Arrested on suspicion..

[Suffragette1]

Again distorting my posts and picking words out, hmm like the daily mail do ?

As I have said many times on many posts some/will have and do lie its fact get to grips with it, nowhere at all have I said every woman who claims rape is lying, so please don't make out like I have, you are posting on here attacking me now because I haven't folded to your views, and it's becoming quite pathetic now.

 

Show me a single one of my posts where I have said all rape victims are liars to jump on the gravy train, please show me ... But you can't, it's false allegations like that that cause problems you know like I have said.

 

I love it how you need someone to come on here and make a post that you agree with or that goes against the one you are discussing with and instantly start attacking again, are you trying to belittle me infont of others on here ?, or just need some back up to try and make me leave the thread ?

 

You have referred to false rape allegations in virtually every post and derailed the discussion into one about this issue.

 

As for your assertion that I need someone to come here and make a post that I agree with - eh? I fight my own battles and need no one to help me. I back up my own views without calling on others to come to my rescue.

[MrSmith]

You like to get your facts wrong, don't you?

 

Have a look at this article from 2010 about bringing Scottish Law into line with English and Welsh Law in allowing previous convictions to be known to jurors;

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12040486

 

"In England and Wales, juries have been told about the previous convictions of defendants since 2004.

 

Last year, the jury at Peter Tobin's trial for the murder of Dinah McNicol at Chelmsford Crown Court in Essex was told that he had been convicted of murdering Scottish schoolgirl Vicky Hamilton and that both girls had been found buried in his garden.

 

However, the jury at the Vicky Hamilton murder trial, which was heard in Scotland, were not able to hear of his earlier conviction for the murder of Angelika Kluk".

 

As your argument against publicising the names of those accused of rape is a factual inaccuracy you must now support publicising the names of those accused of rape. Or are there no limits to your support for sex offenders?

 

---------- Post added 05-05-2013 at 13:43 ----------

 

 

By whom? Judges are quite strict in telling jurors what they can and can't take into account when deciding on guilt or otherwise. Just because the flaming torch and pitchfork brigade have decided on someone's guilt doesn't affect a jury's decision at all. And if it did the defendant could ask for a mistrial to be declared.

 

There as to be a first time for everything, I was unaware that the law had been changed, I don't have an issue with previous conviction forming part of the prosecution, it doesn't alter my view that people are innocent until proven guilty and should remain anonymous until they are convicted.

[Mister M]

There as to be a first time for everything, I was unaware that the law had been changed, I don't have an issue with previous conviction forming part of the prosecution, it doesn't alter my view that people are innocent until proven guilty and should remain anonymous until they are convicted.

 

.....................

[JFKvsNixon]

There as to be a first time for everything, I was unaware that the law had been changed, I don't have an issue with previous conviction forming part of the prosecution, it doesn't alter my view that people are innocent until proven guilty and should remain anonymous until they are convicted.

 

Do you think the same thing about suspected islamic terrorists?

[Tomtom66]

You have referred to false rape allegations in virtually every post and derailed the discussion into one about this issue.

 

As for your assertion that I need someone to come here and make a post that I agree with - eh? I fight my own battles and need no one to help me. I back up my own views without calling on others to come to my rescue.

 

 

From the start I have agreed with you on the subject, I have only stated that some lie about being raped which damages women's cases when they actually have been attacked and raped, but you don't seem to like the fact that I know this or that I'm posting another side to the story because it doesn't fit in with your views/opinions on the subject.

 

We were fine till max posted, the same earlier in the thread till skinz posted, can we not have a civilised discussion without picking posts apart and trying to give a bad view of others who post on the discussion to people who join the discussion ? You haven't made my point clear and picked words out which in term makes it look like I hold views that I simply don't.

[MrSmith]

Do you think the same thing about suspected islamic terrorists?

 

Yes. .............

[LeMaquis]

.....I don't have an issue with previous conviction forming part of the prosecution.......

 

Despite the fact that you raised it as an issue to argue that those accused of sex crimes should be entitled to anonymity.

 

---------- Post added 05-05-2013 at 14:10 ----------

 

Read one of my earlier links, about the chap who was wrongly convicted and was attacked with boiling water etc even though the rape claim was false .

 

And what does all that have to do with past convictions being known to a jury?

[Suffragette1]

Well, Mark Williams Thomas has just tweeted about there being some interesting developments over the next week with ongoing child abuse investigations into Operation Yewtree and Savile, so it will be interesting to see the reactions to this. In that I mean, I hope that we are witnessing a cultural shift in the understanding of not only the prevalence of child abuse but why victims did not come forward at the time (although a handful did regarding Savile and were dismissed). Let us hope that we no longer hear about celebrity witch hunts, why after all this time, how many of these victims are chancers? etc.

 

We need to end this ghastly pernicious culture that is the rapist's and child abuser's best friend, that allows them to thrive and remain at large, ruining countless lives.

[Tomtom66]

Despite the fact that you raised it as an issue to argue that those accused of sex crimes should be entitled to anonymity.

 

---------- Post added 05-05-2013 at 14:10 ----------

 

 

And what does all that have to do with past convictions being known to a jury?

 

 

I never said it had anything to do with it, but maybe he should have had the right of anonymity, and if he would have been found guilty then by all means throw him in the stocks IMO

[MrSmith]

Despite the fact that you raised it as an issue to argue that those accused of sex crimes should be entitled to anonymity.

 

The law appeared to be contradictory, it didn't make sense to me that previous convictions couldn't be used in court but names and details of crimes could be published before a trial. Thank you again for informing that the law had been changed.