Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Justice for Lord Leicester

Roy catchpole

Senior Patron
Verified
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Messages
262
Reaction score
180
Status
Other
The right to cross-examine his accuser - a right effectively denied to many wrongly accused, partly through the non-disclosure of exculpatory evidence and partly through the risk-averse procedures of risk assessments following the destruction of innocents' lives.
 

Roy catchpole

Senior Patron
Verified
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Messages
262
Reaction score
180
Status
Other
The right to cross-examine his accuser - a right effectively denied to many wrongly accused, partly through the non-disclosure of exculpatory evidence and partly through the risk-averse procedures of risk assessments following the destruction of innocents' lives.
Further to this, I listened to Lord Pannick on Radio 4 this morning. Here's a transcript of what he had to say:-

(By the way, it took a year for Miss Sangera's complaint about sexual harassment by lord Leicester to be acted on by the House of Lords, after procedures by commissioner for standards, sub-committee on Lords conduct committee for privileges and conduct, and a vote by the full house of Lords.)

This is not just privileged posh boys arguing. Lord David Pannick QC, a leading UK barrister said on Radio 4 Today programme this morning,

"If you are accused of serious sexual misbehaviour 12 years ago and face a very serious sanction and your reputation is being destroyed, you are entitled to a fair process, and a fair process requires that you have the opportunity to cross-examine the person making the allegation, or at the very least that the person who is conducting the enquiry performs that function or appoints a person to do the cross-examination. That did not happen here. It is a question of whether an investigation can be relied upon. These standards apply in every other regulatory, disciplinary or employment context."

He went on to say, and this is significant for us,

"Parliament [itself] does not respect this basic fairness in the way it carries out its own procedures." "Do you believe Miss Sangera? Her evidence is vague, contradictory, and a week after these alleged events she signed a book for Lord Leicester in the following terms:-
'Antony, thank you so much for your love and support. It has been a pleasure to meet you. Love and admiration.'
Admiration for someone she says a week earlier had committed these terrible acts? You really cannot tarnish a man's untarnished record by a process which denies his a basic element of fairness. No coherent explanation has been provided as to why this basic element of fairness has been denied. There has been no opportunity to test the evidence that has been put forward; whether it is misremembering, confusion or a malign motive. That is the process in all other employment and disciplining processes. No reliance can be placed on this decision of the commissioners."


Lord Pannick's speciality is Public Law and Human Rights. This is relevant to anyone on this site who is being required to go through a Risk Assessment process, by the way, because in that process the same rights to cross-examination (& legal representation) will be denied you. I believe Lord Pannick is wrong in saying that this right in fact actually applies in all other processes. (Or at least that it is applied). I have been informed by my diocese that it would not apply in my case should I ask for reinstatement through a risk assessment process.(Unless I have been misinformed).
 

Patrick

Barman
Staff member
Verified
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
376
Reaction score
333
Location
Gloucestershire
Status
Acquitted
Without wishing to get into the bed of "no one has ever made these attacks, its all phoney" I am perpetually disgusted by the way I discover that more and more cases feature unexamined evidence, no due process, ghastly acceptance of assumptions in the media, and lives wrecked on the basis of a glib cultural FalseFeminist zeitgeist.
WE have to make a noise -
and women particularly have to make a noise - if they want to preserve a sane human race - as the only group who can counter this #FF without the snarly dismissal that typifies the #FalseFeminist approach to any men who dare to disagree with them. .
 

Roy catchpole

Senior Patron
Verified
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Messages
262
Reaction score
180
Status
Other
Just been reading about poor old 'Chip' from The Tremeloes (74 years old). Accused of sex with someone under 16 over 40 years ago. The litany of destroyed lives before charge or proven guilt just goes on and on - and these are just the famous people. It's carnage out here amongst us ordinary, anonymous, people who don't count.
I don't know what Chip's done in the past. Who knows? But that's the point. Only he and his accuser know the truth (well, having said that, I'm no longer certain how many accusers know the truth, having discovered how false memories can be induced and how sick minds can fantasize and how vested-interest 'support' groups can coerce and groom vulnerable people). Anyway, it's back to the same old boring demand for the rule of law, proper evidence gathering and presentation and the right to be assumed to be innocent until proven otherwise I'm afraid.
 

Elsie

Member
Verified
Joined
Nov 4, 2018
Messages
3
Reaction score
2
Status
Family Member
When asked about the message in the book, she maintained that Lord Leicester dictated what she had to write and that she went along with it just to get rid of him. She must think we are truly stupid.
 
Top