Jokes2 mins ago
Arrested Again
What are the police playing at?
They have rearrested Freddie Starr.
Surely after all this time, they should be in a position to make up their mind about these celebrities. They'll probably rearrest the others as they answer their bail.
They have rearrested Freddie Starr.
Surely after all this time, they should be in a position to make up their mind about these celebrities. They'll probably rearrest the others as they answer their bail.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sir.prize. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"What are the police playing at? "
Oh for goodness sakes, do you understand ANYTHING about the a police investigation? What's all the uneccessary outrage in aid of?
The suspect possibly incrimination himself in the interview= a police charge=Court=Prison
Or
New allegations= evidence emerging= Rearresting suspect= doesn't incriminate himself in interview nor does Cps think there's a case=Suspect walks free, possibly for ever or until another allegation is made and (Consult loops above )
Oh for goodness sakes, do you understand ANYTHING about the a police investigation? What's all the uneccessary outrage in aid of?
The suspect possibly incrimination himself in the interview= a police charge=Court=Prison
Or
New allegations= evidence emerging= Rearresting suspect= doesn't incriminate himself in interview nor does Cps think there's a case=Suspect walks free, possibly for ever or until another allegation is made and (Consult loops above )
He has been questioned again, not charged. Are any of the others bailed?
The Police might want to clarify statements he made in his first interview, or confront him about new allagations that have emerged because of the publicity his cas has attracted.
If someone has made allegations about him, it is only proper and right that the police investigate, as much as anything to clear his name if he is innocent.
Seems odd to attack the police when they are investigating serious crimes of sexual assault and paedaphilia. If your daughter said she had been attacked by a celebrity when she was a child, would you then want the police to ignore it?
The Police might want to clarify statements he made in his first interview, or confront him about new allagations that have emerged because of the publicity his cas has attracted.
If someone has made allegations about him, it is only proper and right that the police investigate, as much as anything to clear his name if he is innocent.
Seems odd to attack the police when they are investigating serious crimes of sexual assault and paedaphilia. If your daughter said she had been attacked by a celebrity when she was a child, would you then want the police to ignore it?
There is a new arrest and caution every time a police officer believes that he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the suspect has committed an offence. That may be while the person is on bail for some other matter or at any other time; it may even happen when the suspect is being interviewed and another unrelated offence is shown or admitted; so that Freddie Starr has been arrested again is not unusual. It often happens.
The police have to be very careful about arrest and caution. It appears that it wasn't done correctly in the case of the child murderer, reported recently, who revealed where the police could find the victim and admitted that murder. His confession was excluded because he hadn't been cautioned as soon as there were reasonable grounds, the case had to be stopped and he was acquitted. He was subsequently convicted of another murder.
The police have to be very careful about arrest and caution. It appears that it wasn't done correctly in the case of the child murderer, reported recently, who revealed where the police could find the victim and admitted that murder. His confession was excluded because he hadn't been cautioned as soon as there were reasonable grounds, the case had to be stopped and he was acquitted. He was subsequently convicted of another murder.
The main problem with these enquires seems to be that any crimes committed were a very long time ago. So evidence would be rather difficult to amass. If Saville himself was still alive, prosecuting him for an offence that took place 50 years ago would have been nearly impossible.
So I guess its a very long progress and can't be hurried.
So I guess its a very long progress and can't be hurried.
In a way,the problem is that all that is needed is reasonable grounds for suspecting, hence arrest. The grounds may be reasonable at the time but prove to be unsupported by admissible evidence or only a false accusation. It may well prove that some of these accusations are simply false identification, false memories, or unprovable, given the lapse of time and human fallibility.
It's only a problem,' in a way', because the press publish the name of the suspect. They shouldn't. The police don't. Leveson said the press shouldn't. Various senior judges have said the same. But the press doesn't care and will indignantly talk about free speech and the public's right to know. Yet the press only bothers when the suspect is, or was, famous or the case is of exceptional gravity or public interest, such as a child abduction.
It's only a problem,' in a way', because the press publish the name of the suspect. They shouldn't. The police don't. Leveson said the press shouldn't. Various senior judges have said the same. But the press doesn't care and will indignantly talk about free speech and the public's right to know. Yet the press only bothers when the suspect is, or was, famous or the case is of exceptional gravity or public interest, such as a child abduction.
