About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

Vanessa · 21-08-2013, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassysocks

Hazel wasn't aggressive and intimidating - she didn't threaten anyone. It's 2013 - it isn't a criminal offence for women to flirt, even if some living in the past would like it to be.

She was goading him and then pulled his pants down. Not exactly blameless.

Livia · 21-08-2013, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CynicalHermit

I was under the impression the police need the cooperation of the accuser or they drop any charge.

No, Hazel wouldn't have to press charges. Anyway, I imagine this matter was reported by a lot of people so they are really the complainants. It was on TV, lots of people witnessed it. Hazel was still in the house when the wheels were set in motion I reckon.

sassysocks · 21-08-2013, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanessa

She was goading him and then pulled his pants down. Not exactly blameless.

She was playing, he was aggressive and threatening - hugh difference. Are you seriously trying to suggest she 'deserved' it?

Livia · 21-08-2013, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Both of these are accurate; I don't think most people commenting really understand the UK legal system and are going my what they've seen on US TV shows...

In the UK, the authorities can pursue a charge without the victim's consent, if they have evidence and feel that the aggressor poses a threat to other people. Charges don't have to be "pressed".

For the same reason the second statement is true: it's the intent of the aggressor that matters, as that's what poses the future risk.

Actually... I am a lawyer so I have a pretty good working knowledge of the legal system.

joeysteele · 21-08-2013, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Only if the description of the series of events depends on the testimony of the victim. If there's another source, such as other witnesses or (in this case) video footage of the incident, they wouldn't need it to continue with charges.

Exactly.

Also I have to say to Livia too, as always brilliantly put and explained.

Toy Soldier · 21-08-2013, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niamh.

wow, that's awful

I know! And I totally still have sour grapes about it

... but oh well. I think he was actually charged for fixing up dodgy cars about a year later, so maybe there was some karmic justice there.

Vanessa · 21-08-2013, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassysocks

She was playing, he was aggressive and threatening - hugh difference. Are you seriously trying to suggest she 'deserved' it?

No. I'm saying she was not entirely innocent.

sassysocks · 21-08-2013, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanessa

No. I'm saying she was not entirely innocent.

Hazel pulling his pants down did not justify him assaulting her. He's a bully and a coward.

Toy Soldier · 21-08-2013, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually... I am a lawyer so I have a pretty good working knowledge of the legal system.

I meant the people disagreeing with you, the talk of "pressing charges" is very US soap opera...

Vanessa · 21-08-2013, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassysocks

Hazel pulling his pants down did not justify him assaulting her. He's a bully and a coward.

I agree.

CaudleHalbard · 21-08-2013, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

LOL... oh dear, where to start. You keep using the word "technically" when you're referring to what you perceive to be a legal matter, and then go on to say something you've just made up.

If there was any mileage (or money) in pressing charges on Hazel, Daley's lawyers would have done it already. But there isn't.

The police don't have to try to convince the CPS to prosecute. The CPS will prosecute if there is enough evidence to bring the case to court.

I hope that helps.

Sorry but I don't think you have a clue here. Not your fault as it seems you have no legal training.

Police have to present evidence to the CPS. Unless that evidence is convincing the CPS wont prosecute.

If Daley or indeed Hazel were charged - and it does not need the consent of the other party - the party charged could use "consent" as a defence. In view of what we have seen recorded on video it is very likely the consent defence would succeed. Which is why prosecutions of either party is unlikely.

However...... if the CPS were unwise enough to prosecute one party, the other could find it useful to press charges as part of their defence. I am not saying that would happen, but it is a technique which can and has been used.

Livia · 21-08-2013, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I meant the people disagreeing with you, the talk of "pressing charges" is very US soap opera...

Ahhh I see. I was putting it all down to the fact you're Scottish and you buggers do your own thing when it comes to the law.

armand.kay · 21-08-2013, 02:51 PM

not him trying to stay relevant, who the hell tweets about getting charged

Verbal · 21-08-2013, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I meant the people disagreeing with you, the talk of "pressing charges" is very US soap opera...

no it's not

I could probably find an episode of the bill where its used several times

Livia · 21-08-2013, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

Sorry but I don't think you have a clue here. Not your fault as it seems you have no legal training.

Police have to present evidence to the CPS. Unless that evidence is convincing the CPS wont prosecute.

If Daley or indeed Hazel were charged - and it does not need the consent of the other party - the party charged could use "consent" as a defence. In view of what we have seen recorded on video it is very likely the consent defence would succeed. Which is why prosecutions of either party is unlikely.

However...... if the CPS were unwise enough to prosecute one party, the other could find it useful to press charges as part of their defence. I am not saying that would happen, but it is a technique which can and has been used.

I have a degree from Cambridge that says you're wrong. I'd be interested to hear about your own legal training. A whole series of Law & Order UK doesn't make you an expert. I'm not an expert... and I studied for four years.

CaudleHalbard · 21-08-2013, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armand.kay

not him trying to stay relevant, who the hell tweets about getting charged

Probably increases his cred amongst his followers of whom he has about 40000, compared with 23 before he went in the house.

Livia · 21-08-2013, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CynicalHermit

no it's not

I could probably find an episode of the bill where its used several times

To use a legal term... I rest my case.

Verbal · 21-08-2013, 02:54 PM

Didn't take long for this thread to turn into 'my dads bigger than your dad' did it

Livia · 21-08-2013, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CynicalHermit

Didn't take long for this thread to turn into 'my dads bigger than your dad' did it

In what sense?

CaudleHalbard · 21-08-2013, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

I have a degree from Cambridge that says you're wrong. I'd be interested to hear about your own legal training. A whole series of Law & Order UK doesn't make you an expert. I'm not an expert... and I studied for four years.

I actually worked for a government solicitor for 4 years, so a bit of practical experience, as opposed to your theoretical, and I too have a legal qualification. Any further offers?

Pincho Paxton · 21-08-2013, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanessa

No. I'm saying she was not entirely innocent.

I tickle you, and you kill me. It's the step up from play to fight that is the crime.

Verbal · 21-08-2013, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livia

In what sense?

I think you fully know what I mean

joeysteele · 21-08-2013, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaudleHalbard

Sorry but I don't think you have a clue here. Not your fault as it seems you have no legal training.

Police have to present evidence to the CPS. Unless that evidence is convincing the CPS wont prosecute.

If Daley or indeed Hazel were charged - and it does not need the consent of the other party - the party charged could use "consent" as a defence. In view of what we have seen recorded on video it is very likely the consent defence would succeed. Which is why prosecutions of either party is unlikely.

However...... if the CPS were unwise enough to prosecute one party, the other could find it useful to press charges as part of their defence. I am not saying that would happen, but it is a technique which can and has been used.

You really are joking aren't you here, I cannot let this pass.

Don't be so offensive, Livia has a vast knowledge of the law,I as a law student myself, recently graduated, have learned a great deal from Livia.

I think it is you with respect that has no real knowledge of the law and if you do have any, you clearly have no fair one in my view, sorry.

CaudleHalbard · 21-08-2013, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Yoiu really are joking aren't you here, I cnanot let this pass.

Don't be so offensive, Livia has a vast knowledge of the law,I as a law student myself, recently graduated, have learned a great deal from Livia.

I think it is you with respect that has no real knowledge of the law and if you do have any, you clearly have no fair one in my view, sorry.

You are both wonderful theoreticians, I'm sure but it seems neither of you has worked for a government solicitor. As I did for several years.

Livia · 21-08-2013, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CynicalHermit

I think you fully know what I mean

I think you mean that you're a little put out because I was accused of having no legal training and I stated that I do. Is that what you mean? And that I used my area of expertise to put someone right who was getting it wrong. I'm sorry if that upset you. Let us know when we get to your own area of expertise if you have one, and I will gladly acquiesce to your greater knowledge.

Site Navigation

About Us ThisisBigBrother.com