algy Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 .... or child killers. Obs, there's a fine line between paedophiles and child killers and as we have seen many time the first can quickly turn into the other!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Come on Obs let's have your sliding scale - after how many years does raping a toddler or sexually assaulting a nine year old become less of a priority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Sliding scale indeed - death is permanent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Sliding scale indeed - death is permanent. Bizarre response. I don't think anyone is suggesting putting corpses on trial - not here anyway, although I believe Putin has done so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Priorities Nick, priorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Priorities Nick, priorities. Come on Obs , not like you to avoid saying what tou think. Let's have it Scenario : A toddler is raped - after how long should the police ignore the chance to bring the rapist to justice - and concentrate on, for example, an office burglary or a fight between gang members. Six months, a year, -how long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 ANY crime that is reported to the police at the time it has just happened, should be investigated immediately and with the full resources available. However, allegations that go back 40 odd years, and stimulated by a publicity bandwagon following the Saville case, with the probable intent to secure a financial compensation package or a newspaper "tell all" deal at the end of it; don't represent a policing priority imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 ANY crime that is reported to the police at the time it has just happened, should be investigated immediately and with the full resources available. However, allegations that go back 40 odd years, and stimulated by a publicity bandwagon following the Saville case, with the probable intent to secure a financial compensation package or a newspaper "tell all" deal at the end of it; don't represent a policing priority imo. it has already started... "Alan Collins, a partner at law firm Pannone and a specialist in sexual abuse cases, said he has been instructed by a number of Hall's victims to pursue civil cases in relation to injuries and harm suffered." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 ANY crime that is reported to the police at the time it has just happened, should be investigated immediately and with the full resources available. However, allegations that go back 40 odd years, and stimulated by a publicity bandwagon following the Saville case, with the probable intent to secure a financial compensation package or a newspaper "tell all" deal at the end of it; don't represent a policing priority imo. Different world in those days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 3, 2013 Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 Yes Peter, In the good old days it was all done behind closed doors!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted May 5, 2013 Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 Yes Peter, In the good old days it was all done behind closed doors!!!!! and the police would turn a blind eye it seems, or at least not investigate thoroughly enough to bring these vile offenders to justice. I don't give a toss if there is a financial payout, it would never cover the harm done anyhow, I do care that justice is being served on these monsters and that which they hold dearest, their fame,reputation and prestige, is being ripped to shreds by their shame and guilt. Don't forget, Hall pleaded guilty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 An allegation isn't a proven fact until a jury decides on the basis of evidence it is. These anonymous allegations ruin reputations whether proven or not, due to the public naming of the accused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted May 5, 2013 Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 An allegation isn't a proven fact until a jury decides on the basis of evidence it is. These anonymous allegations ruin reputations whether proven or not, due to the public naming of the accused. Hall, as I said, pleaded guilty. There is all the proof you need. Many of these celebrity fiddlers/ scumbags use super injunctions, out of the financial reach of the common man, to avoid or at least delay their naming and shaming. I didn't have you down for a supporter of elitist legal privilege Obs . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 I don't; merely a system that gives everyone equal access to justice; which doesn't apply if folk are named and shamed PRIOR to due process, as the saying goes - mud sticks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 5, 2013 Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 An allegation isn't a proven fact until a jury decides on the basis of evidence it is. These anonymous allegations ruin reputations whether proven or not, due to the public naming of the accused. An allegation is a proven fact if the accused admits guilt, as in the case of the thing called Stuart Hall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 So, until the point where the accused admits it OR is found guilty by a jury of their peers; they should be presumed innocent and in these types of cases, remain anonymous, prior to such conviction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 Like the thing called savile, who has been proved to be the uk's most prolific paedophile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 In the year 897, the Catholic Church dug up the dead body of Pope Formosus and put it on trial for perjury now unless they do that with Savile how can anything be proved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 You know well how it can, and has been proved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 Unless there were third party witnesses, DNA or other "evidence" - these situations remain one persons word against another. Criminal prosecutions carry the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case of a defendant corpse, the trial would tend to be rather one sided ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 You know well how it can, and has been proved. I'm not sure it has, in the case of Savile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 Perhaps these alleged peadoes should be tied up and thrown into the river; if they sink - they're guilty, if they float - they were innocent: either way they're still dead! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 It's a fact, that unless their is a trail, Savile will remain innocent, as their has been no trail, And Yes innocent until proven innocent, as I have consistently said. Mr Hall should only have been named after he admitted his guilt or he had been tried and proven guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 Perhaps these alleged peadoes should be tied up and thrown into the river; if they sink - they're guilty, if they float - they were innocent: either way they're still dead! Are you sure about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo Posted May 6, 2013 Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 He did say 'either way' maybe paedos react differently to witches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.