Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: JS and Desert Island Discs
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Anne Nightingale's Lost Hairbrush |
andrew wrote:
The BBC covered his arse for years, now with these allegations they want to wipe his name from history
They covered his arse and then wiped it. Tempus fugit. |
|
In The Know |
Blackit wrote:
Given the propensity for human beings, especially women, to re-frame past sexual experiences, there should be a statute of limitations on allegations of sexual abuse.
Yes - one hour !
If someone hasn't complained (or attempted to complain) in that time then they were obviously "up for it".
To delay any longer merely means forensic evidence (which can wor both ways) has disappeared.
There is simply NO coherent explanation for delaying a complaint - other than to "make" lack of evidence "disappear" and boost your chances of a conviction. |
|
Hedda |
The rest of Europe has a statute on sex matters for the reasons you outline. Indeed..the USA has statute on some sex matters.
It's the 'perfect crime' to accuse someone of as no evidence is required- just knowledge of a person's movements.
Any person, and man, any women, any politician or celebrity ..with enough limited knowledge, you could condemn them.
At the very least if not successful, you can destroy their life and still probably get compensation. |
|
BluView |
BluView digs BlackIt's TrueView. |
|
Blackit |
Given the propensity for human beings, especially women, to re-frame past sexual experiences, there should be a statute of limitations on allegations of sexual abuse.
At the very least, there should be a limitation upon allegations against dead people who can't defend themsleves.
Note that most civilised countries do have a statute of limitations for sex accusations. Unfortunately, civilisation is currently regressing thanks to the evil witch's brew of unrestrained sexual trade union feminism and tabloid hysteria. The latest EU directive on 'child protection' requires that all nations in the EU scap any statute of limitations relating to child sex abuse allegations.
There is also another moral and legal issue regarding statute of limitations that the Savile case has brought out.
Given that 'sex crimes' are subject to the passing fads and hysterias of society more than any other crime or moral issue, the degree of punishment a person is likely to face depends on the particular era in which his crimes were 'uncovered', not the era in which they took place (and which his moral guilt should be in relation to).
So for example, let's suppose that Freddie Starr did indeed grope Karin Ward back in 1974. Even if it had been brought to trial back then (and this was a period clearly in it which the widespread veiw was that 'stars' had a right to indulge in the odd underage groupie), it is likely he would only have been given a suspended sentence if found guilty. Now, if it does come to trial in 2012/13, and he is found guilty, he will likely recieve a longish custodial sentence as well as being required to sign the sex offenders reigster for years to come (not to mention his career and life utterly destroyed).
And yet he acted (if he did) in the context of the moral and legal attitudes of 1974 (obviously).
This is almost an incentive for 'victims' to wait until hysteria is at its height until they make accusations.
Of course, it can work the other way. Alan Turing is now canonised as a secular saint even though the crime against the teenage boy he was convicted of carried a possible death penalty at the time. Homosexuals who had sex with 16 and 17 year old boys when the homosexual age of consent was 18 or 21 have recently had their criminal records expunged. Yet someone like Jonathan King who allegedly had sex with 15 year old boys just under the heterosexual age of consent continue to be crucified.
BTW, I don't believe Freddie Starr was guilty, and nor should anyone - even before reading Anna Raccoon's evidence. |
|
|
|
