Caroline Flack

^^ thats why the law was tightened up so CPS could go and prosecute people when the victim refused to co-operate because people had been getting away with it

if there is a case to argue it will be the papers and the amount of details they had surely would have been prejudical to any case that she was involved in

hopefully be some answers in the inquest but i doubt it

If anything the laws that BJ planned for tech giants must now come back into play and maybe even pushed through Parliament ASAP as I think social media platforms have shown consistently that at certain times, they are not on top of the trolling and hate - messaging and such that exists on Social media and have done too little for too long and it's not just celebrities thst get trolled. It may be a very small minority who are actively at it, but if social media cannot regulate or police themselves, then Government laws will have to do it for them. I echo Laura Whitmore words ;-

"ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!"

And as for the press they must be forced to hand over all relative documents for any inquest into this tragedy and I do think they cannot escape any punishment for the way they conducted themselves with the stories they have run featuring Caroline and also the paparazzi must finally be held to account for the way they intrude people's lives,

Statement from the Crown Prosecution Service:

“We do not decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence - that is for the jury, judge or magistrate - but we must make the key decision of whether a case should be put before a court,”

It said every decision is based on a two-stage test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which is applied equally to all types of crime.

"Prosecutors must consider if the evidence supports a realistic prospect of conviction, meaning a court is more likely than not to find the defendant guilty, and if it is “in the public interest” to prosecute.

That means asking questions including how serious the offence is, the harm caused to the victim, the impact on communities and whether prosecution is a proportionate response,”

Guidance for prosecutors when considering domestic abuse allegations gives specific advice on how to proceed when a complainant does not want to support a prosecution, which can often be a feature of these difficult cases.

It provides guidance on the information required to understand why a complainant may withdraw support and the different options that should be considered, including proceeding without the complainant’s support if other evidence is available.

Prosecutors can proceed with charges without a victim’s support in cases including alleged domestic abuse and sexual assault, in order to guard against coercion or intimidation by abusers."

As put forward in the statement the CPS will only look to bring a charge to court if they think there is a realistic chance of conviction, in abuse cases (particularly sexual assault) that can be very difficult because they often boil down to he said she said. If the CPS thought there was a decent chance of conviction when they know full well how difficult that can be then there must of been substantial evidence.

I will reiterate what has already been said, in that just because the alleged victim did not want the charge to go ahead does not mean it should not have. Victims in abuse cases would want to have charges dropped because they may fear retribution from an abuser for taking the stand against them, being coerced by the accused (this is why she was not allowed to contact the alleged victim) or could be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Putting all that aside the charges against her were very serious, if she did indeed smash a lamp over his head then he can count himself lucky he did not incur worse injuries, you can't let that kind of behaviour to go unchecked otherwise it sends a message to the abuser & to society at large that you can get away with it. Justice has to be served.

Now this does not mean that I have no sympathy for Miss Flack, nothing that she did warranted her death or the extreme psychological pressure she was put under. There is a petition going around called Caroline's Law trying to get manslaughter charges against the press, I'm not exactly sure how that would work. Perhaps a better law to bring about would be anonymity for defendants in criminal cases until proved guilty.

^ I think I agree with your comment about anonymity, but I would say they should do it in such a way where any trial like the one Caroline would have faced should be carried out with no press allowed to report on any developments until the verdict & the trial is completed and over and throughout the trial the defendant should assume anonymity, until such a time when they can be revealed.

Such a tragic and sad death. Her passing highlights just how much someone could be suffering from a mental illness that others just aren't aware of. A troubled time lately but also throughout her life.

RIP Caroline Flack.

^^
I don't see what this Caroline's Law could possibly achieve that current laws don't. If there is proof of direct lawlessness both a person and an organisation can be held responsible. You don't need something special for the press

I think the magistrates need to have a look at keeping anonymity for people in the public eye as making it public does not help justice served and in this case may have added to her distress.

MP's have condemned the intrusion of the press in this case, and Keir Starmer has vowed to 'diversfy' the press' if he was elected leader. Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said on Sophy Ridge's programme yesterday, that there has to be a duty of care from the CPS.

Daisy Cooper MP, who worked for the campaign group Hacked Off before being elected in December, said there must be more self-regulation before content is published online.
The Lib Dem politician said: “The hounding of Caroline Flack shows that parts of the British media continue to wreak havoc on people’s lives.
“In Britain we have trial by courts and not trial by media for a reason. Regardless of what took place she should not have been hounded to death by tabloid newspapers desperate for clickbait.
“The government must stop dragging its feet in introducing independent self-regulation of online and offline publishers.”

(17-02-2020 00:02 )hairbald Wrote:  ^^
I don't see what this Caroline's Law could possibly achieve that current laws don't. If there is proof of direct lawlessness both a person and an organisation can be held responsible. You don't need something special for the press

I think the magistrates need to have a look at keeping anonymity for people in the public eye as making it public does not help justice served and in this case may have added to her distress.

I agree that unless you can prove that there is direct lawlessness you can bring the sort of charges that thy wish to bring about with Caroline's Law and also agree that anonymity should remain in place for trials involving people in the public eye. I think Thatcher tried to rein in the press and failed didn't she?

I understand what the CPS said in their statement, but there are times when they push ahead with a case as they have often said "it is of public interest" and when it is "not of public interest" and think they don't often clearly distinguish between the two. But was this case clearly "a case that was of public interest"? I think to many in the general public it probably would not be, it probably could/would have be classed as being a "trial by media" but I do still feel the CPS has a lot of serious questions to answer with this case.

(17-02-2020 06:53 )babelover48 Wrote:  

(17-02-2020 00:02 )hairbald Wrote:  ^^
I don't see what this Caroline's Law could possibly achieve that current laws don't. If there is proof of direct lawlessness both a person and an organisation can be held responsible. You don't need something special for the press

I think the magistrates need to have a look at keeping anonymity for people in the public eye as making it public does not help justice served and in this case may have added to her distress.

I agree that unless you can prove that there is direct lawlessness you can bring the sort of charges that thy wish to bring about with Caroline's Law and also agree that anonymity should remain in place for trials involving people in the public eye. I think Thatcher tried to rein in the press and failed didn't she?

I understand what the CPS said in their statement, but there are times when they push ahead with a case as they have often said "it is of public interest" and when it is "not of public interest" and think they don't often clearly distinguish between the two. But was this case clearly "a case that was of public interest"? I think to many in the general public it probably would not be, it probably could/would have be classed as being a "trial by media" but I do still feel the CPS has a lot of serious questions to answer with this case.

The CPS were screwed either way they drop it and they would get attacked on being soft on domestic violence if there was evidence and seems like there was then it had to proceed

If you look at the Johnny depp and amber heard case he was accused of being a domestic abuser and was cancelled by the woke and it then turns out theres audio of Amber heard actually admitting to slapping him and gas lighting him about it

Things have to be tested in a court of law

Just hope that because of this one case domestic violence rules are relaxed because they were tightend for a reason

Make changes to the anonymity rules and the like

Bad law is usally made in haste