Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest somner9

So Farewell William Roache!

Recommended Posts

Yeah let's champion anonymity for the criminal abusers. I mean what's the worst that keeping their names quiet can bring? Oh aye they will still be free to carry on sexually abusing NINE year olds as no one will be aware they are predatory abusers who seek to get close to their victims as the grooming and the chase only add to their sexual pleasure.

yeah let's keep quiet.

rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a victim has to live a life time of torture and trauma, having lost faith & trust in their fellow man, even when decades later they find the strength from god knows where to come forward and give evidence against their abuser?

But even when the police and prosecution service determine there is a case to answer the Abuser should continue to remain anonymous, as they have done for decades? never once seeking to take accountability for a life, or lives they have wrecked in fulfilling their criminal needs???

If someone is arrested and charged some 46 years on, don't you think the justice system have concluded there is a case to answer?

The institutions like the catholic church, the BBC, succsessive governments have colluded to cover up and deny victims the chance to see their abusers and colluders take accountability. It seems some on here back that state controlled collusion!

Any coincidence a couple of weeks back that out of no where Roache gives an interview to New Zealand TV insisting people accused of abuse should remain anonymous??? He knew what was in the offing, and the power he held over his victim to maintain his annonymity was being peeled away.

Yeah maybe we should all keep quiet, sweep it under the table, maybe they were asking for it? who waits decades to recount a horrendous attack that leaves them riddled with guilt, shame prone to suicide? yeah they'll be after money.

I feel genuine sorrow for my fellow man when even today they're are people prepared to question the motives of victims from decades ago, rather than condemn the likes of Saville and the BBC for suppressing, facilitating and covering up decades of abuse.

Seriously. Are you having some weird mental breakdown live on BAWA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this instance interest means wellbeing - it is for the general wellbeing of the public that these allegations are pursued.

Having said that my opinion is that it comes down to age of the victim - if they are under 16 it's criminal if they are 16 or over it's really only sleazy.

hopefully you never experience someone who's just "been sleazy" to you or someone you know, but i know that if you did you'd soon change your mind and want them strung up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hopefully you never experience someone who's just "been sleazy" to you or someone you know, but i know that if you did you'd soon change your mind and want them strung up

At some point people have got to be responsible for taking care of themselves, at that age I reckon most people should be able to say no. I accept there are grey areas around this issue but that's my opinion and I'm comfortable with it.

Edited by Bud the Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC reporter outside Ken's hoose said that there was enough evidence to bring forward a case and,I quote

" There was enough public interest" ........

What has public interest got to do with guilty or not guilty ??????

I hope she misquoted the CPS .....

Right the way I heard it was this, "There is enough evidence to bring a case against Mr Roache and it is in the public interest to do so."

Obviously , we don't know what that evidence is but since Saville, I think the rozzers are investigating all these types of complaints. A rozzer on the radio this morning said as much but l'm not sure that it has always been the case. I heard a guy on the radio a couple of months ago saying that he knew Saville got off with complaints about kiddie fiddling in the late 5ts, Saville bought his way out the guy reckoned. .

Right now there probably a bunch of over 70's guys who live in/lived in Cheshire who worked in the BBC/ other tv channel that are currently shitting their breeks. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah let's champion anonymity for the criminal abusers. I mean what's the worst that keeping their names quiet can bring? Oh aye they will still be free to carry on sexually abusing NINE year olds as no one will be aware they are predatory abusers who seek to get close to their victims as the grooming and the chase only add to their sexual pleasure.

yeah let's keep quiet.

You're bang out of order with your ranting on this one. What is this about nine year olds? You have a real fixation about it. Roache isn't part of the Yewtree investigation so it might well be that whoever is complaining wasn't a minor. That doesn't necessarily mean he is innocent but he should be deemed to be until proved guilty. it's one of the basic tenets of British justice. The stigma that is attached to this kind of accusation should allow the accused to have anonymity until found guilty. If guilty, hell slap it into them. The culture of compensation in this country is encouraging some chancers. What we're hearing is lynch mob culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are falsely accused then you can sue. I seem to remember an overweight ex tory party chairman doing that to fairly good effect.

ETA allegedly

I don't think he was ever the chairman , just an advisor to a famous er , late , er PM. .

It just goes to show that you can have smoke , without fire. .allegedly

Edited by saintnextlifetime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest somner9

You're bang out of order with your ranting on this one. What is this about nine year olds? You have a real fixation about it. Roache isn't part of the Yewtree investigation so it might well be that whoever is complaining wasn't a minor. That doesn't necessarily mean he is innocent but he should be deemed to be until proved guilty. it's one of the basic tenets of British justice. The stigma that is attached to this kind of accusation should allow the accused to have anonymity until found guilty. If guilty, hell slap it into them. The culture of compensation in this country is encouraging some chancers. What we're hearing is lynch mob culture.

Can't get my head round this Rick? If I read you and a couple of others correctly you seem to be saying that Paedophile suspects, investigated by the police and the evidence considered by the CPS, then subsequently charged should be given special status?

Why stop at Paedophiles? Why not roll this special anonymity to Rapists, Terrorists, Murderers, Knife Crime suspects etc, etc....

You need to read up on Roache's charges Rick, he stands accused of two counts of Rape against a 15 year old girl, when he was 35.

Then again i'm sure like you say having lived with the guilt, shame, fear for 46 years the woman who was that 15 year old is more than happy to go through all that pain, suffering and trauma again... only this time all her family, friends, neighbours will know, she will have to come to court and recount every moment of her ordeal, and how it scarred her's and perhaps other lives forever.... just for the compo!

Ffs man, catch a hold of yourself. And point me in the direction of this mythical lynch mob, which town/towns are putting one up?

P.s. the nine year old was Hall's youngest victim, he was prosecuted for sticking his hand up her skirt. yeah he deserves special treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't get my head round this Rick? If I read you and a couple of others correctly you seem to be saying that Paedophile suspects, investigated by the police and the evidence considered by the CPS, then subsequently charged should be given special status?

Why stop at Paedophiles? Why not roll this special anonymity to Rapists, Terrorists, Murderers, Knife Crime suspects etc, etc....

You need to read up on Roache's charges Rick, he stands accused of two counts of Rape against a 15 year old girl, when he was 35.

Then again i'm sure like you say having lived with the guilt, shame, fear for 46 years the woman who was that 15 year old is more than happy to go through all that pain, suffering and trauma again... only this time all her family, friends, neighbours will know, she will have to come to court and recount every moment of her ordeal, and how it scarred her's and perhaps other lives forever.... just for the compo!

Ffs man, catch a hold of yourself. And point me in the direction of this mythical lynch mob, which town/towns are putting one up?

P.s. the nine year old was Hall's youngest victim, he was prosecuted for sticking his hand up her skirt. yeah he deserves special treatment.

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't get my head round this Rick? If I read you and a couple of others correctly you seem to be saying that Paedophile suspects, investigated by the police and the evidence considered by the CPS, then subsequently charged should be given special status?

Why stop at Paedophiles? Why not roll this special anonymity to Rapists, Terrorists, Murderers, Knife Crime suspects etc, etc....

You need to read up on Roache's charges Rick, he stands accused of two counts of Rape against a 15 year old girl, when he was 35.

Then again i'm sure like you say having lived with the guilt, shame, fear for 46 years the woman who was that 15 year old is more than happy to go through all that pain, suffering and trauma again... only this time all her family, friends, neighbours will know, she will have to come to court and recount every moment of her ordeal, and how it scarred her's and perhaps other lives forever.... just for the compo!

Ffs man, catch a hold of yourself. And point me in the direction of this mythical lynch mob, which town/towns are putting one up?

P.s. the nine year old was Hall's youngest victim, he was prosecuted for sticking his hand up her skirt. yeah he deserves special treatment.

Well at least we know now we can abolish courts and do away with criminal lawers. if the Old Bill say you're guilty, that's it. That will save a right few bob. What evidence do the police have? Certainly not DNA. The trouble in alleged rape cases is that in 99% of them there are no witnesses and it boils down to one persons word against anothers. After 46 years what evidence can they have? I don't always like judicial decisions and the old adage about the law being an ass quite often seems strangely apposite but we still haven't, thankfully, reached the stage where the likes of you can be judge and jury all rolled into one when you know f**k all about the case. But you carry on your rant. As if we could talk you out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest somner9

Well at least we know now we can abolish courts and do away with criminal lawers. if the Old Bill say you're guilty, that's it. That will save a right few bob. What evidence do the police have? Certainly not DNA. The trouble in alleged rape cases is that in 99% of them there are no witnesses and it boils down to one persons word against anothers. After 46 years what evidence can they have? I don't always like judicial decisions and the old adage about the law being an ass quite often seems strangely apposite but we still haven't, thankfully, reached the stage where the likes of you can be judge and jury all rolled into one when you know f**k all about the case. But you carry on your rant. As if we could talk you out of it.

Strange?

In essence i was identifying the crux of your arguement that paedophiles/serial child abusers should get preferential treatment by remaining anonymous.

You,ve decided on a statute of limitations for sex crimes, but i don't hear a clarion call of masses agreeing. After 46 years the woman in question will still be living with the crimes/rapes perpetrated against her (Date/Time/Place/Witnesses etc...) and there may be other evidence?

As you say i don't know about the case like yourself. But I'll never side with a Rapist/paedophile over a victim! I'm funny with my rants about shit like thatthumbup2.gif

Edited by somner9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange?

In essence i was identifying the crux of your arguement that paedophiles/serial child abusers should get preferential treatment by remaining anonymous.

You,ve decided on a statute of limitations for sex crimes, but i don't hear a clarion call of masses agreeing. After 46 years the woman in question will still be living with the crimes/rapes perpetrated against her (Date/Time/Place/Witnesses etc...) and there may be other evidence?

As you say i don't know about the case like yourself. But I'll never side with a Rapist/paedophile over a victim! I'm funny with my rants about shit like thatthumbup2.gif

Trying to make sense of your recent posts on this subject.

You seem to be saying anonymity gives the named some sort of cloak of darkness to continue, if indeed they were carrying out any of these crimes, doing these despicable deeds? Are you really saying that any of the recent celebrity nasties would, if they had been up to no good, continue?

If so you really are a nutter.

Already mentioned you have a nasty habit of bringing uncalled and unfunny innuendo into posts that have no link to your warped mind.

You also like posting far too much detail on these supposed crimes.

You better watch out, you could be, possibly wrongly, accused of being a pervert.

Edited by faraway saint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange?

In essence i was identifying the crux of your arguement that paedophiles/serial child abusers should get preferential treatment by remaining anonymous.

You,ve decided on a statute of limitations for sex crimes, but i don't hear a clarion call of masses agreeing. After 46 years the woman in question will still be living with the crimes/rapes perpetrated against her (Date/Time/Place/Witnesses etc...) and there may be other evidence?

As you say i don't know about the case like yourself. But I'll never side with a Rapist/paedophile over a victim! I'm funny with my rants about shit like thatthumbup2.gif

I'm afraid that a bit late late in the day I have to agree with the many posters over the last year or two who called you a thicko. You only read into posts what you want to and you seem unable to understand the English language. Let's just leave it that I believe everyone is entitled to a fair trial and you don't. I see from a survey that around 76% of those responding agreed that in these kinds of cases anonymity until found guilty is reasonable. You're in the minority there but that's nothing new to you.

I will try for the last time to get something through your thick skull. I hope Stuart Hall rots in hell. He is a despicable apology for a human being. He was still entitled to a fair trial but at least he dug up a little common decency and pled guilty. That's not an argument for mitigation. He can still rot in hell.

You won't hear from me again. On ignore you'll be pleased to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest somner9

I'm afraid that a bit late late in the day I have to agree with the many posters over the last year or two who called you a thicko. You only read into posts what you want to and you seem unable to understand the English language. Let's just leave it that I believe everyone is entitled to a fair trial and you don't. I see from a survey that around 76% of those responding agreed that in these kinds of cases anonymity until found guilty is reasonable. You're in the minority there but that's nothing new to you.

I will try for the last time to get something through your thick skull. I hope Stuart Hall rots in hell. He is a despicable apology for a human being. He was still entitled to a fair trial but at least he dug up a little common decency and pled guilty. That's not an argument for mitigation. He can still rot in hell.

You won't hear from me again. On ignore you'll be pleased to hear.

So you resort to calling me "Thicko and Thick head"... classy mate!

You say I dont believe people are entitled to a fair trial..! can you please show me where I have ever said that??? Our country is one of the few in the world where accused individuals can count on a fair trial, and I fully support the law as it stands that ensures this!

You and others are intent on making a special case for paedophiles, child abusers and sex offenders, citing that they should unlike anyone else charged with a criminal offence remain anonymous to protect them! (Contrary to the law that ensures a fair trial)

I've pointed out that the law in this country has existed for many a long year with the principle of innocent until proven guilty! Underpinned by not having anonymity as it can prevent/deter witnesses/evidence essential to either side of a case being heard/seen. it's that way for a reason, that reason being the balance of justice for all involved.

You're line about Stuart Hall digging up a little common decency! Ffs was this before or after he stuck his hand up little girls skirts and left them to a life of shame, guilt, mistrust and trauma for over 30 years???

And you put me, as is your right on ignore after a brief exchange of views on an emotive subject? Hmmm?

The law does not allow anonymity for good reason, it serves both parties in criminal cases. I sure as hell don't want to see it changed as you advocate for as you put it "Decent" people like Hall, or indeed the man on trial for the Murder, Abduction and probable sexual violation of April Jones.

I don't hear a call for him to get special anonymity treatment.

On another note, I get why people are uncomfortable with my frank explanation of my side of this debate i.e. Hall prosecuted for "Sticking his hand up a Nine year old's skirt" etc, etc... But that is the reality the victims have endured, and the actions Hall and others engage in. So who are we sugar-coating it for?

Not the victims becaue they've had to replay those repugnent moments for an eternity, not the offenders because that is what they crave and manipulate five/nine year olds to be able to achieve.

It's us that don't like being faced with the repugnent details, us that don't want to really understand what has actually transpired. and in all honesty who wants to comtemplate it?

but if you are having a debate, and lean towards one side or another, you must be able to discuss, debate and deal with the detail, to put your case.

Aye great ignore me! but this Buddie will never ignore those affected by the Hall's and Bridger's of this world. The law at least can be seen to be on their side!

Edited by somner9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ocht it's a sign of the times in my opinion.....

Was the accused a self obsessed, boorish bully and alleged rapist, is the alleged victim 'at it'. From what I can observe it seems to me these accusations decades later can often be a result of the ever expanding litigious culture , so prevalent today. Do some miscreants think about a pension plan top up , are they the genuine and innocent victim of abuse , or maybe a calculating fibbing fantasist.....................we'll never know , that's the sad and only likely outcome...........it's truly a grim reflection of today's society, that we now are even contemplating these issues.

I blame Thatcher , no it was banning the belt , no the swinging sixties , no it was National Service abolition, erm naw, it was all about the Bosman ruling, it's the European court of do what you like's fault .....................lol

to infer that people are coming forward with allegations purely to line their pockets marks you out as having the moral fibre of a bag of sick. i'd doubt that you have any evidence to back up that statement other than opinion. it's a sad reflection of our society that people see fit to portray opinion as fact.

you seem to be a person who thinks the problem with civil rights is that other people exercise them

the rest of your post makes no sense, marking you out as a moron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least we know now we can abolish courts and do away with criminal lawers. if the Old Bill say you're guilty, that's it. That will save a right few bob. What evidence do the police have? Certainly not DNA. The trouble in alleged rape cases is that in 99% of them there are no witnesses and it boils down to one persons word against anothers. After 46 years what evidence can they have? I don't always like judicial decisions and the old adage about the law being an ass quite often seems strangely apposite but we still haven't, thankfully, reached the stage where the likes of you can be judge and jury all rolled into one when you know f**k all about the case. But you carry on your rant. As if we could talk you out of it.

thought you had him on ignore? Sorry, how silly of me. that would have been the dangerous path of taking you at your word

and the section in bold, you have evidence of this? Have you made a study and compiled evidence ?(you know, like they do in a court)

or are you just another puffed-up opinion-monger looking to portray their warped view as common sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point people have got to be responsible for taking care of themselves, at that age I reckon most people should be able to say no. I accept there are grey areas around this issue but that's my opinion and I'm comfortable with it.

atrocious point of view, which explains why so many victims still feel unable to come forward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

atrocious point of view, which explains why so many victims still feel unable to come forward

People have to accept responsibility for their actions as some point in their life, in this country the age of sexual consent is 16 (with some exceptions). If you expect to make me feel bad by resorting to melodrama you're gonna have a long wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have to accept responsibility for their actions as some point in their life, in this country the age of sexual consent is 16 (with some exceptions). If you expect to make me feel bad by resorting to melodrama you're gonna have a long wait.

I can't be alone in struggling to understand what you are trying to say here.

It seems you are saying that someone over 16 who is raped somehow has to accept some responsibility.

Have I misunderstood you? blink.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...