Eater Sundae Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 In a fair trial hopefully? The fact that he has been arrested indicates that the police feel that they have a strong chance of securing a prosecution but "innocent until proven guilty" and all that. No, no, no. Arrest does NOT mean that the police feel that they have a strong chance of securing a prosecution. In many cases it is associated with interview and evidential procedures. Just because someone has been arrested does not mean a thing in terms of expectation of prosecution, let alone guilt or innocence. However, the problem is that many members of the public do not understand this and assume that there is no smoke without fire. Posts like yours help to perpetuate this sort of muddled thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 You mean he ripped you apart and showed you exactly for what you are..a tiresome bore who grinds debate consistently with evasive answers and totally unrelated links. He's trying to communicate with you and all you can come up with "it wasn't relevant" when it quite clearly was. It's obvious you didn't have the decency to read the link..to busy thrashing about on your keyboard. Taking a dump on the forum does not alter the fact that it was irelevant. People are innocent until proven guilty and publishing their names all over the press befor guilt is established isn’t right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Stuart Hall case and his 13 or so victims come out of the blue all at once? its not as though there were one or two victims speaking out then another 11 came later as a result of the publicity of the first two. He probably pleaded guilty either because he didn't want to put his victims through lengthy trials or he felt that as a man in his eighties he didn't have the stamina to put himself through lengthy trials. Probably the latter. Or he might have pleaded guilty because he was in fact guilty. As for your first paragraph; "His victims did not know each other and almost two decades separated the first and last assaults but almost all of the victims, including one who was only nine at the time of the assault, provided strikingly similar accounts." From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22379286 It's nice to know there are people out there who defend sexual abusers of nine tears olds. MrSmith likes to defend paedophiles as does his alter ego MaxMaximus. You're in good company with the pro-nonce faction. ---------- Post added 05-05-2013 at 09:52 ---------- Taking a dump on the forum does not alter the fact that it was irelevant. People are innocent until proven guilty and publishing their names all over the press befor guilt is established isn’t right. Still sticking up for sex offenders, are we? Nothing changes. People accused of sex offences should have their names published so that others who have also been abused by the same accused can come forward. Otherwise your hero Hall would have got away with abusing a nine years old. But if that's what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Or he might have pleaded guilty because he was in fact guilty. As for your first paragraph; "His victims did not know each other and almost two decades separated the first and last assaults but almost all of the victims, including one who was only nine at the time of the assault, provided strikingly similar accounts." From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22379286 It's nice to know there are people out there who defend sexual abusers of nine tears olds. MrSmith likes to defend paedophiles as does his alter ego MaxMaximus. You're in good company with the pro-nonce faction. ---------- Post added 05-05-2013 at 09:52 ---------- Still sticking up for sex offenders, are we? Nothing changes. People accused of sex offences should have their names published so that others who have also been abused by the same accused can come forward. Otherwise your hero Hall would have got away with abusing a nine years old. But if that's what you want. And it clearly doesn’t matter to you if they are innocent and the stress of being publicly accused causes them to take their life. The police should prove guilt in a court not in the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Turning an alleged sex crime into a party political issue is pretty despicable. There are sex offenders of all political persuasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Turning an alleged sex crime into a party political issue is pretty despicable. There are sex offenders of all political persuasions. Again, what comes around goes around. The trouble is tories is that they have no difficulty claiming to be the party of freedom in one breath and attacking civil liberties in the next. They want to consider themselves as aristocracy and above the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Taking a dump on the forum does not alter the fact that it was irelevant. For the second time, in what way isn't the press statement releasing Nigel Evans name, and the official police statement where they didn't identify him relevant as to whether the police published his name? People are innocent until proven guilty and publishing their names all over the press befor guilt is established isn’t right. Ah, so now you have quietly dropped you allegation that the police published Nigel Evans name. I guess that within the subtext of your post you are admitting that you were wrong, which is something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 If you cannot remain civil I will be happy to issue bans. I will not be giving any further warnings - name calling and accusations will not be tolerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Actually I think you'll find that it's you that's being a tad ignorant...... Unless your one of these people, obviously. Pot, kettle.... For the record MrSmith stopped posting last autumn after being embarrassed about making quite a few posts about paedophiles just being misunderstood people. He then started posting as MaxMaximus but reverted to MrSmith when it became clear that he was fooling no one with his ID change. A few people on here, you included, seem to think that rape and sexual abuse trials are more about compensation, revenge and gold-digging than about rape and sexual abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Focusnow Posted May 5, 2013 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Stuart Hall only probably stopped doing it because he was getting too old.. God only knows who will be the next one exposed.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.