56
Met rejects calls to investigate Prince Andrew after release of Epstein files
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
56 points (95.2% liked)
United Kingdom
4091 readers
100 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Met aren't wrong here, the court documents have been released to the public, but they're not new information. He went to court over the one accusation, and if there was enough weight to the others he'd have gone over them too.
That's not to say any are untrue, just it needs significant evidence to convict someone in court, if that isn't there then there's nothing they can do.
They need significant evidence to convict someone in court who is rich and powerful. They convict poor people with tenuous evidence all the time.
Not exactly. It's much easier to convict poor people cause they can't afford a good defence, but even a bottom of the class law student can shoot down no evidence.
That's the issue with sexual assault in general, there's often no evidence just by the nature of the crime.
It's shitty for the victims, but I'm not sure how much it can be helped.
That's why they charge you with absolutely everything they can think of, which would result in 20 years in prison for minor offenses, and then offer you a plea bargain where you plead guilty to the original charge without going to court. If they can't beat you with the evidence, then they'll try to beat you with intimidation and the risk of fighting them is monumental. People with money can afford attorneys that will get those frivolous additional charges dismissed before the trial even starts. The public defender is too underpaid, too overworked, and too friendly with the judge and prosecution to offer you such aid.