I'm not sure, Bill's defence has been 'I don't know these girls, I've never met them, no-on eever came into my dressing room.'
Dave's seems to be 'It was different back then, girls loved it when you stuck your hand up their skirts, they are all right sorts phwoar.' Harder to get away with that defence.
I'm not sure, Bill's defence has been 'I don't know these girls, I've never met them, no-on eever came into my dressing room.'
Dave's seems to be 'It was different back then, girls loved it when you stuck your hand up their skirts, they are all right sorts phwoar.' Harder to get away with that defence.
Yes dave Travis seems to have a different, less redeeming attitude to it all. Obviously the prosecution couldn't prove that roache had ever met these girls otherwise he would have found to be lying, hopefully he can get his career back on track, corrie were waiting to see whether they needed to kill him off!
Such a grey area (literally grey and most involved now are pensioners).
Other than for serious things such as war crimes, murder etc with proven evidence, I find it very hard to justify seeing people and their families dragged through the psychologically destroying criminal charge and court process for alleged events that happened 50 years earlier.
There is also a degree of whether it is fair seeing someone tried for alleged offences in 1965 based on 2014 values. There is an incomparable difference in the moral and social acceptance level in those two periods.
There is also a degree of whether it is fair seeing someone tried for alleged offences in 1965 based on 2014 values. There is an incomparable difference in the moral and social acceptance level in those two periods.
Exactly. it's like someone being prosecuted today for being racist in the 70's!
why? if there is no evidence it should not go to court, whether they want to be seen to be doing something or not, it is not fair to drag someone through the dirt on the say so of someone with no proof who can remain anonymous.
why the feck did iut go to court with no proof he had even met them? That is ridiculous.
I think the problem is that the whole momentum of the Saville blunders meant that mass hysteria has led to poorly worked through prosecutions.
Regarding my comments re DLT, apologies, spoke without knowing anything about the two cases, so mine was an uniformed comment - sorry if any offence casued.
Not guilty is not guilty. But I believe there was no evidence, that I'm aware of & I don't see how he could be found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt.. Although, I still fail to understand why a number of women from seperate locations, would come forward.
I reckon he was guilty, but it can't be proven. Just my opinion.
Especially, after that interview he gave in New Zealand (I think), saying that victims brought it on themselves, because of something they had done in a previous life. (Or some such twaddle).
Not guilty is not guilty. But I believe there was no evidence, that I'm aware of & I don't see how he could be found guilty. Although, I still fail to understand why a number of women from seperate locations, would come forward.
.
just listening to the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 - someone stated that it could be that these women could now claim from the criminal injuries board & the compo amounts are listed on their website - £3k for non penetrative touching (double if it happened more than once) over £10k for penetrative invasion and over £20k if you are still disturbed by it.
not saying that it never happened, but it seems no proof needed to claim - just a court case.
Lapse of time may well have made this the only possible verdict.
Must be next-to-impossible, apart from a full confession, to prove something that happened 30 or 40 years ago. Timelines on the day would be basically unknown and there wouldn't be any DNA or other evidence available. Only their word against his.
Obill and CPS stumbling from f__k up to farse to cover their arse.
they didnt instigate charges of rape and assault so when they get found out they have to be SEEN to react. Hence all the charges --no matter how bogus going to court.
As said the affects on women and kids coming forward is the biggest worry.
Such a grey area (literally grey and most involved now are pensioners).
Other than for serious things such as war crimes, murder etc with proven evidence, I find it very hard to justify seeing people and their families dragged through the psychologically destroying criminal charge and court process for alleged events that happened 50 years earlier.
There is also a degree of whether it is fair seeing someone tried for alleged offences in 1965 based on 2014 values. There is an incomparable difference in the moral and social acceptance level in those two periods.
Here's my view:
1. There are few crimes that rank as serious as some of the allegations made in a number of YewTree cases. 2. There should be no time limit on bringing a prosecution in such cases - the defence of "well it was a long time ago" should always be treated with contempt 3. Morally and socially we might be living in different times, but legally we are not. If it was illegal then, it should be tested in the law courts.
Such a grey area (literally grey and most involved now are pensioners).
Other than for serious things such as war crimes, murder etc with proven evidence, I find it very hard to justify seeing people and their families dragged through the psychologically destroying criminal charge and court process for alleged events that happened 50 years earlier.
There is also a degree of whether it is fair seeing someone tried for alleged offences in 1965 based on 2014 values. There is an incomparable difference in the moral and social acceptance level in those two periods.
War crimes,murder etc - bad
Sexual abuse of a girl/child - It was the 70s,it was different then.
Jesus...
Edit:just seen Chizz's far more eloquent and sober post...
Comments
Dave's seems to be 'It was different back then, girls loved it when you stuck your hand up their skirts, they are all right sorts phwoar.' Harder to get away with that defence.
Other than for serious things such as war crimes, murder etc with proven evidence, I find it very hard to justify seeing people and their families dragged through the psychologically destroying criminal charge and court process for alleged events that happened 50 years earlier.
There is also a degree of whether it is fair seeing someone tried for alleged offences in 1965 based on 2014 values. There is an incomparable difference in the moral and social acceptance level in those two periods.
Regarding my comments re DLT, apologies, spoke without knowing anything about the two cases, so mine was an uniformed comment - sorry if any offence casued.
I reckon he was guilty, but it can't be proven. Just my opinion.
Especially, after that interview he gave in New Zealand (I think), saying that victims brought it on themselves, because of something they had done in a previous life. (Or some such twaddle).
Lapse of time may well have made this the only possible verdict.
Reading some of the things on the link above are laughable, what a waste of public money.
not saying that it never happened, but it seems no proof needed to claim - just a court case.
And men
It just means less will come forward and less scum will be taken off the streets
Those that accused him what happens now
He was right in his statement outside court
There are no winners
they didnt instigate charges of rape and assault so when they get found out they have to be SEEN to react. Hence all the charges --no matter how bogus going to court.
As said the affects on women and kids coming forward is the biggest worry.
1. There are few crimes that rank as serious as some of the allegations made in a number of YewTree cases.
2. There should be no time limit on bringing a prosecution in such cases - the defence of "well it was a long time ago" should always be treated with contempt
3. Morally and socially we might be living in different times, but legally we are not. If it was illegal then, it should be tested in the law courts.
*gets off high horse*
Sexual abuse of a girl/child - It was the 70s,it was different then.
Jesus...
Edit:just seen Chizz's far more eloquent and sober post...