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

Enter code here

Topic History of: More "Child on Child" historic sexual assault cases
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Jim	Thanks BR, you write: "When I posted it - it said 1996. I would not have made the mistake of thinking this was 2006." If you had copied and pasted from the article we could have more confidence in this. Best Wishes, Jim
BR	When I posted it - it said 1996. I would not have made the mistake of thinking this was 2006. Even so - it is strange that they are charging him with offences from the age of 12 years old to the age of 24. Totally ridiculous.
JK2006	Read the article BR - it says 2006.
BR	The article said 1994 - 1996. That is when he was 12 - 14 years old. How can that do any damage to my post ? That is when he is accused - from TWELVE years old to FOURTEEN ( as I said in my original post ) That is plainly ridiculous.
veritas	JK2006 wrote: BR you do serious damage to a legitimate concern when the article refers to claims up to 2006 - when he would have been 24. A different thing. true but I believe there should be a statute of limits. There is on state sanctioned murder...Ian Tomlinson. 6 months pass and the person gets away with it but 'sexual touching' (???) and it could come back 40 years later to haunt you.