Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 17:39:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rondetto on Jan 30, 2018 18:30:55 GMT
I think this is wrong. What next, Rolf Harris painting on Blue Peter. Garry Glitter on The one show. No, once convicted
that means there was proof of abuse. That could have been with my sister, my daughter, my wife.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 22:12:50 GMT
I think this is wrong. What next, Rolf Harris painting on Blue Peter. Garry Glitter on The one show. No, once convicted that means there was proof of abuse. That could have been with my sister, my daughter, my wife. So you don't believe in rehabilitation for those who have served their time These cases all stem from a different era and the convictions based on verbal evidence -no witnesses or physical evidence or confirmation. I never did believe that Rolf Harris was guilty anyway, and of course the chief accused was Jimmy Saville who was never arrested or convicted of anything |
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 30, 2018 22:47:30 GMT
I think this is wrong. What next, Rolf Harris painting on Blue Peter. Garry Glitter on The one show. No, once convicted that means there was proof of abuse. That could have been with my sister, my daughter, my wife. So you don't believe in rehabilitation for those who have served their time These cases all stem from a different era and the convictions based on verbal evidence -no witnesses or physical evidence or confirmation. I never did believe that Rolf Harris was guilty anyway, and of course the chief accused was Jimmy Saville who was never arrested or convicted of anything Only because he died (though a conviction doesn't seem to count anyway). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 9:07:19 GMT
So you don't believe in rehabilitation for those who have served their time These cases all stem from a different era and the convictions based on verbal evidence -no witnesses or physical evidence or confirmation. I never did believe that Rolf Harris was guilty anyway, and of course the chief accused was Jimmy Saville who was never arrested or convicted of anything Only because he died (though a conviction doesn't seem to count anyway). Plenty made allegations and jumped on the compensation train |
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Jan 31, 2018 9:56:12 GMT
Come off it.
People like that are generally quite easy to spot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 11:25:42 GMT
Come off it. People like that are generally quite easy to spot. And they are gradually being exposed "Rolf Harris, 87, conviction for groping an eight-year-old autograph hunter in 1969 is OVERTURNED after judges find a witness's testimony 'was fantasy' " www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5088611/Rolf-Harris-conviction-OVERTURNED-appeal.htmlI think that all these historical allegations should only proceed to trial if there is supporting evidence not just testimony |
|
|
|
Post by rondetto on Jan 31, 2018 12:50:54 GMT
This is a subject that needs more discussion. Firstly I don't think any accused should be named unless actually charged.
Cliff Richard and Tony Blackburn for instance. Secondly, once charged and followed through with a conviction for child abuse
then rehabilitation will never excuse what they have done. We have to consider our mothers, wives, sisters, daughters in all this. I would be surely tempted to take the law into my own hands if I found a paedophile had interfered with my daughter or grandaughter, but of course I wouldn't. The law is there to punish and tarnish them for life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 17:25:48 GMT
This is a subject that needs more discussion. Firstly I don't think any accused should be named unless actually charged. Cliff Richard and Tony Blackburn for instance. Secondly, once charged and followed through with a conviction for child abuse then rehabilitation will never excuse what they have done. We have to consider our mothers, wives, sisters, daughters in all this. I would be surely tempted to take the law into my own hands if I found a paedophile had interfered with my daughter or grandaughter, but of course I wouldn't. The law is there to punish and tarnish them for life. Sorry, I think that's a bit extreme Bit like saying that a shoplifter who has paid the penalty could not be trusted once the conviction is spent. The attitude that paedophiles cannot be trusted and should be punished for life leads to vigilante groups taking the law into their own hands if they learn that one is living in their neighbourhood. They actually killed a paediatrician because they interpreted that as a paedophile, that's the mentality we are dealing with |
|
|
|
Post by rondetto on Feb 1, 2018 9:34:43 GMT
You are forgetting, even after serving a prison sentence they are on the police register for life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 13:32:54 GMT
You are forgetting, even after serving a prison sentence they are on the police register for life. So what do you suggest that they do with their life having served their sentence? |
|
|
|
Post by rondetto on Feb 1, 2018 13:41:08 GMT
Their choice.
|
|
