wrongly accused paedophile killed

Shocking story fueled by all the paedo hysteria news stories.

robbiex wrote:
wrongly accused paedophile killed

Shocking story fueled by all the paedo hysteria news stories.

The police "report" that declared Jimmy Savile to be a paedophile has given the impression that it is perfectly ok to assume someone is guilty without a trial.

What I find also disturbing is this line in the report.

“We can categorically state he had not taken any indecent images and nothing of concern was found on his computer.”

Why were they even looking?, based on the fact he was taking photos of kids causing criminal damage.

Agree Robbie, the Police are obsessed with searching people's computers these days.

Some 'good' news in this tragic case though:

robbiex wrote:
What I find also disturbing is this line in the report.

“We can categorically state he had not taken any indecent images and nothing of concern was found on his computer.”

Why were they even looking?, based on the fact he was taking photos of kids causing criminal damage.

Firstly, I accept (and always have) that this man was completely innocent.

BUT ... are the police supposed to just "accept" any explanation (for taking photos of kids) offered?

Don't all wrong-doers have an "explanation" ?

Imagine if suspect photos HAD been found (on his computer)?
That would throw his "defence" considerably off balance wouldn't it?

I have to say again - you are all so paranoid (and refuse to accept that anyone is ever guilty of anything) that you find fault where none exists.

What we need is some balance - not assumptions that everything the police do is wrong and that everyone ever accused of a crime MUST be innocent !

In The Know wrote:
robbiex wrote:
What I find also disturbing is this line in the report.

“We can categorically state he had not taken any indecent images and nothing of concern was found on his computer.”

Why were they even looking?, based on the fact he was taking photos of kids causing criminal damage.

Firstly, I accept (and always have) that this man was completely innocent.

BUT ... are the police supposed to just "accept" any explanation (for taking photos of kids) offered?

Don't all wrong-doers have an "explanation" ?

Imagine if suspect photos HAD been found (on his computer)?
That would throw his "defence" considerably off balance wouldn't it?

I have to say again - you are all so paranoid (and refuse to accept that anyone is ever guilty of anything) that you find fault where none exists.

What we need is some balance - not assumptions that everything the police do is wrong and that everyone ever accused of a crime MUST be innocent !

If the kids were on his property causing damage, who cares if he was taking photographs of fully clothed kids? A.) It doesn't do them any harm and B.) Who's suggesting that they are even remotely attractive? If he was taking pictures of a middle aged man damaging his property would they leap to that conclusion? It's the accusers her that seem to have the warpedest minds...

In The Know wrote:
robbiex wrote:


Firstly, I accept (and always have) that this man was completely innocent.

BUT ... are the police supposed to just "accept" any explanation (for taking photos of kids) offered?

Don't all wrong-doers have an "explanation" ?

Imagine if suspect photos HAD been found (on his computer)?
That would throw his "defence" considerably off balance wouldn't it?

I have to say again - you are all so paranoid (and refuse to accept that anyone is ever guilty of anything) that you find fault where none exists.

What we need is some balance - not assumptions that everything the police do is wrong and that everyone ever accused of a crime MUST be innocent !

I don't think that the police should just accept that he was innocent. However the fact is that taking photos of fully clothed kids causing trouble doesn't constitute suspicion that he may be a paedophile and require further investigation. If this was the case any film crew that was filming fly on the wall documentaries should be investigated. Also what do you mean by his defence, he hadn't done anything wrong, only been the subject of rumours and hatred because he was different.

robbiex wrote:
[b]I don't think that the police should just accept that he was innocent. However the fact is that taking photos of fully clothed kids causing trouble doesn't constitute suspicion that he may be a paedophile and require further investigation. If this was the case any film crew that was filming fly on the wall documentaries should be investigated. Also what do you mean by his defence, he hadn't done anything wrong, only been the subject of rumours and hatred because he was different.

What next could you be labelled a 'pervert' or 'paedophile' for having a camera outside your house if it filmed a couple of under 18's stealing your car?

robbiex wrote:
In The Know wrote:
robbiex wrote:


Firstly, I accept (and always have) that this man was completely innocent.

BUT ... are the police supposed to just "accept" any explanation (for taking photos of kids) offered?

Don't all wrong-doers have an "explanation" ?

Imagine if suspect photos HAD been found (on his computer)?
That would throw his "defence" considerably off balance wouldn't it?

I have to say again - you are all so paranoid (and refuse to accept that anyone is ever guilty of anything) that you find fault where none exists.

What we need is some balance - not assumptions that everything the police do is wrong and that everyone ever accused of a crime MUST be innocent !

I don't think that the police should just accept that he was innocent. However the fact is that taking photos of fully clothed kids causing trouble doesn't constitute suspicion that he may be a paedophile and require further investigation. If this was the case any film crew that was filming fly on the wall documentaries should be investigated. Also what do you mean by his defence, he hadn't done anything wrong, only been the subject of rumours and hatred because he was different.

I agree. I cant see anything suspicious in photographing fully clothed children in a public place, and isn't it bad enough being killed without the police rifling through your (and friends and family's) private stuff?
A cynic would think the police were looking for a reason to justify the attack.

Apologies, I seem to struggle with links on here. I linked to a Guardian piece saying six officers were being investigated for their role in this case.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
robbiex wrote:
In The Know wrote:
robbiex wrote:


Firstly, I accept (and always have) that this man was completely innocent.

BUT ... are the police supposed to just "accept" any explanation (for taking photos of kids) offered?

Don't all wrong-doers have an "explanation" ?

Imagine if suspect photos HAD been found (on his computer)?
That would throw his "defence" considerably off balance wouldn't it?

I have to say again - you are all so paranoid (and refuse to accept that anyone is ever guilty of anything) that you find fault where none exists.

What we need is some balance - not assumptions that everything the police do is wrong and that everyone ever accused of a crime MUST be innocent !

I don't think that the police should just accept that he was innocent. However the fact is that taking photos of fully clothed kids causing trouble doesn't constitute suspicion that he may be a paedophile and require further investigation. If this was the case any film crew that was filming fly on the wall documentaries should be investigated. Also what do you mean by his defence, he hadn't done anything wrong, only been the subject of rumours and hatred because he was different.

I agree. I cant see anything suspicious in photographing fully clothed children in a public place, and isn't it bad enough being killed without the police rifling through your (and friends and family's) private stuff?
A cynic would think the police were looking for a reason to justify the attack.

The photo albums in my parents house (form about 17+ years ago) have pictures of a few fully clothed children who's pictures were taken without asking their parents permission.

What if someone made those sort of accusations against them could they be used against them as some sort of evidence of 'perversion'?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I agree. I cant see anything suspicious in photographing fully clothed children in a public place, and isn't it bad enough being killed without the police rifling through your (and friends and family's) private stuff?

Does that mean that you ALWAYS accept - without further question - everything that someone tells you?

The police have a duty to investigate - to see whether what they are being told is the truth - or not !

I say again - I'm sure this man was innocent, but I don;t think the police should merely accept ANY explanation offered without further investigation.

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I agree. I cant see anything suspicious in photographing fully clothed children in a public place, and isn't it bad enough being killed without the police rifling through your (and friends and family's) private stuff?

Does that mean that you ALWAYS accept - without further question - everything that someone tells you?

The police have a duty to investigate - to see whether what they are being told is the truth - or not !

I say again - I'm sure this man was innocent, but I don;t think the police should merely accept ANY explanation offered without further investigation.

I cant see how taking photographs of clothed children in public suggests that he might have child pornography on the computer. They have to have reasonable grounds to search don't they? (maybe they did) Or doesn't that apply if the suspect is dead?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
They have to have reasonable grounds to search don't they?

Maybe the howling mob outside his door - all screaming "paedo" ! - constitutes "reasonable grounds" !

Anyway - by actually searching the police have been able to say quite conclusively that he was not.

If that hadn't happened then some would always have believed the rumour and smears.

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
They have to have reasonable grounds to search don't they?

Maybe the howling mob outside his door - all screaming "paedo" ! - constitutes "reasonable grounds" !

Anyway - by actually searching the police have been able to say quite conclusively that he was not.

If that hadn't happened then some would always have believed the rumour and smears.

I see your point there, but anyone could do that to anyone I could go outside and start screaming 'paedo!' outside my neighbours now and when the police come say they were taking pictures of my friends fully clothed children and then (unless they didn't just decide to arrest me for breach of the peace) would they have to have all their personal stuff gone through and some of it confiscated on the basis of something as. ridiculous as that? I actually think if I did do that up here the police would just arrest [b]me[b].

I can see the point when someone makes an accustion it has to be investigated, but you'd hope there'd be limits. "He was taking pictures of our clothed kids outside" just seems a ridculous reason to go through his stuff when he's provided a perfectly acceptable reason for why he did it (the photos he'd taken themselves may even demonstrate that and back up what he said)...

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
They have to have reasonable grounds to search don't they?

Maybe the howling mob outside his door - all screaming "paedo" ! - constitutes "reasonable grounds" !

Anyway - by actually searching the police have been able to say quite conclusively that he was not.

If that hadn't happened then some would always have believed the rumour and smears.

Quite right!...No signs of rice and badgers then?

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
They have to have reasonable grounds to search don't they?

Maybe the howling mob outside his door - all screaming "paedo" ! - constitutes "reasonable grounds" !

Anyway - by actually searching the police have been able to say quite conclusively that he was not.

If that hadn't happened then some would always have believed the rumour and smears.

Come to think of it, you are right. It would be far worse for his friends and family if the suspicions were allowed to continue.