I know very little about Frank Moloney or his new persona (no offence intended) Kelli, but what I do know is that she is fond of a sherry or ten. Self confessed in fact. So perhaps that has led to a little trembling, hope that's all it is.
Be very sad to hear she had something more serious going on.
Im not sure, but to me she doesn't look very well.
I think she's suffered with a nervous condition for a long time. I remember when she was on Richard and Judy 10 plus years ago her hands would shake and she would get very flustered at times.
I don't think she has anything physical wrong with her, nor do I believe it's drink related, she's always came over quite anxious & nervous so perhaps her shaking is a symptom of anxiety?
I've rarely heard of a more ludicrous proposal in my life. Richard and Judy must have friends in very high places to get this idea taken remotely seriously.
There does seem to be a lot of question marks over the case as I understand it so maybe she's just echoing what a lot of people think ?
I agree. I think she has been unfairly criticised. She stated very clearly that nobody deserves to be raped but if a girl gets drunk and goes to a bedroom with a footballer and then says she has been raped, surely her behaviour has to be considered. After all, why go to the hotel bedroom with a drunk footballer, what did she think was going to happen, watch TV!! We ALL both men and women have to take responsibility for our actions and crying rape in these situations is very different from being physically attacked by a person and physically injured and beaten. Well, that is my opinion, anyway.
From what I can gather, Evans booked and paid for a hotel room in his friends name so he would have somewhere to have sex if he picked up a girl, and when he got this girl back to the room the friend not only called Evans but two other friends who were watching and filming from outside the window. What a classy bunch for Judy to be taking all this abuse over.
I think she expressed herself very badly indeed, her point was about rehabilitation of offenders and as has been said Jane agreed with her so why all the focus on Judy (and what she looks like)?
I don't think she has anything physical wrong with her, nor do I believe it's drink related, she's always came over quite anxious & nervous so perhaps her shaking is a symptom of anxiety?
She started visibly shaking on live TV while still presenting This Morning so that's been going on for a long time. About the same time it started she had undergone a hysterectomy and was absent a lot; Richard would say it was due to "women's problems"!!
I think she does have bad nerves and has become less and less comfortable in front of the cameras in recent years and I was quite surprised when she was announced for the Loose Women panel.
I've rarely heard of a more ludicrous proposal in my life. Richard and Judy must have friends in very high places to get this idea taken remotely seriously.
Exactly. There is a difference between saying and doing. You can't prosecute every person who threatens another on the internet. These so-called trolls are very silly and probably scary but that's ALL they are.
A bit of perspective is needed in cases like this.
I couldn't agree with Judy's comments because of the level of presumption - "it wasn't violent" and "there was no bodily harm". Unless she was in the room at the time I am not sure how she has drawn these conclusions so readily.
Those were the exact findings of the court. Although she probably didn't make it as clear as she'd like she was not so much stating an opinion on 'rape' but quoting the conclusion made by jury and judge.
I don't know much about this case however I do believe that if you are to trust the legal system then you do so implicitely (that however doesn't mean you can't be aware mistakes that can and do happen). That means you can't pick and choose what bits you accept and what bits you don't.
At the end of the day no-one knows what went on in that room apart from those who were there. However we have trusted the legal system to judge that this chap was guilty of rape. However this same legal system decreed certain other points in relation to this case (the one's Judy quoted), points that led to the level of punishment handed out.
Those conclusions were made by the court. If you believe in the legal system you have a moral and ethical obligation to accept and put your trust in them. Because if you can't or refuse to then how can you possibly trust that same legal system to be correct in that conviction?
Those were the exact findings of the court. Although she probably didn't make it as clear as she'd like she was not so much stating an opinion on 'rape' but quoting the conclusion made by jury and judge.
I don't know much about this case however I do believe that if you are to trust the legal system then you do so implicitely (that however doesn't mean you can't be aware mistakes that can and do happen). That means you can't pick and choose what bits you accept and what bits you don't.
At the end of the day no-one knows what went on in that room apart from those who were there. However we have trusted the legal system to judge that this chap was guilty of rape. However this same legal system decreed certain other points in relation to this case (the one's Judy quoted), points that led to the level of punishment handed out.
Those conclusions were made by the court. If you believe in the legal system you have a moral and ethical obligation to accept and put your trust in them. Because if you can't or refuse to then how can you possibly trust that same legal system to be correct in that conviction?
Correct. She was talking about the length of the sentence. The reason he had a relatively short sentence as there was no evidence of violence, in the traditional sense of the word, no knife, no punching, no wounding, no threats to kill. All of this is taken into account at sentencing, whether we like it or not is a different issue.
Judy was misquoted poor woman
Those conclusions were made by the court. If you believe in the legal system you have a moral and ethical obligation to accept and put your trust in them. Because if you can't or refuse to then how can you possibly trust that same legal system to be correct in that conviction?
I don't think that's true at all. What does it say about every overturned conviction or miscarriage of justice if we just blindly accept verdicts just because we have a moral and ethical obligation to trust they are correct?
Does anyone know if its true that in order to qualify for early release you have to accept your guilt to a parole board? I know there have been innocent men convicted who were refused parole because they wouldn't show remorse for something they hadnt done and I'm just wondering what's gone on in this case. Has he actually served his sentence or is he on license now.
I don't think that's true at all. What does it say about every overturned conviction or miscarriage of justice if we just blindly accept verdicts just because we have a moral and ethical obligation to trust they are correct?
Well no, I did quite clearly say that mistakes happen. That wrong judgements are made. Of course they do, of course they are, that's the nature of the beast. If we could magically just know if a person committed a crime or not there would be no need for a judge, a jury, a prosecutor, a defence.
And as such the justice system has appeals processes. But then again even that isn't a totally robust system. The fact is we know there will always be some margin of error. That's just common sense.
However until someone can come up with a better way this is the system we have and the one we have democratically chosen. As such we do quite rightly accept it. That's not to say we can't question or challenge it but ultimately we have to trust it to do it's job. We do have a moral and ethical obligation to accept the law of the land.
For example in this case. We are saying this man is a rapist on the basis of a guilty verdict that was passed by court. We're not privy to any first hand information, we have solely made that decision because a court has told us that is the decision we are to have. The court also declared it was non violent and there was no physical harm hence the level of sentence passed. Somebody asked how could Judy presume certain things? Well the same way you and I can presume this man is a rapist. Because that was the finding of the court.
It was poorly and insensitively articulated and Judy probably is a little too liberal for some of the more conservative attitudes towards crime and punishment but she was essentially saying exactly what our courts had deemed. And yes people have that right to have a more conservative point of view and believe the seriousness of a crime warrants a more serious punishment. However you do kind of wonder why they aren't campaigning to the powers that be to change the law instead of bullying those who aren't lawmakers into dishing out their own brand of judgement and punishment.
Does anyone know if its true that in order to qualify for early release you have to accept your guilt to a parole board? I know there have been innocent men convicted who were refused parole because they wouldn't show remorse for something they hadnt done and I'm just wondering what's gone on in this case. Has he actually served his sentence or is he on license now.
I was wondering about this, I thought you did have to admit guilt to be released on parole. Not completely sure though. There was a girl murdered in my home town in the late 80s and the guy who they convicted is still in prison as he won't admit he's guilty or say where her body is (IIRC it was one of the first cases of a murder conviction with no body). He's applied for parole a few times as his '"tariff" has long passed but has always been refused.
Evans received automatic release at the mid-point of the sentence, not parole.
I see, like I said I wasn't sure. Does this only apply to certain crimes then? The guy in the case I described above should have been released in 2004 after 15 years but has always been denied as he still says he's innocent.
Comments
Drink.
Do you know this for a fact?
Do you have proof of this claim please?
Be very sad to hear she had something more serious going on.
I think she's suffered with a nervous condition for a long time. I remember when she was on Richard and Judy 10 plus years ago her hands would shake and she would get very flustered at times.
I've rarely heard of a more ludicrous proposal in my life. Richard and Judy must have friends in very high places to get this idea taken remotely seriously.
I agree. I think she has been unfairly criticised. She stated very clearly that nobody deserves to be raped but if a girl gets drunk and goes to a bedroom with a footballer and then says she has been raped, surely her behaviour has to be considered. After all, why go to the hotel bedroom with a drunk footballer, what did she think was going to happen, watch TV!! We ALL both men and women have to take responsibility for our actions and crying rape in these situations is very different from being physically attacked by a person and physically injured and beaten. Well, that is my opinion, anyway.
Oh my God, I had no idea! Appalling!!
She started visibly shaking on live TV while still presenting This Morning so that's been going on for a long time. About the same time it started she had undergone a hysterectomy and was absent a lot; Richard would say it was due to "women's problems"!!
I think she does have bad nerves and has become less and less comfortable in front of the cameras in recent years and I was quite surprised when she was announced for the Loose Women panel.
Exactly. There is a difference between saying and doing. You can't prosecute every person who threatens another on the internet. These so-called trolls are very silly and probably scary but that's ALL they are.
A bit of perspective is needed in cases like this.
I don't know much about this case however I do believe that if you are to trust the legal system then you do so implicitely (that however doesn't mean you can't be aware mistakes that can and do happen). That means you can't pick and choose what bits you accept and what bits you don't.
At the end of the day no-one knows what went on in that room apart from those who were there. However we have trusted the legal system to judge that this chap was guilty of rape. However this same legal system decreed certain other points in relation to this case (the one's Judy quoted), points that led to the level of punishment handed out.
Those conclusions were made by the court. If you believe in the legal system you have a moral and ethical obligation to accept and put your trust in them. Because if you can't or refuse to then how can you possibly trust that same legal system to be correct in that conviction?
she has always shaken even years ago on This Morning
Correct. She was talking about the length of the sentence. The reason he had a relatively short sentence as there was no evidence of violence, in the traditional sense of the word, no knife, no punching, no wounding, no threats to kill. All of this is taken into account at sentencing, whether we like it or not is a different issue.
Judy was misquoted poor woman
I don't think that's true at all. What does it say about every overturned conviction or miscarriage of justice if we just blindly accept verdicts just because we have a moral and ethical obligation to trust they are correct?
And as such the justice system has appeals processes. But then again even that isn't a totally robust system. The fact is we know there will always be some margin of error. That's just common sense.
However until someone can come up with a better way this is the system we have and the one we have democratically chosen. As such we do quite rightly accept it. That's not to say we can't question or challenge it but ultimately we have to trust it to do it's job. We do have a moral and ethical obligation to accept the law of the land.
For example in this case. We are saying this man is a rapist on the basis of a guilty verdict that was passed by court. We're not privy to any first hand information, we have solely made that decision because a court has told us that is the decision we are to have. The court also declared it was non violent and there was no physical harm hence the level of sentence passed. Somebody asked how could Judy presume certain things? Well the same way you and I can presume this man is a rapist. Because that was the finding of the court.
It was poorly and insensitively articulated and Judy probably is a little too liberal for some of the more conservative attitudes towards crime and punishment but she was essentially saying exactly what our courts had deemed. And yes people have that right to have a more conservative point of view and believe the seriousness of a crime warrants a more serious punishment. However you do kind of wonder why they aren't campaigning to the powers that be to change the law instead of bullying those who aren't lawmakers into dishing out their own brand of judgement and punishment.
I was wondering about this, I thought you did have to admit guilt to be released on parole. Not completely sure though. There was a girl murdered in my home town in the late 80s and the guy who they convicted is still in prison as he won't admit he's guilty or say where her body is (IIRC it was one of the first cases of a murder conviction with no body). He's applied for parole a few times as his '"tariff" has long passed but has always been refused.
Evans received automatic release at the mid-point of the sentence, not parole.
I see, like I said I wasn't sure. Does this only apply to certain crimes then? The guy in the case I described above should have been released in 2004 after 15 years but has always been denied as he still says he's innocent.