Supposing he had dementia - would that render a trial pointless ?
The problem with threads like this, is that they have this moralistic, emotive overtone, which makes rational debate on the issue quite difficult. For that reason, I'm out.
He doesn't have Dementia though so he should be shown no leniency because of his age, he can be helped into court as Stuart Hall was. If he did then very sadly I guess he could not face a trial. If guilty and he avoided a trial I hope he has a lingering death.
And I really won't except a man with that amount of charges against him won't have any memories of it. Of course he will, I bet he enjoyed reliving it and no doubt had a few worrying times that he would get a visit off the police.
Well as you can see from this thread, quite a few people have found the old boy guilty before he's even faced a trial.
I think you'll find that it's more a case of people thinking he should stand trial and create the opportunity for his guilt or innocence to be proven rather than just letting it slide 'cos, y'know, it happened ages ago so what does it matter if he did it or not?
There does appear to be the same prosecutory zeal for these old men, as there was for very old ex SS war criminals.
I'm not convinced there's anything to be gained from such a sideshow. He probably won't be around much longer anyway. The fact that the accusations are out there should be enough punishment at his age.
I don't think it's in the public interest to send a 95 year old man to prison.
You don't think there is anything to be gained? What about justice for his victim (s)?
I don't care how old, how frail, how ill or how near to death he is. If he's guilty he should be punished.
Memories still exist. If those "victims" memories are all extremely similar, they will know that its more than likely he did it.
I just think it's messed up that someone's word is taken as sufficient evidence in itself. What is there to corroborate their stories? Perhaps they could look at his employment record to see if he really was at the same school at the same time, but what else? Not saying it's happened in this case, but the fact that someone or a group of people can come together and provide a story which then gets a man identified in the media as a possible rapist/abuser seems very wrong to me.
His age and health shouldn't be a factor in whether he stands trial or not.
That is not addressing the point I made.
Under our justice system people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There's a very good reason for that.
The assumptions of guilt before trial in this thread, is up alongside the most tacky tabloid journalists. You know - those that so many people on here queue up to give a kicking to.
As I said, the "victims" stories will be of a certain profile and normally from that, they can tell if someone is guilty of not. Doesn't mean he will be found guilty though.
Then why bother with the charade of bringing alleged perpetrators to court at all, why not just hold court sessions where the alleged victims are the only evidence?
I just think it's messed up that someone's word is taken as sufficient evidence in itself. What is there to corroborate their stories? Perhaps they could look at his employment record to see if he really was at the same school at the same time, but what else? Not saying it's happened in this case, but the fact that someone or a group of people can come together and provide a story which then gets a man identified in the media as a possible rapist/abuser seems very wrong to me.
I understand what you're saying but the prosecution etc must feel they have enough to bring this case to court, no?
Under our justice system people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There's a very good reason for that.
The assumptions of guilt before trial in this thread, is up alongside the most tacky tabloid journalists. You know - those that so many people on here queue up to give a kicking to.
And you've addressed the posts made to your "I don't think it's in the public interest to send a 95 year old man to prison" comment? Do you not think the accusations merit trial and punishment (the latter if found guilty)?
I just think it's messed up that someone's word is taken as sufficient evidence in itself. What is there to corroborate their stories? Perhaps they could look at his employment record to see if he really was at the same school at the same time, but what else? Not saying it's happened in this case, but the fact that someone or a group of people can come together and provide a story which then gets a man identified in the media as a possible rapist/abuser seems very wrong to me.
What are the chances of people all from different eras all coming up with a very similar or the same story?
I'm sure the legal system know how this is all done, much better than DS very own armchair prosecutors and defenders.
Under our justice system people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There's a very good reason for that.
The assumptions of guilt before trial in this thread, is up alongside the most tacky tabloid journalists. You know - those that so many people on here queue up to give a kicking to.
You dont even think he should go to trial though. So obviously you cant see why we think he should, other than for revenge.
I dont know if the man is guilty or not. That is what a trial is for. If they didn't think the case had a good enough chance they would not bring a it to court.
Age has nothing to do with it.
And you've addressed the posts made to your "I don't think it's in the public interest to send a 95 year old man to prison" comment? Do you not think the accusations merit trial and punishment (the latter if found guilty)?
Without first looking at what the "evidence" consists of, I can't say.
You dont even think he should go to trial though. So obviously you cant see why we think he should, other than for revenge.
I dont know if the man is guilty or not. That is what a trial is for. If they didn't think the case had a good enough chance they would not bring a case.
Age has nothing to do with it.
Age potentially has a lot to do with it, as many, if not most, 95 year olds would not be competent to face trial because of physical or mental infirmity, or both. This is a person of advanced old age. Most at his age are in a care home.
The accusations are serious enough to warrant a trial and the evidence available to the authorities must be strong enough for that trial...
" The charges consist of nine counts of rape,six of gross indecency,nine of indecent assault and eight allegations of other sexual offences.
He is alleged to have committed the offences against six girls and six boys.
The remaining 28 charges relate to allegations of sexual abuse against boys and girls in south Shropshire between 1967 and 1979. "
Give me strength...
......yes, I saw that, weirdly enough. I was talking about actually examining what basis it might have. ANYBODY can throw out an accusation. I could make one up about my old headteacher.
Comments
He doesn't have Dementia though so he should be shown no leniency because of his age, he can be helped into court as Stuart Hall was. If he did then very sadly I guess he could not face a trial. If guilty and he avoided a trial I hope he has a lingering death.
And I really won't except a man with that amount of charges against him won't have any memories of it. Of course he will, I bet he enjoyed reliving it and no doubt had a few worrying times that he would get a visit off the police.
I hope his victims see justice done.
Memories still exist. If those "victims" memories are all extremely similar, they will know that its more than likely he did it.
Well as you can see from this thread, quite a few people have found the old boy guilty before he's even faced a trial.
You would rather he didn't face one.
They must think they have a good case or it would not be brought to court.
I think you'll find that it's more a case of people thinking he should stand trial and create the opportunity for his guilt or innocence to be proven rather than just letting it slide 'cos, y'know, it happened ages ago so what does it matter if he did it or not?
You don't think there is anything to be gained? What about justice for his victim (s)?
I don't care how old, how frail, how ill or how near to death he is. If he's guilty he should be punished.
His age and health shouldn't be a factor in whether he stands trial or not.
I just think it's messed up that someone's word is taken as sufficient evidence in itself. What is there to corroborate their stories? Perhaps they could look at his employment record to see if he really was at the same school at the same time, but what else? Not saying it's happened in this case, but the fact that someone or a group of people can come together and provide a story which then gets a man identified in the media as a possible rapist/abuser seems very wrong to me.
That is not addressing the point I made.
Under our justice system people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. There's a very good reason for that.
The assumptions of guilt before trial in this thread, is up alongside the most tacky tabloid journalists. You know - those that so many people on here queue up to give a kicking to.
I understand what you're saying but the prosecution etc must feel they have enough to bring this case to court, no?
And you've addressed the posts made to your "I don't think it's in the public interest to send a 95 year old man to prison" comment? Do you not think the accusations merit trial and punishment (the latter if found guilty)?
What are the chances of people all from different eras all coming up with a very similar or the same story?
I'm sure the legal system know how this is all done, much better than DS very own armchair prosecutors and defenders.
You dont even think he should go to trial though. So obviously you cant see why we think he should, other than for revenge.
I dont know if the man is guilty or not. That is what a trial is for. If they didn't think the case had a good enough chance they would not bring a it to court.
Age has nothing to do with it.
Without first looking at what the "evidence" consists of, I can't say.
I suppose so, but look up the case of Pinfold and Mackenney. Two men convicted on the word of a compulsive liar.
Age potentially has a lot to do with it, as many, if not most, 95 year olds would not be competent to face trial because of physical or mental infirmity, or both. This is a person of advanced old age. Most at his age are in a care home.
Yet, here YOU are discussing it with the rest of us.
The accusations are serious enough to warrant a trial and the evidence available to the authorities must be strong enough for that trial...
" The charges consist of nine counts of rape, six of gross indecency, nine of indecent assault and eight allegations of other sexual offences.
He is alleged to have committed the offences against six girls and six boys.
The remaining 28 charges relate to allegations of sexual abuse against boys and girls in south Shropshire between 1967 and 1979. "
Interesting you should say that, considering you've clearly decided he's guilty before the trial has even started
Yes I am, but I'm not saying I know better than people who deal with this every day of the year.
Give me strength...
......yes, I saw that, weirdly enough. I was talking about actually examining what basis it might have. ANYBODY can throw out an accusation. I could make one up about my old headteacher.