[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Russ

Did you miss the post before yours?

I didn't. It claimed that there was a possibility that the allegations were true, but stopped short of actually saying it. That does not constitute as evidence or proof. Unless you would like to suggest that rumour and conjecture are sufficient. That aside, if the reputed reasons for the batteries' being close by were true, I would presume, as the boys' ages would indicate, it would then have to be proved that it was sexually motivated, in order for it to be considered a sexual offense.

---------- Post added at 13:41 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

i can't believe that mephistophelean and Flyboy havn't bothered to research a bit before commenting
As Mr Angry said the official info is out there all they need to do is look

The article does not prove a thing. What it does say however, is that no evidence was presented before the court that would prove any sexual offense occurred. Unless I read it wrong. If I did, perhaps you could point to where I have made my mistake.

---------- Post added at 13:41 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Moldova

Remove your blinkers and read the post above this one of your and the link, or does it not tick all the boxes that you want ticked.

You and Flyboy dismiss everything as you both think you know better when you obviously do not.

And what do you know exactly, which has been proven?

---------- Post added at 13:43 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Can you prove him wrong ?

I think that was done by Mr Angry, whether or not he did it intentionally.

between the two of them they are more interested in the rights of the murderers than the victim

Yes, of course I am.

---------- Post added at 13:45 ---------- Previous post was at 13:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Actually, as was posted earlier, there is plenty. What there isn't, is any testing of that evidence in Court, for reasons also posted earlier.

On balance I'd say it's unsafe to bandy around labels like 'paedophile', but on the other hand you could do with being a little less blinkered in your view.

I agree with part of your remarks. For my part I am just countering the absurd knee jerk reactions to tabloid-led hysteria.