King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]bh wrote:[/b]
[quote]This is the current law, compare to the 1956 one:

The 2003 Act repealed most sections of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and several other statutes dealing with sexual offences. Section 141 of the Act gave the Home Secretary the power to make rules by statutory instrument to deal with the transition from the old to the new laws, to cover the situation where a defendant is charged with offences which overlap the commencement date of 1 May 2004. However no such "transitional provisions" were ever made. This resulted in cases where, when a defendant was accused of committing a sexual offence but the prosecution could not prove the exact date, and the offence could have been committed either before or after 1 May 2004, he had to be found not guilty, regardless of how strong the evidence against him was. This was because a sexual offence committed before 1 May was an offence under the old law, but an offence committed on or after that date was a different offence under the new law. For example, an assault might either be indecent assault under the 1956 Act, or the new offence of sexual assault under the 2003 Act, depending on when it happened, but it could not be both. If the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt which offence had been committed, then the defendant could not be convicted of either.

So this could mean my ex-Solicitor neighbour is slightly out of date of my last post.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: World Famous TV Star sang "Ride A Cock Horse" to schoolgirl
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Angel	Hedda, do you have any sympathy for someone who claims to have been abused decades ago?
hedda	Angel wrote: [quote]hedda wrote: [quote]don't know who it is and don't want to. Refuse to be impressed by some dame trying to re-write history and claiming to be a 'victim'. Being shot dead in Cairo is a victim...being fiddled with (or not) 20 years is not a frigging victim. Get a life and deal with it.[/quote Oh dear, understand your intentions but that is a sweeping generalisation.[/quote] not really. Dreadful things happen to thousands of people every day but we never hear about it. They get on with life. Lose a limb and you'll get 3000 quid compo...get fiddled with and say it's affected you forever..get 30,000 quid, The rule that your 'life has been ruined' by some grope 25 years ago is a fantasy. I have no sympathy for them and I abhor the retribution demanded by these 'victims'. They are never happy until they have ruined someone else's life (like Rolf). We are never too far from the public stocks, from public hangings. The demand for lynching in print is ugly and indicates a sick and ugly society.
TBS	Gnomo wrote: What I don't understand is: "Any charge would have been under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and proceedings would have had to have started within a year of the incident". So presumably JK and all the others being charged at the moment don't fall into the Sexual Offences Act 1956 - or is a different criminal Act being used?? The older sexual offences acts (both hetero and homo) contained statute of limitations clauses which provided for certain cases of consensual underage sex (post-puberty anyway) to not be classed as a crime if no complaint was made within a certain time period. This was the clause that saw the vast majority of the charges against JK dismissed and if justice had taken its proper course would have seen the others fall as well. Crucially and bizarrely however this only applies to acts of intercourse (ie the insertion of a penis) whereas what might be seen as the lesser act of indecent assault (ie unwanted sexual touching) has no statute of limitations and a complaint can be made at any time. Hence DLT is being persecuted for groping, whereas had he simply used his Hairy Monster in an inappropriate manner he would have no case to answer due to the passage of time. You will also note that the unfortunate Stuart Hall was not (contrary to hysterical Daily Mail commenters) incarcerated for Playing His Joker with schoolgirls but for having wandering hands. It does raise the question, at a trial, is it actually easier to demonstrate how a charge of sexual intercourse is unlikely to be true, than it is to defend against an allegation that you grabbed a tit?
bh	This is the current law, compare to the 1956 one: The 2003 Act repealed most sections of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and several other statutes dealing with sexual offences. Section 141 of the Act gave the Home Secretary the power to make rules by statutory instrument to deal with the transition from the old to the new laws, to cover the situation where a defendant is charged with offences which overlap the commencement date of 1 May 2004. However no such "transitional provisions" were ever made. This resulted in cases where, when a defendant was accused of committing a sexual offence but the prosecution could not prove the exact date, and the offence could have been committed either before or after 1 May 2004, he had to be found not guilty, regardless of how strong the evidence against him was. This was because a sexual offence committed before 1 May was an offence under the old law, but an offence committed on or after that date was a different offence under the new law. For example, an assault might either be indecent assault under the 1956 Act, or the new offence of sexual assault under the 2003 Act, depending on when it happened, but it could not be both. If the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt which offence had been committed, then the defendant could not be convicted of either. So this could mean my ex-Solicitor neighbour is slightly out of date of my last post.
bh	Gnomo wrote: What I don't understand is: "Any charge would have been under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and proceedings would have had to have started within a year of the incident". So presumably JK and all the others being charged at the moment don't fall into the Sexual Offences Act 1956 - or is a different criminal Act being used?? I've been checking this with a fella (a solicitor) down the road. He says this "If one or more persons come forward with allegations. Then the law has 12 months to bring charges. If they haven't done so in that time, then the charges must legally be dropped". This means someone like Gary Glitter, has to be charged in November. Otherwise he's legally free to go.