Not in the public interest?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....-public-interest.html

So this gang of savages have escaped prosecution, because the CPS spokesman Patrick Noonan said "the age of the alleged attackers was a difficulty"

What the difficulty here is, that this gang are free to attack another defenceless girl.

If it does happen perhaps next time it might be on one of the daughters, of those that came to this decision.

[VHG]

Ah the joys of being in the EU.

We now have no control of the scum of the earth that want to come here.

I have had enough, the UKIP party are getting my vote.

[Oneeyedvic]

I agree that on the face of it, this seems terrible.

However, when things are described as 'not in the public interest' I suspect that it might be more the fact that they don't feel there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution.

This could be because there are no independent eye witnesses, because they don't feel that the girl is telling the truth or a multitude of other reasons.

As it is, we know pretty much nothing about the case, people who do look at ALL the evidence have made a judgement and not thought it possible that a conviction may be secured.

Still, I am sure that with your knowledge of the law and especially your knowledge of the behaviour of foreigners, you will have more knowledge on this case than most people.

[Oneeyedvic]

Ah yes, VHG - must be those damn Europeans. Remind me - what nationality are Robert Thomson and Jon Venables?

[Zeuhl]

///they were suddenly all around me and were touching my thighs and stomach and trying to put their arms around me.'

Five members of the gang, all aged 10 and 12, were arrested///

Whilst the girl must have found it frightening, by her own admission her clothing was not disturbed, some of the boys touched her thighs and stomach but there was no actual sexual interference. I don't think this level of 'molesting' by young boys would ever have warranted a court appearance.

A stern talking to down the station and a warning to the parents is all this would ever have amounted to.

[jake-the-peg]

Yep I have to agree vic we've seen so many of these whipped up stories by the Mail they simply don't have any credibility.

Don't you love the way they thought it so pertinant to mention that this was an immigrant gang so that AOG, VHG and co could jump on it to air their hobby horses so readilly.

I can't imagine why they missed the chance with this story
http://www.dailymail....-posted-clip-web.html

To point out that this was a "British Paedophile" we have to read all the way down to find out he was "probably" from Machester

This one we're not even told that he's British!

http://www.dailymail....med-lousy-mother.html

Shouldn't the Mail be more upfront and proud of our Home Grown scum?

It's damn unpatriotic!

Almost as if they have some sort of crazy bias or agenda to keep feeding the bigoted and gullible

[naomi24]

Jake, a word if you please. (Sorry AOG).

[andy-hughes]

Oneyedvic is absolutely right - the phrase 'not in the public interest', although somewhat inflamatory at face value, is an accurate decription of the decision.

In cases where this is the result, it simply means that the Crown prosecution Service are not willing to commit tax-payers' money to fund a case which they, the CPS, do not feel they have a better than even chance of winning.

In that instance, the 'public interest' is served, but it does appear harsh in circumstances like these, when the 'public interest' appears not to have been served at all.

Fortunately, in these cases, some seriously planet-sized brains examine evidence with a detached viewpoint and consider the likely outcome of a trial, with every aspect considered, and make an informed unemotional decision which is judged to be the best in the circumstances.

It is thanks to this system that we have judges and juries, not lynch mobs and vigilantes.

[Zeuhl]

AOG won't criticise UK scum because they are his friends and allies.

Even paedophiles can be on AOG's christmas card list.

Remember his post in the Thread ‘Women & Child Killers Mon 12:20/12.55 15/Mar/10)

Question Author

/// They maybe child molesters, benefit fraudsters, or liars but that doesn't automatically stop them from being patriots ... I would much rather have them fighting by my side, than the "traitors within" who would turn this country over to the enemy at the drop of a hat.///

Nuff said.

[dh001]

"..However, when things are described as 'not in the public interest' I suspect that it might be more the fact that they don't feel there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution..."

Then they would have said there was insufficient evidence as opposed to 'not in the public inteetest'.

[dh001]

sorry 'interest'.

[sp1814]

"They maybe child molesters, benefit fraudsters, or liars but that doesn't automatically stop them from being patriots"

Seriously???

Blimey AOG...those are depths that even Jacques Cousteau never went to!

[Oneeyedvic]

dh001 - you are right - didn't realise that: http://www.cps.gov.uk...ecutors/codetest.html

[dh001]

Oneeyedvic: As you can see, the public interest test is FOLLOWED by the evidential test being passed. Also, you could draw an inference by the reaction of the police, which suggest they believed the suspects should have been prosecuted etc.

Zeuhl, sorry but I disagree with your comments as this touching would amount to sexual assault, a serious offence with several aggravating features in this case.

[sambro]

stop reading the flippin daily mail!!

[Zeuhl]

dh001

you might well be right

it's just that the description of the 'molesting' seemed to be artfully vague as is The Mail's style when it doesn't want the facts to get in the way of its story!

[anotheoldgit]

Oneeyedvic

I read your answer with some interest, and came to the conclusion that maybe you had come to a reasonable conclusion.

But then you had to spoil it all by your ending sarcastic comment.

Why do you do this?