Cab driver told us that a young woman was attacked on borough Road last night - near where the Diane Sindall incident happened.
Link on BBC site say
Man, 18, arrested over Birkenhead rape
Posted at 09:01

An 18-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of rape after a woman was attacked in Birkenhead.

A 19-year-old woman was attacked in the early hours of Sunday in Borough Road, police said.

Crime Scene Investigators have carried out forensic examinations at the scene.

The man, from Wirral, has been bailed pending further inquiries


very sad if true

why do they bail these ...

innocent until proven guilty.

That has nothing to do with whether you get bail or not.

Innocent until proven guilty is the reason bail exists, the default is to bail unless there are factors that show there is a risk attached.

If there is little chance of the accused offending whilst on bail or skipping bail then bail will be granted.

I believe that people who are NOT granted bail are STILL innocent until proven guilty, are they not? So although it may be a factor in the EXISTENCE of bail, it is hardly the reason for someone actually being GRANTED it.

The OP's question was "why do they bail these..." not "why does bail exist?"

I suspect many people might think that someone arrested for rape might well be likely to do it again (if freed on bail...) hence the OP's question, surely?

They bail people because bail exists, the two are intrinsically linked. Sorry if I jumped a step.

So why sometimes do they NOT bail people? Because bail exists?

The default is bail is granted, they also jail people because jail exists but the default is not to jail.

When a person is remanded in custody, it means they will be detained in a prison until a later date. When a trial or sentencing hearing will take place. The majority of prisoners on remand have not been convicted of a criminal offence and are awaiting trial following a not guilty plea.
Asking for bail means you are asking to be released from prison while waiting for your trial.
Jail must be default in some circumstances.
The default is jail unless bail is granted

This has gone so OT.

EddtheDuck questioned the wisdom of granting bail to persons such as "these" (arrested for alleged Rape).
That is a perfectly reasonable question which was greeted by a generic statement about the purpose of bail.

It has turned into nonsense. No wonder Wiki Wirral is dying on its feet.

thanks cvcvcv that's what I was asking, not what is bail.
I was trying to get over why give bail to these people, I myself think if on bail you should be on tag.

a another thing I don't get is on tv you see a kid of 14 get stopped by the police for joyriding then at the end of the show they say the 14yo lad was disqualified from driving for 2year which he'll still be under age.

Ricky Gervais and Karl Pilkington double act.Love it

The point fish and I were making is that "these people" are innocent people in the eyes of the law and that is why bail is granted.

@eddtheduck @CVCVCV

Why ask a question if you are going to belittle the response if it doesn't tie in with the answer you want?

sorry if I belittled any response. let's move on to the 1st post

Getting back on target is there any truth in this report? did it happen?

again sorry I asked a question and it went off topic I'll google from now on)

Some on WW are never, ever, wrong so get used to it.

I express an opinion and explain the reasons for my opinion about a subject without personal slights against any other members.

I am not going to write IMHO on every sentence I write, it is given that it is an opinion.

Every opinion can be challenged, that is what debates are about. I have often had my opinion swayed by aspects other people have brought up. I did a complete 360 degree turn on the middle east conflict.

Back to this particular topic, it would be unworkable to lock up every person accused of a crime unless there is evidence that they are likely to re-offend, at the early stages of an investigation there is often no evidence against the accused except one persons word against another, if the accused was not bailed it would be wide open to abuse from false allegations.

The financial and personal repercussions on individuals, their families and their employers can be huge if bail is not granted.

OK so we have:
100% of persons arrested are deemed innocent until proven guilty.
Bail exists.
Not 100% of persons arrested are granted bail.
Those who are not granted bail include some who are deemed likely to repeat-offend or re-offend somehow if released from custody.
Many rapists do tend to repeat the offence.
Is it therefore, wise, to grant bail to anyone arrested for / alleged to have committed a rape?
I suspect that in most cases, the alleged victim would rather the alleged rapist not be put straight back into circulation. Likewise with alleged serious assaults of any kind.
I personally tend to agree. In this case the offence took place on a Birkenhead street, they have forensics and the attacker was very swiftly apprehended. I would rather that a person who did that would not be put back on the same streets. IMHO.

The far greater amount of alleged rapists do not rape again whilst on bail, so statistically it shows that they are low risk as far as bail is concerned.

More than 90% of reported rapists are not found guilty, more than 60% are found not-guilty in court.

(Figures are for the year 2012)

I'm all for every rapist to be placed on a long sharp spike, I don't think many have a problem with rapists being jailed, but I don't think a kangaroo court should be allowed to jail someone when the likelihood is that they are not a danger to property or any individual.

wikiopinion