sadoldgit

I agree Ron. We are so tough on our goalkeepers. FF has been part of the best defensive unit in the Premiership yet gets stick most weeks. Kelvin always gets a hammering on here yet has been a brilliant servant to this club and will give his best if needed for the rest of the season. We need to worry more about putting our chances away than about our keepers (unless Kelvin gets injured as well of course!).

Those two were part of the famous "alehouse" team as I remember. Tough as nails but they both could play.

giraffe

Irene, where are you?

You are indeed a Bear of many talents!

I am hoping for a 2-0 win then

That would never do. I doubt if he has hit anyone in his life and I cant see him making "slope" jokes.

Do you like to warm the pot first and do you use a strainer?

Good point. No.

Bringing cases to court is very expensive Bear and while the money comes from the public purse, it has to be totally justified. We prosecute a number of cases in house but all of the major offences are briefed out to Chambers and the CPS has to pay for that. If cases are lost the senior CPS lawyers have to review them and report back on why we lost. We have to be reasonably confident of a successful prosecution (and you can never second guess a jury) and it has to be in the public interest to bring the prosecution. Public spending cuts mean that running the CPS (and the police and court service) is becoming more and more difficult but cases still need to be brought to court and there is no restriction on prosecuting cases based on cost. Cases do get dropped if we think the evidence is not strong enough but sometimes a case will still be prosecuted if deemed important enough by senior prosecutors. We would find it very difficult to justify taking a case to court without the CPS lawyers believing in the guilt of the defendant. If the reviewing lawyer has doubts the case is passed up the management chain for further advice. As you can imagine, cases where people walk free cause the CPS a lot of grief so blindly prosecuting innocent people is not encouraged!

doomed

Bear, very magnanimous of you. Is this the male equivalent of getting your t*ts out for the lads?

Fair point but I think, as with things like Page 3, it feeds said morons with the idea that woman are there for their sexual gratification and the more it is feed through channels where you wouldn't expect it ( as in you would expect it in lap dancing clubs, strip clubs, porn etc) then it makes it more likely that said morons will chant GYTOFTL at professional women doing their jobs at football matches. Clearly there are some women more then happy to get their baps out for the lads - I just think it makes things more difficult for those who don't want to. Call me old fashioned, but every time Saints win I don't feel the need to take selfies of my tackle and post them on a football website. Not sure why you would want to even if you were proud of your baps and bush.

Maybe if she flashed them on the live camera at Upton Park at the end of the match?

discontent

Interesting. Married men and men in long standing relationship have been tried for rape. If the woman says no a man is not entitled to go ahead no matter what type of relationship they have.

Not sure if this is entirely the case. The law itself isn't the problem but the legal process can be. Many rape victims don't feel believe and find the cross examination by the Defence as being almost as traumatic as the offence. In court that are often made to feel like liars, like old slappers, like they were asking for it. Out of court they have to go through invasive processes in gathering of forensics. Getting victims to court and to see a case through is not easy. Getting convictions is not easy. If the victim hasn't had bruises and shows evidence of fighting back and trying to escape the jury often think that means consent. If the defendant has previous the prosecution has a battle to get bad character admitted as the defence will object. Anonymity for the victims has helped more come forward but still there are many who dread the legal process.

I don't think it is possible to have an infallible justice system but I would say ours is pretty good. My alternative is not to punish innocents so not sure where you get that from. The prosecution is assuming guilt and the defendant only becomes innocent in the eyes of the prosecution when the verdict comes back as not guilty. You make it sound like I am saying put X people on trial in the hope of getting Y convictions. Unless the defended pleads at some point during the process the prosection will only know how many Ys there are when the jury returns a verdict. At that point the prosecution has a "broken egg." If the prosecution thought that person was probably innocent initially there would not have been a trial. If you are saying that no defendants should be named until found guilty, I am not sure how that would work. We have a transparent criminal justice system and to do this would need closed courts and all kinds of reporting restrictions. I am also not sure that it is in the best interest of the CJS to have a closed system. Yes, it does mean that a person found innocent has been through a tough ordeal, but it also shows that anyone can look at the case as presented in court and see that it was conducted properly and that person have been acquitted as part of due process. If that hasn't happened there are appeal procedures. I take the point that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty but as part of our CJS this decision remains in contention until a verdict is arrived at - it follows that the prosecution believe the evidence to be such that the defendant is guilty and to that end, it is in the public interest to know the name of the person who is going to trial in any given case.

Are you saying that the vast majority of people tried in court are innocent? I am saying that if there is enough evidence to charge then I don't see anything wrong in releasing the name of the alleged offender.

I have been through it too. There is no perfect system. How many more lives are ruined by people who perpetrate crime? At least we no longer have capital punishment so that any miscarriages are justice are not irreversible. Again, I don't agree with names being leaked before a charge is brought.

Yes it is, but that is not my point. There are plenty of people who have walked free when the police know full well it was they that did the crime. Nothing is black and white.

The whole point about a criminal trial is this. The police and the CPS belive that there is enough evidence for a guilty verdict and it is in the public interest to prosecute. If someone is found innocent of the alleged crime so be it but the system deemed it necessary to go through the process to test the case in the front of a jury (or a bench if a Mags case). It is highly unusual for an accused person to have had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a alleged crime. It may be that the jury feel that they didn't do something on purpose or that someone else did it but you wont find many people in a Crown Court trial who were not involved to some extent. I was accused of common assault by my ex wife. I couldn't wait to go to court and put my case because I believed I was innocent and wanted to clear my name. We should not assumed that it ruins everyones lives. I do agree that it is wrong to release names before a charge is brought. For a charge to be brought there must be enough evidence to satisfy the prosecution their is a case. If there isn't the defence can ask for the case to be thrown out at either the preliminary hearing or PCMH if in the Crown Court. In fact if the evidence is very flimsy it wont get sent to the Crown Court from the Magistrates Court.

Yes but my point is that many people think he got away with it.

As someone once said, you cant make an omelette with breaking some eggs. It is very sad but it is part of the criminal justice system. Does everyone who has been through it have a ruined life? I am sure many people move on and are pleased that they had the opportunity to clear their name.

Having just seen the West Ham Lass and others pages I despair for the poor people trying to get sexism out of football. Sometimes women are their own worst enemy. No wonder you still get GYTOFTL when there are clearly a number of young women happy to do just that online. What must go though your mind when you teams win that makes you want to flash you lady parts to people you would normally probably cross the road to avoid. All very public spirited I am sure but it doesn't help those who want to be seen as more than a bit of fluff.