And now we're "evil"! At least we haven't placed our hands anywhere we shouldn't have-other than on a computer keyboard, maybe!
Ahh... you wish to strawman out of it.. try again.
The concept that serious crimes which result in great suffering should be ignored because a few years have passed since their commission... to my mind... is evil.
Do you wish to play the victim anymore?
Or do you want to try to claim the crimes were not serious?
Do you want to keep digging?
It's hardly evil. The statute of limitations is also to protect the innocent.
It not as though there isn't plenty of time given.
In USA the victims of child abuse can be well into their adulthood before they have to make the claim.
I'm sure you'd think differently if someone accused you of molesting them 30/40 odd years ago and your watertight alibi had deceased or you just could not remember anything about that time.
Imagine you forgot you had even been to the place, but it was proved that you in fact had visited.
That would be used against you as being a liar, suggesting your guilt.
If they spun a pretty good tale in court you could find yourself in prison along with RH.
It's hardly evil. The statute of limitations is also to protect the innocent.
It not as though there isn't plenty of time given.
In USA the victims of child abuse can be well into their adulthood before they have to make the claim.
I'm sure you'd think differently if someone accused you of molesting them 30/40 odd years ago and your watertight alibi had deceased or you just could not remember anything about that time.
Imagine you forgot you had even been to the place, but it was proved that you in fact had visited.
That would be used against you as being a liar, suggesting your guilt.
If they spun a pretty good tale in court you could find yourself in prison along with RH.
It's hardly evil. The statute of limitations is also to protect the innocent.
Britain is unique in Europe in that it has no Statute of Limitations.
The average limitation period across the EU is about 12 years. States in the USA have such limitations too.
Speaking in general, clearly there are arguments for and against it, and it is a widely implemented ruling across the EU and parts of the United States.
In the EU, Britain is the exception, not the norm, when it comes to not having this ruling.
If someone says a deeply devastating thing happened to them in a certain place at a certain time, then it later emerges it couldn't have and (if it ever did happen) would have to have been at a complete other place several years later...and there is no supporting evidence to back up their claim whatsoever...I think having doubts about whether it ever happened at all is completely reasonable. How much more do you need than that?
Are you referring to Rolf Harris claiming he could not have committed the offense in Cambridge as he was not there. That the prosecution later went on to prove that Rolf Harris was there, and that the event he was at matched the victims testimony perfectly. With Rolf Harris then claiming that his claim he was not there was based on the fact he could not remember being there. That he was mistaken about not being there and had not deliberately lied to the Jury. Or are you referring to a different incident. Maybe your thinking of Tonya Lee and the offenses in London, Tonya Lee admitted to getting dates wrong, but not the place or what happened.
Why does everyone have to have some kind of hidden motive? Can't people just have an opinion and it be taken at face value, without all the insinuations that keep being made?
Blimey, you are defensive!
That's not about a hidden motive but wondering if some people are simply unable to accept his guilt and are desperately looking for ways to convince themselves that the trial should not even have happened. It's human nature when we can't accept something to try and fit circumstances to something we're more comfortable with.
Ahh... you wish to strawman out of it.. try again.
The concept that serious crimes which result in great suffering should be ignored because a few years have passed since their commission... to my mind... is evil.
Do you wish to play the victim anymore?
Or do you want to try to claim the crimes were not serious?
Do you want to keep digging?
40 or 50 years is not a flippant few years it's decades
It's hardly evil. The statute of limitations is also to protect the innocent.
It not as though there isn't plenty of time given.
In USA the victims of child abuse can be well into their adulthood before they have to make the *claim.
I'm sure you'd think differently if someone accused you of molesting them 30/40 odd years ago and your watertight alibi had deceased or you just could not remember anything about that time.
Imagine you forgot you had even been to the place, but it was proved that you in fact had visited.
That would be used against you as being a liar, suggesting your guilt.
If they spun a pretty good tale in court you could find yourself in prison along with RH.
Again it could happen perhaps , I mean anything could happen. So just to clarify your concerns over this would mean you'd prefer that those responsible for child abuse couldn't be prosecuted after a period of time , so how long 10 years or 20 ?
Sometimes its easier to discuss things without looking at specifics because it doesn't 'seem real ' so a 2 second google search means all of these would be happily wandering around unpunished for their crimes and you're comfortable with that ?
A 65-year-old man from Blackburn has been sentenced to three years in prison at Sheffield Crown Court for indecently assaulting a teenage girl 26 years ago.
John Yallop, 65, was a vicar at a church in Ellesmere, Sheffield, in 1987. Between August and December that year, he provided counselling to a 16-year-old girl after the death of both of her parents.
On two occasions he made the girl perform sexual acts, and during counselling sessions he would touch her inappropriately.
Yallop pleaded guilty to six counts of indecent assault at Sheffield Crown Court on Wednesday, 27 February 2013, and was sentenced yesterday (Monday 8 April 2013).
Today, Tuesday, 18 December, Dr Gousul Islam from Hatfield, Doncaster, has been sentenced to 11 years in prison after being found guilty yesterday of 18 counts of indecent assault against seven young women
Islam was a doctor at Lyndhurst Surgery on Church Road, Stainforth, for over thirty years.
Between 1970 and 1995, he indecently assaulted eight woman, aged as young as 13-years-old to 28-years-old, on numerous occasions when they had appointments with him at the surgery.
They visited the doctor for minor ailments or routine examinations, which included complaints of a sore throat or regular health check ups, but were then indecently assaulted.
Islam was arrested in March 2010 following allegations of the assaults and was charged in October 2011. He pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The trial started at Sheffield Crown Court on Monday, 5 November this year, and concluded yesterday with the jury finding Islam guilty.
A retired police sergeant has been found guilty of inflicting "appalling" sexual and physical abuse on two children in the 1960s and 70s.
Jeffrey Lake, 78, was extradited from his home in Queensland, Australia, to stand trial on the historic offences - the vast majority of which were committed when he was a serving police officer in Accrington, Lancashire, and Liverpool.
The defendant emigrated in 2002 and had been living there for seven years when one of the complainants walked into a police station in Lancashire and said Lake had sexually and physically abused her as a child.
The woman was interviewed at length and when the investigation widened a second person claimed he too had been abused by the defendant, Preston Crown Court was told.
She said that Lake moved from the UK to avoid his past after she had previously written letters to him describing the agony he had put her through.
A priest who has spent more than 20 years on the run in Spain has pleaded guilty to multiple charges of sexual assault of children, including of altar boys.
Francis Paul Cullen, 85, formerly working in the Diocese of Nottingham, yesterday admitted to 15 counts of indecent assault, five of indecency with a child and one of attempted buggery.
A former headteacher at the prep school attended by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has been sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for abusing boys at the school.
Roland Wright, 83, who taught at Caldicott Boys' Preparatory School in Farnham Royal, Buckinghamshire, assaulted five pupils aged between eight and 13 between 1959 and 1970.
His sentencing at Amersham Crown Court went ahead despite the death of another former teacher who had been due to be sentenced with him.
His former colleague, Hugh Henry, 82, apparently threw himself under a train on Tuesday.
It's hardly evil. The statute of limitations is also to protect the innocent.
It not as though there isn't plenty of time given.
In USA the victims of child abuse can be well into their adulthood before they have to make the claim.
I'm sure you'd think differently if someone accused you of molesting them 30/40 odd years ago and your watertight alibi had deceased or you just could not remember anything about that time.
Imagine you forgot you had even been to the place, but it was proved that you in fact had visited.
That would be used against you as being a liar, suggesting your guilt.
If they spun a pretty good tale in court you could find yourself in prison along with RH.
I doubt it because ten or more of the twleve jury would have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of guilt. I have faith that the evidence against Rolf Harris was credible and compelling and sufficient enough to meet that standard as that was the unanimous verdict.
The level of evidence you are suggesting would not be enough to convince me beyond reasonable doubt, so I would not expect a jury to reach that verdict.
Again it could happen perhaps , I mean anything could happen. So just to clarify your concerns over this would mean you'd prefer that those responsible for child abuse couldn't be prosecuted after a period of time , so how long 10 years or 20 ?
Sometimes its easier to discuss things without looking at specifics because it doesn't 'seem real ' so a 2 second google search means all of these would be happily wandering around unpunished for their crimes and you're comfortable with that ?
I didn't say I was in favour of a statute of limitations, I was just showing it's existence in many countries is not "evil", as was claimed by another poster.
Of course, in the cases you cited, had there been a time limit then some of those victims would have been aware of the limit and might have come forward earlier to get justice.
Which also could mean that other assaults could have prevented.
Are you referring to Rolf Harris claiming he could not have committed the offense in Cambridge as he was not there. That the prosecution later went on to prove that Rolf Harris was there, and that the event he was at matched the victims testimony perfectly. With Rolf Harris then claiming that his claim he was not there was based on the fact he could not remember being there. That he was mistaken about not being there and had not deliberately lied to the Jury. Or are you referring to a different incident. Maybe your thinking of Tonya Lee and the offenses in London, Tonya Lee admitted to getting dates wrong, but not the place or what happened.
I think one of the example the FM used was the child who was 7 or 8 - the incident was said to have happened in Havant, but the prosecution could find no record of RH being there at that time. Of course the jury could have accepted that a young victim can remember with clarity the abuse, but not remember the details of when and where it took place accurately. It happens (I described how it happened to me earlier in the thread). Without having been in the court and heard the witness it really isn't possible I think to judge the credibility.
I didn't say I was in favour of a statute of limitations, I was just showing it's existence in many countries is not "evil", as was claimed by another poster.
Of course, in the cases you cited, had there been a time limit then some of those victims would have been aware of the limit and might have come forward earlier to get justice.
Which also could mean that other assaults could have prevented.
I'm not sure people would come forward due to any limits I'm sure they come forward when they're able/ready and that's so difficult to judge from the outside I'm sure. I'm sure it's not deliberate but the last line of your post comes dangerously close to apportioning blame for future assaults on previous victims and I'm sure you'd agree they're certainly the one group that aren't responsible.
I've been thinking about that, too. I mean, Vanessa Feltz? Who on earth would.....oh, never mind.
People prey on anyone.
Poor Vanessa. Listening to her breakfast phone-in on BBC London, she kept pointing out she never went to the police -- the opposite rather happened. Seemed startled the police knew about the incident, but it's clear how they obtained the info -- someone in the Big Breakfast crew came forward who was present in the room.
I didn't say I was in favour of a statute of limitations, I was just showing it's existence in many countries is not "evil", as was claimed by another poster.
Of course, in the cases you cited, had there been a time limit then some of those victims would have been aware of the limit and might have come forward earlier to get justice.
Which also could mean that other assaults could have prevented.
It is almost as if you are blaming victims mostly vulnerable children for not coming forward earlier when they were sexually abused, by people who were held in high esteem by the community or were in positions of authority or trust.
In some of the cases scousemick used as examples it looks like failure by state employees may have played a part in failure to prosecute earlier.
Vicar John Yallop who abused an orphan. The victim orignally told their social worker. The social worker did not tell the police instead they talked to the vicar who admitted the offenses, the matter was referred to the Church authorities who choose not to inform the police.
Dr Gousul Islam. Victims feared allegations would be treated as them being confused or mistaken. Unknown if anyone complained earlier.
Police Sergean Jeffrey Lake. Victim abused as a child did not go to police until decades later. Not surprising that a child victim did not go to the police when their abuser was a police officer.
Priest Francis Paul Cullen. A warrant for his arrest was at the time cancelled, by who unknown, reason unknown. Enabling him to flee and evade justice for decades.
Headmaster Roland Wright. People knew at the time, allegation of cover up at the time due to the headmaster's circle of friends. Decades later the first attempt at prosecution was stopped by Judge Roger Connor who was friends with someone who had a personal interest in the case.
Some victims certainly experienced far more than a grope by a "dirty old man." They understandably haven't been able to forget. I have tremendous sympathy for those victims and I think they are very brave to speak out now. It's never too late to make an old man admit what the has done was horrible and wrong.
One of Harris' victims said that's all she wanted, for him to admit it.
At least one of them forgot quite a bit, as it happens.
Possibly they did forget where and when - it is possible to forget such details, or confuse them with others yet have very strong memories of the assault itself and also be affected by it. That happened to me - the date, time, exact location is not the thing that stayed in my memory... the person and what they did is still vivid nearly fifty years later.
Possibly they did forget where and when - it is possible to forget such details, or confuse them with others yet have very strong memories of the assault itself and also be affected by it. That happened to me - the date, time, exact location is not the thing that stayed in my memory... the person and what they did is still vivid nearly fifty years later.
But this then creates a problem. If a memory is so inconsistent and patchy on certain details, how much can the rest really be relied upon as evidence in a trial?
It is almost as if you are blaming victims mostly vulnerable children for not coming forward earlier when they were sexually abused, by people who were held in high esteem by the community or were in positions of authority or trust.
In some of the cases scousemick used as examples it looks like failure by state employees may have played a part in failure to prosecute earlier.
Vicar John Yallop who abused an orphan. The victim orignally told their social worker. The social worker did not tell the police instead they talked to the vicar who admitted the offenses, the matter was referred to the Church authorities who choose not to inform the police.
Dr Gousul Islam. Victims feared allegations would be treated as them being confused or mistaken. Unknown if anyone complained earlier.
Police Sergean Jeffrey Lake. Victim abused as a child did not go to police until decades later. Not surprising that a child victim did not go to the police when their abuser was a police officer.
Priest Francis Paul Cullen. A warrant for his arrest was at the time cancelled, by who unknown, reason unknown. Enabling him to flee and evade justice for decades.
Headmaster Roland Wright. People knew at the time, allegation of cover up at the time due to the headmaster's circle of friends. Decades later the first attempt at prosecution was stopped by Judge Roger Connor who was friends with someone who had a personal interest in the case.
Add to that a driving instructor, not a famous person. I knew a shy seventeen year old girl who was driven to a secluded area where the instructor got her out of the car and indecently groped her. She arrived home in a state of shock and distress and told her parents who immediately phoned the well known driving school to report him.
But the driving school simply didn't want to know and threatened the parents not go to the police because they would be firmly defending their driver.
They then made the excuse that all their driving instructors are independent contracts and if the incident did take place why would this complaint be their company's fault.
They were rude on the phone and aggressively disbelieved the girl's story, her word against his was their conclusion and they had no intention of confronting their driver.
As with the stories above there was a closing of ranks.
The girl was so distressed at the horrible defensive way the driving school woman spoke to her on the phone that she persuaded her parents not to go to the police. She just wanted to forget the horrible incident and move on with her life.
Now fourteen years later I am pleased to say that the girl is happily married with children. She has got on with her life but shudders every time she sees one of those driving school cars go past in fear it could be him even though she lives at a different address now.
Add to that a driving instructor, not a famous person. I knew a shy seventeen year old girl who was driven to a secluded area where the instructor got her out of the car and indecently groped her. She arrived home in a state of shock and distress and told her parents who immediately phoned the well known driving school to report him.
But the driving school simply didn't want to know and threatened the parents not go to the police because they would be firmly defending their driver.
They then made the excuse that all their driving instructors are independent contracts and if the incident did take place why would this complaint be their company's fault.
They were rude on the phone and aggressively disbelieved the girl's story, her word against his was their conclusion and they had no intention of confronting their driver.
As with the stories above there was a closing of ranks.
The girl was so distressed at the horrible defensive way the driving school woman spoke to her on the phone that she persuaded her parents not to go to the police. She just wanted to forget the horrible incident and move on with her life.
Now fourteen years later I am pleased to say that the girl is happily married with children. She has got on with her life but shudders every time she sees one of those driving school cars go past in fear it could be him even though she lives at a different address now.
In addition, those who do report the crime can find the whole experience as bad as, or worse than the abuse itself. The thought of reporting it is too much for some or can take decades to reach the point of being able to tell of their experience.
In addition, those who do report the crime can find the whole experience as bad as, or worse than the abuse itself. The thought of reporting it is too much for some or can take decades to reach the point of being able to tell of their experience.
Indeed. But when Mrs Andrade's sad death was first reported there were some on here who questioned the validity of her testimony in court given her mental state and therefore the safety of Brewer's conviction. Some people only seem satisfied if paedophiles are allowed free rein.
It's hardly evil. The statute of limitations is also to protect the innocent.
It not as though there isn't plenty of time given.
In USA the victims of child abuse can be well into their adulthood before they have to make the claim.
I'm sure you'd think differently if someone accused you of molesting them 30/40 odd years ago and your watertight alibi had deceased or you just could not remember anything about that time.
Imagine you forgot you had even been to the place, but it was proved that you in fact had visited.
That would be used against you as being a liar, suggesting your guilt.
If they spun a pretty good tale in court you could find yourself in prison along with RH.
I think they'd have to catch you out on multiple+ slip ups for it to go against you. A simple slip up could just mean that you simply forgot.
Comments
And now we're "evil"! At least we haven't placed our hands anywhere we shouldn't have-other than on a computer keyboard, maybe!
Ahh... you wish to strawman out of it.. try again.
The concept that serious crimes which result in great suffering should be ignored because a few years have passed since their commission... to my mind... is evil.
Do you wish to play the victim anymore?
Or do you want to try to claim the crimes were not serious?
Do you want to keep digging?
It's hardly evil. The statute of limitations is also to protect the innocent.
It not as though there isn't plenty of time given.
In USA the victims of child abuse can be well into their adulthood before they have to make the claim.
I'm sure you'd think differently if someone accused you of molesting them 30/40 odd years ago and your watertight alibi had deceased or you just could not remember anything about that time.
Imagine you forgot you had even been to the place, but it was proved that you in fact had visited.
That would be used against you as being a liar, suggesting your guilt.
If they spun a pretty good tale in court you could find yourself in prison along with RH.
There's your answer, Becky.
Britain is unique in Europe in that it has no Statute of Limitations.
The average limitation period across the EU is about 12 years. States in the USA have such limitations too.
Speaking in general, clearly there are arguments for and against it, and it is a widely implemented ruling across the EU and parts of the United States.
In the EU, Britain is the exception, not the norm, when it comes to not having this ruling.
Blimey, you are defensive!
That's not about a hidden motive but wondering if some people are simply unable to accept his guilt and are desperately looking for ways to convince themselves that the trial should not even have happened. It's human nature when we can't accept something to try and fit circumstances to something we're more comfortable with.
40 or 50 years is not a flippant few years it's decades
Again it could happen perhaps , I mean anything could happen. So just to clarify your concerns over this would mean you'd prefer that those responsible for child abuse couldn't be prosecuted after a period of time , so how long 10 years or 20 ?
Sometimes its easier to discuss things without looking at specifics because it doesn't 'seem real ' so a 2 second google search means all of these would be happily wandering around unpunished for their crimes and you're comfortable with that ?
The level of evidence you are suggesting would not be enough to convince me beyond reasonable doubt, so I would not expect a jury to reach that verdict.
I didn't say I was in favour of a statute of limitations, I was just showing it's existence in many countries is not "evil", as was claimed by another poster.
Of course, in the cases you cited, had there been a time limit then some of those victims would have been aware of the limit and might have come forward earlier to get justice.
Which also could mean that other assaults could have prevented.
I think one of the example the FM used was the child who was 7 or 8 - the incident was said to have happened in Havant, but the prosecution could find no record of RH being there at that time. Of course the jury could have accepted that a young victim can remember with clarity the abuse, but not remember the details of when and where it took place accurately. It happens (I described how it happened to me earlier in the thread). Without having been in the court and heard the witness it really isn't possible I think to judge the credibility.
I'm not sure people would come forward due to any limits I'm sure they come forward when they're able/ready and that's so difficult to judge from the outside I'm sure. I'm sure it's not deliberate but the last line of your post comes dangerously close to apportioning blame for future assaults on previous victims and I'm sure you'd agree they're certainly the one group that aren't responsible.
Poor Vanessa. Listening to her breakfast phone-in on BBC London, she kept pointing out she never went to the police -- the opposite rather happened. Seemed startled the police knew about the incident, but it's clear how they obtained the info -- someone in the Big Breakfast crew came forward who was present in the room.
In some of the cases scousemick used as examples it looks like failure by state employees may have played a part in failure to prosecute earlier.
Vicar John Yallop who abused an orphan. The victim orignally told their social worker. The social worker did not tell the police instead they talked to the vicar who admitted the offenses, the matter was referred to the Church authorities who choose not to inform the police.
Dr Gousul Islam. Victims feared allegations would be treated as them being confused or mistaken. Unknown if anyone complained earlier.
Police Sergean Jeffrey Lake. Victim abused as a child did not go to police until decades later. Not surprising that a child victim did not go to the police when their abuser was a police officer.
Priest Francis Paul Cullen. A warrant for his arrest was at the time cancelled, by who unknown, reason unknown. Enabling him to flee and evade justice for decades.
Headmaster Roland Wright. People knew at the time, allegation of cover up at the time due to the headmaster's circle of friends. Decades later the first attempt at prosecution was stopped by Judge Roger Connor who was friends with someone who had a personal interest in the case.
Because it's not about who it is, it is about the power in doing it at all.
One of Harris' victims said that's all she wanted, for him to admit it.
Possibly they did forget where and when - it is possible to forget such details, or confuse them with others yet have very strong memories of the assault itself and also be affected by it. That happened to me - the date, time, exact location is not the thing that stayed in my memory... the person and what they did is still vivid nearly fifty years later.
Add to that a driving instructor, not a famous person. I knew a shy seventeen year old girl who was driven to a secluded area where the instructor got her out of the car and indecently groped her. She arrived home in a state of shock and distress and told her parents who immediately phoned the well known driving school to report him.
But the driving school simply didn't want to know and threatened the parents not go to the police because they would be firmly defending their driver.
They then made the excuse that all their driving instructors are independent contracts and if the incident did take place why would this complaint be their company's fault.
They were rude on the phone and aggressively disbelieved the girl's story, her word against his was their conclusion and they had no intention of confronting their driver.
As with the stories above there was a closing of ranks.
The girl was so distressed at the horrible defensive way the driving school woman spoke to her on the phone that she persuaded her parents not to go to the police. She just wanted to forget the horrible incident and move on with her life.
Now fourteen years later I am pleased to say that the girl is happily married with children. She has got on with her life but shudders every time she sees one of those driving school cars go past in fear it could be him even though she lives at a different address now.
In addition, those who do report the crime can find the whole experience as bad as, or worse than the abuse itself. The thought of reporting it is too much for some or can take decades to reach the point of being able to tell of their experience.
Today's news tells of this sad story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28195794
Indeed. But when Mrs Andrade's sad death was first reported there were some on here who questioned the validity of her testimony in court given her mental state and therefore the safety of Brewer's conviction. Some people only seem satisfied if paedophiles are allowed free rein.
I think they'd have to catch you out on multiple+ slip ups for it to go against you. A simple slip up could just mean that you simply forgot.