There is a god, Clifford charged with sex offences

VTech

To vindicate my own view on this situation, today's morning TV shows several newspaper headlines of which the Sun shows pictures of Mr Hall, Mr Roach and Mr Harris and within the paper referring to them as monsters.

2 of these guys have not been found guilty of any offence so where is this right ?
Whatever the result, these guys are now guilty to the masses which is wrong. They are now guilty until proven innocent and even then there will always be the question ???????

I've always found that in my life I've done well for having an opinion and going with it, sometimes I'm right, some times im wrong but have always acted in good faith.
I've never tried to be a lemming, following others out of fashion or because others will like me more. I prefer it my way.

ooermissus

VTech wrote:

Mr Hall, Mr Roach and Mr Harris... within the paper referring to them as monsters.

You made that bit up.

mfin

VTech wrote:

To vindicate my own view on this situation, today's morning TV shows several newspaper headlines of which the Sun shows pictures of Mr Hall, Mr Roach and Mr Harris and within the paper referring to them as monsters.

2 of these guys have not been found guilty of any offence so where is this right ?
Whatever the result, these guys are now guilty to the masses which is wrong. They are now guilty until proven innocent and even then there will always be the question ???????

I've always found that in my life I've done well for having an opinion and going with it, sometimes I'm right, some times im wrong but have always acted in good faith.
I've never tried to be a lemming, following others out of fashion or because others will like me more. I prefer it my way.

That's not the law making them look guilty until proven innocent, that's the press. Entirely different. In law they are innocent until proven guilty, that's fact, there's no sentence. So, your issue is with the press, and you should be arguing that the press should be governed with a stong hand, but the press is so highly commercialised and it's simple shock stories that sell, making sellable headlines and front pages ...that problem is very deep.

Also worth remembering is the press employ journalists to agressively go-get not just the news, but the biggest stories. These people are celebrities, and with the celebrity culture we have, combined with the most tasteless of offences, this will make these stories have a very high sell-ability. If the 3 were just members of the public, it would't be massive news as it would not have anywhere near the sell-ability as a story. All obvious really.

...but keep thinking it's the law applied to the accused that's the problem if you like.

mfin

ooermissus wrote:

VTech wrote:

Mr Hall, Mr Roach and Mr Harris... within the paper referring to them as monsters.

You made that bit up.

Sh1t, you could have saved me some typing, didn't see your post until after Id finished posting mine

(assuming you've read the same papers he has... perhaps Vtech can quote it??)

VTech

Nothing was made up. The reference is there. Just because they don't say me roach or me Harris are monsters, my sayin these people, together with a picture of them is a reference and often people look at an image and that's enough so again your wrong.

As per the media, to be fair that what I've argued all along if you read my other posts.
I refer to the media and police going them info after someone is arrested which I see as wrong.
I then went on to argue that they should not be placed in the media for crimes they have not yet been found guilty of so again im right.

Anyway, this is about what's right and wron and its wrong to insinuate someone is guilty without them being found guilty. That is propelled a million times in cases where stigma can never be taken away.

mfin

You say 'Im right' a lot when in fact you should be saying 'I believe I'm right'.

If you work in a wind tunnel (with bikes?) you should be familiar with this concept, and believing something is more aerodynamic often gets proved that its not, otherwise there's no point in wind tunnels.

When you say you've argued all along 'as per the media', no you haven't, perhaps in your head you have.

Anyway, like the other guy 'I'm out' and you can be as 'right' as you like. Toodle-pip.

VTech

mfin wrote:

You say 'Im right' a lot when in fact you should be saying 'I believe I'm right'.

If you work in a wind tunnel (with bikes?) you should be familiar with this concept, and believing something is more aerodynamic often gets proved that its not, otherwise there's no point in wind tunnels.

When you say you've argued all along 'as per the media', no you haven't, perhaps in your head you have.

Anyway, like the other guy 'I'm out' and you can be as 'right' as you like. Toodle-pip.

I find it rather funny, your arguing to agree with me.
It was always my point that aero research is almost unprovable and that in one sense it looks good and the other not.
I find this a lot on this forum.

Also, you are correct in the "I believe" issue.
I do often refer to I know when it should be I believe so ill take that on the chin but I do prefer my angle.
I work in a technical world so it's not like my findings are always right either, I am incredibly open minded on that side, I just hate it when people are quick to ruin someone without k owing everything.
How have we all got to this point ?
We argue, we war, we kill, we ruin.

Many have fun from this.

Let's all read the topic of this thread for a second.
Take it in and understand it.

ooermissus

Letter from one of Hall's victims - he picked her up at a school prize giving:

Why haven't I written about this before? For several reasons – the first of which is shame. A girl who is groomed and then sexually exploited does not consider herself raped. Stuart made me complicit in my own abuse. He seemed kind and interested in me, while sexually exploiting a girl more than 25 years younger than he. It's a story as old as the hills; girls go back and then feel themselves to be as guilty as the man. As I became older, I was able to consider the position more carefully, particularly after years of therapy. Why didn't I report it years ago? I was afraid for my reputation, my family and career.

VTech

ooermissus wrote:

Letter from one of Hall's victims - he picked her up at a school prize giving:

Why haven't I written about this before? For several reasons – the first of which is shame. A girl who is groomed and then sexually exploited does not consider herself raped. Stuart made me complicit in my own abuse. He seemed kind and interested in me, while sexually exploiting a girl more than 25 years younger than he. It's a story as old as the hills; girls go back and then feel themselves to be as guilty as the man. As I became older, I was able to consider the position more carefully, particularly after years of therapy. Why didn't I report it years ago? I was afraid for my reputation, my family and career.

I watched the reported who broke this story this morning on TV and she agreed with my thoughts about the situation and instead of simply taking the letter to the editor and running the story she instead went to the police, he was arrested, questioned and then charged.
At the time, he wasn't even a suspect and the police had no interest in him.
When he was charged he denied it and the case was placed in the system they received other complaints which were identical in the way in which he groomed the girls and after being confronted with this evidence he pleaded guilty.
This is a classic case of the police and others doing the right thing and the system working.

I have to say that I agree entirely with this. I feel for the girls and in fact former friends of Mr Hall who must now be going through hell having never realised what a "monster" he truly was.

Although the legal system isn't perfect, its the best we have so when the stories are run we do get people trying to make false claims which in turn take away perception of truth from genuine cases. These have various effects ranging from people simply not believing them to others not coming forward who are indeed genuine.

Quite clearly, this case has been run in a great way, all the claimants seem perfectly genuine and he is now going to pay for his sins. No one is trying to defend him, there is no question of wether or not the people making the claims were truthful and he will pay the price.

In this case, the legal system has been followed and the victims will be free of the cruel memories they have carried alone for all of these years.

nathancom

VTech wrote:

I watched the reported who broke this story this morning on TV and she agreed with my thoughts about the situation and instead of simply taking the letter to the editor and running the story she instead went to the police, he was arrested, questioned and then charged.
At the time, he wasn't even a suspect and the police had no interest in him.
When he was charged he denied it and the case was placed in the system they received other complaints which were identical in the way in which he groomed the girls and after being confronted with this evidence he pleaded guilty.
This is a classic case of the police and others doing the right thing and the system working.

This is how the entire operation has run and now you apparently agree with it. So, you can either:
a) man up and admit you were wrong.
b) continue claiming you are right whilst subtly changing your position bit by bit until you have done a 180 degree turn, and then deny having changed your position at all even when your previous posts are quoted back at you.

Considering your prior, I suspect that option b is the most likely course of events.

VTech

Not at all as this is a one off and almost certainly bought about by the fact that case was bought about by a very honest reporter who unlike most of them had the decency to swap a bit I fame and money for soon why was right.
I still think yewtree is a joke and will not catch the right people due to the way it is allowed to run.

This honest reporter did. Right thing, she took it to the police and as such the case proceeded the way they all should, the man is now found out.

Police informing press and the press being judge and jury is why people get away wih things and also why many get wrongly accused.

Please explain where I have tried to attempt a 180 degree turn my good man ?

danlikesbikes

VTech wrote:

Not at all as this is a one off and almost certainly bought about by the fact that case was bought about by a very honest reporter who unlike most of them had the decency to swap a bit I fame and money for soon why was right.
I still think yewtree is a joke and will not catch the right people due to the way it is allowed to run.

This honest reporter did. Right thing, she took it to the police and as such the case proceeded the way they all should, the man is now found out.

Police informing press and the press being judge and jury is why people get away wih things and also why many get wrongly accused.

Please explain where I have tried to attempt a 180 degree turn my good man ?

Think you need to go to spec savers and get some glasses, open a bottle of your wine and read your own posts.

Start off with the system doesn't work, then disagree with everyone that the system does not work, then come out with the system works for this case, then state that the system will stop working for all other cases.

I really do hope you met face to face some poor poor person who has been affected or abused either in the cases covered by Yewtree or none connected cases & tell them to their face to stop daring to argue with you and bringing up these cases now as they do no good for anyone & even if they did its pointless as it costs too much money or you dislike the fact that people are able to get justice for the horrible crimes done to them.

But don't worry about any compassion for your fellow human being, who needs that huh.

I can work out weather your a world class troll or you just think that because people dare to suggest something that you disagree with you then go off on one without thinking about what your saying.

I suggest that you go join another forum if you can't contribute anything to this one.

VTech

Dan, You need to stop with the lemming addiction, don't follow others, show some proof man.

Yewtree isn't working because they are working with media and due to this people are losing faith.

You argue about compassion, I have more than most on this thread, just that I try to show it to everyone.
At the moment Mr Roach and Mr Harris are not guilty of anything yet they are both ruined. How is that fair ?

The part that does not work is not where people are arrested and charged but where the media are involved before a guilty verdict is given.

You will find that my comments and thoughts have not changed at all and from the start this is what I have said.
Also, why would you want me to come face to face with someone who had been abused ? I would say exactly the same to them as I am here and that would be that I believe people should not be made press scapegoats until they are found guilty.

Where exactly am I a world class troll by saying this ?
I have the balls to stand up for what I believe in and that's compassion rather than following the pack like so many.

It was only a few weeks ago where some of you guys were asking me to feel sorry for the fact I may or may not have a few ££ its all rather laughable really. Get a grip on reality.

For the last time, I want all of these people to go to jail, rot in hell and suffer like no other for what they have done.
BUT.................

Only if they have done it !!!

How can we sit back and watch people suffer before they have been found guilty ?

All yewtree is doing is alienating the masses because the media is allowed to run what they like regardless of fact and who is giving them that info ?
Who calls the media when someone is being arrested ?

Do you think Mr Roach or Mr Harris called them ?

ooermissus

I'd be astounded if you can find a single quote where a newspaper acts as 'judge and jury' due to our strict libel laws. The only person who does that is you - without any detailed idea of what they are accused of.

Vtech wrote:

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.

It astounds me you can make remarks like this.

nathancom

ooermissus wrote:

I'd be astounded if you can find a single quote where a newspaper acts as 'judge and jury' due to our strict libel laws. The only person who does that is you - without any detailed idea of what they are accused of.

Vtech wrote:

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.

It astounds me you can make remarks like this.

Well you have to be compassionate to people charged with rape and the best way to be compassionate is not charging them in the first place. I think I am getting the swing of this...

VTech

ooermissus wrote:

I'd be astounded if you can find a single quote where a newspaper acts as 'judge and jury' due to our strict libel laws. The only person who does that is you - without any detailed idea of what they are accused of.

Vtech wrote:

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.

It astounds me you can make remarks like this.

Your quite a clever fellow (in the argumentative state) so you know how to argue, even if that means arguing without arguing against what your arguing with.

I am shocked he was charged, the case itself having been confirmed by the met who made a statement saying he had a single claim against him, this is why I said what I said so how does this astound you ?
Peoples lives become a missery due to people like you suggesting that being questioned about a case gives the media the right to publish it.
Innocent until proven guilty.

Also, you understand media and libel laws and if you actually commented on my comment (you tend to pick and chose those that suit your purpose) I said that they insinuated.

Headlines images of Roach, Hall and Harris then inside talking about how people have got away with crimes for all these years gives an indirect link, enough to evade libel but not enough to stop people like you associating them or let me rephrase that, suggesting people have a right to associate them just because of a claim.

Trial by media isnt right, you can argue until your all blue in the face, ill never accept it and cant think that I would ever agree with those that think it is right.

Im not a troll, I actually think the wording of that is as ridiculous as some of the suggestions here. im just a guy who thinks people have rights on both sides of the fence.
Those rights are only lost once your guilty and after then im not bothered what happens to them.

danlikesbikes

Vtec don't PM I really am not bothered to hear what you have to say anymore.

Do not worry I will not post, forward or discuss the content of your PM except this part for which you already know my answer so not sure why you ask it other than to continue to troll me.

"Yewtree isn't really helping, do you really think that they are going to catch many more people because of yewtree ?"

Would think the answer is pretty self evident even to an educated man like yourself.

ballysmate

here is another twist. The deputy speaker has been arrested for male rape.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/deputy-speaker ... ml#aI22ntQ

Cleat Eastwood

Bugger me.

ballysmate

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Bugger me.

I am not a religious man but I believe it says in the bible somewhere, 'It is better to give than to receive'.
That may well be the case.

seanoconn

Ballysmate wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Bugger me.

I am not a religious man but I believe it says in the bible somewhere, 'It is better to give than to receive'.
That may well be the case.

It also says "And gay shall be the man who gives a reach around"

ballysmate

seanoconn wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Bugger me.

I am not a religious man but I believe it says in the bible somewhere, 'It is better to give than to receive'.
That may well be the case.

It also says "And gay shall be the man who gives a reach around"

dynamicbrick

Ballysmate wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Bugger me.

I am not a religious man but I believe it says in the bible somewhere, 'It is better to give than to receive'.
That may well be the case.

It also says "And gay shall be the man who gives a reach around"

I live in Brighton, and as the saying goes down here; 'it's not gay if you don't push back'

Anyway, I must say I admire VTech's unerring ability to contradict himself, in writing, whilst categorically denying he's doing so. I'm beginning to suspect he's actually a LibDem activist working undercover to expose Commissar Cleat for the Bolsevik he really is

VTech

To be fair, I could say I coul enter the TDF and compete but someone would want proof ?

seanoconn

dynamicbrick wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Bugger me.

I am not a religious man but I believe it says in the bible somewhere, 'It is better to give than to receive'.
That may well be the case.

It also says "And gay shall be the man who gives a reach around"

I live in Brighton, and as the saying goes down here; 'it's not gay if you don't push back'

Disgusting :roll: .......

See you under the pier in an hour

MattC59

VTech wrote:

It was always my point that aero research is almost unprovable

Why ? Surely it's either provable or not.

MattC59

VTech wrote:

show some proof man

Ah..... Like you do ? :roll:

VTech

Not going to get into another argument with you Matt as I'm quite enjoying the sun as I watch my kids playing in the sea but for those who didnt read the other thread, aero has benefits dependant on direction when it comes to bikes, direction and downforce when I comes to cars. If you really need proof I that then I can arrange a day at the factory for you where I'm sure one of the techs can attempt to convince you.

MattC59

VTech wrote:

Not going to get into another argument with you Matt as I'm quite enjoying the sun as I watch my kids playing in the sea but for those who didnt read the other thread, aero has benefits dependant on direction when it comes to bikes, direction and downforce when I comes to cars. If you really need proof I that then I can arrange a day at the factory for you where I'm sure one of the techs can attempt to convince you.

And there's your issue, you see everything as an affront to you, which is why I rarely bother with any of your discussions. Anyway, where's the argument, I asked you a question, that's all.

I know that there are a number of factors which have an effect on the benefit of aerodynamics, that's common sense, but that's not what I asked, or what you stated. I asked you why it's unprovable, and the effects of aerodynamics clearly are.

Which ever way you look at it, aero research is most definitely provable.

danlikesbikes

Another one arrested Jimmy [url=Tarbuckhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22429904]Tarbuckhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22429904[/url]