Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: BBC News - every story but one had a sex element
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
andrew |
Tony May wrote:
It does now seem that people in this country are obsessed with sex and alleged abuse/abusers. It would be a difficult thing to say that past misdemeanors should be ignored altogether but todays laws and more importantly potential JURORS today can not have a hope of judging cases of this type fairly because they were not around during the time periods concerned and therefore have no appreciation or comprehension of how the morals of society were back then.
I really don't know where we go with the current thirst for 'retrospective justice'. For a conviction to be safe it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and seeing as time and attitudes have changed so much since the 60's etc I really don't know if that is possible now in 2014?
There should be a cut off date when you can go back to sexual assaults. |
|
hedda |
just listened to a wireless program on the wonderful ABC radio...but actually a BBC broadcast about how sex miscreants were treated in the past.
Sadly Britain has a shocking history..in the 1600s an unmarried couple who had sex were usually stripped and tied to a cart and flogged and then dragged....as the commentator explained as he walked the entire route from (where I didn't hear) to Westminster where they were displayed for the general public to extract revenge.
In one case an unmarried woman who became pregnant was allowed by the judge...after she pleaded...to go to jail and have her baby and then...she was unceremoniously taken to Tyburn and hanged.
things got better in the 1700s mainly because around 60% of babies born were bastards. And then came Oscar Wilde who, as is so often misunderstood, was just the fall guy to usher in a new restrictive era.
we aren't a very nice lot. No wonder the Aliens/ White Greys etc are wary of us  |
|
MCR Media |
We are now a nation obsessed with sex in all its forms and the media love it. |
|
Tony May |
It does now seem that people in this country are obsessed with sex and alleged abuse/abusers. It would be a difficult thing to say that past misdemeanors should be ignored altogether but todays laws and more importantly potential JURORS today can not have a hope of judging cases of this type fairly because they were not around during the time periods concerned and therefore have no appreciation or comprehension of how the morals of society were back then.
I really don't know where we go with the current thirst for 'retrospective justice'. For a conviction to be safe it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and seeing as time and attitudes have changed so much since the 60's etc I really don't know if that is possible now in 2014? |
|
Pumpkinhead |
not while there's money to be made someone.
Actually, that's a bit too simplistic. There is far more than money involved, but people are gaining through this, whether it's money or power or whatever. It's certainly not about true and justice which seem to be dirty words these days.
I have no idea what the truth is about any of these 'celebrities' and I'm not going to judge anyone on half truths and gossip.
I got the impression, watching the coverage of Stuart Hall that he was to old and shocked by events that he had given up caring what happened to him. Maybe he had. I'll probably never know. I guilty plea need not mean a person is actually guilty, there have been other examples of that throughout history.
And what is that actual point of this DLT case? A grown woman says he touched her while they were both adults but she didn't bother doing anything about it until there was a better chance of capitalising on it? But maybe there is more to it than that.
Jimmy Savile? Did I miss the trial? How dare can people like David Cameron go along with publicly labelling anyone as a serious criminal without proper fair trial.
Or maybe I'm just too young to really know about these things. |
|
|
|
