 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact."
So if you catch crabs, you become a peado?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Let the courts decide I have own _iews but I honestly believe that unless absolutely required anyone charged with such crimes should not be named until found guilty because look at Paul Gambacini who was arrested and under suspicion for over 12 months kept getting rebailed then eventually told no charges to be brought that will tarnish him forever and as with alleged victims of such cases should not be named.
Even cross party of mps have now suggested same.
For example anyone here could be accused of any crime going back 20 years etc and who can honestly say they remember on set date what they were doing.
Imagine that horror knowing you were innocent.
When and if folk are found guilty then hit them hard until then innocent till proven guilty in my eyes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact."
That's just nonce-sense.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago
(She/ her) in Sensualityland |
" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.
That's just nonce-sense. "
Are you fully encrypted about this?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.
So if you catch crabs, you become a peado? "
That's why bareback is evil. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bi HaiveMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
"Let the courts decide I have own _iews but I honestly believe that unless absolutely required anyone charged with such crimes should not be named until found guilty because look at Paul Gambacini who was arrested and under suspicion for over 12 months kept getting rebailed then eventually told no charges to be brought that will tarnish him forever and as with alleged victims of such cases should not be named.
Even cross party of mps have now suggested same.
For example anyone here could be accused of any crime going back 20 years etc and who can honestly say they remember on set date what they were doing.
Imagine that horror knowing you were innocent.
When and if folk are found guilty then hit them hard until then innocent till proven guilty in my eyes."
I agree.
If he's found guilty then yep - bang him up for a very long time.
I always wonder how courts hope to find 100% impartial jurys when names are splashed all over the media for months before a case actually (if it ever does!) go to court? 
A |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let the courts decide I have own _iews but I honestly believe that unless absolutely required anyone charged with such crimes should not be named until found guilty because look at Paul Gambacini who was arrested and under suspicion for over 12 months kept getting rebailed then eventually told no charges to be brought that will tarnish him forever and as with alleged victims of such cases should not be named.
Even cross party of mps have now suggested same.
For example anyone here could be accused of any crime going back 20 years etc and who can honestly say they remember on set date what they were doing.
Imagine that horror knowing you were innocent.
When and if folk are found guilty then hit them hard until then innocent till proven guilty in my eyes.
I agree.
If he's found guilty then yep - bang him up for a very long time.
I always wonder how courts hope to find 100% impartial jurys when names are splashed all over the media for months before a case actually (if it ever does!) go to court?
A"
Did the guy off Corrie get his job back or was it too late by the time the not guilty verdict came? If it ever went that far. I cant remember his name but can picture his face, not that hekps. What might is he was better looking than Gail. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Let the courts decide I have own _iews but I honestly believe that unless absolutely required anyone charged with such crimes should not be named until found guilty because look at Paul Gambacini who was arrested and under suspicion for over 12 months kept getting rebailed then eventually told no charges to be brought that will tarnish him forever and as with alleged victims of such cases should not be named.
Even cross party of mps have now suggested same.
For example anyone here could be accused of any crime going back 20 years etc and who can honestly say they remember on set date what they were doing.
Imagine that horror knowing you were innocent.
When and if folk are found guilty then hit them hard until then innocent till proven guilty in my eyes."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The court will hear the evidence and the jury will decided.
But I do have one question, why did he refer to himself as Dr Fox?? Rather odd."
Just a nickname that rhymed I assume.
He's music tag was the Robert Palmer track, 'Bad Case of Loving You'...... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm no longer surprised when a celebrity from the past is charged with sex offences."
Nor me.
They are NOT exempt from the full force of the law if guilty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact."
You got any Clarky Cat?, how about Yellow Bentines?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I was surprised when the great Gambo was charged as he had been a vociferous voice speaking out against Savile "
.
He wasn't charged, the case was dropped with lack of proof sited.
The only thing wrong in his case was it took 12 months to get there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.You got any Clarky Cat?, how about Yellow Bentines?"
I can't take that anymore. I had to have an operation on my Shatners Bassoon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He was charged and bailed, the charges have just been dropped"
.
That was my point no case was brought against him.
The police collect the evidence the cps decide if there's a case, clearly in his case there wasn't and it should have been resolved quicker than 12 months.
In his case he actually stated the general public have been very supportive, I personally see no need to change the law but people to change their attitudes to the difference between being arrested and being convicted! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.You got any Clarky Cat?, how about Yellow Bentines?
I can't take that anymore. I had to have an operation on my Shatners Bassoon."
I'm not a bloody piano dentist |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact."
Brass Eye... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"touching a 14 year old girl, magistrates say witnesses were believable but could not be sure in the context it was a criminal offence.
the good doctor says he's vindicated.
"
.
What did you think he'd say?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I wish there was a third alternative of 'not proven'.
what exactly do you think having a third ambiguous verdict would achieve?"
.
The right to say... Fuck off... He's well guilty... But only in a pub |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's a verdict that can be used in Scotland in cases where the jury does not have enough evidence to prove guilt, but they are not sufficiently convinced of the accuseds innocence either.
This verdict carries an implication of guilt despite no formal conviction, and alleviates the stigmatization of the victim in sexual abuse cases where the accused is found not guilty due to lack of corroborating evidence.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I wish there was a third alternative of 'not proven'.
what exactly do you think having a third ambiguous verdict would achieve?"
Technically would mean - could find more evidence + then prosecute someone a 2nd time.
With a NG - there's the double jeopardy thing to prevent a 2nd trial.
Though I believe , tgat principle has been ignored at least one time in last few years - can't remember what the case was though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a verdict that can be used in Scotland in cases where the jury does not have enough evidence to prove guilt, but they are not sufficiently convinced of the accuseds innocence either.
This verdict carries an implication of guilt despite no formal conviction, and alleviates the stigmatization of the victim in sexual abuse cases where the accused is found not guilty due to lack of corroborating evidence.
"
surely you mean alleged victim in that case. transfering stigma to someone who is innocent is hardly a positive step. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I wish there was a third alternative of 'not proven'.
what exactly do you think having a third ambiguous verdict would achieve?
Technically would mean - could find more evidence + then prosecute someone a 2nd time.
With a NG - there's the double jeopardy thing to prevent a 2nd trial.
Though I believe , tgat principle has been ignored at least one time in last few years - can't remember what the case was though"
The ban on double jeopardy in England and Wales was lifted years ago. New and compelling evidence allows the Court of Appeal to order a retrial. That is no comment on this case though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The man was always and remains innocent. Its really simple. Unfortunately 'some people' see a big name mentioned after someone crawls out of the woodwork from 30 years ago and assume he is guilty. I feel for Dave Lee Travis who was hauled up on 14 charges and found not guilty on 12. Re-tried on the other two and a third added at the last minute. Found Not Guilty of those original two and guilty of the added on one because he couldn't prepare a defence. The man is now bankrupt and his reputation was shattered long before he went to court. 50 years of hard graft and giving pleasure to millions destroyed by someone who 'suddenly remembered something' 30 years later.
And of course as Littlejohn keeps reminding us Jimmy Saville remains both dead and innocent .... Where were the police 30 years ago? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
That's all very well... But let's face facts, what right minded individual would have left there kids with jacko for the weekend... Oh yeah he's innocent of everything |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The man was always and remains innocent. Its really simple. Unfortunately 'some people' see a big name mentioned after someone crawls out of the woodwork from 30 years ago and assume he is guilty. I feel for Dave Lee Travis who was hauled up on 14 charges and found not guilty on 12. Re-tried on the other two and a third added at the last minute. Found Not Guilty of those original two and guilty of the added on one because he couldn't prepare a defence. The man is now bankrupt and his reputation was shattered long before he went to court. 50 years of hard graft and giving pleasure to millions destroyed by someone who 'suddenly remembered something' 30 years later.
And of course as Littlejohn keeps reminding us Jimmy Saville remains both dead and innocent .... Where were the police 30 years ago?"
he was found guilty of indecent assault later upheld when the court of appeal rejected his appeal..
'couldn't prepare a defence'?
someone was sexually assaulted or does that not matter.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
the debate on here shows a little proof that innocent is not acceptable. anyone wccused will be dubiously looked upon forever more.
i abhor the thought of sexual assault, which makes me think that anyone who says years later "oh yes he/she was evil but i couldnt day anything" as a witness which so many have, should be locked up. for heavens sake, the creator of childline preached you must be brave but said f all about saville until it was a press opportunity.
a victim may be scared. a witness shares guilt for standing idle for years.
rant over. now back to what this site is about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is there ANY evidence against Seville or was it press feeding frenzy at the expense of a man who was conveniently dead and couldn't defend himself?"
.
Yeah they've hired the Neville brothers... Fucking monsters |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I wish there was a third alternative of 'not proven'."
Problem with that is it flips the entire justice system.
No longer are you innocent until proven guilty you are guilty unless you can prove your innocence.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"he was found guilty of indecent assault later upheld when the court of appeal rejected his appeal..
'couldn't prepare a defence'?
someone was sexually assaulted or does that not matter.."
Did I say it did not matter. No I didn't so less of the smart language OK?
The Appeal did not uphold anything. He was DENIED the right TO appeal to that court on a legal technicality. There is a huge difference. It never WENT to a hearing in the Court of Appeal.
And my other point you sort of dismissed was he was found NOT guilty of the 14 charges that he had been dealing with for about 12 months. He was therefore always innocent even though the CPS had two bites at two of those 'cherries'. They got ONE to stick ...Southwark Crown Court jury convicted him by a majority verdict of 10-2. So there was even doubt there and THAT was why he asked for permission to Appeal which was denied.
15 charges and only one proven and that by a majority verdict. That is not justice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
