Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
The smoking ban is enforced by local council employees acting on health and safety grounds.
Police usually prosecute at 10% + 1 over the limit, at which speed you are very likely posing a risk to to your own health and that of other road users.
It's just as well they don't act on rumours, though, as a rumour such as the one you're peddling could destroy someone's reputation and their means of making a living.
|
I assumed that you'd realise I was being sarcastic and not literal.
The police do attend smoking ban related incidents on licensed premises.
He doesn't make a living from teaching martial arts, it's voluntary.
I am not spreading rumours around about him.
---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:49 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
In which case if he IS guilty you're assisting an offender in my book.
|
We don't go by your book, we go by the law of the land. There is no legal requirement for anybody to report a suspected or actual crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
If it's just a rumour for which you have no evidence and it doesn't warrant going to the police then maybe it's better not to broadcast the rumour on the internet?
|
What difference does what i've said about this man on the internet make and why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
You don't follow, because you haven't latched on to the single most important fact in this context - you and I are not having a private conversation here, we are posting words on a public forum, and there are laws protecting people's reputations against what might be written about them.
You can think whatever you like about someone's guilt or innocence provided what you think does not cause that person's legal rights to be infringed.
|
Your sanctimonious tone is getting worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
The thing is, there is the concept of Guilty and the legally defined concept of Guilty. The legally defined concept of Guilty requires evidence. In life, people can be guilty without fulfilling the legal definition of being guilty.
Let me give an example of that. A few years ago, my mother served on a jury trying a local drug dealer. He was only a small time dealer, but the evidence presented was apparently convincing. The police had, however, handled some of the evidence incorrectly (I don't know the ins and outs of it), so that evidence was inadmissable.
The judge made a point (in his summing up) of telling the defendant that he believed the defendant was guilty but was unable to find him guilty because of the way the Police had mishandled the evidence, and chastised the Police.
|
This is what I was trying to explain to Russ earlier in the thread, but i'm still not sure if he understands what we're trying to say.
---------- Post added at 20:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul M
The poll has been deleted, it serves absolutely no purpose whatsover, everyone can now get back to the topic.
|
The poll would have enabled contributors to this thread to be able to gauge the overall opinion of other posters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkle
I watched the documentary last night, almost entirely one sided of course so I'd hardly consider it a balanced representation.
At the end of the programme I had a look out for a statement confirming that none of the alleged victims were paid for their part in its' making.
It seems I must have missed it.
For many years now I've known that Britain has had a rather odd fascination with paedophilia, but this latest media circus definitely takes the biscuit. Witch hunt frenzy in overdrive, and its only just getting started by the looks of things.
A lot of smoke without evidence of fire. Rumours this, rumours that.
The guy's as good as guilty in the eyes of many so it seems, and the evidence has yet to even be heard.
Everyone should have a right to a defense. Will people not at least wait until the investigation before they condemn this guy? Apparently not.
I don't believe for a second that Jimmy being dead somehow ensures that his "powerful friends" are unable to protect him (assuming the claims are true that they were able before), also considering the prospect of their own implication should the "truth" get out.
Nor do I believe that Jimmy being dead makes it more socially acceptable to come out with these claims, actually I'd say its the other way around.
In the wake of the Catholic priest scandals, and all the others in recent years not to mention the fact that there were rumours already about Jimmy Savile (as you'd expect from any "odd" character who works with children), there would've been plenty of support from the public and charities for those who claim to have been raped by this man.
I don't believe that Jimmy being dead somehow "makes it possible" for victims to come forward, he was Jimmy Savile not Jimmy Hoffa!
I do however believe, and quite rightly so, that a dead guy can't defend himself.
I'm not saying he's innocent, as I don't have the facts to make such an assertion, but he should be entitled to a defense, one he's unlikely to receive in the current situation - so all we may hear is a one sided view.
That is morally wrong, no matter which way its tarted up (ie we need the truth, better we know now than never, why should the "victims" suffer in silence, etc etc). As is all one sided libel and slander.
Jimmy was 84 when he died, just in October of last year. 2011 was hardly 1963, the fact that so many are claiming they were abused, yet feel they would only be listened to after his death, just doesn't sit well with me. Something not right there, though no doubt time will tell.
It worries me about how many people are saying they knew all along. I wonder if they're the same people who "knew all along" when the police wrongly arrested Chris Jefferies. He looked like a killer, so he'd might as well be one....jeez, some people are so stupid it boggles the mind.
Again, I'm not defending anyone here as I really don't have the evidence to convict or even put anyone on trial. But then nor does anyone else at this time.
I have little more to say on the matter, as the mature reaction is to exercise restrain given the public nature of this forum and the risk to reputations of persons both alive and dead, until an investigation has been completed.
|
Creating unfounded fear in the public is useful to the Government and has been done for a long time. Fear of mass paedophilia created a perfect excuse for the Governments to erode civil liberties. Fear of Muslim extremists is the latest method.
---------- Post added at 20:10 ---------- Previous post was at 20:06 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L
Just heard a recording on the news of Saville and a distressed girl.
anyone heard it?
|
Not yet, i'll keep an eye out for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
|
She spoke on 'This Morning' on the telephone the other day and said the same thing.