Dj Dr fox arrested
Discussion
Winston, in your world, how would this guy have been convicted?
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/he-se...
Or do you think he shouldn't have?
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/he-se...
Or do you think he shouldn't have?
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
I care how *you* would feel. It's not someone else's picture in the local paper, it is *yours*. How will an accusation such as that affect relationships with friends and family and your ability to work?
You don't actually realise you're arguing against some theoretical position I am not taking. A straw man, if you will. I wouldn't want it reporting and I think there's a debate for legal reform to be had about pre-conviction sex offences to be reported about the accused. WinstonWolf said:
The time for fishing is after a guilty conviction, not before...
Unless there won't be a conviction without the corroboration, especially with historical matters. Like many, you like to think of this subject matter in black and white terms, when it's not as simplistic as that. La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
When you post something of greater substance than "Yeah, but 'e still dunit" I may.
Who have I posted that about? Do you mean I've said someone who was acquitted was in fact guilty and did it? If so, please be specific, if you're able to.A great many reputations have been tarnished by celebrity fishing trips, it's only right and proper that someone who is presumed innocent is afforded the same degree of anonymity that is given to the accuser *until* there's been a conviction.
WinstonWolf said:
Now we're getting somewhere. *You* wouldn't want it reporting yet you support fishing trips for others?
The contradictory position you're presenting only exists in your mind. I wouldn't want pre-conviction matters reporting, but I accept the risk of it being so because of how the law stands. There's no contradiction or double standards there. If there were an indication I had offended across multiple time frames, on multiple occasions against multiple people, then I risk that occurring (and accept it as a possibility).
WinstonWolf said:
A great many reputations have been tarnished by celebrity fishing trips, it's only right and proper that someone who is presumed innocent is afforded the same degree of anonymity that is given to the accuser *until* there's been a conviction.
You've not read my earlier postings. La Liga said:
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
When you post something of greater substance than "Yeah, but 'e still dunit" I may.
Who have I posted that about? Do you mean I've said someone who was acquitted was in fact guilty and did it? If so, please be specific, if you're able to.La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
Now we're getting somewhere. *You* wouldn't want it reporting yet you support fishing trips for others?
The contradictory position you're presenting only exists in your mind. I wouldn't want pre-conviction matters reporting, but I accept the risk of it being so because of how the law stands. There's no contradiction or double standards there. If there were an indication I had offended across multiple time frames, on multiple occasions against multiple people, then I risk that occurring (and accept it as a possibility).
WinstonWolf said:
A great many reputations have been tarnished by celebrity fishing trips, it's only right and proper that someone who is presumed innocent is afforded the same degree of anonymity that is given to the accuser *until* there's been a conviction.
You've not read my earlier postings. La Liga said:
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
When you post something of greater substance than "Yeah, but 'e still dunit" I may.
Who have I posted that about? Do you mean I've said someone who was acquitted was in fact guilty and did it? If so, please be specific, if you're able to.He is innocent in the eyes of the law, yes/no?
WinstonWolf said:
OK, let's try again.
He is innocent in the eyes of the law, yes/no?
You've gone off on a tangent.He is innocent in the eyes of the law, yes/no?
He's already told you his position.
At this point, I'm not sure any of us even know who this 'he' is you're now referring to. The hypothetical 'La Liga the alleged sex offender' or Dr Fox?
Oakey said:
WinstonWolf said:
OK, let's try again.
He is innocent in the eyes of the law, yes/no?
You've gone off on a tangent.He is innocent in the eyes of the law, yes/no?
He's already told you his position.
At this point, I'm not sure any of us even know who this 'he' is you're now referring to. The hypothetical 'La Liga the alleged sex offender' or Dr Fox?
He appears to be making a general point about anonymity. Something I discussed a few pages ago, and had he bothered to read my posts, he would realise he's pretty much repeating my position.
Had he realised this, he could have saved his time trying to set his cunning intellectual 'trap' by having me say I wouldn't want something reported, then pretend I have double standards for others to have their name reported. He must have imagined it would have worked.
La Liga said:
lad I am not the only one a little lost.
He appears to be making a general point about anonymity. Something I discussed a few pages ago, and had he bothered to read my posts, he would realise he's pretty much repeating my position.
Had he realised this, he could have saved his time trying to set his cunning intellectual 'trap' by having me say I wouldn't want something reported, then pretend I have double standards for others to have their name reported. He must have imagined it would have worked.
He wants you to say that 'he' is innocent (in the eyes of the law) until proven guilty. Which is ironic considering he doesn't seem to accept DLT is guilty*, in the eyes of the law.He appears to be making a general point about anonymity. Something I discussed a few pages ago, and had he bothered to read my posts, he would realise he's pretty much repeating my position.
Had he realised this, he could have saved his time trying to set his cunning intellectual 'trap' by having me say I wouldn't want something reported, then pretend I have double standards for others to have their name reported. He must have imagined it would have worked.
- (wait, that might have been another poster)
La Liga said:
Oakey said:
WinstonWolf said:
OK, let's try again.
He is innocent in the eyes of the law, yes/no?
You've gone off on a tangent.He is innocent in the eyes of the law, yes/no?
He's already told you his position.
At this point, I'm not sure any of us even know who this 'he' is you're now referring to. The hypothetical 'La Liga the alleged sex offender' or Dr Fox?
He appears to be making a general point about anonymity. Something I discussed a few pages ago, and had he bothered to read my posts, he would realise he's pretty much repeating my position.
Had he realised this, he could have saved his time trying to set his cunning intellectual 'trap' by having me say I wouldn't want something reported, then pretend I have double standards for others to have their name reported. He must have imagined it would have worked.
My issue seems to be that law enforcement takes a pretty glib approach to people's reputation in an attempt to secure a conviction.
WinstonWolf said:
Dr Fox, is he an innocent man according to the law as it is in this country?
My issue seems to be that law enforcement takes a pretty glib approach to people's reputation in an attempt to secure a conviction.
I don't think he's ever claimed he wasn't. Are you happy to accept the judge said the alleged victims were believable?My issue seems to be that law enforcement takes a pretty glib approach to people's reputation in an attempt to secure a conviction.
What's your opinion on the violent rapist linked numerous times earlier? Or are you avoiding addressing it because you think he's been hard done by?
WinstonWolf said:
Dr Fox, is he an innocent man according to the law as it is in this country?
My issue seems to be that law enforcement takes a pretty glib approach to people's reputation in an attempt to secure a conviction.
There are pros (see Oakley's example) and cons. If the public weren't so stupid then the cons would be massively reduced. My issue seems to be that law enforcement takes a pretty glib approach to people's reputation in an attempt to secure a conviction.
WinstonWolf said:
My position is only on fishing trips. Unless there is sufficient evidence for a conviction both parties should be afforded the same degree of anonymity until convicted.
The thing about trials is, you don't know which ones you'll win and which ones you won't. I'm pretty sure Blackpool Police thought they had a pretty strong chance of conviction when they had those two guys on tape saying they killed that missing girl and put her in the kebabs. Until it all fell apart.WinstonWolf said:
My position is only on fishing trips. Unless there is sufficient evidence for a conviction both parties should be afforded the same degree of anonymity until convicted.
100% with you on this.Cliff Richards is exactly the case in point here, how long have they been waiting for their fishing trip to return something on him?
). There is at least a debate to be had with properly informed pros and cons to be taken into consideration. The Tories proposed it but then shied away from it. I'd need to know thing I do not cutrrently know such as how many people come forward due to the accused being known prior to a conviction etc.
To be honest (and I know its easy for me to say) but if a genuine wrong is committed that will be obvious and clear then the time to deal with it is NOW; maybe initially through a line manager if its lower end of the spectrum? Not 30 years later via the police. Not as a 'yeah, me too' either. If its wrong and very out of order nail the pr1ck before he/she scares or upsets more people or becomes further emboldened... Almost a duty really.
Ken Figenus said:
To be honest (and I know its easy for me to say) but if a genuine wrong is committed that will be obvious and clear then the time to deal with it is NOW; maybe initially through a line manager if its lower end of the spectrum? Not 30 years later via the police. Not as a 'yeah, me too' either. If its wrong and very out of order nail the pr1ck before he/she scares or upsets more people or becomes further emboldened... Almost a duty really.
The problem here was that they couldn't confirm a wrong was committed i.e. although what the alleged victims said was believable how could it be confirmed it happened and if it did how wrong was it for two people of those ages, let alone was it criminal and the further claim by the prosecution with a gap of 25 years could it be said to be serial. As you know from the outcome there just wasn't enough there to find someone guilty so like everyone else they're presumed innocent to avoid things hanging around their shoulders for ever after.The question is should it have taken so much of the courts time and expense or was it obvious it was too circumstantial 18 months ago? (balanced against the need to give everyone a fair hearing)
When you come out the other end of the process what do you need?
The mags appear to have given a fair statement to cover all sides and give everyone something to take from it, if you read it as written.
Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 17th December 09:42
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff