sadoldgit

Ok, I’ll bite. Where is your modern forensic evidence that JFK was not killed by one shooter, that the towers didn’t collapse because of the impact of the planes and that Covid wasn’t ALL real? You forgot to add that the world is flat.

The only thing that was in question was if he penetrated her with his penis or digitally. He was found guilty of sexual abuse. The CPS did not ignore allegations about Jimmy Savile as has been explained many times. Yes I worked there at the time but in a different area to where the case was handled. It has been explained very clearly that for a case to be taken to court, it has to be in the public interest and have a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution. Once the two witnesses withdrew their evidence the reviewing lawyer along with the particular area Chief Crown Prosecutor concluded that the case did not have a chance of a successful outcome. You make the mistake in believing that the information available to the CJS that became available after Savile’s death was available before his death. If only hindsight was available at the time eh? Does it ever strike you as hypocritical that one the one hand you become apoplectic about one sex offender avoiding justice yet are more than happy to defend another sexual predator and even claim he was convicted of sexual assault in court? Back to the Savile case, a prosecution is reliant on the testimony of credible witnesses. Many people and firmer evidence came to light after he died. The same is happening with Al-Fayed now. There have been several witnesses coming forward now, after his death, accusing him of rape and sexual assault. Why now? They were afraid to come forward when he was alive. It is well documented about how difficult it is to bring sexual assault cases to court. This is not due to the lack of will by the CPS to bring the cases to court. It is down to the difficulties to find witnesses prepared to go through what is often a hard and harrowing experience. Witnesses are put through the wringer by the defence lawyers and have to relive what was a major trauma all over again in a courtroom. The more rich and powerful the alleged perpetrators, the harder it is for the victims and witnesses in the courtroom. If those two witnesses had stood by their statements and presented in court, the trial would have gone ahead. I know it doesn’t suit your agenda, but that is the truth of the matter.

You like a conspiracy theory. What is wrong with this one?

Maybe not, but they are still farmers just the same. Perhaps it was just an East Kent thing, but the local farmers were very supportive of leave. Interesting article here. https://westcountryvoices.co.uk/challenging-the-myth-that-farmers-voted-for-brexit-and-therefore-deserve-whats-coming-to-them/ More… https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/farmer-support-brexit-strong-ever-fw-poll-reveals

I was talking about those killed. I have no idea what the percentage of those injured who weren’t operatives was but the news reports tell of people standing next to exploding devices being severely injured too.

The bigger question is will the action make a major conflict more or less likely? As for the targeting, a 50% kill rate sounds just as random in racking up “collateral damage” as shelling packed buildings. Duckie was almost right, but should have said that the Israelis are finding even more ingenious ways of killing other human beings, no matter who they are.

12 dead yesterday now including 2 children and 4 aid workers.

You should worry too. They don’t seem to be bothered about who gets killed, as usual. Are you happy about the ever more likely prospect of us being dragged into a war in the Middle East?

Priceless. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/kemi-badenoch-working-class-tory-leadership-race-b2614729.html

Your condemnation of sexual offenders is commendable. Do you therefore still give convicted sexual offender Donald Trump your full support?

I am sorry that you feel that way and clearly I did not make my points particularly well. I used the “trivial” word as it had been used in another post earlier and I ran with it. A better choice of words would have been “less serious.” My mistake and I apologise for it unreservedly. As for the not crime of the century comment, it wasn’t and pointing that out does not lessen the actual crime committed. Would you put it in the same category as those carried out by Harold Shipman or Lucy Letby? When put into context his crimes of being in the possession of indecent images are on the lesser end of the scale. Many offenders are in possession of hundreds if not thousands of these images. That is not to mitigate his actions, but he is on the lower end of sex offenders in this category. I have no idea about his mental health situation, but he does seem to have gone through some kind of breakdown. Again, it doesn’t mitigate his actions in obtaining these images but it is reflected in the sentencing. Whether he ended up with a custodial sentence or not, his life as was is over and he will carry this shame to the grave, so I’m not sure if he can be seen to have avoided a just sentence. His face is known everywhere across the country. Wherever he goes he will know that the people he comes into contact with will know what he has done. In itself, that is a life sentence of shame. Of course it should have been reported on, I have not disputed that. If you feel that the news coverage was proportionate that’s your opinion. Mine is that it wasn’t proportionate over the whole period since the original story broke. Again, that is not to try and mitigate his actions, it is just an opinion about certain editorial decisions made in the news media. We all have opinions on things that should be in the news more, or less. Some people think there is too much reporting from Gaza, some not enough. I worked for the CPS for many years and the last few involved managing the paralegal team in the RASSO (rape and serious sexual offences) unit in Kent. The management of the indecent images cases was always strictly controlled and access to the images was highly restricted so, fortunately, I have never seen these types of images. I have no idea of what the images were of but 7 were in the worst category A, 12 in the next category B and 22 in the lesser category C. Whilst all of the cases were dealt with seriously (hence the setting up of specialist units) the more serious cases were those where the perpetrators were a direct threat to the public. I’m assuming that the sentence that Edwards was given was based on him being a first time offender, being no direct threat to the public, suffering mental health problems and number of the images possessed being relatively low in comparison with other offenders.

A question to GM. Out of curiosity, given your feelings about the offences carried out by Edwards, how do you feel about Trump’s conviction of a more serious sexual offence?

I didn’t know what the pictures were of other than than the categories they fell in and yes, that is dreadful, but in legal terms being in possession of pictures of sexual assault is not as an serious offence as committing the offence. To be clear, I am not condoning what Edwards did, but there are degrees of seriousness in sexual offences and as abhorrent as all sex offences are, they wouldn’t have let him walk free for these offences if they felt that he was a threat to society. The point remains though, did his offences warrant the constant day after day main headline coverage that they received at the time?

To put the word “trivial” into better context of its use in this thread, we were talking about how much broadcasting time and column inches has been devoted to a BBC newsreader being in possession of 41 illegal images of children against other news items and whether this particular news item warranted as much attention as it has been given against other stories? As serious as the offences were, did the time devoted to the story warrant other news items being pushed further down the news agendas?

Is it the crime of the century then? Does what Edwards has done compare to murdering or raping someone? You don’t get a six month suspended sentence for the crime of the century. You are in no position to preach. You take the moral high ground when it comes to drink driving but then think that trying to prevent people from speeding through a small village is stopping them from “having fun,” in your own words. You need to get some perspective Duckie.

No one is saying it is a trivial matter, hence the word “relatively” - as in not a murder or a rape and therefore was dealt with in a magistrates court and not a Crown court. Do you understand the difference? There are some 5000 cases like this brought to court each year. Shocking isn’t it that the media only show any interest when a celebrity is involved.

You could barely drive past a field around here without a vote leave poster in it.

More negative Brexit news. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd988p00z1no.amp

As unpleasant as it is, it is hardly the crime of the century is it? Be honest, if it wasn’t for who it was, you know as well as I do that it wouldn’t have attracted any mainstream media attention at all. It only became a big story because of who his is. The matter itself was dealt with in the magistrates court and is, therefore, relatively trivial. Should it have been reported on? Of course. With all that is going on in the world, should so much main air time and so many front pages have been devoted to this particular news item is debatable. On a brighter note, it is good to see you finally expand your interest in crimes of a sexual nature beyond groups of men with brown skin. And before Double Standards Duckie kicks off, this is no defence of paedophilia.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/sep/13/james-cleverly-targeted-by-dirt-digging-firms-dossier-in-tory-leadership-race

Strange to see hypo so suddenly interested in what the Government of the day are up to given he didn’t make a peep about the previous Government’s shortcomings over the last 14 years.

Because the people who use the word pejoratively are anything but so need to kick back. As one major social commentator said recently, “better to be woke than be an arsehole.”

Do you think that people with far left views lock themselves away and don’t know anybody else? You must move in strange circles where no one knows anybody else and nobody has a job. Perhaps get out a bit more Duckie. There is more to life than eyeing up the 9 pinters in the Farage Arms or doing chores for the Snapdragon. Try talking to your neighbours. There is a whole world out there just waiting to be discovered. It is no secret that those of the far left have no time for Starmer so I’m hardly moving in the CoT territory. You are an odd character. You believe that a complete stranger who you have never met is lying to you on a football forum yet you are willing to give your vote to people who are proven of telling bare faced lies. You need to sort your priorities out Duckie. *For the record, they might not technically be Marxists, but they share very similar views and if you get upset by pinkos, they would probably give you nightmares.

No it wasn’t, but thanks for your valuable contribution to the debate. Don’t worry hypo, hopefully, when you grow up, you will meet a variety of different people too

If you had bothered to pay attention the reason that some arms (not all, some) have been suspended has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism and everything to do with not wanting to be in breach of international law. The usual lazy recourse of those who have no other defence of the actions of Netanyahu and his government - throw around accusations of anti-Semitism. Train drivers not skilled? I would hope that those controlling tons of carriages full of people travelling at 125mph have a certain level of skill, wouldn’t you? You spout the same nonsensical rubbish that Trump does. Little wonder you support him so slavishly.