Upcoming bail date

[Franticwithworry]

Why would she lie, Broken-hearted? They might as well ask why would she not?

I honestly think some people see being abused as some sort of badge of honour, which makes them very susceptible to claiming to be abused when they I have not been. 'Poor me, I've been abused', carries all sorts of kudos - sympathy, attention, deflection, you name it.

I'm sorry to hear about your in-laws behaviour. They should be asking why would your husband lie too. Girls don't have a monopoly on the truth.

Your daughter's behaviour is very interesting/telling. Please keep a diary of it and draw it to your husband's solicitor's attention if it comes to it. The smallest thing can make a difference and s/he will need to know about it. It all counts and the solicitor will decide what they can or can't use. There are no clear signals to denote whether someone has been abused or not, but there are some things that, when part of the bigger picture, are clues. Every little detail is a potential clue and you have to give the solicitor information to work with.

You know your daughter best and how you might expect her to behave in any given circumstance. Use that knowledge and make sure a solicitor has it too. As you say, the professionals have no real idea.

[Broken-hearted]

Oh yes everything is kept etc. I've already been frowned upon for being open and honest with all parties before his interview.

Guess I will just have to live with whatever my parents think and decide it's just disheartening. I think from talking to my mum it's more that they don't want to think that she would lie about something so awful rather than them saying that it has happened however still not what I want to hear when feeling low xx

[Franticwithworry]

Sometimes all you want from your Mum or Dad is a big hug, and to know that they're only thinking of you and what's best for you in that moment with an understanding of how YOU feel. You're probably right about their view on things, after all it's not so long ago that matters sexual were rarely mentioned.

Their difficulties don't help you though, and I feel your sadness. I know it's nowhere near the same but here's a virtual hug from me.

[Broken-hearted]

Thanks ffw here's one back at ya your messages help me more than you can ever know x

[Franticwithworry]

Thanks ffw here's one back at ya your messages help me more than you can ever know x

Thats lovely to know. Thank you.

[Mr B]

Well done to both.

That is what the forum is all about. Team spirit.

Kindest regards
Mr B

[Fusiondoe]

Thanks ffw here's one back at ya your messages help me more than you can ever know x

Hey Broken-hearted!

How did it go when your hubby answered bail in December? Any update?

[Broken-hearted]

Hi sorry I've been MIA recently. He was discharged from bail but investigation ongoing. OIC said she was going to send to CPS for advice in January

[sqounk]

Hi sorry I've been MIA recently. He was discharged from bail but investigation ongoing. OIC said she was going to send to CPS for advice in January

I wonder if that will be the standard practice now, ending bail and just having the investigation ongoing. Which force was it if you don't mind me asking?

[Franticwithworry]

I wonder if that will be the standard practice now, ending bail and just having the investigation ongoing. Which force was it if you don't mind me asking?

It's certainly not standard practice but it seems to be a growing trend. The downside of the new law coming into force to limit bail without court approval, I guess. Bail can't be limited if people aren't actually on bail, can it, but it won't make the investigations happen any quicker. People will just be left with little to no idea what's really going on, just like the people who are questioned without being arrested and therefore not bailed now. Another law with no useful purpose because it's too easy to get round.

[sqounk]

It's certainly not standard practice but it seems to be a growing trend. The downside of the new law coming into force to limit bail without court approval, I guess. Bail can't be limited if people aren't actually on bail, can it, but it won't make the investigations happen any quicker. People will just be left with little to no idea what's really going on, just like the people who are questioned without being arrested and therefore not bailed now. Another law with no useful purpose because it's too easy to get round.

SO BH's husband has been on bail for 8 months and now bail has ended but the investigations are ongoing so it could end at any point in the future.....they must have some indication of when they will end the investigation surely. With all the targets they have surely there are some kind of time limits to investigations.

[Franticwithworry]

SO BH's husband has been on bail for 8 months and now bail has ended but the investigations are ongoing so it could end at any point in the future.....they must have some indication of when they will end the investigation surely. With all the targets they have surely there are some kind of time limits to investigations.

Who knows when they decide to not investigate further? My man has been on bail for over a year. Months ago he was told that it's taking a long time because 'there is no evidence'. That said, he has been rebailed multiple times and was told to expect any number more. Every police officer and lawyer we have spoken to or heard of says that these investigations can take years.

Look at how long they took with Cliff Richard, Paul Gambacinni, Nigel Evans and a whole slew of MP's. If they have some internal limit or policy on how long they will spend on cases before deciding not to proceed, they're not sharing that information. When I asked 'How long is too long' I got told 'How long is a piece of string?' We are at the mercy of 'the system'.

I suppose there comes a point when the matter could be contested in the court, say a few months after the longest bail period there has ever been, but it's hard enough to raise the money for a defence if it comes to that, without asking a lawyer to bring a case to get bail ended. There's no legal aid for that and it's too easy for the authorities to justify slow progress. Besides, I don't know anyone who wants to take the risk of ruffling those feathers. Would you? You'd think that they had time limits or at least policies regarding them but it seems not. They're too scared of letting one through the net and not scared enough if causing harm to the innocent.

Hell, they haven't even got it into their collective heads that there's near enough an epidemic of false accusations, at least more than the tiny percentage they agree to currently, so for them, every open case is one they just haven't got enough evidence for yet. Dogs with bones sitting in mangers come to mind.

[sqounk]

Who knows when they decide to not investigate further? My man has been on bail for over a year. Months ago he was told that it's taking a long time because 'there is no evidence'. That said, he has been rebailed multiple times and was told to expect any number more. Every police officer and lawyer we have spoken to or heard of says that these investigations can take years.

Look at how long they took with Cliff Richard, Paul Gambacinni, Nigel Evans and a whole slew of MP's. If they have some internal limit or policy on how long they will spend on cases before deciding not to proceed, they're not sharing that information. When I asked 'How long is too long' I got told 'How long is a piece of string?' We are at the mercy of 'the system'.

I suppose there comes a point when the matter could be contested in the court, say a few months after the longest bail period there has ever been, but it's hard enough to raise the money for a defence if it comes to that, without asking a lawyer to bring a case to get bail ended. There's no legal aid for that and it's too easy for the authorities to justify slow progress. Besides, I don't know anyone who wants to take the risk of ruffling those feathers. Would you? You'd think that they had time limits or at least policies regarding them but it seems not. They're too scared of letting one through the net and not scared enough if causing harm to the innocent.

Hell, they haven't even got it into their collective heads that there's near enough an epidemic of false accusations, at least more than the tiny percentage they agree to currently, so for them, every open case is one they just haven't got enough evidence for yet. Dogs with bones sitting in mangers come to mind.

It's ridiculous isn't it? No evidence....well, that's because maybe, just maybe there's no evidence. After a year you'd think they'd have some if they were going to pursue the case. I know there are definite deficits with the new police and crime bill but at least there would have to be some form of formal justification. A year is too long.

[Franticwithworry]

It's ridiculous isn't it? No evidence....well, that's because maybe, just maybe there's no evidence. After a year you'd think they'd have some if they were going to pursue the case. I know there are definite deficits with the new police and crime bill but at least there would have to be some form of formal justification. A year is too long.

There will only have to be justification for bail. If they decide to release without bail - and let's face it, bail isn't necessary most of the time - then there's no requirement to investigate speedily and no bail to justify so we are back to square one. :-(

[sqounk]

There will only have to be justification for bail. If they decide to release without bail - and let's face it, bail isn't necessary most of the time - then there's no requirement to investigate speedily and no bail to justify so we are back to square one. :-(

I am awaiting a re-bail/NFA/charge/don't bail but still investigate decision myself so that statement doesn't feel me with glee!