Caroline Flack found dead

retro:electro · 20-02-2020 2:45pm

Boggles wrote: »

Exactly.

But you have all ready stated she is guilty of assault by hitting him with a lamp as he slept, disregarding the actual facts that suggest that never happened.

You have convinced yourself of that and are not for turning and anyone that has reasonably tried to point out that version may not actually be the facts of the case you turn on them.

So may I suggest a bit of self reflection during that wait.

I’ve done nothing of the sort. You could write for The Sun with that level of exaggeration.

There doesn’t seem to be any question over whether she hit him or not. The evidence is clear she did. What people are disputing is whether it was intentional or not.

Quit the dramatics.

Wombatman · 20-02-2020 2:48pm

retro:electro wrote: »

If she were to be found not guilty then she would be not guilty.

But the facts remain that she was charged with a crime that had significant evidence to prosecute. That’s what people are discussing here.

Very presumptions but it's not what I or others are discussing.

I'm mainly concerned about people jumping to judgement and condemnation without knowing the facts of what happened.

Not the facts around what was said, reported or alleged. The facts around what happened on the night.

Does every crime prosecuted result in a conviction in your world?
Should those found not guilty be allowed get on with their lives and feel exonerated?

Innocent until proven guilty right?

Boggles · 20-02-2020 2:51pm

retro:electro wrote: »

But the facts remain that she was charged with a crime that had significant evidence to prosecute.

Well that isn't a fact.

The criteria is a reasonable chance of a conviction.

Given that both the alleged perpetrator and alleged victim strongly disputed the allegations and the physical evidence did not back up the prosecutions version of event, the chances that it would have even got to trial are slim let alone resulted in a conviction.

dubstarr · 20-02-2020 2:52pm

Wombatman wrote: »

Very presumptions but it's not what I or others are discussing.

I'm mainly concerned about people jumping to judgement and condemnation without knowing the facts of what happened.

Not the facts around what was said, reported or alleged. The facts around what happened on the night.

Does every crime prosecuted result in a conviction in your world?
Should those found not guilty be allowed get on with their lives and feel exonerated?

Innocent until proven guilty right?

You think the CPS have just decided to prosecute for the sake of it.And to be fair only 2 people know what happened,and ones not here now.

retro:electro · 20-02-2020 2:56pm

Boggles wrote: »

Well that isn't a fact.

The criteria is a reasonable chance of a conviction.

Given that both the alleged perpetrator and alleged victim strongly disputed the allegations and the physical evidence did not back up the prosecutions version of event, the chances that it would have even got to trial are slim let alone resulted in a conviction.

Are you confusing the words prosecution and conviction? And it’s actually a realistic chance of conviction”.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-says-role-cps-deciding-whether-charge-individual-criminal-offence

But they wouldn’t have pressed charges in the first place if there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prosecute.

Boggles · 20-02-2020 2:57pm

retro:electro wrote: »

I’ve done nothing of the sort.

Ah you did yeah.

retro:electro wrote: »

I really don’t see how a prolonged period of attack, that didn’t just stop at home, but continued when she was in custody, can be considered an accident.

A mistake maybe, a misunderstanding? yeah.

But an accident would be accidentally bashing him in the head with the door as she swung it open in a panic trying to get out of the room.
No one accidentally picks up a lamp and hits a sleeping person over the head with it after rooting through their phone and seeing something suspect; and then continues on a tirade of abuse for some time; leading to be physically restrained.

In all honesty I think her family should have kept that unpublished post to themselves.

Boggles · 20-02-2020 2:59pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Are you confusing the words prosecution and conviction? And it’s actually a realistic chance of conviction”.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-says-role-cps-deciding-whether-charge-individual-criminal-offence

I'm not confusing anything.

When deciding whether there is enough evidence to charge, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether evidence can be used in court and is reliable and credible, and there is no other material that might affect the sufficiency of evidence. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant.

retro:electro wrote: »

But they wouldn’t have pressed charges in the first place if there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prosecute.

Yes, it is done all the time.

They initially decided to prosecute Nicky Butt and then dropped the case.

retro:electro · 20-02-2020 2:59pm

Boggles wrote: »

Ah you did yeah.

No. You said I stated she was guilty of assault. I didn’t. Goalposts widening again.

What I said was it doesn’t sound like an accident, which it doesn’t.

In fact I’ve said before that due to having a non compliant witness, she would likely be acquitted.

You’ve resorted now to using dishonest tactics, which is quite telling. Quite “tabloid-esque” some might say

Boggles · 20-02-2020 3:01pm

retro:electro wrote: »

No. You said I stated she was guilty of assault. I didn’t. Goalposts widening again.

What I said was it doesn’t sound like an accident, which it doesn’t.

So what you are saying is she hit him while he slept with a lamp but it wasn't an accident.

So it was on purpose, therefore that is assault, no?

retro:electro · 20-02-2020 3:03pm

Boggles wrote: »

So what you are saying is she hit him while he slept with a lamp but it wasn't an accident.

So it was on purpose, therefore that is assault, no?

Like I said, people are discussing the circumstances around her arrest and charge. As well as the prosecution’s case as laid out in the hearing.

I never said she was guilty of anything, as you stated.

But it’s okay. I won’t hold it against you.

Boggles · 20-02-2020 3:04pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Like I said, people are discussing the circumstances around her arrest and charge. As well as the prosecution’s case as laid out in the hearing.

I never said she was guilty of anything, as you stated.

But it’s okay. I won’t hold it against you.

Sure

:pac:

One eyed Jack · 20-02-2020 3:15pm

Wombatman wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty right?

You are aware that’s a legal principle that has no standing outside of the legal system?

People are perfectly entitled to make what judgements they like and draw what conclusions they like about other people on the basis of whatever takes their fancy. It may or may not be true, but because this isn’t a court of law our opinions have no legal effect, so you can relax with the innocent until proven guilty nonsense.

Wombatman · 20-02-2020 3:26pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You are aware that’s a legal principle that has no standing outside of the legal system?

People are perfectly entitled to make what judgements they like and draw what conclusions they like about other people on the basis of whatever takes their fancy. It may or may not be true, but because this isn’t a court of law our opinions have no legal effect, so you can relax with the innocent until proven guilty nonsense.

Not when you are throwing around proven accusations online as if they are fact.

At least the worst of the tabloids will stick in the word alleged in front of attacker.

Sport the difference:

Flack assaulted Burton.
Flack allegedly assaulted Burton.

retro:electro · 20-02-2020 3:27pm

Hammer88, why did you delete your post that said they were both drunk?

stoneill · 20-02-2020 3:31pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You are aware that’s a legal principle that has no standing outside of the legal system?

People are perfectly entitled to make what judgements they like and draw what conclusions they like about other people on the basis of whatever takes their fancy. It may or may not be true, but because this isn’t a court of law our opinions have no legal effect, so you can relax with the innocent until proven guilty nonsense.

Unfortunately newspapers know this and its all guilty until proven innocent in a lot of cases with them.

One eyed Jack · 20-02-2020 3:36pm

Wombatman wrote: »

Not when you are throwing around proven accusations online as if they are fact.

At least the worst of the tabloids will stick in the word alleged in front of attacker.

Sport the difference:

Flack assaulted Burton.
Flack allegedly assaulted Burton.

I’m well aware of the difference - I’m speaking in layman’s terms, they’re speaking in legal terms.

Boggles · 20-02-2020 3:38pm

stoneill wrote: »

Unfortunately newspapers know this and its all guilty until proven innocent in a lot of cases with them.

The gutter scum don't actually care about facts, they care about revenue.

It's part of their business model to get sued. It's factored in.

People should watch the McCann documentary on Netflix if can just to see how the absolute pond scum operate and how they can manipulate and destroy people.

Leveson went to great lengths to highlight the treatment the McCann family were subjected to by the filth.

Some of the reporting of the disappearance of three-year-old Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz in Portugal in May 2007 was, Leveson says, "outrageous". A number of newspapers were "guilty of gross libels", with the Daily Star singled out for its headline claiming the McCanns sold their child: "Maddie sold by hard up McCanns".

That's what they are dealing with.

Wombatman · 20-02-2020 3:41pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m well aware of the difference - I’m speaking in layman’s terms, they’re speaking in legal terms.

Can defame someone in layman’s terms I wonder?

One eyed Jack · 20-02-2020 3:50pm

Wombatman wrote: »

Can defame someone in layman’s terms I wonder?

You can’t defame the dead.

Galwayguy35 · 20-02-2020 3:55pm

Whitmore seems to be milking this for all it's worth on her Twitter.

Hannibal_Smith · 20-02-2020 4:07pm

retro:electro wrote: »

I thought it was you but then questioned myself because of your thread ban. And since it was deleted I had no way to double check.

The only sources I can see which states they were intoxicated are The Sun and The Daily Mail, is this where you got your info?

I’m not saying they were or they weren’t. I genuinely don’t know.

Will edit my post to your name now.

Maybe double check before you start calling out posters to incite a row.

retro:electro · 20-02-2020 4:13pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Maybe double check before you start calling out posters to incite a row.

It’s pretty hard to double check when the post was whipped away as soon as it was posted.

And I didn’t realise asking a question was “inciting a row”.

Another one who could write for The Sun.

20-02-2020 4:18pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Whitmore seems to be milking this for all it's worth on her Twitter.

She's now whinging about being followed by the Pap yet turns up at the Brit awards in a newspaper dress happily posing for the paps.
She

She's spent plenty of time lauding how hard her boyfriend has had it.

Flacks Family hasn't gotten a mention on her twitter

She is as bad as the tabloid press imho. Zero dignity.

Boggles · 20-02-2020 4:18pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Hammer88, why did you delete your post that said they were both drunk?

It's actually Hammer89.

But anyway. Maybe stop calling out posters, you are clearly shít at it. :pac:

retro:electro · 20-02-2020 4:21pm

Boggles wrote: »

It's actually Hammer89.

But anyway. Maybe stop calling out posters, you are clearly shít at it. :pac:

Noted :pac:

Would still like to know where he got his info, however.

Or she. Lest I be accused of misgendering next.

Anything to deflect from actually having to answer the question.

Hannibal_Smith · 20-02-2020 4:22pm

retro:electro wrote: »

It’s pretty hard to double check when the post was whipped away as soon as it was posted.

And I didn’t realise asking a question was “inciting a row”.

Another one who could write for The Sun.

If you can't double check, dont mention a poster. I dunno...thats kinda simple really.

The vast majority of your posts to those that don't agree with you end in a little snide remark.

Hannibal_Smith · 20-02-2020 4:25pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Noted :pac:

Would still like to know where he got his info, however.

Or she. Lest I be accused of misgendering next.

Anything to deflect from actually having to answer the question.

You asked why it was deleted. The poster explained. They also directed you in how to find the information for yourself.

The poster is banned from the thread. They cant respond to you any more.

retro:electro · 20-02-2020 4:26pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

If you can't double check, dont mention a poster. I dunno...thats kinda simple really.

The vast majority of your posts to those that don't agree with you end in a little snide remark.

Sorry now but you accused me of inciting a row for asking a question.

And if you believe that then feel free to use the report post button.

retro:electro · 20-02-2020 4:27pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

You asked why it was deleted. The poster explained. They also directed you in how to find the information for yourself.

The poster is banned from the thread. They cant respond to you any more.

Fair enough. I just can’t find any info on it that doesn’t come from The Sun or The Daily Mail.. and they would hardly be using that as their source would they? Since not 24 hours ago that same poster called out The Sun for sensationalising and mass manipulation. That would be strange.

Not saying they weren’t, I just can’t find anything concrete.

FullMoonFever · 20-02-2020 4:49pm

0127647 wrote: »

She's now whinging about being followed by the Pap yet turns up at the Brit awards in a newspaper dress happily posing for the paps.
She

She's spent plenty of time lauding how hard her boyfriend has had it.

Flacks Family hasn't gotten a mention on her twitter

She is as bad as the tabloid press imho. Zero dignity.

Laura W is playing the victim in all of this and milking it to boost get own profile.

She has increased her Instagram following by 150k since taking the love island job!

Caroline Flack found dead

Comments