Caroline Flack
16 February 2020, 08:05 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Caroline Flack
TBH didnt really know her and don't know any celebreties nowadays.
However understand it was due to yet another **** up with our ****ty CPS and police.. Idiots . All of them
RIP young lady. Sorry our justice system is the opposite of its name
However understand it was due to yet another **** up with our ****ty CPS and police.. Idiots . All of them
RIP young lady. Sorry our justice system is the opposite of its name
16 February 2020, 08:44 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
RIP. I know you cannot believe what you read but she did a proper job on her boyfriend. Reports from ex neighbour did not do her any favours either and ex lover. She seemed a troubled lady for whatever reasons. Got the talent, money, career, looks and still not enough. I know the CPS were pursuing it even though her boyfriend did not press. A show trail. Shame she to chose her death as her only option. Something's not quite right, but we do not know any facts.
Last edited by siluro; 16 February 2020 at 08:55 AM.
16 February 2020, 09:28 AM
#4
why is it the police fault ?
would blame it more on social media and the media in general
16 February 2020, 09:46 AM
#5
As I said on the duck lip thread; It’s saddening; Went on a meltdown and rather than get help gets wrung out by the media and CPS with ITV dropping her career like a lead brick...meanwhile Ant (Dec? 
) gets alchy rehab and allowed to jump back into his career as if nothing had happened.
The CPS’s justification of public interest to continue a prosecution without the ‘victim’ pressing charges along with unreasonable bail conditions needs to lay on the consciences of quite a few people involved with this, same as the bosses at ITV that are quick to give people the push, like they did Alastair Stewart, and Michael Le Vell only got his job back because ITV would be in breach of his employment contract and the lawsuit involving that would have been very costly both for reputations and finance.
Not going to blame police at this stage, she flew off the handle and had to be restrained. They may have needed to be there to prevent any potential escalation, weather they caused antagonisation and escalation themselves or ‘leaked’ her arrest and charges (as they sometimes do) is another matter to be looked at. Also if they put on record any suspicion of mental health issues, and if so, that should have been referred for assessment.
) gets alchy rehab and allowed to jump back into his career as if nothing had happened.The CPS’s justification of public interest to continue a prosecution without the ‘victim’ pressing charges along with unreasonable bail conditions needs to lay on the consciences of quite a few people involved with this, same as the bosses at ITV that are quick to give people the push, like they did Alastair Stewart, and Michael Le Vell only got his job back because ITV would be in breach of his employment contract and the lawsuit involving that would have been very costly both for reputations and finance.
Not going to blame police at this stage, she flew off the handle and had to be restrained. They may have needed to be there to prevent any potential escalation, weather they caused antagonisation and escalation themselves or ‘leaked’ her arrest and charges (as they sometimes do) is another matter to be looked at. Also if they put on record any suspicion of mental health issues, and if so, that should have been referred for assessment.
Last edited by ALi-B; 16 February 2020 at 09:55 AM.
The following users liked this post:
16 February 2020, 11:51 AM
#7
Sad case.
But why exactly are you muppets blaming the CPS?
They have sufficient evidence of a domestic violence assault and they brought a prosecution based on that evidence.
What’s wrong with that?
The CPS no longer drop domestic violence cases where the alleged victim withdraws charges when the evidence is sufficiently strong.
When the CPS used to drop cases in these circumstances it is believed to have ultimately resulted in the deaths of around 125 victims, most of whom were women.
We want laws that treat us all - male or female, attractive or plain, celebrity or nobody - the same, don’t we?
But why exactly are you muppets blaming the CPS?
They have sufficient evidence of a domestic violence assault and they brought a prosecution based on that evidence.
What’s wrong with that?
The CPS no longer drop domestic violence cases where the alleged victim withdraws charges when the evidence is sufficiently strong.
When the CPS used to drop cases in these circumstances it is believed to have ultimately resulted in the deaths of around 125 victims, most of whom were women.
We want laws that treat us all - male or female, attractive or plain, celebrity or nobody - the same, don’t we?
The following 3 users liked this post by SouthWalesSam:
Trending Topics
16 February 2020, 12:27 PM
#8
Because the victim did not want a prosecution: Simples
There is no public interest to continue on that premise. The tests of public interest and guidance are quite clearly known, and whilst there can be ambiguity, application of common sense has not been applied. Such as likelihood of reoffending (doubtful), past criminal history (none), severity of offence and any injuries ( no hospital involved for victim). But importantly guidance is pretty clear and states in guidance codes that “Prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had.”
There is no public interest to continue on that premise. The tests of public interest and guidance are quite clearly known, and whilst there can be ambiguity, application of common sense has not been applied. Such as likelihood of reoffending (doubtful), past criminal history (none), severity of offence and any injuries ( no hospital involved for victim). But importantly guidance is pretty clear and states in guidance codes that “Prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had.”
16 February 2020, 01:01 PM
#9
Because the victim did not want a prosecution: Simples
There is no public interest to continue on that premise. The tests of public interest and guidance are quite clearly known, and whilst there can be ambiguity, application of common sense has not been applied. Such as likelihood of reoffending (doubtful), past criminal history (none), severity of offence and any injuries ( no hospital involved for victim). But importantly guidance is pretty clear and states in guidance codes that “Prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had.”
There is no public interest to continue on that premise. The tests of public interest and guidance are quite clearly known, and whilst there can be ambiguity, application of common sense has not been applied. Such as likelihood of reoffending (doubtful), past criminal history (none), severity of offence and any injuries ( no hospital involved for victim). But importantly guidance is pretty clear and states in guidance codes that “Prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had.”
If the CPS have decided to take this route then they can make this clear to the accused from the start so they can’t put any pressure on their victim to drop the case. I guess now there’s also cause for concern towards the accused who may feel like their world is going to end and take their own life though.
What most likely would have happened is a court case and her mental health being taken in to account and she’d have got off on the grounds of diminished responsibility and had to get mental health help.
Just from seeing very little of her on TV and recently looking through her IG you can see she was seriously troubled mentally before any of this.
She actually reminds me of a girl I know, same look in her eye and she was messed up mentally. I barely knew her yet for some reason she chose to text me when she’d taken an overdose. Last time I saw her was about 8 years ago when I carried her into hospital, she survived the OD & quite odd to think she would be dead. She apparently has a fella and a life now so it makes this Flack thing very sad for me.
16 February 2020, 01:48 PM
#10
The thing is the CPS has clear alternatives: Restorative justice, which importantly can be applied before going to court. Cautions are also an available option.
The evaluation of what kind of conviction they were aiming for is important here: Realistically a suspended sentence, but who knows...were they aiming for a jail conviction? Six months is the max on this.
“Assault by beating” is an odd charge...it’s a common assault charge and sentencing guidance states: “If violence is used in a common assault, it is called a “battery” and the perpetrator would be charged with “assault by beating”. This does not however, mean that the victim was actually ‘beaten up’ or even hit or kicked – it could be that they were pushed, grabbed or spat at The victim may not therefore have suffered any physical injury, and if any injury was caused, it would need to be quite minor to fall under common assault.”
So, based on that there could be zero physical harm and she may have just shoved him...There was mention of victim being hit by a lamp, but that would mean a more severe charge, and the victim denies this ever happened, so obviously they didn’t pursue that.
But goes to show...you could face six month just by pushing away your partner!
The evaluation of what kind of conviction they were aiming for is important here: Realistically a suspended sentence, but who knows...were they aiming for a jail conviction? Six months is the max on this.
“Assault by beating” is an odd charge...it’s a common assault charge and sentencing guidance states: “If violence is used in a common assault, it is called a “battery” and the perpetrator would be charged with “assault by beating”. This does not however, mean that the victim was actually ‘beaten up’ or even hit or kicked – it could be that they were pushed, grabbed or spat at The victim may not therefore have suffered any physical injury, and if any injury was caused, it would need to be quite minor to fall under common assault.”
So, based on that there could be zero physical harm and she may have just shoved him...There was mention of victim being hit by a lamp, but that would mean a more severe charge, and the victim denies this ever happened, so obviously they didn’t pursue that.
But goes to show...you could face six month just by pushing away your partner!
16 February 2020, 03:21 PM
#11
The thing is the CPS has clear alternatives: Restorative justice, which importantly can be applied before going to court. Cautions are also an available option.
The evaluation of what kind of conviction they were aiming for is important here: Realistically a suspended sentence, but who knows...were they aiming for a jail conviction? Six months is the max on this.
“Assault by beating” is an odd charge...it’s a common assault charge and sentencing guidance states: “If violence is used in a common assault, it is called a “battery” and the perpetrator would be charged with “assault by beating”. This does not however, mean that the victim was actually ‘beaten up’ or even hit or kicked – it could be that they were pushed, grabbed or spat at The victim may not therefore have suffered any physical injury, and if any injury was caused, it would need to be quite minor to fall under common assault.”
So, based on that there could be zero physical harm and she may have just shoved him...There was mention of victim being hit by a lamp, but that would mean a more severe charge, and the victim denies this ever happened, so obviously they didn’t pursue that.
But goes to show...you could face six month just by pushing away your partner!
The evaluation of what kind of conviction they were aiming for is important here: Realistically a suspended sentence, but who knows...were they aiming for a jail conviction? Six months is the max on this.
“Assault by beating” is an odd charge...it’s a common assault charge and sentencing guidance states: “If violence is used in a common assault, it is called a “battery” and the perpetrator would be charged with “assault by beating”. This does not however, mean that the victim was actually ‘beaten up’ or even hit or kicked – it could be that they were pushed, grabbed or spat at The victim may not therefore have suffered any physical injury, and if any injury was caused, it would need to be quite minor to fall under common assault.”
So, based on that there could be zero physical harm and she may have just shoved him...There was mention of victim being hit by a lamp, but that would mean a more severe charge, and the victim denies this ever happened, so obviously they didn’t pursue that.
But goes to show...you could face six month just by pushing away your partner!
Its a tricky debate and it’s raging on another forum I’m on around this case. One thing I would say though, domestic abuse can be mental by what an abuser does to control the person verbally and things they say.
People on this other forum are telling me this incident alone means she was a domestic abuser and man beater. I have a bit of a different opinion personally but what they’re saying is effectively the same as saying someone is an abuser just by shouting at someone as a ‘one off’ argument if you think about it.
I could almost bet my house these people calling her an abuser of men have shouted some regretful things at their partners which makes them abusers does it? In their own opinion it would do.
17 February 2020, 07:47 AM
#14
The Media have done another number one this one and then seem to lay on the tributes afterwards! She clearly had issues that had not been diagnosed or being treated and they as usual just made her life even more difficult, as for the domestic abuse charges, will anyone really know what happened there?
17 February 2020, 08:39 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Famous for being famous
if therewas somthing wrong with the law highlighted by this women , then she may have been useful
otherwise - so much bull****
if therewas somthing wrong with the law highlighted by this women , then she may have been useful
otherwise - so much bull****
17 February 2020, 08:50 AM
#16
The Media have done another number one this one and then seem to lay on the tributes afterwards! She clearly had issues that had not been diagnosed or being treated and they as usual just made her life even more difficult, as for the domestic abuse charges, will anyone really know what happened there?
ITV have a ongoing mental health campaign: https://www.itv.com/britaingettalkin...9GIXOX,4YODW,1
Yet drop a presenter of a show it actually interrupts for these awareness adverts without thinking ‘hang on’, ‘what will losing a job do to someone who is already in a difficult position’
Then CH4, another channel parading about mental health and disability threatens to cut her from a show she was going to present.
And I’d speculate someone at that CPS ‘leaked’ to the press on saturday that prosecution was going ahead. So not only was she informed of that news, she probably had calls and texts off journalists asking for comment....maybe even before being informed formally!
17 February 2020, 10:30 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Comon guys. If you and I had mental problems and we battered our partners to the point the police press charges and the partner does not then you need to suffer the consequences of your actions. You and I would not get any sympathy why should a TV star. ITV had every right to sack her. My employer would have sacked me. The police continued to press charges for a reason not for the hell of it. If you cannot do the time do not do the crime. Yes she must of had issues but so do most of us but we have to deal with it. She had a career, the looks and wealth and still could not deal with life. It is sad state of affairs if death is your only option.
The following users liked this post:
17 February 2020, 10:48 AM
#18
This was a serious assault which can not be just swept under the carpet. It needed a proper investigation with conditions to protect the victim until the trial is heard.
If this was a case of a mental breakdown, then the court can take that into consideration when all the evidence is heard
Its not the case for the CPS to make that decision.
Would you be happy with Ian Brady not being brought to trial as he had mental health problems?
Domestic violence must be taken seriously as it results in the majority of murders, early interventions and protection for the victims must be at the top of the list
The following 2 users liked this post by Felix.:
17 February 2020, 10:51 AM
#19
Dude, get the story right...nobody was battered.
Read the charge description:
In contrast read up on Jordan Worth and what she did...
Read the charge description:
If violence is used in a common assault, it is called a “battery” and the perpetrator would be charged with “assault by beating”. This does not however, mean that the victim was actually ‘beaten up’ or even hit or kicked – it could be that they were pushed, grabbed or spat at The victim may not therefore have suffered any physical injury, and if any injury was caused, it would need to be quite minor to fall under common assault.”
In contrast read up on Jordan Worth and what she did...
Last edited by ALi-B; 17 February 2020 at 10:54 AM.
17 February 2020, 11:18 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
She threw a lamp at him apparently and both needed to go to hospital for treatment, if that is not battering then what is. Either way you describe it, she injured herself and her victim. The policeman they interviewed said he had never seen a scene like it in all his years as a policeman. It must of been bad else the charges would have been dropped surely. No smoke without fire.
Last edited by siluro; 17 February 2020 at 11:40 AM.
17 February 2020, 12:44 PM
#21
She threw a lamp at him apparently and both needed to go to hospital for treatment, if that is not battering then what is. Either way you describe it, she injured herself and her victim. The policeman they interviewed said he had never seen a scene like it in all his years as a policeman. It must of been bad else the charges would have been dropped surely. No smoke without fire.
She was obviously very mentally ill so I’m not buying all this PC domestic abuse crap!
If a man was in the same mental state and lashed out the same, I’d be saying the same thing. It is not the same as domestic abuse as those words (rightly these days) are powerful words and fights like this are fights not domestic abuse cases IMO. The bloke didn’t even want to press charges, do you think he was abused really? She was seriously messed up in the head.
I mentioned this on another forum but think about this. Domestic abuse is mental too, via what people say to belittle or degrade or control their partners over a sustained period. I think we can all agree on that?
So, if that’s the case a one off shouting match where you blurt out what you think of your partner could be taken by the CPS as domestic abuse case. It’s exactly the same principle as throwing something at someone as a one off.
17 February 2020, 01:27 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
As I said earlier I am only going by what I have read and that probably cannot be relied on. Your right she had mental issue, if you read any of her latest tweets you can see that for yourself. She even described that she called out for help and was told she was draining. I cannot believe the CPS just took a case as a one of fight and pursued it like they have, there must be more to this as there usually is. RIP
17 February 2020, 01:36 PM
#23
Was there a bail condition to seek mental health assessment and treatment? If not, why not...given the descriptions of the scene and hospitalisation for wounds that were alledged to be self inflicted?
17 February 2020, 05:00 PM
#24
You can't give bail conditions to force her to seek a mental health assessment. Bail conditions are imposed to protect the victim & witnesses. So in this case, Flack was not allowed any contact with him or was not allowed to be near him - standard conditions in such cases. The court can consider imprisonment in a secure mental health establishment as part of the sentence, but other factors would need to be considered first.
She threw a lamp at him, that is the assault aspect of the case and i would suggest that it was more of a ABH assault rather than a common assault.
She threw a lamp at him, that is the assault aspect of the case and i would suggest that it was more of a ABH assault rather than a common assault.
17 February 2020, 05:10 PM
#25
A lot of that was down to the fact she’d self harmed and cut herself up so was covered in blood.
She was obviously very mentally ill so I’m not buying all this PC domestic abuse crap!
If a man was in the same mental state and lashed out the same, I’d be saying the same thing. It is not the same as domestic abuse as those words (rightly these days) are powerful words and fights like this are fights not domestic abuse cases IMO. The bloke didn’t even want to press charges, do you think he was abused really? She was seriously messed up in the head.
I mentioned this on another forum but think about this. Domestic abuse is mental too, via what people say to belittle or degrade or control their partners over a sustained period. I think we can all agree on that?
So, if that’s the case a one off shouting match where you blurt out what you think of your partner could be taken by the CPS as domestic abuse case. It’s exactly the same principle as throwing something at someone as a one off.
She was obviously very mentally ill so I’m not buying all this PC domestic abuse crap!
If a man was in the same mental state and lashed out the same, I’d be saying the same thing. It is not the same as domestic abuse as those words (rightly these days) are powerful words and fights like this are fights not domestic abuse cases IMO. The bloke didn’t even want to press charges, do you think he was abused really? She was seriously messed up in the head.
I mentioned this on another forum but think about this. Domestic abuse is mental too, via what people say to belittle or degrade or control their partners over a sustained period. I think we can all agree on that?
So, if that’s the case a one off shouting match where you blurt out what you think of your partner could be taken by the CPS as domestic abuse case. It’s exactly the same principle as throwing something at someone as a one off.
You can argue with each other - as there is no offence attached to that. But what you can not do is become violent with each other.
DV is responsible for the majority of murders in the country and a lot of it is a result of years of violent incidents which end up escalating into murder. In the past, the victim often did not make any complaint (due to pressure, guilt etc) and the case was dropped. So many violent perpetrators of DV got away with it. Now, we can pursue the matter without the victim support if there is other evidence to support the offence. This was done so we can safeguard the victims of DV and other persons who may be in danger too (children etc)
You are right about the mental aspect of DV, which is why coercive and controlling behaviour became a stand alone offence recently
The following users liked this post:
17 February 2020, 05:36 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
What I have never got is someone can have a famous career, go on dancing shows and win, have a relationship(s) but still have mental issues. Is this just a label for an excuse. Not meaning to sound harsh but how can you have issues and live that life? I have problems but I do not go and hurt the people close to me or anyone for that fact. I have never thought death as being the only way out, maybe that is why i don't understand, and perhaps never will.
17 February 2020, 05:51 PM
#27
Its domestic violence - pure and simple!
You can argue with each other - as there is no offence attached to that. But what you can not do is become violent with each other.
DV is responsible for the majority of murders in the country and a lot of it is a result of years of violent incidents which end up escalating into murder. In the past, the victim often did not make any complaint (due to pressure, guilt etc) and the case was dropped. So many violent perpetrators of DV got away with it. Now, we can pursue the matter without the victim support if there is other evidence to support the offence. This was done so we can safeguard the victims of DV and other persons who may be in danger too (children etc)
You are right about the mental aspect of DV, which is why coercive and controlling behaviour became a stand alone offence recently
You can argue with each other - as there is no offence attached to that. But what you can not do is become violent with each other.
DV is responsible for the majority of murders in the country and a lot of it is a result of years of violent incidents which end up escalating into murder. In the past, the victim often did not make any complaint (due to pressure, guilt etc) and the case was dropped. So many violent perpetrators of DV got away with it. Now, we can pursue the matter without the victim support if there is other evidence to support the offence. This was done so we can safeguard the victims of DV and other persons who may be in danger too (children etc)
You are right about the mental aspect of DV, which is why coercive and controlling behaviour became a stand alone offence recently
And just for the record I’ve never laid a finger on a partner before someone gives me the old “must have slapped someone”
In fact I’ve been on the receiving end of an ex laying in to me in a crazy ‘time of the month plus argument’ scenario where shortly afterwards she threw herself on the floor. Never happened again in rest of our years & we laughed about it down the line. But according to some people’s definition she is a domestic abuser and could go to court etc. Absolutely ridiculous in a scenario like that.
17 February 2020, 07:49 PM
#28
What I have never got is someone can have a famous career, go on dancing shows and win, have a relationship(s) but still have mental issues. Is this just a label for an excuse. Not meaning to sound harsh but how can you have issues and live that life? I have problems but I do not go and hurt the people close to me or anyone for that fact. I have never thought death as being the only way out, maybe that is why i don't understand, and perhaps never will.
Its not something that they can control and can happen to anyone at any time. Some mental health issues can be controlled by the patients, but some need medication and others need further help. Mental health is a huge subject and patients often lose control of their "rational self" as a consequence.
The following users liked this post:
17 February 2020, 08:01 PM
#29
But Domestic abuse can be verbal only. So if you say anything thrown or hit even once is straight domestic abuse then so is a single verbal attack, can’t have it one way if they both can be domestic abuse. Surely it should be just as poignant if both forms of abuse exist!
In fact I’ve been on the receiving end of an ex laying in to me in a crazy ‘time of the month plus argument’ scenario where shortly afterwards she threw herself on the floor. Never happened again in rest of our years & we laughed about it down the line. But according to some people’s definition she is a domestic abuser and could go to court etc. Absolutely ridiculous in a scenario like that.
If this was a violent attack on you, then yes she will be classed as a perpetrator of DV. It can not be right that one person attacks another - and in the home you may have children who witness this and develop ACE's as a consequence. Especially if this is a regular occurrence.
OK, I understand in your case it was one occasion - but if that re-occurs time and time again and the injuries become worse, do we as a society just ignore it? Or do we put things in place to try and protect a victim (and children) who may not see a way out
18 February 2020, 07:57 AM
#30
Because the victim did not want a prosecution: Simples
There is no public interest to continue on that premise. The tests of public interest and guidance are quite clearly known, and whilst there can be ambiguity, application of common sense has not been applied. Such as likelihood of reoffending (doubtful), past criminal history (none), severity of offence and any injuries ( no hospital involved for victim). But importantly guidance is pretty clear and states in guidance codes that “Prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had.”
There is no public interest to continue on that premise. The tests of public interest and guidance are quite clearly known, and whilst there can be ambiguity, application of common sense has not been applied. Such as likelihood of reoffending (doubtful), past criminal history (none), severity of offence and any injuries ( no hospital involved for victim). But importantly guidance is pretty clear and states in guidance codes that “Prosecutors should take into account the views expressed by the victim about the impact that the offence has had.”
The following users liked this post: