theForum is run by the charity Unlock. We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions but we may intervene and take any action as we think necessary. Further details can be found in our terms of use. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report-a-post button or email us at forum@unlock.org.uk.


Cruel Prosecution Service


Cruel Prosecution Service

Author
Message
punter99
punter99
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 265, Visits: 1.5K
I doubt 6ix9ine's life is back to normal. He will be on the US registry and subject to numerous restrictions, just like an SHPO.
Mr W
Mr W
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 244, Visits: 4K
Felt like digging this thread up about celebrities like 6ix9ine's life going back to normal... James Charles (adult) admits contacting underage boys... and puts a video up saying he'll have a think about what he's done and 'hold himself accountable' but still keeps his 25m subscribers and I'm sure be forgotten about in a few months time... it's getting increasingly difficult not to be resentful...

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 613, Visits: 943
punter99 - 16 Jun 20 11:30 AM
JASB - 14 Jun 20 2:23 PM
punter99 - 9 Jun 20 11:02 AM
JASB - 8 Jun 20 4:38 PM
punter99 - 7 Jun 20 11:19 AM
Although I instinctively agree with all the sentiments expressed, there is an inconvenient truth here. Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire friend of royalty and celebs, was convicted. His well paid lawyers couldn't save him from jail and he paid the ultimate price for his crimes. Harvey Weinstein, another very rich SO, is in jail. I know it's strangely comforting to believe that 'if I was rich, I would have got away with it', but that isn't always the case.

One other thing occured to me. The CPS can issue a conditional caution, which includes being put on the register for 2 years and being subject to all sorts of conditions; a lot like like an SHPO. They can do this without taking the person to court. Very often, the CPS ignore the conditional caution and argue it's in 'the public interest' to go to court. If they win, the accused will get a much more severe punishment, and the public will applaud them, While, if the case involved a celeb and they opted for just a caution, the CPS would be then accused of being too soft. On the other hand, if the CPS gamble on a court case, they run the risk of the person pleading not guilty and escaping justice. It's a balancing act, which will, at some point, result in injustices.

As for Takeshi 6ix9ine, the law often allows for unlimited fines to be imposed, on top of a prison sentence, if the judge wants to. But that can give the impression of punishing someone twice for the same crime. It tends be either one or the other. You could argue that fining him 4 million, on top of giving him 4 years probation and 1,000 hours of community service, is a better punishment, than jailing him for a few years and letting him keep his money.  But his sentence resulted from a plea deal, which is common in the USA. The US equivalent of our CPS, clearly felt their evidence wasn't strong enough to go to trial so they preferred to cut a deal instead. Another balancing act.

Hi Punter99

In all we say about riches etc eventually; in my opinion, everything comes down to public perception. By this I mean what and how information; and importantly how it is digested by the public, is given by the authorities to the media.

I fully understand the CPS have a hard job trying to balance justice for: alleged, victims and society and the accused. Maybe none of us could do that job in a better manner if we are wishing to maintain the confidence of society.
However, a person "in favor" with the public can gain the support and influence of society etc more easily than a complete unknown.

Example, the process my offence followed included being combined with other offenders who were unknown to me; this was recognized by the CPS/Judge. The theory is that wished to save money, however other events at that time pointed to it actually wanting to demonstrate to the public that "white men" also commit crimes. (I mean no discriminative or racial offence to anyone by those words). A media reporting blackout was placed on all media reporting yet the local paper managed to get Ester Ranston to write an article about the trial, explaining (incorrectly) the offences and offenders. Damage done with no recourse.

Paul Gascoigne, an extremely popular ex footballer. Recently on trial for alleged sexual assault on a train. Though witnesses supported the alleged victim and he admitted committing a physical act that was intrusive, embarrassing etc but without permission, the media and public gave full support to him and the jury supported him.

Today we have the continuing battle with a member of the royalty; incidentally I met in Belize in the 80's and he does sweat, now using the power of his position and financial security to defend him against aligations. If it was you or me would we not be on a plane already?

Finally in all offences there is a limited amount of individuals who actually know what happened! The reporting of it by the alleged offender and victim has to be interpreted at interview,  by the CPS, then by the media and society then by the Judge. Not forgetting sometimes you have the good people of a jury. After all those rewrites who can oppose the point the truth has not be altered? Or more simply put: 
There is not truth as it is only a perception of the individual!


Keep safe, be compassionate, and be happy.



I did some reading on the Dragon's Den star - Doug Richard - case. Important to state first, that he was found not guilty on all charges and that I wasn't in the courtroom or the jury room, so I only know what I read online. I don't think he was ever in public favor, despite being on TV. I had never heard of him, until last week

Based on that evidence, I can see why the CPS went to court. It seems like they had an overwhelming case. But you can never tell, with juries. From everything I read, I think he was extremely lucky. His legal team were undoubtedly very well paid, but it was the jury who decided his fate. Like I say, I wasn't there, so I didn't see all the evidence, but having served on a jury myself, I'll take a guess at what went on in the jury room.

First, the girls, aged 13 and 15, chose to put their details on a 'sugar daddy' website. In the minds of the jury, that meant they 'asked for it'. Please remember, that's not my view, I'm just trying to get inside the jury's heads. Although the judge tells the jury to make their decision, based only on the facts presented to them in the courtroom, and nothing else, I know from my own experience, that juries don't do that. They introduce their own prejudices and beliefs about why the defendants and the accused acted in a certain way. I would also expect that Doug Richard's barrister had tried to paint the girls as irresponsible, sexually promiscuous and as unreliable witnesses, because that is what the defence always does. It's why there are so few rape cases going through the courts these days. Basically, juries are too eager to believe the worst about rape victims, especially when the defence has just assassinated their character.

I should add, at this point, that the case where I was on the jury, involved a guy who had been accused of inappropriately touching a 9 year old girl. In the jury room, I was shocked by the way that my fellow jurors passed moral judgement on the girl's mother. They basically put her on trial, for leaving her daughter alone with the guy! In the end, it came down to his word against the girls and we found him not guilty. There simply wasn't enough evidence, either way, to prove his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt. Even so, I was horrified at the way in which 'justice' was done, in that case. The female jurors even concocted an explanation for why the girl said she had been touched. They argued she had made it up, to get attention from her mum. They had no evidence whatsoever, for coming to that conclusion. It really opened my eyes as to what actually goes on in jury trials.

Coming back to the Doug Richard case. My experience showed me that children are not believed, despite what you often read in the press. It's more likely that he was found not guilty, because of the juries prejudices against young women and girls, not because of the facts of the case. I can't think of another explanation. He admitted that he gave the girls money, but said it was for travel expenses, not for sex. He said they looked older, even though one was just 5 feet tall. He even admitted having sex, but said it was consensual and yet he was found not guilty of sexual activity with a child. Almost unbelieveable.

Hi

I can follow your reasoning; though I have never been on a jury I do look at 'human behaviour'. Remember  just because you or I are not aware of someone that does not mean they do not have a following!

I do believe that historical social beliefs do influence us. This is why I disagree that it was false to not believe that an individual was trying to find attention from someone outside the family structure 'if they were not receiving it from within the family structure'. Ask your self why most adults have extramarital affairs? general it is because they think they are not getting attention from their partner! However I do at times think that over the last decade or so too much belief - because of social changes - has been given to believing everything the 'victim' says. The reasoning behind that is that for centuries the grownups have always said a child lies or I am a grown up and they do not know the world so misunderstood what happened!

Social guilt driven from personal memories has consequences that are both bad or good depending on your perspective.


As I have have mentioned before I was totally wrong to think that paying for the sexual services of someone was morally acceptable as I did not consider why the person advertised themselves for this line of work. I take no joy from the facts of my case; the female involved was working the streets, a fact known by the police and Social services and they did nothing about it.  It was only when it became both 'socially timely and a political issue they changed their approach. It had been proven in a separate 'test' trial that the female lied about her age and did look a lot older (agreed by the Judge of that trial), and subsequently used blackmail against her 'clients'. None of this stood against her in the trial of her other 'clients'. In fact the opposite as one defendant tried to voice these facts and was highly chastised by the Judge!

At my interview I admitted paying for sex but denied other aspects and I did not go to trial. Two years later when I was eventually sentenced I found it did not matter. I will not bother with all the details but viewing the Court when I and others (who I did not know) were being sentenced, reminded me of pictures from the French revolution executions, people where there so they could now say they did their bit. 

I knew then I did not have the financial or social popularity support to be punished appropriately; or indeed as was recommended by various reports. Social guilt and Political self protectionism overruled 90% of the justice I was entitled to.   
 
As i have said before both your and my beliefs should be listened to as there is no truth, as it is only an individual's perspective, and it is powered by their own beliefs or aims. This also applies to social and political words.  

Take care.




Hi JASB,

Just one thing I want to pick up. The jury is told to use only the evidence heard in the courtroom, when making their decision. Speculating about someone's motivations, based on one's own assumptions/observations about human behaviour, rather than the evidence put before you, is not what the jury should be doing.
But, as I'm sure you already know, that isn't what happens, in real life. That was my point.

Hi

Understand and always open to hearing others additional points as they expand my perception.
Keep safe

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
punter99
punter99
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 265, Visits: 1.5K
JASB - 14 Jun 20 2:23 PM
punter99 - 9 Jun 20 11:02 AM
JASB - 8 Jun 20 4:38 PM
punter99 - 7 Jun 20 11:19 AM
Although I instinctively agree with all the sentiments expressed, there is an inconvenient truth here. Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire friend of royalty and celebs, was convicted. His well paid lawyers couldn't save him from jail and he paid the ultimate price for his crimes. Harvey Weinstein, another very rich SO, is in jail. I know it's strangely comforting to believe that 'if I was rich, I would have got away with it', but that isn't always the case.

One other thing occured to me. The CPS can issue a conditional caution, which includes being put on the register for 2 years and being subject to all sorts of conditions; a lot like like an SHPO. They can do this without taking the person to court. Very often, the CPS ignore the conditional caution and argue it's in 'the public interest' to go to court. If they win, the accused will get a much more severe punishment, and the public will applaud them, While, if the case involved a celeb and they opted for just a caution, the CPS would be then accused of being too soft. On the other hand, if the CPS gamble on a court case, they run the risk of the person pleading not guilty and escaping justice. It's a balancing act, which will, at some point, result in injustices.

As for Takeshi 6ix9ine, the law often allows for unlimited fines to be imposed, on top of a prison sentence, if the judge wants to. But that can give the impression of punishing someone twice for the same crime. It tends be either one or the other. You could argue that fining him 4 million, on top of giving him 4 years probation and 1,000 hours of community service, is a better punishment, than jailing him for a few years and letting him keep his money.  But his sentence resulted from a plea deal, which is common in the USA. The US equivalent of our CPS, clearly felt their evidence wasn't strong enough to go to trial so they preferred to cut a deal instead. Another balancing act.

Hi Punter99

In all we say about riches etc eventually; in my opinion, everything comes down to public perception. By this I mean what and how information; and importantly how it is digested by the public, is given by the authorities to the media.

I fully understand the CPS have a hard job trying to balance justice for: alleged, victims and society and the accused. Maybe none of us could do that job in a better manner if we are wishing to maintain the confidence of society.
However, a person "in favor" with the public can gain the support and influence of society etc more easily than a complete unknown.

Example, the process my offence followed included being combined with other offenders who were unknown to me; this was recognized by the CPS/Judge. The theory is that wished to save money, however other events at that time pointed to it actually wanting to demonstrate to the public that "white men" also commit crimes. (I mean no discriminative or racial offence to anyone by those words). A media reporting blackout was placed on all media reporting yet the local paper managed to get Ester Ranston to write an article about the trial, explaining (incorrectly) the offences and offenders. Damage done with no recourse.

Paul Gascoigne, an extremely popular ex footballer. Recently on trial for alleged sexual assault on a train. Though witnesses supported the alleged victim and he admitted committing a physical act that was intrusive, embarrassing etc but without permission, the media and public gave full support to him and the jury supported him.

Today we have the continuing battle with a member of the royalty; incidentally I met in Belize in the 80's and he does sweat, now using the power of his position and financial security to defend him against aligations. If it was you or me would we not be on a plane already?

Finally in all offences there is a limited amount of individuals who actually know what happened! The reporting of it by the alleged offender and victim has to be interpreted at interview,  by the CPS, then by the media and society then by the Judge. Not forgetting sometimes you have the good people of a jury. After all those rewrites who can oppose the point the truth has not be altered? Or more simply put: 
There is not truth as it is only a perception of the individual!


Keep safe, be compassionate, and be happy.



I did some reading on the Dragon's Den star - Doug Richard - case. Important to state first, that he was found not guilty on all charges and that I wasn't in the courtroom or the jury room, so I only know what I read online. I don't think he was ever in public favor, despite being on TV. I had never heard of him, until last week

Based on that evidence, I can see why the CPS went to court. It seems like they had an overwhelming case. But you can never tell, with juries. From everything I read, I think he was extremely lucky. His legal team were undoubtedly very well paid, but it was the jury who decided his fate. Like I say, I wasn't there, so I didn't see all the evidence, but having served on a jury myself, I'll take a guess at what went on in the jury room.

First, the girls, aged 13 and 15, chose to put their details on a 'sugar daddy' website. In the minds of the jury, that meant they 'asked for it'. Please remember, that's not my view, I'm just trying to get inside the jury's heads. Although the judge tells the jury to make their decision, based only on the facts presented to them in the courtroom, and nothing else, I know from my own experience, that juries don't do that. They introduce their own prejudices and beliefs about why the defendants and the accused acted in a certain way. I would also expect that Doug Richard's barrister had tried to paint the girls as irresponsible, sexually promiscuous and as unreliable witnesses, because that is what the defence always does. It's why there are so few rape cases going through the courts these days. Basically, juries are too eager to believe the worst about rape victims, especially when the defence has just assassinated their character.

I should add, at this point, that the case where I was on the jury, involved a guy who had been accused of inappropriately touching a 9 year old girl. In the jury room, I was shocked by the way that my fellow jurors passed moral judgement on the girl's mother. They basically put her on trial, for leaving her daughter alone with the guy! In the end, it came down to his word against the girls and we found him not guilty. There simply wasn't enough evidence, either way, to prove his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt. Even so, I was horrified at the way in which 'justice' was done, in that case. The female jurors even concocted an explanation for why the girl said she had been touched. They argued she had made it up, to get attention from her mum. They had no evidence whatsoever, for coming to that conclusion. It really opened my eyes as to what actually goes on in jury trials.

Coming back to the Doug Richard case. My experience showed me that children are not believed, despite what you often read in the press. It's more likely that he was found not guilty, because of the juries prejudices against young women and girls, not because of the facts of the case. I can't think of another explanation. He admitted that he gave the girls money, but said it was for travel expenses, not for sex. He said they looked older, even though one was just 5 feet tall. He even admitted having sex, but said it was consensual and yet he was found not guilty of sexual activity with a child. Almost unbelieveable.

Hi

I can follow your reasoning; though I have never been on a jury I do look at 'human behaviour'. Remember  just because you or I are not aware of someone that does not mean they do not have a following!

I do believe that historical social beliefs do influence us. This is why I disagree that it was false to not believe that an individual was trying to find attention from someone outside the family structure 'if they were not receiving it from within the family structure'. Ask your self why most adults have extramarital affairs? general it is because they think they are not getting attention from their partner! However I do at times think that over the last decade or so too much belief - because of social changes - has been given to believing everything the 'victim' says. The reasoning behind that is that for centuries the grownups have always said a child lies or I am a grown up and they do not know the world so misunderstood what happened!

Social guilt driven from personal memories has consequences that are both bad or good depending on your perspective.


As I have have mentioned before I was totally wrong to think that paying for the sexual services of someone was morally acceptable as I did not consider why the person advertised themselves for this line of work. I take no joy from the facts of my case; the female involved was working the streets, a fact known by the police and Social services and they did nothing about it.  It was only when it became both 'socially timely and a political issue they changed their approach. It had been proven in a separate 'test' trial that the female lied about her age and did look a lot older (agreed by the Judge of that trial), and subsequently used blackmail against her 'clients'. None of this stood against her in the trial of her other 'clients'. In fact the opposite as one defendant tried to voice these facts and was highly chastised by the Judge!

At my interview I admitted paying for sex but denied other aspects and I did not go to trial. Two years later when I was eventually sentenced I found it did not matter. I will not bother with all the details but viewing the Court when I and others (who I did not know) were being sentenced, reminded me of pictures from the French revolution executions, people where there so they could now say they did their bit. 

I knew then I did not have the financial or social popularity support to be punished appropriately; or indeed as was recommended by various reports. Social guilt and Political self protectionism overruled 90% of the justice I was entitled to.   
 
As i have said before both your and my beliefs should be listened to as there is no truth, as it is only an individual's perspective, and it is powered by their own beliefs or aims. This also applies to social and political words.  

Take care.




Hi JASB,

Just one thing I want to pick up. The jury is told to use only the evidence heard in the courtroom, when making their decision. Speculating about someone's motivations, based on one's own assumptions/observations about human behaviour, rather than the evidence put before you, is not what the jury should be doing.
But, as I'm sure you already know, that isn't what happens, in real life. That was my point.

JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 613, Visits: 943
punter99 - 9 Jun 20 11:02 AM
JASB - 8 Jun 20 4:38 PM
punter99 - 7 Jun 20 11:19 AM
Although I instinctively agree with all the sentiments expressed, there is an inconvenient truth here. Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire friend of royalty and celebs, was convicted. His well paid lawyers couldn't save him from jail and he paid the ultimate price for his crimes. Harvey Weinstein, another very rich SO, is in jail. I know it's strangely comforting to believe that 'if I was rich, I would have got away with it', but that isn't always the case.

One other thing occured to me. The CPS can issue a conditional caution, which includes being put on the register for 2 years and being subject to all sorts of conditions; a lot like like an SHPO. They can do this without taking the person to court. Very often, the CPS ignore the conditional caution and argue it's in 'the public interest' to go to court. If they win, the accused will get a much more severe punishment, and the public will applaud them, While, if the case involved a celeb and they opted for just a caution, the CPS would be then accused of being too soft. On the other hand, if the CPS gamble on a court case, they run the risk of the person pleading not guilty and escaping justice. It's a balancing act, which will, at some point, result in injustices.

As for Takeshi 6ix9ine, the law often allows for unlimited fines to be imposed, on top of a prison sentence, if the judge wants to. But that can give the impression of punishing someone twice for the same crime. It tends be either one or the other. You could argue that fining him 4 million, on top of giving him 4 years probation and 1,000 hours of community service, is a better punishment, than jailing him for a few years and letting him keep his money.  But his sentence resulted from a plea deal, which is common in the USA. The US equivalent of our CPS, clearly felt their evidence wasn't strong enough to go to trial so they preferred to cut a deal instead. Another balancing act.

Hi Punter99

In all we say about riches etc eventually; in my opinion, everything comes down to public perception. By this I mean what and how information; and importantly how it is digested by the public, is given by the authorities to the media.

I fully understand the CPS have a hard job trying to balance justice for: alleged, victims and society and the accused. Maybe none of us could do that job in a better manner if we are wishing to maintain the confidence of society.
However, a person "in favor" with the public can gain the support and influence of society etc more easily than a complete unknown.

Example, the process my offence followed included being combined with other offenders who were unknown to me; this was recognized by the CPS/Judge. The theory is that wished to save money, however other events at that time pointed to it actually wanting to demonstrate to the public that "white men" also commit crimes. (I mean no discriminative or racial offence to anyone by those words). A media reporting blackout was placed on all media reporting yet the local paper managed to get Ester Ranston to write an article about the trial, explaining (incorrectly) the offences and offenders. Damage done with no recourse.

Paul Gascoigne, an extremely popular ex footballer. Recently on trial for alleged sexual assault on a train. Though witnesses supported the alleged victim and he admitted committing a physical act that was intrusive, embarrassing etc but without permission, the media and public gave full support to him and the jury supported him.

Today we have the continuing battle with a member of the royalty; incidentally I met in Belize in the 80's and he does sweat, now using the power of his position and financial security to defend him against aligations. If it was you or me would we not be on a plane already?

Finally in all offences there is a limited amount of individuals who actually know what happened! The reporting of it by the alleged offender and victim has to be interpreted at interview,  by the CPS, then by the media and society then by the Judge. Not forgetting sometimes you have the good people of a jury. After all those rewrites who can oppose the point the truth has not be altered? Or more simply put: 
There is not truth as it is only a perception of the individual!


Keep safe, be compassionate, and be happy.



I did some reading on the Dragon's Den star - Doug Richard - case. Important to state first, that he was found not guilty on all charges and that I wasn't in the courtroom or the jury room, so I only know what I read online. I don't think he was ever in public favor, despite being on TV. I had never heard of him, until last week

Based on that evidence, I can see why the CPS went to court. It seems like they had an overwhelming case. But you can never tell, with juries. From everything I read, I think he was extremely lucky. His legal team were undoubtedly very well paid, but it was the jury who decided his fate. Like I say, I wasn't there, so I didn't see all the evidence, but having served on a jury myself, I'll take a guess at what went on in the jury room.

First, the girls, aged 13 and 15, chose to put their details on a 'sugar daddy' website. In the minds of the jury, that meant they 'asked for it'. Please remember, that's not my view, I'm just trying to get inside the jury's heads. Although the judge tells the jury to make their decision, based only on the facts presented to them in the courtroom, and nothing else, I know from my own experience, that juries don't do that. They introduce their own prejudices and beliefs about why the defendants and the accused acted in a certain way. I would also expect that Doug Richard's barrister had tried to paint the girls as irresponsible, sexually promiscuous and as unreliable witnesses, because that is what the defence always does. It's why there are so few rape cases going through the courts these days. Basically, juries are too eager to believe the worst about rape victims, especially when the defence has just assassinated their character.

I should add, at this point, that the case where I was on the jury, involved a guy who had been accused of inappropriately touching a 9 year old girl. In the jury room, I was shocked by the way that my fellow jurors passed moral judgement on the girl's mother. They basically put her on trial, for leaving her daughter alone with the guy! In the end, it came down to his word against the girls and we found him not guilty. There simply wasn't enough evidence, either way, to prove his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt. Even so, I was horrified at the way in which 'justice' was done, in that case. The female jurors even concocted an explanation for why the girl said she had been touched. They argued she had made it up, to get attention from her mum. They had no evidence whatsoever, for coming to that conclusion. It really opened my eyes as to what actually goes on in jury trials.

Coming back to the Doug Richard case. My experience showed me that children are not believed, despite what you often read in the press. It's more likely that he was found not guilty, because of the juries prejudices against young women and girls, not because of the facts of the case. I can't think of another explanation. He admitted that he gave the girls money, but said it was for travel expenses, not for sex. He said they looked older, even though one was just 5 feet tall. He even admitted having sex, but said it was consensual and yet he was found not guilty of sexual activity with a child. Almost unbelieveable.

Hi

I can follow your reasoning; though I have never been on a jury I do look at 'human behaviour'. Remember  just because you or I are not aware of someone that does not mean they do not have a following!

I do believe that historical social beliefs do influence us. This is why I disagree that it was false to not believe that an individual was trying to find attention from someone outside the family structure 'if they were not receiving it from within the family structure'. Ask your self why most adults have extramarital affairs? general it is because they think they are not getting attention from their partner! However I do at times think that over the last decade or so too much belief - because of social changes - has been given to believing everything the 'victim' says. The reasoning behind that is that for centuries the grownups have always said a child lies or I am a grown up and they do not know the world so misunderstood what happened!

Social guilt driven from personal memories has consequences that are both bad or good depending on your perspective.


As I have have mentioned before I was totally wrong to think that paying for the sexual services of someone was morally acceptable as I did not consider why the person advertised themselves for this line of work. I take no joy from the facts of my case; the female involved was working the streets, a fact known by the police and Social services and they did nothing about it.  It was only when it became both 'socially timely and a political issue they changed their approach. It had been proven in a separate 'test' trial that the female lied about her age and did look a lot older (agreed by the Judge of that trial), and subsequently used blackmail against her 'clients'. None of this stood against her in the trial of her other 'clients'. In fact the opposite as one defendant tried to voice these facts and was highly chastised by the Judge!

At my interview I admitted paying for sex but denied other aspects and I did not go to trial. Two years later when I was eventually sentenced I found it did not matter. I will not bother with all the details but viewing the Court when I and others (who I did not know) were being sentenced, reminded me of pictures from the French revolution executions, people where there so they could now say they did their bit. 

I knew then I did not have the financial or social popularity support to be punished appropriately; or indeed as was recommended by various reports. Social guilt and Political self protectionism overruled 90% of the justice I was entitled to.   
 
As i have said before both your and my beliefs should be listened to as there is no truth, as it is only an individual's perspective, and it is powered by their own beliefs or aims. This also applies to social and political words.  

Take care.





Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
punter99
punter99
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 265, Visits: 1.5K
JASB - 8 Jun 20 4:38 PM
punter99 - 7 Jun 20 11:19 AM
Although I instinctively agree with all the sentiments expressed, there is an inconvenient truth here. Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire friend of royalty and celebs, was convicted. His well paid lawyers couldn't save him from jail and he paid the ultimate price for his crimes. Harvey Weinstein, another very rich SO, is in jail. I know it's strangely comforting to believe that 'if I was rich, I would have got away with it', but that isn't always the case.

One other thing occured to me. The CPS can issue a conditional caution, which includes being put on the register for 2 years and being subject to all sorts of conditions; a lot like like an SHPO. They can do this without taking the person to court. Very often, the CPS ignore the conditional caution and argue it's in 'the public interest' to go to court. If they win, the accused will get a much more severe punishment, and the public will applaud them, While, if the case involved a celeb and they opted for just a caution, the CPS would be then accused of being too soft. On the other hand, if the CPS gamble on a court case, they run the risk of the person pleading not guilty and escaping justice. It's a balancing act, which will, at some point, result in injustices.

As for Takeshi 6ix9ine, the law often allows for unlimited fines to be imposed, on top of a prison sentence, if the judge wants to. But that can give the impression of punishing someone twice for the same crime. It tends be either one or the other. You could argue that fining him 4 million, on top of giving him 4 years probation and 1,000 hours of community service, is a better punishment, than jailing him for a few years and letting him keep his money.  But his sentence resulted from a plea deal, which is common in the USA. The US equivalent of our CPS, clearly felt their evidence wasn't strong enough to go to trial so they preferred to cut a deal instead. Another balancing act.

Hi Punter99

In all we say about riches etc eventually; in my opinion, everything comes down to public perception. By this I mean what and how information; and importantly how it is digested by the public, is given by the authorities to the media.

I fully understand the CPS have a hard job trying to balance justice for: alleged, victims and society and the accused. Maybe none of us could do that job in a better manner if we are wishing to maintain the confidence of society.
However, a person "in favor" with the public can gain the support and influence of society etc more easily than a complete unknown.

Example, the process my offence followed included being combined with other offenders who were unknown to me; this was recognized by the CPS/Judge. The theory is that wished to save money, however other events at that time pointed to it actually wanting to demonstrate to the public that "white men" also commit crimes. (I mean no discriminative or racial offence to anyone by those words). A media reporting blackout was placed on all media reporting yet the local paper managed to get Ester Ranston to write an article about the trial, explaining (incorrectly) the offences and offenders. Damage done with no recourse.

Paul Gascoigne, an extremely popular ex footballer. Recently on trial for alleged sexual assault on a train. Though witnesses supported the alleged victim and he admitted committing a physical act that was intrusive, embarrassing etc but without permission, the media and public gave full support to him and the jury supported him.

Today we have the continuing battle with a member of the royalty; incidentally I met in Belize in the 80's and he does sweat, now using the power of his position and financial security to defend him against aligations. If it was you or me would we not be on a plane already?

Finally in all offences there is a limited amount of individuals who actually know what happened! The reporting of it by the alleged offender and victim has to be interpreted at interview,  by the CPS, then by the media and society then by the Judge. Not forgetting sometimes you have the good people of a jury. After all those rewrites who can oppose the point the truth has not be altered? Or more simply put: 
There is not truth as it is only a perception of the individual!


Keep safe, be compassionate, and be happy.



I did some reading on the Dragon's Den star - Doug Richard - case. Important to state first, that he was found not guilty on all charges and that I wasn't in the courtroom or the jury room, so I only know what I read online. I don't think he was ever in public favor, despite being on TV. I had never heard of him, until last week

Based on that evidence, I can see why the CPS went to court. It seems like they had an overwhelming case. But you can never tell, with juries. From everything I read, I think he was extremely lucky. His legal team were undoubtedly very well paid, but it was the jury who decided his fate. Like I say, I wasn't there, so I didn't see all the evidence, but having served on a jury myself, I'll take a guess at what went on in the jury room.

First, the girls, aged 13 and 15, chose to put their details on a 'sugar daddy' website. In the minds of the jury, that meant they 'asked for it'. Please remember, that's not my view, I'm just trying to get inside the jury's heads. Although the judge tells the jury to make their decision, based only on the facts presented to them in the courtroom, and nothing else, I know from my own experience, that juries don't do that. They introduce their own prejudices and beliefs about why the defendants and the accused acted in a certain way. I would also expect that Doug Richard's barrister had tried to paint the girls as irresponsible, sexually promiscuous and as unreliable witnesses, because that is what the defence always does. It's why there are so few rape cases going through the courts these days. Basically, juries are too eager to believe the worst about rape victims, especially when the defence has just assassinated their character.

I should add, at this point, that the case where I was on the jury, involved a guy who had been accused of inappropriately touching a 9 year old girl. In the jury room, I was shocked by the way that my fellow jurors passed moral judgement on the girl's mother. They basically put her on trial, for leaving her daughter alone with the guy! In the end, it came down to his word against the girls and we found him not guilty. There simply wasn't enough evidence, either way, to prove his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt. Even so, I was horrified at the way in which 'justice' was done, in that case. The female jurors even concocted an explanation for why the girl said she had been touched. They argued she had made it up, to get attention from her mum. They had no evidence whatsoever, for coming to that conclusion. It really opened my eyes as to what actually goes on in jury trials.

Coming back to the Doug Richard case. My experience showed me that children are not believed, despite what you often read in the press. It's more likely that he was found not guilty, because of the juries prejudices against young women and girls, not because of the facts of the case. I can't think of another explanation. He admitted that he gave the girls money, but said it was for travel expenses, not for sex. He said they looked older, even though one was just 5 feet tall. He even admitted having sex, but said it was consensual and yet he was found not guilty of sexual activity with a child. Almost unbelieveable.

JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 613, Visits: 943
punter99 - 7 Jun 20 11:19 AM
Although I instinctively agree with all the sentiments expressed, there is an inconvenient truth here. Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire friend of royalty and celebs, was convicted. His well paid lawyers couldn't save him from jail and he paid the ultimate price for his crimes. Harvey Weinstein, another very rich SO, is in jail. I know it's strangely comforting to believe that 'if I was rich, I would have got away with it', but that isn't always the case.

One other thing occured to me. The CPS can issue a conditional caution, which includes being put on the register for 2 years and being subject to all sorts of conditions; a lot like like an SHPO. They can do this without taking the person to court. Very often, the CPS ignore the conditional caution and argue it's in 'the public interest' to go to court. If they win, the accused will get a much more severe punishment, and the public will applaud them, While, if the case involved a celeb and they opted for just a caution, the CPS would be then accused of being too soft. On the other hand, if the CPS gamble on a court case, they run the risk of the person pleading not guilty and escaping justice. It's a balancing act, which will, at some point, result in injustices.

As for Takeshi 6ix9ine, the law often allows for unlimited fines to be imposed, on top of a prison sentence, if the judge wants to. But that can give the impression of punishing someone twice for the same crime. It tends be either one or the other. You could argue that fining him 4 million, on top of giving him 4 years probation and 1,000 hours of community service, is a better punishment, than jailing him for a few years and letting him keep his money.  But his sentence resulted from a plea deal, which is common in the USA. The US equivalent of our CPS, clearly felt their evidence wasn't strong enough to go to trial so they preferred to cut a deal instead. Another balancing act.

Hi Punter99

In all we say about riches etc eventually; in my opinion, everything comes down to public perception. By this I mean what and how information; and importantly how it is digested by the public, is given by the authorities to the media.

I fully understand the CPS have a hard job trying to balance justice for: alleged, victims and society and the accused. Maybe none of us could do that job in a better manner if we are wishing to maintain the confidence of society.
However, a person "in favor" with the public can gain the support and influence of society etc more easily than a complete unknown.

Example, the process my offence followed included being combined with other offenders who were unknown to me; this was recognized by the CPS/Judge. The theory is that wished to save money, however other events at that time pointed to it actually wanting to demonstrate to the public that "white men" also commit crimes. (I mean no discriminative or racial offence to anyone by those words). A media reporting blackout was placed on all media reporting yet the local paper managed to get Ester Ranston to write an article about the trial, explaining (incorrectly) the offences and offenders. Damage done with no recourse.

Paul Gascoigne, an extremely popular ex footballer. Recently on trial for alleged sexual assault on a train. Though witnesses supported the alleged victim and he admitted committing a physical act that was intrusive, embarrassing etc but without permission, the media and public gave full support to him and the jury supported him.

Today we have the continuing battle with a member of the royalty; incidentally I met in Belize in the 80's and he does sweat, now using the power of his position and financial security to defend him against aligations. If it was you or me would we not be on a plane already?

Finally in all offences there is a limited amount of individuals who actually know what happened! The reporting of it by the alleged offender and victim has to be interpreted at interview,  by the CPS, then by the media and society then by the Judge. Not forgetting sometimes you have the good people of a jury. After all those rewrites who can oppose the point the truth has not be altered? Or more simply put: 
There is not truth as it is only a perception of the individual!


Keep safe, be compassionate, and be happy.




Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
Zack
Zack
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (3K reputation)Supreme Being (3K reputation)Supreme Being (3K reputation)Supreme Being (3K reputation)Supreme Being (3K reputation)Supreme Being (3K reputation)Supreme Being (3K reputation)Supreme Being (3K reputation)Supreme Being (3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 52, Visits: 3.9K
punter99 - 7 Jun 20 11:19 AM
Although I instinctively agree with all the sentiments expressed, there is an inconvenient truth here. Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire friend of royalty and celebs, was convicted. His well paid lawyers couldn't save him from jail and he paid the ultimate price for his crimes. Harvey Weinstein, another very rich SO, is in jail. I know it's strangely comforting to believe that 'if I was rich, I would have got away with it', but that isn't always the case.

One other thing occured to me. The CPS can issue a conditional caution, which includes being put on the register for 2 years and being subject to all sorts of conditions; a lot like like an SHPO. They can do this without taking the person to court. Very often, the CPS ignore the conditional caution and argue it's in 'the public interest' to go to court. If they win, the accused will get a much more severe punishment, and the public will applaud them, While, if the case involved a celeb and they opted for just a caution, the CPS would be then accused of being too soft. On the other hand, if the CPS gamble on a court case, they run the risk of the person pleading not guilty and escaping justice. It's a balancing act, which will, at some point, result in injustices.

As for Takeshi 6ix9ine, the law often allows for unlimited fines to be imposed, on top of a prison sentence, if the judge wants to. But that can give the impression of punishing someone twice for the same crime. It tends be either one or the other. You could argue that fining him 4 million, on top of giving him 4 years probation and 1,000 hours of community service, is a better punishment, than jailing him for a few years and letting him keep his money.  But his sentence resulted from a plea deal, which is common in the USA. The US equivalent of our CPS, clearly felt their evidence wasn't strong enough to go to trial so they preferred to cut a deal instead. Another balancing act.

It's hard to generalise. There comes a point that no matter how rich you are, if the evidence is strong then you're probably not going to "get away with it". Indeed fame and public reporting is likely to result in more people coming forward, than someone who isn't in the public eye for certain types of cases. Of course not all rich people are famous, and indeed not all famous people are rich. Money in theory should give an advantage. If you can afford the best and most experienced lawyers, and pay for your own expert witnesses - you are likely to have more of an advantage. That could be about "getting away with it", or simply not letting the prosecution "getting away with" convicting the innocent on what may be flimsy evidence that doesn't stand up to independent scrutiny. Most defendants do not have anywhere near the same level of resources that the Criminal Justice system has - so we already have a major imbalance in power.

punter99
punter99
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 265, Visits: 1.5K
Although I instinctively agree with all the sentiments expressed, there is an inconvenient truth here. Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire friend of royalty and celebs, was convicted. His well paid lawyers couldn't save him from jail and he paid the ultimate price for his crimes. Harvey Weinstein, another very rich SO, is in jail. I know it's strangely comforting to believe that 'if I was rich, I would have got away with it', but that isn't always the case.

One other thing occured to me. The CPS can issue a conditional caution, which includes being put on the register for 2 years and being subject to all sorts of conditions; a lot like like an SHPO. They can do this without taking the person to court. Very often, the CPS ignore the conditional caution and argue it's in 'the public interest' to go to court. If they win, the accused will get a much more severe punishment, and the public will applaud them, While, if the case involved a celeb and they opted for just a caution, the CPS would be then accused of being too soft. On the other hand, if the CPS gamble on a court case, they run the risk of the person pleading not guilty and escaping justice. It's a balancing act, which will, at some point, result in injustices.

As for Takeshi 6ix9ine, the law often allows for unlimited fines to be imposed, on top of a prison sentence, if the judge wants to. But that can give the impression of punishing someone twice for the same crime. It tends be either one or the other. You could argue that fining him 4 million, on top of giving him 4 years probation and 1,000 hours of community service, is a better punishment, than jailing him for a few years and letting him keep his money.  But his sentence resulted from a plea deal, which is common in the USA. The US equivalent of our CPS, clearly felt their evidence wasn't strong enough to go to trial so they preferred to cut a deal instead. Another balancing act.
Mr W
Mr W
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 244, Visits: 4K
JASB - 31 May 20 12:01 PM
Mr W - 29 May 20 3:31 PM
JASB - 29 May 20 9:56 AM
Mr W - 26 May 20 3:32 PM
Speaking of celebrities in the press - One doesn't have to know who Takeshi 6ix9ine is, or like his music, but his criminal actions make your mouth drop over the past few years including creating and distributing a child (13) sex video.
He's just got out of jail and is complaining his latest single only got to number 3 in the top 100.
That is the world we live in.

Hi Mr W,

We do not have to go to the States to find these stories.
There is the "Dragons Den" individual whose legal team managed to persuade the courts that he was innocent of trying to have sex with a couple of 13 yr olds in a london hotel even though one was seen running and crying from the hotel. He was found not guilty as the jury believed that his contacting them, paying for their transport fees etc to go to London etc was not sufficient grounds to prove the cps allegations and so gain a conviction.

Then we also have a certain person who is evading interviews in the USA, whose TV interview only raised more questions so he did a 2nd one and his defence was he was in a Pizza place; though the timings of events did not offer a plausible defence.

There are so many more examples of defence cases being won due to the financial support of the defendant that it increases the emotional turmoil of us less fortunate.
It makes you wonder why if the CPS is so confident of their case, why do they not impose SOPO conditions on the individual even if they loose the case? They are entitled to do that!

keep safe and lets hope we all win the lottery.


Those are cases where there was no guilty verdict though. In the case of 6ix9ine, he was guilty, all over the press and jailed. My point was that he's been banged to rights for multiple offences, of a sexual nature and others, and has come out the other end as if nothing's happened. Whereas I, and others here no doubt, have had their lives absolutely decimated beyond what is humanely conceivable. I'd like my job back, my friends back and I'd love to have a single that got to number 3 of any chart. UK systems just do not allow this to happen - not by regulation, just in reality eg SHPO cripples real rehabilitation - unspent/disclosure/constant detailed reminders through questioning. Maybe the US probation and rehabilitation is far better than ours and has worked miracles on 6ix9ine and he's a new man!......... I suspect khafka's response, though, is a little closer to the truth.

Hi Mr W
I suppose I was just drilling down further to show how shallow society really is/can be.

If you have money most things are possible.

Basically if you understand the meaning behind the statement
"Truth does not exist, it is only an individual's perception" you can say the same about "rehabilitation"!

How else can my PPU justify a statement "You have to prove you will never offend again!".

We are on the same page, keep safe.
Completely understand and just to bring it full circle about the CPS - "cruel prosecution service" - as with many political situations, the less rich you are, the harder you're hit. Far FAR better ways of handling all of these crimes than just dumping us all in one box and left to rot. It's hard to ignore stories like the 6ix9ine one.

That comment from your PPU either, 1) another inadequate officer part of a system which doesn't know what to do about these situations regardless of all the 'training' they have or 2) said it just to see your reaction - something I've learned from your helpful words in the past.


=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 613, Visits: 943
Mr W - 29 May 20 3:31 PM
JASB - 29 May 20 9:56 AM
Mr W - 26 May 20 3:32 PM
Speaking of celebrities in the press - One doesn't have to know who Takeshi 6ix9ine is, or like his music, but his criminal actions make your mouth drop over the past few years including creating and distributing a child (13) sex video.
He's just got out of jail and is complaining his latest single only got to number 3 in the top 100.
That is the world we live in.

Hi Mr W,

We do not have to go to the States to find these stories.
There is the "Dragons Den" individual whose legal team managed to persuade the courts that he was innocent of trying to have sex with a couple of 13 yr olds in a london hotel even though one was seen running and crying from the hotel. He was found not guilty as the jury believed that his contacting them, paying for their transport fees etc to go to London etc was not sufficient grounds to prove the cps allegations and so gain a conviction.

Then we also have a certain person who is evading interviews in the USA, whose TV interview only raised more questions so he did a 2nd one and his defence was he was in a Pizza place; though the timings of events did not offer a plausible defence.

There are so many more examples of defence cases being won due to the financial support of the defendant that it increases the emotional turmoil of us less fortunate.
It makes you wonder why if the CPS is so confident of their case, why do they not impose SOPO conditions on the individual even if they loose the case? They are entitled to do that!

keep safe and lets hope we all win the lottery.


Those are cases where there was no guilty verdict though. In the case of 6ix9ine, he was guilty, all over the press and jailed. My point was that he's been banged to rights for multiple offences, of a sexual nature and others, and has come out the other end as if nothing's happened. Whereas I, and others here no doubt, have had their lives absolutely decimated beyond what is humanely conceivable. I'd like my job back, my friends back and I'd love to have a single that got to number 3 of any chart. UK systems just do not allow this to happen - not by regulation, just in reality eg SHPO cripples real rehabilitation - unspent/disclosure/constant detailed reminders through questioning. Maybe the US probation and rehabilitation is far better than ours and has worked miracles on 6ix9ine and he's a new man!......... I suspect khafka's response, though, is a little closer to the truth.

Hi Mr W
I suppose I was just drilling down further to show how shallow society really is/can be.

If you have money most things are possible.

Basically if you understand the meaning behind the statement
"Truth does not exist, it is only an individual's perception" you can say the same about "rehabilitation"!

How else can my PPU justify a statement "You have to prove you will never offend again!".

We are on the same page, keep safe.




Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
Edited
Last Year by JASB
Mr W
Mr W
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 244, Visits: 4K
JASB - 29 May 20 9:56 AM
Mr W - 26 May 20 3:32 PM
Speaking of celebrities in the press - One doesn't have to know who Takeshi 6ix9ine is, or like his music, but his criminal actions make your mouth drop over the past few years including creating and distributing a child (13) sex video.
He's just got out of jail and is complaining his latest single only got to number 3 in the top 100.
That is the world we live in.

Hi Mr W,

We do not have to go to the States to find these stories.
There is the "Dragons Den" individual whose legal team managed to persuade the courts that he was innocent of trying to have sex with a couple of 13 yr olds in a london hotel even though one was seen running and crying from the hotel. He was found not guilty as the jury believed that his contacting them, paying for their transport fees etc to go to London etc was not sufficient grounds to prove the cps allegations and so gain a conviction.

Then we also have a certain person who is evading interviews in the USA, whose TV interview only raised more questions so he did a 2nd one and his defence was he was in a Pizza place; though the timings of events did not offer a plausible defence.

There are so many more examples of defence cases being won due to the financial support of the defendant that it increases the emotional turmoil of us less fortunate.
It makes you wonder why if the CPS is so confident of their case, why do they not impose SOPO conditions on the individual even if they loose the case? They are entitled to do that!

keep safe and lets hope we all win the lottery.


Those are cases where there was no guilty verdict though. In the case of 6ix9ine, he was guilty, all over the press and jailed. My point was that he's been banged to rights for multiple offences, of a sexual nature and others, and has come out the other end as if nothing's happened. Whereas I, and others here no doubt, have had their lives absolutely decimated beyond what is humanely conceivable. I'd like my job back, my friends back and I'd love to have a single that got to number 3 of any chart. UK systems just do not allow this to happen - not by regulation, just in reality eg SHPO cripples real rehabilitation - unspent/disclosure/constant detailed reminders through questioning. Maybe the US probation and rehabilitation is far better than ours and has worked miracles on 6ix9ine and he's a new man!......... I suspect khafka's response, though, is a little closer to the truth.


=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
Edited
Last Year by Mr W
JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 613, Visits: 943
Mr W - 26 May 20 3:32 PM
Speaking of celebrities in the press - One doesn't have to know who Takeshi 6ix9ine is, or like his music, but his criminal actions make your mouth drop over the past few years including creating and distributing a child (13) sex video.
He's just got out of jail and is complaining his latest single only got to number 3 in the top 100.
That is the world we live in.

Hi Mr W,

We do not have to go to the States to find these stories.
There is the "Dragons Den" individual whose legal team managed to persuade the courts that he was innocent of trying to have sex with a couple of 13 yr olds in a london hotel even though one was seen running and crying from the hotel. He was found not guilty as the jury believed that his contacting them, paying for their transport fees etc to go to London etc was not sufficient grounds to prove the cps allegations and so gain a conviction.

Then we also have a certain person who is evading interviews in the USA, whose TV interview only raised more questions so he did a 2nd one and his defence was he was in a Pizza place; though the timings of events did not offer a plausible defence.

There are so many more examples of defence cases being won due to the financial support of the defendant that it increases the emotional turmoil of us less fortunate.
It makes you wonder why if the CPS is so confident of their case, why do they not impose SOPO conditions on the individual even if they loose the case? They are entitled to do that!

keep safe and lets hope we all win the lottery.



Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
Simon1983
Simon1983
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 158, Visits: 5.1K
Spot on in your reply
khafka
khafka
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)Supreme Being (5.8K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 174, Visits: 6.4K
Simon1983 - 26 May 20 4:24 PM
I was thinking the same thing the other week, he is out and about, acting like nothing has happened, and behind him his Entourage that seem to forget he is a convicted offender, acting like nothing has happened.

Money and "clout" are powerful drugs when it comes to crimes. Most people will be willing to gloss over it if they could be seen hanging around with a famous person. Especially in 6IX9INE's "gangsta" persona.

One of the biggest issues that face the average person when they get convicted of a sex offence (especially ones relating to children) is the financial fallback of the whole thing. You 99.999999% be guaranteed to lose your job, majority of your friends and family. Finding future employment will be tough, potentially nigh on impossible for some depending on where they live. Mix that with potential bankruptcy as legal fees ain't cheap! This then adds further issues to you.

6IX9INE supposedly has a net worth of around $4 million.

If I had $4 million sitting the bank when I got convicted it would certainly soften the blow. I'd just go off and live in a house on an island somewhere and just exist until my sentence becomes spent.

Not to mention you could also afford to help potentially dampen down the Google effect somewhat.



Simon1983
Simon1983
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 158, Visits: 5.1K
I was thinking the same thing the other week, he is out and about, acting like nothing has happened, and behind him his Entourage that seem to forget he is a convicted offender, acting like nothing has happened.
Mr W
Mr W
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)Supreme Being (9.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 244, Visits: 4K
Speaking of celebrities in the press - One doesn't have to know who Takeshi 6ix9ine is, or like his music, but his criminal actions make your mouth drop over the past few years including creating and distributing a child (13) sex video.
He's just got out of jail and is complaining his latest single only got to number 3 in the top 100.
That is the world we live in.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
Edited
Last Year by Mr W
JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)Supreme Being (23K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 613, Visits: 943
alexh07 - 25 May 20 11:55 PM
punter99 - 19 Feb 20 3:19 PM
This was a headline in one of the papers, following the tragic suicide of Caroline Flack. It's the first time I can remember, that the tabloids have been on the side of the offender, not the CPS.

What explains this sudden change of heart, I wonder? Is it that, in the tabloids neanderthal view of criminal justice, domestic violence still doesn't count as a 'real' crime? Could it be that the increased focus on mental health these days has made them aware of the reality; that anyone accused of a crime will suffer devastating and long lasting damage to their mental health, particularly if they have had no previous contact with the law before?

Maybe, it is just a case of one rule for celebrity offenders and a different rule for everybody else? Or, perhaps it is just a cynical ploy to distract public attention away from the media's own role in her death? To make the CPS the scapegoat, when it's the papers themselves who have blood on their hands. What do people think?

I'm in no way advocating the behaviour in her allegations, but this story touched me as my experience with the CJS was the closest and possibly the only time I have had suicidal thoughts in my life.

I think that the consequences which the accused has to suffer are often far greater and disproportionate to the actual "crime" itself. My issue with the CPS in the way that they deal with domestic cases is that they are very one-sided and out to gain a conviction/produce results rather than take a more logical route which could be more beneficial to both the "victim", "offender" and public interest. I'm not saying this applies to all cases, but I believe there are far more efficient ways to deal with lower-mid level domestic incidents such as early social worker intervention or a PIN warning system

Hi Alex,

As I previously mentioned, I do think the principle you are describing is relevant to more types of offences than yours unfortunately.
I hope that your emotions are now able to see the positive aspects of your life that have occured, but also importantly, what you will and do contribute to the future of those close to you and really matter. 

Support and understanding at any time is always here.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
Alan Watts
Alan Watts
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)Supreme Being (2.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 42, Visits: 258
punter99 - 19 Feb 20 3:19 PM
This was a headline in one of the papers, following the tragic suicide of Caroline Flack. It's the first time I can remember, that the tabloids have been on the side of the offender, not the CPS.

What explains this sudden change of heart, I wonder? Is it that, in the tabloids neanderthal view of criminal justice, domestic violence still doesn't count as a 'real' crime? Could it be that the increased focus on mental health these days has made them aware of the reality; that anyone accused of a crime will suffer devastating and long lasting damage to their mental health, particularly if they have had no previous contact with the law before?

Maybe, it is just a case of one rule for celebrity offenders and a different rule for everybody else? Or, perhaps it is just a cynical ploy to distract public attention away from the media's own role in her death? To make the CPS the scapegoat, when it's the papers themselves who have blood on their hands. What do people think?

I'm in no way advocating the behaviour in her allegations, but this story touched me as my experience with the CJS was the closest and possibly the only time I have had suicidal thoughts in my life.

I think that the consequences which the accused has to suffer are often far greater and disproportionate to the actual "crime" itself. My issue with the CPS in the way that they deal with domestic cases is that they are very one-sided and out to gain a conviction/produce results rather than take a more logical route which could be more beneficial to both the "victim", "offender" and public interest. I'm not saying this applies to all cases, but I believe there are far more efficient ways to deal with lower-mid level domestic incidents such as early social worker intervention or a PIN warning system
Edited
Last Year by alexh07
GO


Similar Topics


As a small but national charity, we rely on charitable grants and individual donations to continue running theForum. We do not deliver government services. By being independent, we are able to respond to the needs of the people with convictions. Help us keep theForum going.

Donate Online

Login
Existing Account
Email Address:


Password:


Select a Forum....
























































































































































































theForum


Search