There is a god, Clifford charged with sex offences

VTech

Exactly.
I'm personally shocked that Mr Roache has been charged. I can't see the case being proven and I'd bet a few quid that he will be aquitted. All this stuff does is make more people's lives a misery, it's all so wrong.
I just read the statement of the CPS who said that they believe they have enough evidence to charge and seal a conviction but as he is denying the charge I can't see how they can have evidence.
I have zero faith in yewtree which is a shame, it was meant to bring about clearance of past sexual crimes made by people in the public domain. All it is doing is alienating people and deviding opinions.

nathancom

How do you know a complaint wasn't made back then and evidence collected but the police at the time failed to properly investigate. How do you know that new forensic techniques aren't now able to prove guilt where previously it was just a case of 'he said - she said'? Well you don't know any more than I know, so all you are doing is speculating. And if they did it and there is good evidence, then great, they are getting what they are due even if it is further down the line than you would hope. Fuck Max Clifford, seriously.

dynamicbrick

Oh indeed, but nonetheless there will be an expectation of victim and defendant taking the stand in some form. Hence why I mentioned my Grandfather and his pals - time and memory are fickle things.

"...Mr Roache, when interviewed in 46 years ago you said XYZ" - How the hell do you answer that with any certainty?

Not to mention the issue of aged records, most of the original people involved at least in their 60s, and a fair proportion now dead

ooermissus

Worth bearing in mind that some cases may simply boil down to whether or not sex occurred with a girl below the age of consent.

VTech

Nathancom, regardless of wether he is innocent or guilty, he should not be made a public scapegoat until proven guilty. That's the point I'm trying to make. Part of UK law is innocent until proven guilty which in reality no longer exists.

Another point, who informed the police ?
Did Mr Roache, Mr Starr etc ?
No, it was a bent police officer or someone "inside" who is informing them, probably for a few £££

ooermissus

Just in:

Broadcaster Stuart Hall has admitted 14 charges of indecently assaulting girls as young as nine years old.

seanoconn

ooermissus wrote:

Just in:

Broadcaster Stuart Hall has admitted 14 charges of indecently assaulting girls as young as nine years old.

OMG! It's all true! This is painting men in a very poor light

ballysmate

Admitted it last month, but there were reporting restrictions.

ooermissus

VTech wrote:

All this stuff does is make more people's lives a misery, it's all so wrong... I have zero faith in yewtree which is a shame, it was meant to bring about clearance of past sexual crimes made by people in the public domain. All it is doing is alienating people and deviding opinions.

Today's news changed your mind at all?

VTech

ooermissus wrote:

VTech wrote:

All this stuff does is make more people's lives a misery, it's all so wrong... I have zero faith in yewtree which is a shame, it was meant to bring about clearance of past sexual crimes made by people in the public domain. All it is doing is alienating people and deviding opinions.

Today's news changed your mind at all?

Not in the slightest, if anything this backs up what im saying.
He has admitted guilt, let him pay the price, he should feel the full weight of the law.
That has never been my issue.

In these types of cases no one wins, why blame people before guilt is my point and anyone who thinks differently has no empathy in humanity whatsoever.

You cant blame everyone just in case the odd one or two are in fact guilty, how would you feel if you were blamed of a similar thing but knew you were innocent ?
Would it be right to destroy your life in the media ?

My point is the perfect solution for all concerned.

Make it public AFTER guilt is proven or admitted.

Does ANYONE actually disagree with that ?

ballysmate

ooermissus wrote:

VTech wrote:

All this stuff does is make more people's lives a misery, it's all so wrong... I have zero faith in yewtree which is a shame, it was meant to bring about clearance of past sexual crimes made by people in the public domain. All it is doing is alienating people and deviding opinions.

Today's news changed your mind at all?

Today's news has demonstrated that the police must have done a terrific job in collecting evidence from so long ago and building a case, so strong that Hall had to admit guilt. All credit to his victims for having the strength to relive their ordeals to get some form of justice, however belated.
As regards anonymity, I still think people's identity should be protected until the case comes to court. Then is the time for proceedings to be reported and the details of charges made public.

ballysmate

My stance is slightly different from VTech because I feel that the courts should be open and justice transparent. You can not fulfill this by only reporting guilty verdicts.

ooermissus

As I said earlier in the thread - there are good reasons why defendants are not granted anonymity.

ooermissus wrote:

VTech wrote:

What is gained by naming anyone for any crime before being found guilty ?

(i) People with information on the alleged crime (or related crimes) can come forward. (ii) Trials can be held in public and be reported on. (iii) We don't have to endlessly prosecute people for failing to keep thousands and thousands of names secret.

Imagine if some like the Yorkshire Ripper was arrested and it was not possible to appeal for witnesses to come forward because all defendants were anonymous until found guilty (as Vtech suggests) or if anonymity was just granted for those accused of crimes with a sexual motive.

danlikesbikes

VTech wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

VTech wrote:

All this stuff does is make more people's lives a misery, it's all so wrong... I have zero faith in yewtree which is a shame, it was meant to bring about clearance of past sexual crimes made by people in the public domain. All it is doing is alienating people and deviding opinions.

Today's news changed your mind at all?

Not in the slightest, if anything this backs up what im saying.
He has admitted guilt, let him pay the price, he should feel the full weight of the law.
That has never been my issue.

In these types of cases no one wins, why blame people before guilt is my point and anyone who thinks differently has no empathy in humanity whatsoever.

You cant blame everyone just in case the odd one or two are in fact guilty, how would you feel if you were blamed of a similar thing but knew you were innocent ?
Would it be right to destroy your life in the media ?

My point is the perfect solution for all concerned.

Make it public AFTER guilt is proven or admitted.

Does ANYONE actually disagree with that ?

In these types of cases no one wins? Really so a man who admits his guilt & a people to whom the crime was committed does not get to see their attacker served justice.

Make it public after guilt is proven - As others have said if this was the case no other witness's could come forward, or people who were in a similar situation could not see what this person was accused of and come forward. As a man with a family member who was assaulted (from a previous post you made in BR) I imagine that you could understand the process & the importance of having an open court system.

Does anyone actually disagree with that? Well yes it appears that quite a few people do, myself included.

daviesee

Danlikesbikes wrote:

...As others have said if this was the case no other witness's could come forward, or people who were in a similar situation could not see what this person was accused of and come forward...

Not taking sides in the issue but surely if you have something to report, report it.
Don't wait for someone else to get the ball rolling.
:?:

danlikesbikes

daviesee wrote:

Danlikesbikes wrote:

...As others have said if this was the case no other witness's could come forward, or people who were in a similar situation could not see what this person was accused of and come forward...

Not taking sides in the issue but surely if you have something to report, report it.
Don't wait for someone else to get the ball rolling.
:?:

^-^ That is a fair point.

Perhaps the people that were/allege that they were abused as youngsters feel that they would not be taken seriously due to the time lapse, or perhaps they were happy (sorry can't find a better word) in not bringing this up but having seen others come forward it gives them piece of mind that their allegations will be taken seriously & offering them the chance to see justice done.

VTech

ooermissus wrote:

As I said earlier in the thread - there are good reasons why defendants are not granted anonymity.

ooermissus wrote:

VTech wrote:

What is gained by naming anyone for any crime before being found guilty ?

(i) People with information on the alleged crime (or related crimes) can come forward. (ii) Trials can be held in public and be reported on. (iii) We don't have to endlessly prosecute people for failing to keep thousands and thousands of names secret.

Imagine if some like the Yorkshire Ripper was arrested and it was not possible to appeal for witnesses to come forward because all defendants were anonymous until found guilty (as Vtech suggests) or if anonymity was just granted for those accused of crimes with a sexual motive.

Putting our previous arguments aside for a moment, that's a very weak argument to fight me with.
It has no bearing on what I am saying.
Those accused have rights, as do their family and friends.
Once accused of these types of offences your ruined for life no matter what the outcome.
English law says innocent until proven guilty, this was sort of changed when esta rantzen made childline the forefront in the 80's and things changed.

ooermissus

ITV News had an interview with a woman who was assaulted by Stewart Hall when she was 17. She came forward when she heard he had been arrested and said she was wanted to give evidence. She said it was the end of more than thirty years of being tormented by seeing him on television and hearing his voice on the radio.

Getting a number of independent accounts of abuse, from women who did not know each other, was vital to the police building a case and, presumably, to Stuart Hall pleading guilty.

Anonymity would have made it much easier for this scum bag to get away with his crimes.

VTech

But there will always be negatives from all laws.
You simply can't have a society where blame is proportioned without trial in the open media.

Ill ask you one simple question.

Would you feel comfortable having been accused of child rape and then found innocent having had the press splash all the details for all to see ?
Would you feel exhonorated and free to walk the streets knowing you were innocent ? Or would you feel scared, move home to a new area and be petrified for the rest of your life ?

ooermissus

VTech wrote:

But there will always be negatives from all laws.
You simply can't have a society where blame is proportioned without trial in the open media.

Ill ask you one simple question.

Would you feel comfortable having been accused of child rape and then found innocent having had the press splash all the details for all to see ?
Would you feel exhonorated and free to walk the streets knowing you were innocent ? Or would you feel scared, move home to a new area and be petrified for the rest of your life ?

That's three questions.

But to answer: I'd feel humiliated being falsely accused of shoplifting, let alone child abuse, but that doesn't stop me thinking the right to justice trumps the right to privacy.

I know you don't think someone coming forward after 30 years is credible, but in this case at least, the woman - not the star - has been comprehensively vindicated. I have no idea whether others are guilty or not (and it wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the trials collapse), but - unlike you - I would never describe an investigation like this as a total waste of money.

VTech

Again, your trying to manipulate what I have written into a Italy different meaning.

The waste of money is down to the way it is being handled, not the subject !!!

I have also never stated that the long wait makes them non-credible, that is not part of my anger at these cases.

My issue, wait for it..........

Is that people have a right under British law to a fair trial, one that provides them protection whilst innocent an until proven guilty.
The law is being broken.

danlikesbikes

VTech wrote:

Again, your trying to manipulate what I have written into a Italy different meaning.

The waste of money is down to the way it is being handled, not the subject !!!

I have also never stated that the long wait makes them non-credible, that is not part of my anger at these cases.

My issue, wait for it..........

Is that people have a right under British law to a fair trial, one that provides them protection whilst innocent an until proven guilty.
The law is being broken.

Sorry Vtec you are wrong.

Under English law people have a right a fair trial, however the English courts system is based on what is commonly known as an Open court basis & has been for the past 200+ years. The basis being that as the English court system act for the Crown and the public we as the public have a vested interest to ensure the court proceedings are fair it is a principle known as keeping the trial jude on trial.

Not sure what laws you are referring to being broken but in the Stuart Hall case he was protected by laws from the court putting in place reporting restrictions circa 1 month ago when he admitted the charges.

VTech

According to people who have more info in the legal system and whom I have spoken to recently with passing comments about this subject, there are several laws (maybe some rules) bein broken.

Police calling media sources when an arrest is either imminent or happening.

The innocent until proven guilty regulations.

The right to a fair trial, with 12 of your equals passing judgement whom have not been influenced by the case.

The list could go on really but the fact remains that it is not in mine or anyone here or anywheres interest to know who has been arrested until that person is found guilty. The subject matter is so intense that even being linked to a case ruins people's life's, also of their friends and family so where does that become right, correct or indeed, just ?

Cleat Eastwood

ooermissus wrote:

As I said earlier in the thread - there are good reasons why defendants are not granted anonymity.

ooermissus wrote:

VTech wrote:

What is gained by naming anyone for any crime before being found guilty ?

(i) People with information on the alleged crime (or related crimes) can come forward. (ii) Trials can be held in public and be reported on. (iii) We don't have to endlessly prosecute people for failing to keep thousands and thousands of names secret.

Imagine if some like the Yorkshire Ripper was arrested and it was not possible to appeal for witnesses to come forward because all defendants were anonymous until found guilty (as Vtech suggests) or if anonymity was just granted for those accused of crimes with a sexual motive.

Thats a good point - its often been the case that the power an abuser has over a victim is the belief that the victim wont be 'listened to'.

Chapeau to the rozzers too as ballsmate said.

danlikesbikes

VTech wrote:

According to people who have more info in the legal system and whom I have spoken to recently with passing comments about this subject, there are several laws (maybe some rules) bein broken.

Police calling media sources when an arrest is either imminent or happening.

The innocent until proven guilty regulations.

The right to a fair trial, with 12 of your equals passing judgement whom have not been influenced by the case.

The list could go on really but the fact remains that it is not in mine or anyone here or anywheres interest to know who has been arrested until that person is found guilty. The subject matter is so intense that even being linked to a case ruins people's life's, also of their friends and family so where does that become right, correct or indeed, just ?

I would disagree with you on its in no ones interest as the legal system is there to serve the people & the people therefore have a vested interest in the system from arrest to charging and sentencing.

It is quite a basic principle of the English law system, perhaps if you cared to spend any time looking up the facts of why & how our system is the way it is you might actually see the facts for what they are, rather than telling people to stop arguing them with you because you are right.

As in another thread which you took offence to people discussing and debating & told them not to argue with you in the words of dragons den "I'm out"

VTech

So your confirming that in fact, UK law has changed and people are in fact not innocent until proven guilty but in reality are guilty until they can prove innocence ?

I guess some here would look at several of my posts and cringe that I get involved and to a certain degree I'm sure most wouldnt but I prefer to be unlike most.
I like the fact that I have compassion, for everyone.

The UK law is meant to protect people, even the accused and vulnerable so how is it that some of you think that there is no vulnerability in those accused as that it is better for accusations to be in the public domain ?
It's obsurd for anyone to think that is right.
I'm happy to argue with anyone, even the whole world is the main thought on this subject was to ruin the lives of everyone just in case the odd one or two are in fact guilty.

ooermissus

VTech wrote:

I have also never stated that the long wait makes them non-credible, that is not part of my anger at these cases.

I know you never stand by what you've written, but really.

On another one of those accused, despite the fact we don't even know what the evidence is as yet: "Dont believe a word of it, its disgusting what the media and police are doing"

On the victims: "I lose belief of someone who has not made a claim for 30 years and suddenly comes out."

On the investigation: "Wait until the bill rolls in from yewtree and those people who protested about thatchers funeral which in the end cost us 6p each realise that this joke is going to cost us millions, tens and tens of millions."

At least one of Hall's victims only came forward because it was publicly reported he was being investigated. As Cleat has said, I am very glad that she was listened to and got justice. Yewtree offered great value for money today - let's hope the police continue to build strong cases, or drop them quickly if the evidence doesn't stack up.

Vtech wrote:

According to people who have more info in the legal system and whom I have spoken to recently with passing comments about this subject, there are several laws (maybe some rules) bein broken.

Were they testing in your wind tunnel?

Vtech wrote:

So your confirming that in fact, UK law has changed and people are in fact not innocent until proven guilty but in reality are guilty until they can prove innocence ?

I don't think you understand the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Nothing has changed.

VTech

Again, very manipulative of the truth, your arguments with me are based in twisting what I have written but still and as always, without proof and making yourself look rather silly.

Me saying that I lose faith in people who wait 30 years is not the same as people coming together making claims which in fact is another of your floored arguments in that the police take statements and normally only after several matching statements do they make an arrest so arguing that a single person makes a claim and then the rest come forward because of the publicity of the claimant is a stupid thing to say. Yes, at times this may happen but this isn't the case with the hugely vast majority.

Your arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me but how daft is that ?
I can make a statement that I think anyone who truly believes that the best thing to do when someone is accused of a sexual offence should then be attacked by the media and public in an open forum for the good of those who really have been abused to be moronic and amongst the most cruel of humans to walk amongst us.
Cruel in that the life if the accused is ruined beyond repair.

You will argue with me because you like to do that but I am right, it is not right in such cases simply due to the stigma and irreparable damage caused.

Tell me, what is wrong with someone being charged, taken to court, tried by his/her peers and if found guilty is then paraded to the world for the vile crimes committed ?

Cleat Eastwood

If only they could get Bill Kenwright on something - B Wings Xmas Panto will be brilliant

ballysmate

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

If only they could get Bill Kenwright on something - B Wings Xmas Panto will be brilliant

Oh no it won't :!: