Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jamer

WTF! Charged almost 50 years later!

Recommended Posts

WTF is going on with all these celebrities, how on earth can someone bring charges against someone for something that apparently happened nearly 50 YEARS AGO! Complete JOKE, I'm sorry but this seems to be aimed at various celebrities and in my opinion is purely about MONEY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a bit of simple maths will show that this woman who alleges the rape will now be a pensioner. And it was supposed to have happened to her when she was 15.

 

But, I tend to hold back a bit on judgement these days after the Jimmy Saville case.

When that first came out - I too thought some woman is trying to earn a few bob from the media etc - and look what came out of the closet after that.

 

One thing I will say (and it's quite controversial) It was a different time back in the sixties.

 

Sex between two people did not have all the laws that there are now. A woman could not charge her husband with rape - If hubby wanted a little bit - she could not legally stop him.

Homosexuality was still illegal - or at least sex between two men was.

 

A lot of this sounds barbaric by today's standards - but it wasn't then.

 

There was a point where the boundaries of 'rape' and normal sexual intercourse were very blurry. ie did the woman say 'no' and if she did, at what point did she say no.

If she said no during the act, it was not even generally taken to court. In fact if the woman said no during heavy petting - she was considered to be leading a man on beyond his own control.

 

Men these days know that no means no and wouldn't dare go beyond that point. But back then - not so much.

 

Yet they are being judged 50 years later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me is how the CPS thinks they will get a conviction out of this.

 

Let’s give the person who bought the allegation the benefit of the doubt and lets say he is guilty how the hell will you get a conviction unless the then 15 year old had the forethought to keep some semen sample or something I just don't see how the hell you will get a conviction, also as far as money goes is Mr Roach not bankrupt now so won't have shed loads of money.

 

If the victim can remain anon then so should the accused until he/she is convicted because whatever way you look at it he will always have this black mark over him.

 

All1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with everything you have said above Alloneword, things were very different back then, another waste of tax payers money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crazy indeed...Rape by any means can not be justified. But surely bringing these people to justice with minimal evidence ( I imagine) is probably doing more harm than good for Woman today. Especially if it all gets thrown out of court.

 

Stuart Hall, has jut got his wrist slapped too.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22379286

 

I don't know I'm even more confused, as they got Rolf haris up on a charge too???

 

Why now after all this time???

 

WTF indeed!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All wrong.

 

I don't care how long ago it was, if there is evidence of a crime then the police must investigate. Following on from that, if there is sufficient evidence to charge someone then they must be charged. FULL STOP.

 

It's down to the court if someone is guilty or innocent - not the police, not the CPS and certainly not the press or individual members of the public who haven't got the first idea about what evidence is or isn't available in each specific case.

 

There is none of this stupid 'statute of limitations' in the UK - a crime is a crime.

 

Stuart Hall has just admitted his crimes, should he now be let off scott free because it all happened a while ago. And he hasn't just had his wrist slapped, he will be sentenced on 17th June - Stick the perv inside for 20 years.

 

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with some of you on this. You may have noticed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't care how long ago it was, if there is evidence of a crime then the police must investigate. Following on from that, if there is sufficient evidence to charge someone then they must be charged. FULL STOP.
Personally i don't think anyone is saying anything other then that, from my POV I agree with you 100% however what i have an issue with is how much evidence can there be from 40+ years ago, i know some of the woman in the Hall case never knew each other but just people saying something is not evidence IMO.

 

It's down to the court if someone is guilty or innocent - not the police, not the CPS and certainly not the press or individual members of the public who haven't got the first idea about what evidence is or isn't available in each specific case.
Agreed to a a point, last time i check I was allowed my own point of view and this is what you, Jamer and others are getting just MY point of view, and don't place too much trust in the British legal system from personal experience i can tell you it does it wrong way too often.

 

There is none of this stupid 'statute of limitations' in the UK - a crime is a crime.
Agreed

 

Stuart Hall has just admitted his crimes, should he now be let off scott free because it all happened a while ago.
No and nobody has said that from what i can see i can see, and too be honest he should get longer then someone who had done the same today and come forward he has made the victims suffer for years by not coming forward, A nonce should always been given life and that means life not 15-20 years as once your into that stuff you always will be, however i'm not in favour of death penalty as soon or later will will make a mistake and what do you then once the guy is dead.

 

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with some of you on this. You may have noticed.
Were not far apart it seems to me you have jumped a bit early i agree with Jmaer it does seem crazy to wait this long and i'm sure somewhere along the line one of these woman will be in it for the money.

 

However having said all this there is one thing going round and round in my head now and that is if Jimmy Savile and Hall are nonce's it does make ME wonder is plod onto something with Harris, Roach, DLT, etc etc I guess time will tell will the go all the way to full trial or bottle it like Hall did, we think were a sick society nowadays look how sick it was in the 60's & 70's.

 

 

All1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet not one of these women would have come forward if they didn't think there was money in it,50 years then ruin a celebritys life without them being named is disgusting if there case is lost then these women should be named and shamed.Its a frigging joke.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet not one of these women would have come forward if they didn't think there was money in it,50 years then ruin a celebritys life without them being named is disgusting if there case is lost then these women should be named and shamed.Its a frigging joke.

 

I don't think anyone should be named until convicted, that's the first thing and I also think if compensation and money were taken out of this completely, most of the claims would diminish, there is a great debate going on on my facebook page where I have used some of your opinions (unamed of course) that I would welcome you all to join, search for Colin James https://www.facebook.com/colin.pjames/posts/10151583692347472?comment_id=26413788&notif_t=like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's The retrospective law point of this that I don't like takin todays laws and applying them to what happend 40-50 years ago

and one thing I'd like to point out about Ex post facto law is that it is prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory but this does not seem to come into play in the U.K why is that

 

here is the wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone should be named until convicted, that's the first thing and I also think if compensation and money were taken out of this completely, most of the claims would diminish, there is a great debate going on on my facebook page where I have used some of your opinions (unamed of course) that I would welcome you all to join, search for Colin James https://www.facebook...88&notif_t=like

Feel free jamer i would post on your facebook site but theres no option to comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×