One of the people he was supposed to have assaulted said in Court that he couldn't understand why he was there.
Very odd.
Several did that, one witness changed his evidence virtually completely. CPS seemed to going for an overwhelming weight of smaller offences to back up the major one, but just ended up giving the defence more and more help.
Would there be any reason where the Conservative Party would not welcome him back or his Constituency not want him to stay as MP, it does not make sense.
The conservative party will take him back.
His constituency may or may not. They seem to like him but I would imagine they would be concerned with how descriptions of him as, for example, an alcoholic, might play out with voters.
Several did that, one witness changed his evidence virtually completely. CPS seemed to going for an overwhelming weight of smaller offences to back up the major one, but just ended up giving the defence more and more help.
His constituency may or may not. They seem to like him but I would imagine they would be concerned with how descriptions of him as, for example, an alcoholic, might play out with voters.
How times change. Once upon a time a heavy drinking MP would be fine, while a homosexual one; god forbid!
Talking of the Police Federation - this made me laugh - it probably made Andrew Mitchell laugh too!
The outgoing chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales claimed he was "cruelly bullied" by senior colleagues as he tried to reform the organisation, it has emerged.
In an email to the federation's Joint Central Committee, published by MPs, Steve Williams told some of its members their actions had been "unacceptable".
A radio presenter has said several times that on his one and only visit to Parliament - it was for an evening function - he has never seen so many people drunk to the point of stumbling ever assembled in one place. That was never my experience on daytime visits but given the difficulties experienced in just the past year by Joyce and now Evans, I wonder if the newspapers should investigate whether alcohol is in fact a very big problem in the Commons. For certainly it could now appear that it is increasingly contributing to the sense among the general public of disrepute.
I think the fact that every witness the prosecution brought forward said they liked him and thought there own matter dealt with at the time. The alleged rape victim testimony went from being pushed into his room and violently stripped, to being asked politely and taking his own clothes off.
The CPS seems very selective about which crimes they take to court. Anything to do with blowing people up seems to be OK, but the mere suggestion of a grope in the 1960s leads to dawn raids and massive publicity and a major court case.
A radio presenter has said several times that on his one and only visit to Parliament - it was for an evening function - he has never seen so many people drunk to the point of stumbling ever assembled in one place. That was never my experience on daytime visits but given the difficulties experienced in just the past year by Joyce and now Evans, I wonder if the newspapers should investigate whether alcohol is in fact a very big problem in the Commons. Certainly it appears that it is contributing to the sense of disrepute.
There are about thirty three bars and restaurants in the Palace of Westminster and all of the prices are heavily subsidised.
His constituency may or may not. They seem to like him but I would imagine they would be concerned with how descriptions of him as, for example, an alcoholic, might play out with voters.
These are allegations of over ten years ago, do we know he is a heavy drinker now?
Yet another farce and anther great pay day for the lawyers and barristers involved . Why do these cases keep coming to court when there's very little to back them up ? .
The CPS seems very selective about which crimes they take to court. Anything to do with blowing people up seems to be OK, but the mere suggestion of a grope in the 1960s leads to dawn raids and massive publicity and a major court case.
I've posted this before. but it's normally in the showbiz forum.
4.4 Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.
4.5 The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the prosecutor's objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence, and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which he or she might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.
4.6 When deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, prosecutors should ask themselves the following:
Can the evidence be used in court?
Prosecutors should consider whether there is any question over the admissibility of certain evidence. In doing so, prosecutors should assess:
-the likelihood of that evidence being held as inadmissible by the court; and
-the importance of that evidence in relation to the evidence as a whole.
Is the evidence reliable?
Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to question the reliability of the evidence, including its accuracy or integrity.
Is the evidence credible?
Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to doubt the credibility of the evidence.
IMHO post saville the cps have not been following their own guidelines. looking at will roache, one of the women couldn't remember the incident at all. in this case 3 of the 'victims' said he had done nothing wrong. what are the chances of conviction in that case?
it looks a lot to me like the cps is conducting a PR exercise with people's lives.
I've posted this before. but it's normally in the showbiz forum.
IMHO post saville the cps have not been following their own guidelines. looking at will roache, one of the women couldn't remember the incident at all. in this case 3 of the 'victims' said he had done nothing wrong. what are the chances of conviction in that case?
it looks a lot to me like the cps is conducting a PR exercise with people's lives.
Thanks for that
I've never been convinced of the competence of the CPS since my first Jury case in the 1980s. However, I tend to believe cock-up over conspiracy wins every time. The problem is that if a lawyer is any good, they go off into private practice leaving the dross to go into the CPS. Basically, if you pay peanuts, you get CPS lawyers.
snip>>it looks a lot to me like the cps is conducting a PR exercise with people's lives.
That's exactly what I have said before, post Savile the media went into "a paedophile on every corner and hordes of them on TV mode" , sadly mob mentality then said the rich and famous were being protected which I feel has led to the CPS going to court with far less than they would in a normal case to avoid being accused of covering up or protecting anyone with a "let a jury decide" attitude, the thing is its going to backfire on them with so many high profile cases coming back Not Guilty.
As you say in the Roache case one alleged victim could not even remember her alleged attack but was "sure it took place" I mean if anyone else accused a member of the public on those grounds they would never get into court.
This whole case looks yet again to be a desperate reaction to look like something is being done about historical sex abuse. But Savile got away with it and no amount of ridiculous course proceedings will change that.
I'm not exactly sure what he did that was supposed to be criminal. He being Evans, not Savile of course.
I've never been convinced of the competence of the CPS since my first Jury case in the 1980s. However, I tend to believe cock-up over conspiracy wins every time. The problem is that if a lawyer is any good, they go off into private practice leaving the dross to go into the CPS. Basically, if you pay peanuts, you get CPS lawyers.
That's exactly what I have said before, post Savile the media went into "a paedophile on every corner and hordes of them on TV mode" , sadly mob mentality then said the rich and famous were being protected which I feel has led to the CPS going to court with far less than they would in a normal case to avoid being accused of covering up or protecting anyone with a "let a jury decide" attitude, the thing is its going to backfire on them with so many high profile cases coming back Not Guilty.
As you say in the Roache case one alleged victim could not even remember her alleged attack but was "sure it took place" I mean if anyone else accused a member of the public on those grounds they would never get into court.
yeah so we have the DLT and max clifford cases on going at the moment.
do we think the CPS is looking at the situation again, and re-evaluating the position. or do we think they are doubling down and making sure they've got their best lawyers on it.
Comments
I think the CPS are trying to over compensate for past failures to prosecute.
Several did that, one witness changed his evidence virtually completely. CPS seemed to going for an overwhelming weight of smaller offences to back up the major one, but just ended up giving the defence more and more help.
The conservative party will take him back.
His constituency may or may not. They seem to like him but I would imagine they would be concerned with how descriptions of him as, for example, an alcoholic, might play out with voters.
This seems to be their tactic at the moment.
How times change. Once upon a time a heavy drinking MP would be fine, while a homosexual one; god forbid!
Deputy Speakers do not resign from their parties and I do not think you are right about him being an Independant MP
O/T
Talking of the Police Federation - this made me laugh - it probably made Andrew Mitchell laugh too!
The outgoing chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales claimed he was "cruelly bullied" by senior colleagues as he tried to reform the organisation, it has emerged.
In an email to the federation's Joint Central Committee, published by MPs, Steve Williams told some of its members their actions had been "unacceptable".
He wrote that he had been "ridiculed"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26948250
I think the fact that every witness the prosecution brought forward said they liked him and thought there own matter dealt with at the time. The alleged rape victim testimony went from being pushed into his room and violently stripped, to being asked politely and taking his own clothes off.
It should never have come to court.
The CPS seems very selective about which crimes they take to court. Anything to do with blowing people up seems to be OK, but the mere suggestion of a grope in the 1960s leads to dawn raids and massive publicity and a major court case.
There are about thirty three bars and restaurants in the Palace of Westminster and all of the prices are heavily subsidised.
These are allegations of over ten years ago, do we know he is a heavy drinker now?
Which is, of course, a totally ridiculous state of affairs.
I entirely agree.
Of course it was as set up, politically motivated I believe as well.
Major inconsistencies in the evidence and witnesses lying under oath, Evans was targeted because he is gay and a Tory.
No worries
Don't you like gay people?
I've posted this before. but it's normally in the showbiz forum.
the cps code of conduct. it's worth reading the whole thing.
The Evidential Stage
4.4 Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.
4.5 The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the prosecutor's objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence, and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which he or she might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.
4.6 When deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, prosecutors should ask themselves the following:
Can the evidence be used in court?
Prosecutors should consider whether there is any question over the admissibility of certain evidence. In doing so, prosecutors should assess:
-the likelihood of that evidence being held as inadmissible by the court; and
-the importance of that evidence in relation to the evidence as a whole.
Is the evidence reliable?
Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to question the reliability of the evidence, including its accuracy or integrity.
Is the evidence credible?
Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to doubt the credibility of the evidence.
IMHO post saville the cps have not been following their own guidelines. looking at will roache, one of the women couldn't remember the incident at all. in this case 3 of the 'victims' said he had done nothing wrong. what are the chances of conviction in that case?
it looks a lot to me like the cps is conducting a PR exercise with people's lives.
I've never been convinced of the competence of the CPS since my first Jury case in the 1980s. However, I tend to believe cock-up over conspiracy wins every time. The problem is that if a lawyer is any good, they go off into private practice leaving the dross to go into the CPS. Basically, if you pay peanuts, you get CPS lawyers.
That's exactly what I have said before, post Savile the media went into "a paedophile on every corner and hordes of them on TV mode" , sadly mob mentality then said the rich and famous were being protected which I feel has led to the CPS going to court with far less than they would in a normal case to avoid being accused of covering up or protecting anyone with a "let a jury decide" attitude, the thing is its going to backfire on them with so many high profile cases coming back Not Guilty.
As you say in the Roache case one alleged victim could not even remember her alleged attack but was "sure it took place" I mean if anyone else accused a member of the public on those grounds they would never get into court.
I'm not exactly sure what he did that was supposed to be criminal. He being Evans, not Savile of course.
yeah so we have the DLT and max clifford cases on going at the moment.
do we think the CPS is looking at the situation again, and re-evaluating the position. or do we think they are doubling down and making sure they've got their best lawyers on it.
Hopefully Cameron will now get behind his man.