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]Anon wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]In The Know (as always) wrote:[/b]
[quote]"Smith was a prolific sex offender whose first conviction was in 1966. He had 22 convictions for sexual offences against young boys".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24722248

Are we all so paranoid now that we are supposed to assume that someone is innocent even when they have ALREADY been convicted of the same offence 22 times ?

OK, so it is [i]just possible[/i] that he was innocent [u]this[/u] time - but very highly unlikely.

I'm afraid that you are all now "so tainted" with "false allegations" that you cannot see the facts when they hit you in the face with a shovel ![/quote]

I think traditionally there actually is supposed to be a presumption of innocence i.e "innocent until proven guilty", his previous convictions do seem to make it seem far more likely that he could very well be guilty of this offence/these offences aswell but it hadn't yet been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

I haven't read details of his previous convictions, but he seems to have a long record and history of sexual offences.  But why the need to link him in with Jimmy Savile and lable him 'Jimmy Savile's' cab driver when that is streaching the truth at best?  Was it to add some credibility to the 'Savile' allegations' and Operation Yewtree by throwing a real life previously convicted serial sex offender into the mix rather than handle it separately cause he had more or less nothing to do with Jimmy Savile or show business?  That would not surprise me.

Whether he was actually guilty of this accusation/these accusations or not, and whatever his previous convictions were for (he had served his time for those obviously), I still think that it is very wrong to have a culture where accused people are driven to suicide or death by ill health due to overly excessive stress before they are able to stand trial for what they have been accused of.

Yes he was old and I haven't read what the actual cause of death was yet, but if it was related to this, that would still be bad, regardless of his past behavior.

And if he was still deemed a threat to the public why release him in the first place?

I think regardless of whether he was guilty or not, the media do need to calm down, last year and the publicity around Operation Yewtree was ridiculous...[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: First Yewtree death
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Anon	In The Know wrote: If his death turns out NOT to have been accidental, we shall all have to wonder WHY he chose not to defend himself. To me that's obvious, guilty or not (even guilty people often try an get themselves off by conncocting an alternative version of events, alibi etc), he had simply given up trying. A more optimistic person, whether guilty or not, would try and defend themselves or take the view to serve their sentence and look forward to the time they'll be released - if he killed himself he probably just didn't care about living any more, or couldn't cope with the shame and the regret, one of the two...
In The Know	Anon wrote: It's obvious from his previous convictions that this man is perfectly cable of what he had been accused of, and the fact he's known to have behaved in this manner before does make it appear all the more likely that he was guilty of those accusations Could be many reasons... ... and one of those possible reasons is that he was GUILTY (as he has been on so many previous occasions). If his death turns out NOT to have been accidental, we shall all have to wonder WHY he chose not to defend himself.
In The Know	Oh dear, you are very bitter, aren't you? Locked Out wrote: Not just his death but also the timing make this look extremely "planned" I meant that IF his death was an accident (heart attack maybe?) it was terribly co-incidental to his due appearance in Court ! Still, I'm sure you're right. You always are, aren't you? Usually ! (and you will have noticed that where I don't have an opinion, I don't contribute to the post. Where I do have an opinion, it's based on fact and logic - not on some "campaign" that I'm organising (where, for example, you don't believe that anyone has ever committed a crime and where all accused must be "victims") By having such an agenda you merely become "the boy who cried fire" - people will ignore the cries even when there IS a fire ! You degrade your own campaign as no one will take any notice of you.
Locked Out	In The Know wrote: Locked Out wrote: to imply that his death can {or should???} be construed as an admission of guilt is, frankly, some way beyond contemptible* {my edit, to reflect the correction I made in a posting which seems to have not made it onto the page}. In The Know wrote:* Not just his death but also the timing make this look extremely "planned" I have utterly no idea what you mean by that. In The Know wrote: Time will tell whether I am right (yet again !) That would largely depend on what you meant. Even you must acknowledge the ambiguity of what you wrote. In The Know wrote: Locked Out wrote: Tell me, are you genuinely this completely devoid of compassion, How wonderfully forgiving of you to see the "good" side of this man - who has already been convicted of the same offence 22 times ! Not at all. I'm not in a position to judge his guilt or innocence. Neither are you. Neither is "forgiveness" within my gift. As arbitration of guilt or innocence in law is not within yours, no matter how "right" you believe yourself to be. In The Know wrote: Some may say that shows you as extremely gullible ... someone who can't see the wood for the trees? Others may say it's not up to me to make the judgement, and I agree with them. It may be that I "can't see the wood for the trees". Strange, then, that I could see my own guilt as plain as a pikestaff. Or it may be that all that smoke {you know, that stuff there's no fire without...} getting into your eyes has had a profound effect upon your own view. Something has filled you with all that hate. I tend to think of myself as pretty much a misanthrope. But you make me look positively munificent, and for that I thank you. I certainly couldn't live with all that hatred. Still, I'm sure you're right. You always are, aren't you?
Anon	In The Know wrote: of you to see the "good" side of this man - who has already been convicted of the same offence 22 times ! Some may say that shows you as extremely gullible ... someone who can't see the wood for the trees? It's obvious from his previous convictions that this man is perfectly cable of what he had been accused of, and the fact he's known to have behaved in this manner before does make it appear all the more likely that he was guilty of those accusations, but it still doesn't mean it's impossible he wasn't, people with bad reputations are often easy targets for false allegations as well, so unless we've heard all the evidence we can't possibly have any idea what the truth is. Maybe he did kill himself to try and stop the truth coming out in court, but this was an historic allegation, he'd already been convicted of 22 other offences, so i'm pretty sure the damage to his reputation was already done years ago, it could just be that no matter what he said or did to try and defend himself, he felt he'd probably get convicted anyway and even if he didn't get convicted he'd probably get shit for that too and people saying just cos he was found not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it etc, and the publicty around it attracted attention to his other convictions, maybe he felt like he couldn't leave the house and there was no point in living any more? Maybe he didn't want to have to go over all his previous convictions again in court? Could be many reasons...