A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

This section was setup in August 2018 in order to move the existing related discussions from other sections into this new section to group them together, and separate from the other CH-related topics.

Moderator: Moderators

DazedandConfused
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:20 pm
Real Name: J

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by DazedandConfused »

LHA wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:56 pm
Scazza wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:50 pm
DazedandConfused wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:14 pm Ah, sod it. The mods can delete if required :oops:

The comments were in response to a post about the convictions and that the defendants had requested limits on the media reporting. 3 comments in total:

“Wow”
“Irrelevant now I know, but given the climate chances of unbiased press reporting are zero.”
“For record, three charges dropped. Matter of public fact that wasn’t reported at all by media.”

As I said, likely an anti-climax but definitely on the defensive of her father IMHO.
Seems a bit blinkered given her father was convicted of raping a girl her age, or younger, and also had flings with other young girls (which would now be illegal due to the breach of his position of trust). Did she expect press coverage to be anything but damning?

Interesting to know which charges were dropped but that isn't exactly unusual, or evidence of being less guilty.
There was another comment, which I am not going to repeat here, which was deleted, perhaps my her or by someone else and more specifically related to events at the trial. It was an appalling comment for her to have made, all I would say is she clearly believes her father to be innocent and regards the media as 'biased' against rapists, which I suppose they are, and should be.

She also made another comment claiming that Husband's conviction(s) were by majority verdict not unanimous. I don't know if this is true or not.
I missed that.

I’ve said this before, but were it my father convicted I’m not sure whether I’d be able to accept that he was a rapist (although I am fairly certain I would never have forgiven him for the consensual affair).

Abusers are very often charming people who have a very different public face and perhaps she will never come to terms with what he did. Whether his family believes the verdict was correct or not, it must be hideous having it all played out so publicly. I had a degree of sympathy for her for the posts I saw, but hearing that these were the tip of the iceberg makes me lose that sympathy very rapidly.
richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by richardb »

DazedandConfused wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:27 pm
richardb wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:15 pm I would like to see it first, in case it is offensive.
Richard I think you’ve already seen it as you added comments directly underneath hers, although you were replying to the original comment rather than to hers.

I fear it will be an anti-climax as it was nothing groundbreaking, nor offensive in any way other than an implied refusal to accept his guilt, which I think you’d have to be pretty cold hearted not to understand given her relationship to him.
If that was the sum total of what she posted then it isn't earth shattering. She tried to criticise the reliability of her father's victims by reference to the allegations of rape which were dropped during the trial. I now know that there were very obvious explanations for that (eg one happened outside England and Wales) and could not therefore be tried in the Hove Crown Court. That has now been changed from 1 May 2004 by section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

I now know that what happened was that the prosecution rationalised its case, which is not at all uncommon. In fact it very often happens. Very often historical offences will be charged, for example, alternatively as rape or indecent assault and the prosecution decide to proceed on indecent assault. As a criminal lawyer I find nothing in it out of the ordinary.

The 2003 Act significantly widened the definition of rape and it is likely that some of the indecent assault convictions would now be charged as rape with much higher sentences. The charge of rape abroad would also be friable and he would likely have been convicted of it.

I reported at the time that I thought the jury had been given the majority direction, so that may be factually accurate but changes nothing: he was convicted.

I assumed that as they were posted on a hot Sunday evening the might have been preceded by a few glasses of wrecking fluid, especially as she deleted a couple.

I fully understand that she has difficulty accepting what her father has been convicted of but it is far more dignified to say nothing. People would respect her, instead of pitying her.
User avatar
jtaylor
Forum Administrator
Posts: 1880
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:32 am
Real Name: Julian Taylor
Location: Wantage, OXON
Contact:

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by jtaylor »

Personally I feel for the families of the convicted - as has been said before, they are victims too (obviously in a very different sense to the victims in the cases), whether they know it or feel it or not.
I can't imagine how I'd feel if my dad had been convicted for abuse like this. It must be a massive, horrible conflict, and I can begin to understand how you deal with that, particularly given how public it's all been, and the links between family being so known and obvious.
So I'd suggest we avoid further discussion of family reactions, if that's OK, unless there's very strong reason to do so - as Richard has said, maybe a few understandable drinks, and a few unwise posts from emotion not reason.
Julian Taylor-Gadd
Leigh Hunt 1985-1992
Image
Founder of The Unofficial CH Forum
https://www.grovegeeks.co.uk - IT Support and website design for home, small businesses and charities.
User avatar
J.R.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15835
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
Real Name: John Rutley
Location: Dorking, Surrey

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by J.R. »

LHA wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:56 pm
Scazza wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:50 pm
DazedandConfused wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:14 pm Ah, sod it. The mods can delete if required :oops:

The comments were in response to a post about the convictions and that the defendants had requested limits on the media reporting. 3 comments in total:

“Wow”
“Irrelevant now I know, but given the climate chances of unbiased press reporting are zero.”
“For record, three charges dropped. Matter of public fact that wasn’t reported at all by media.”

As I said, likely an anti-climax but definitely on the defensive of her father IMHO.
Seems a bit blinkered given her father was convicted of raping a girl her age, or younger, and also had flings with other young girls (which would now be illegal due to the breach of his position of trust). Did she expect press coverage to be anything but damning?

Interesting to know which charges were dropped but that isn't exactly unusual, or evidence of being less guilty.
There was another comment, which I am not going to repeat here, which was deleted, perhaps my her or by someone else and more specifically related to events at the trial. It was an appalling comment for her to have made, all I would say is she clearly believes her father to be innocent and regards the media as 'biased' against rapists, which I suppose they are, and should be.

She also made another comment claiming that Husband's conviction(s) were by majority verdict not unanimous. I don't know if this is true or not.

With regard to your last sentence, I'm sure Richardb will explain fully on the majority jury vote.

With regard to the dropped charges, it's my view that the Crown believed that the ONE rape charge was sufficient to proceed with.

Again, I'm sure Richardb will elaborate.
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.
sejintenej
Button Grecian
Posts: 4092
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:19 pm
Real Name: David Brown ColA '52-'61
Location: Essex

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by sejintenej »

J.R. wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 11:48 am
LHA wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:56 pm
She also made another comment claiming that Husband's conviction(s) were by majority verdict not unanimous. I don't know if this is true or not.

With regard to your last sentence, I'm sure Richardb will explain fully on the majority jury vote.

With regard to the dropped charges, it's my view that the Crown believed that the ONE rape charge was sufficient to proceed with.

Again, I'm sure Richardb will elaborate.
Exactly, JR. He has already commented about majority verdicts and he/she is the person who matters.

As for the failed charges (and I have not been following line by line) a civil suit would not require the same level of proof IF he survives long enough to turn up in court. Assaults on kids don't go down well and other prisoners seem to have the same view as non-prisoners. OTOH he might be kept in an 8x4 alone for his own safety with only his memories knowing that he will either be injured eventually or go mad
What happens if a politician drowns in a river? That is pollution.
What happens if all of them drown? That is solution!!!
User avatar
J.R.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15835
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
Real Name: John Rutley
Location: Dorking, Surrey

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by J.R. »

sejintenej wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 12:14 pm
J.R. wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 11:48 am
LHA wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 8:56 pm
She also made another comment claiming that Husband's conviction(s) were by majority verdict not unanimous. I don't know if this is true or not.

With regard to your last sentence, I'm sure Richardb will explain fully on the majority jury vote.

With regard to the dropped charges, it's my view that the Crown believed that the ONE rape charge was sufficient to proceed with.

Again, I'm sure Richardb will elaborate.
Exactly, JR. He has already commented about majority verdicts and he/she is the person who matters.

As for the failed charges (and I have not been following line by line) a civil suit would not require the same level of proof IF he survives long enough to turn up in court. Assaults on kids don't go down well and other prisoners seem to have the same view as non-prisoners. OTOH he might be kept in an 8x4 alone for his own safety with only his memories knowing that he will either be injured eventually or go mad

Again I accept your point David.

Sex offenders, or 'Nonces' as I knew them used to be able to apply for Rule 42 (?), or exclusion from general prison population, though I think this has now ceased, and our 'Nanny State' has got to the point where special prisons/sections are set aside for them alone.
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.
sejintenej
Button Grecian
Posts: 4092
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:19 pm
Real Name: David Brown ColA '52-'61
Location: Essex

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by sejintenej »

J.R. wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 12:23 pm
Sex offenders, or 'Nonces' as I knew them used to be able to apply for Rule 42 (?), or exclusion from general prison population, though I think this has now ceased, and our 'Nanny State' has got to the point where special prisons/sections are set aside for them alone.

Oh, NO, oh NO, oh NO!!! Now they know who is safe so they can b****r each other day in, day out without worrying if anyone will bother them. Sounds like a state sponsored brothel for these ....................
What happens if a politician drowns in a river? That is pollution.
What happens if all of them drown? That is solution!!!
Bishbashbosh
3rd Former
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:23 pm
Real Name: the Bishopp

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by Bishbashbosh »

Have to say I think you lot have let your imaginations run riot after reading tabloid nonsense...

Prison is not easy - never been a resident but I have known and am related to several. All categories of prison, across the UK. Tabloid rubbish is exactly that - rubbish.

Prisons are, on the whole, a) overcrowded, b) understaffed and c) underfunded. Due to b the staff they do have tend to be more stick than carrot to maintain order; due to c, b cannot be improved. Due to all 3, they are often tense and violent, with tiny "infractions" causing massive over reactions. Some have people locked in tiny cells 23 hours a day. On top of all those, the most violent among us are all locked away together for extended periods of time. If anyone claims prison is too soft or easy, they are idiots with no concept of the truth, or manipulative liars with an agenda.

As for different sections, there is usually a wing for prisoners who would be at risk in 'gen-pop', bur mostly, unless celebrity cases, their crimes are confidential. More and more crimes appear in papers/on news though these days, so it is rarer for other inmates not to know.

As for the last comment about knowing who is safe etc... I reaply hope that was sarcasm or an attempt at humour. If that was a sincere post, I think the poster has issues.
User avatar
J.R.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15835
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
Real Name: John Rutley
Location: Dorking, Surrey

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by J.R. »

I think Davids final comment regarding safety was 'tongue in cheek'.

Those who know me well will know my initial employment details, so I can speak with some authority.

There are NO secrets in prisons these days, If a con wants to know details of another persons presence, he will get that information within hours.

No-one is saying prison is easy. However, it's a darn sight easier these days, with say the 1960's. However, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I always thought prison was a punishment, not a jolly rehabilitaion jaunt. I accept all should be done to adjust behaviour.

I also accept that prisons are loaded with people who shouldn't be there because of mental health problems. That's a governmental (excuse the pun), problem NOT a prison problem from the start.

Maybe we should pat all convicted prisoners after their trial on the head and give them 20 quid out of the poor box and tell them not to be so naughty in the future.
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.
sejintenej
Button Grecian
Posts: 4092
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:19 pm
Real Name: David Brown ColA '52-'61
Location: Essex

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by sejintenej »

J.R. wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 2:14 pm I think Davids final comment regarding safety was 'tongue in cheek'.

Maybe we should pat all convicted prisoners after their trial on the head and give them 20 quid out of the poor box and tell them not to be so naughty in the future.
LOL to both comments. On the subject of Australia, Kergulen is available at the current time.
What happens if a politician drowns in a river? That is pollution.
What happens if all of them drown? That is solution!!!
Foureyes
Grecian
Posts: 926
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:26 am
Real Name: David
Location: England

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by Foureyes »

Not sure why you are relating Australia and Kerguelen as the former is an independent Commonwealth country and the latter is a French dependency and M Macron might not agree!
David :shock:
Scazza
UF (Upper Fourth)
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:54 pm
Real Name: Ross

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by Scazza »

During sentencing someone mentioned a prison just for older paedophiles and I found this informative but slightly terrifying piece from the BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32085076

11,000 sex offenders in prison equates to about 15 more bespoke prisons like Whatton!

I guess its in everyone's interests to aim for rehabilitation and if that is best achieved away from the main prison populous then so be it but there must be big risks to giving like-minded offenders time to conspire.

Understaffing, overcrowding and the new drug 'spice' is causing massive issues in many prisons by all accounts, so I think their time could be quite unpleasant still.
richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by richardb »

The one positive contribution that the Krays made to the law was to bring about majority verdicts.

Prior to 1967 the verdict of the jury had to be unanimous. If it was not, then the jury was discharged and a retrial took place, costing time and money.

The Krays realised that if they nobbled one or two jurors, they would live to fight another day and can then nobble both witnesses and jurors. If the witnesses didn't turn up then the job was done as the prosecution could not proceed, and even if the witnesses did attend the jury would be hung again.

So the law was changed in 1967 to allow for majority verdicts which must be 10-2 or 11-1.

Where a defendant is convicted on a majority verdict, he does not get a reduction in sentence because he was only convicted on a majority - the verdict has the same effects as a unanimous verdict.

As JR has already observed, very often the prosecution will proceed with their best charge. I don't understand it to be the case here. As I have previously explained, there were good reasons why other charges were dropped during the trial, not least the fact that one took place outside the jurisdiction.

Now that they have been convicted, section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 has the effect of allowing the conviction to prove the behaviour covered by the offending charged. So far there are 20+ victims and the combined wealth of the filthy five will, if distributed between them, give each of them the square root of not a lot. The school, by comparison may be insured, although my understanding is that a crime cannot be insured against. In any event the school has capital reserve which would cover the total damages. It is well established that the school owes a duty to pupils to take reasonable care for their safety. I anticipate that central to that is that the policy of simply moving on those caught with their hands in the children was a breach of that duty, as it encouraged the belief that teachers would not be prosecuted if caught. Likewise the failure to ever involve people had the same effect.
richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear

Re: A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)

Post by richardb »

This thread has gone of at something of a tangent but I will give you my two penneth anyway ....

I have been going into prisons for 34 years. Sometimes I do three or four prison visits a week. My first visit was in October 1984 when I went into the cells at the Old Bailey, which is a maze of corridors under the building with no natural lighting and very little dignity. When I last went there two years ago, security was at the highest level and all the furniture is screwed down.

After all that time I am afraid that by and large I don't in believe in prison. It is undignified and inhumane and no way to treat people in the 21st century. Very few prison visiting areas (whether at courts or prisons) have natural light. Most prisoners have a particular prison pallor.

When you read in the newspapers that a prisoner was sentenced to X years imprisonment, it very often means that they will only serve half X.

And then comes the ridiculous Home Detention Curfew which most prisoners other than sex and violent offenders get. They are eligible for release up to four and a half months before the halfway point in their sentence (the rules say that they must serve one quarter of the sentence so a person serving six months will be eligible for a tag at one and a half months). So a fraudster serving an 18 month sentence will only actually serve a quarter of it in prison. So what is the point in spending a lot of money putting them in prison for such a short period ?

You won't hear it in the media but the prisons are full to over flowing. We have the largest prison population in Europe and they can't build prisons fast enough. Sentences for sex offenders are sky high and sex cases amount to 60-70% of the business of the crown court. There are more drugs in prison than outside. An article in my local paper today says that up to one third of prisoners in HMP Northumberland are on spice. That establishment is privately run by Sodexo and staff have been cut to a minimum. Each prison officer employed is a direct cut on profits. The staff are frightened of the prisoners.

I am not saying prison is completely unnecessary or inappropriate. Dangerous offenders need to be removed from society. But those only serving a quarter of their sentences or in prison for three months - do we need to lock them up.

Believe me prison stinks. It absolutely smells and this summer they are all humming with the hot weather.
Post Reply