The Dead Thread

[Deleted member 38674]

This is between them

No mate, it really really isn’t.

You shouldn’t turn a blind eye to that sort of violence. It’s how violence behind closed doors within marriages has allowed to continue for decades in some cases without intervention.

If there is clear evidence of wrongdoing, as there was in this case, it’s in the public interest to see that person prosecuted to the full extent of the law, whether they are male or female.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Women all over the country drop charges and the cps are ok with it.


The couple have made up, he was forced to go to court as a witness. They were banned from seeing each other. This is between them. I've noticed that males are like about time women get the same treatment like some moral victory that caroline being made an example off. This is what I'm uneasy about.

Barristers warn of strain on defendants after Caroline Flack death https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/feb/16/barristers-warn-of-strain-on-defendants-caroline-flack-death?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

This has more details regarding the CPS guidelines towards the bottom but there's more in depth stuff if you choose to Google.

As has been said previously if the CPS were proceeding it is because they were confident of a conviction. I've given you information on why the case was prosecuted despite the alleged victim's wishes.

I can't comment on other cases as I would expect there to be subjective reasons and you haven't given any examples. I'm pretty sure the CPS didn't go ahead with this because she presented "Love Island" though.

 

[PhilM]

The questions that need answering?

Did the cps treat her fairly? Why go ahead when the boyfriend dropped the charges.

The idea of someone dropping charges resulting in a case automatically being dropped is a common misconception of the pubic. Has an offence been committed?

It is not a case of a person (victim) versus the perpetrator, but rather the Crown Vs. them, so a person having to press charges is not an necessity - as above.

If the evidence reaches the threshold for them to be charged and it's in the public interest to do so, the CPS have a requirement to continue with a conviction.

The main issue is where it's the victim's statement that is the main piece of evidence, therefore if they withdraw their statement then the case becomes unlikely.

In this case, I suspect that there was evidence from them to continue to do so: it could be audio commentary, initial statement in a PB or a statement under caution.

Has she been treated fairly by the CPS? I suspect so, and if it is suspected that a crime has been convicted then they should peruse it, regardless of who it is.

Domestic Abuse cannot be overlooked and the ol' 'it's between them' stinks of people feeling that a wife/husband/finance/partner can rightfully batter the other.

They can't!

 

[Billysgingham.]

Under the law, sure.

That's what we live by isn't though.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

maybe with all the hand wringing, hysteria and need to pass comment we are part of the problem. just a thought my buddies.

I find the people who are the most hysterical hand wringers the most suspicious.

Like they've got something to hide.

 

[Deleted member 38674]

That's what we live by isn't though.

Yes, some of us do.

 

[roydo]

That's what we live by isn't though.

Yes, but even so, you can still be guilty of doing something without a court saying you are. Courts can get it wrong.

 

[ilikecheese]

Cos people wanna blame the internet for the life choices that a domestic abuser had made.

#Mamba Out

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

H


Or it was a show trial to raise the profile for domestic abuse against males.

We're through the looking glass here people.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Waiting for what?

The trial wont go ahead now.

Yeah I know.

Just dont think all the media reporting and opinions on social media are really necessary. Let her family have space.

 

[Billysgingham.]

Yes, but even so, you can still be guilty of doing something without a court saying you are. Courts can get it wrong.

I agree mate if it had gotten to court she would probably have been found guilty.But it never got to court for obvious reasons, so she was innocent up to a point.I know courts get it wrong but it is what we live by.

 

[the sniderman]

I find the people who are the most hysterical hand wringers the most suspicious.

Like they've got something to hide.

**gulps**

 

[Deleted member 38674]

Yeah I know.

Just dont think all the media reporting and opinions on social media are really necessary. Let her family have space.

Fame has a price, this is one of them. It’s why she got that lovely £1.2m for presenting the last series of Love Island.

I’m not saying it’s fair. If you or I had done what she had, our families would have all the peace and time they need, because the British public at large (and therefore, the press) don’t care about how our families are feeling.

As I said earlier, until we change how we consume information, the press will continue to seek stories where there aren’t any. They will hound Caroline’s friends, ex-boyfriends and family for comment over the next few weeks / months.

I’m not saying it’s pleasant or fair, it’s not. But it is what she signed up to, and she knew that.

And the even sadder thing is that thousands, perhaps even millions of others will gladly continue to sign up to it right now, knowing exactly what we know.

 

[PhilM]

Yes, but even so, you can still be guilty of doing something without a court saying you are. Courts can get it wrong.

Or there are particular cases where people aren't prosecuted because of particular circumstances, like this one, so the full judicial procedure cannot be completed.

Not to want to sound facetious here or in any way compare their supposed crimes, but I've used this analogy in the past when discussing similar circumstances...

Hitler was never convicted of mass genocide and war crimes because ultimately he committed suicide. Is he always innocent until proven guilty as per the law?

Should he receive the complete benefit of the doubt? I do not know whether she was guilty or not: I wasn't there nor am I privy to the full information of the case.

Nevertheless like I've said before, it isn't unjust or unfair to discuss the case, its circumstances and the probability (or not) of guilt when you consider the circs.

 

[alvinh]

Nobody else died since yesterday?

''Tis a miracle it is.