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 |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Ray Teret
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
andrew |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
steveimp wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Jo wrote:
A woman speaking out after waiving her right to anonymity.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-30175498
I was twelve in 1972 too, and I could have sworn that you couldn't work until thirteen, unless you arranged it with the council for things like theatre work.
I can't imagine them granting permission to work in a record shop.  Maybe it was different in each area?
Also... I'm sorry for anyone who is persuaded to do something they don't want to, and I am not suggesting that someone so young should be in a sexual situation at all, but if you (repeatedly) "go along with it" it jolly well isn't rape.
When I was 13 and started a paperround, I had to have a certificate from the council as 'permission to work'.
Exactly, and for a younger child to get the license it had to be shown that the job could only be carried out by a child. (such as acting roles)
I think we can safely say that the woman was NOT working in Teret's record shop at twelve. 
If she working in the record shop at 12 then here role of must of been putting posters up, record shops back then were normally ran by Mods, hippies and people called Dave who played in pub bands which my dad always said. |
|
Pattaya |
hedda wrote:
I was selling and delivering newspapers at age 10.
the newsagent kept my tips.  which were considerable as I was adorable 
innocent or guilty- 25 years is shocking.
How long did the newsagent get for embezzlement of your tips?  |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
steveimp wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Jo wrote:
A woman speaking out after waiving her right to anonymity.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-30175498
I was twelve in 1972 too, and I could have sworn that you couldn't work until thirteen, unless you arranged it with the council for things like theatre work.
I can't imagine them granting permission to work in a record shop. Maybe it was different in each area?
Also... I'm sorry for anyone who is persuaded to do something they don't want to, and I am not suggesting that someone so young should be in a sexual situation at all, but if you (repeatedly) "go along with it" it jolly well isn't rape.
When I was 13 and started a paperround, I had to have a certificate from the council as 'permission to work'.
Exactly, and for a younger child to get the license it had to be shown that the job could only be carried out by a child. (such as acting roles)
I think we can safely say that the woman was NOT working in Teret's record shop at twelve. |
|
hedda |
I was selling and delivering newspapers at age 10.
the newsagent kept my tips. which were considerable as I was adorable
innocent or guilty- 25 years is shocking. |
|
John Marsh |
JK2006 wrote:
Let's not declare him innocent Chris; we don't know. I DO know in my case - I was there. But sadly, until the courts decide, Teret is guilty under (broken) British Justice.
Interesting!
My understanding of the law and legal system and all the fancy words they use I list below. That is the overriding principles that legally governor our justice system (criminal), that is framework.
(I, also, accept, in practice, they are mainly ignored unless it suits the ones with the power to acknowledge them)
1. European Convention on Human Rights Article 6
" 1.In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law....."
2. Presumption of Innocence
3. Prove case beyond reasonable doubt...
If my limited understanding of these principles is correct, then the case as presented and manner and how evidential rules were followed and so on no where showed the slightest hint of embodying these three overriding principles, I have noted above.
In which case the trial was conducted illegally and thus we as citizens have a right to consider the accused innocent on item 2 if not in fact.
I am happy to corrected and shown the error of my ways as I want to learn and understand. So please those learned people out there please respond and put me straight. |
|
|
|
|
