. All based, as BC says, on an instinct. All because the Helen Lovejoys and Sheila Broflowskis of the world need to see action. f**k them. It's a national newspaper, the city in which it is headquartered is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 Astonished not to see more Clyde fans on this thread distancing themselves from some of these horrific posts, even if only as an attempt to avoid looking equally shamed by association or inaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 16 hours ago, AndyCameron88 said: Attention seeking hoor consorts with equally desperate press once again. Streuth. At least she has the backing of several clueless mongrels tho. Someone even mentioned Harry Clarke?! A guy who refused to take his medication or declare his physical fitness and murdered several people as a result; perfectly relatable to a guy with absolutely no prior being accused of rape on hee-haw evidence. Fucking shame on you for even suggesting the comparison. People be absolutely desperate to see Goodwillie swing for this, truly sickening for all the wrong reasons. What's truly sickening is the victim blaming and rape apology all over these posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 13 minutes ago, Menzel said: What's truly sickening is the victim blaming and rape apology all over these posts. It's beyond rape apology with some of these. I'd describe it as rape excusal or rape endorsement. If I were a Clyde fan I'd be horrified by my fellow fans here. Sickened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bridgeton Clyde Boy Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 As a loyal Clyde fan for nearly 40 years I think it would be in our best interests to letting David Goodwillie go, it’s no that a good look for the club and if it was my daughter that was the victim of this of course I was be horrified. nothing personal to Goody he arguably saved our club last year and I thank him from the bottom of my heart.. such a waste of talent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.