What purpose does it serve to remove a 94 year old pensioner who uses a zimmer frame from his care home, and put him in prison?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657373/

I'm sure we'll all sleep safely at night knowing this man will no longer be a threat to anyone, because he has been locked up!

And don't the comments below make you proud to be British?

JK2006 wrote:
And don't the comments below make you proud to be British?

The Mail,as you have said before,the best,and the worse in one place.

Does highlight the problem of historic sex crimes,as it highlights the mentality of some commentators on that reply thread.They'll be digging up bodies next,just to make sure punishment is seen to be done....meanwhile will they tell us if and how much compensation she gets from this?

Andy - do you think that charges should not have been brought against this old chap and/or his crimes should have been ignored?

The charges should have been dealt with many years ago. It helps no-one to bring them up 40 years after the event.

Andy wrote:
The charges should have been dealt with many years ago. It helps no-one to bring them up 40 years after the event.

Agree Andy,many crimes have time limitations precisely because of the problems seen here.

We don't know the full details,he may well have pleaded guilty because of police pressure,we just don't know.A vulnerable old man is an easy target,and who knows what undercover deals he was offered?

I imagine more and more men are going to rounded up accused of "historic" sex crimes, as word of the compo available spreads around, and how "you will be believed".

I wonder though, if this will be mirrored by an increase in convictions for recent crimes, where the absence of forensic evidence becomes a little more difficult for the prosecution (and the defense at least has a chance to find counter-evidence).

I consider all these historic convictions unsafe, unless there is documented evidence of a complaint AT THE TIME.

SP17 wrote:
Andy - do you think that charges should not have been brought against this old chap and/or his crimes should have been ignored?




yes the charges should not have been brought as there should be a 10 year statute time limit as there is in numerous US states, NSW, Germany and many other countries not obsessed with 'pedo witch hunts"

It is impossible to present any evidence of rape after 40 years- it could only come down to "he/she said Vs he /she said"..or as now seen in the fact Britain's laws have become utterly perverted : 13 'witnesses' who were never at the alleged crimes scenes in the Max Clifford trial gave 'evidence' they were told it had happened and this was accepted.

And that doesn't even happen in a murder trial..hearsay is tossed out.

# this bloke pleaded guilty but we cannot now take a guilty plea on face value.

## as for the bullshit spread around that historic claims can only now be investigated :In 1980 my flatmate said she was groped by a mini cab driver after she left a West end club fairly intoxicated.
She contacted Kensington Police who arrived at the flat 1 hour later. Two detectives and one female PC were most sympathetic and took all details.

After 10 days one detective rang her and said they had made extensive inquiries and could not track any mini cab firm operating in the area in those time frames and said she was the victim of an opportunist rapist who they believed had struck before.

It is balderdash and claptrap that cops were never interested and victims "didn't have a voice"..another myth being created.

Andy wrote:
The charges should have been dealt with many years ago. It helps no-one to bring them up 40 years after the event.

But the crimes only came to light recently...

hedda wrote:
this bloke pleaded guilty but we cannot now take a guilty plea on face value.



Why not?

As you say Fred Smith pleaded guilty - and the judge and medical experts consider him to be in good mental health.

Should we chase up very, very elderly old ladies who once broke the law trying to get women the vote? Should we prosecute someone for doing 34 miles per hour in a 30 MPH zone thirty years ago - with no evidence? Should we we spend millions chasing and prosecuting someone who smoked a joint in 1965 - just because someone said they did? Our social (and rather suspect) obsession with sex has to stop. I blame the Victorians. Prosecute the fuckers! And Jimmy Savile while you're about it.

To your three questions, I would answer - no.

But the real question is - where and how do we draw the line?

Some (like hedda) seem to be suggesting a 10 year amnesty/absolution...

The problem comes - for me (and it did, 14 years ago) - when "evidence" or "proof" is considered one person's word against another's and police seek or persuade (or assist) others to make similar claims in order to get convictions.

I don't condem the morality or genuine belief of witnesses but memories are faulty and heavily influenced by other events and media coverage. If DNA is found on an old corpse - prosecute. If doing 34 MPH caused a death and, years later, an old photograph proves who the perpetrator was - prosecute. But don't spend fortunes of our tax monies on old memories when it would be better spent on health, education, benefits, poverty, kindness, saving lives.

I accept all of that but would add that - when confessions are made (without duress and admitting specific crimes) - they cannot be ignored.

As long as the person is mentally capable. I would also accept that age and infirmities are mitigating factors in sentencing.

But not - so much - should they affect decisions to charge and/or prosecute when clear evidence (of the sort you describe) is available.

SP17 wrote:
To your three questions, I would answer - no.

But the real question is - where and how do we draw the line?

Some (like hedda) seem to be suggesting a 10 year amnesty/absolution...

we draw a line as we do with every other crime except murder for the very reason memories & evidence diminish over time

financial debts cannot be pursued after 6 years even if you can prove it.

note the PC who caused the death of Ian Tomlinson escaped charges because GBH charges must be laid within 18 months.

A 50 year slap on the backside is a greater crime than some poor sod being bashed senseless.
it is scandalous.

Well known Professor of History and Sexologist Victoria Lucas describes it perfectly in her BAFTA / Academy Award / Palme D'or winning documentary on the evil Uncle Bulgaria here:

hedda qc wrote:
GBH charges must be laid within 18 months

Common assault has a time limit, but ABH and GBH - which are tried in a Crown Court - have no time limit.

SP17 wrote:
hedda qc wrote:
GBH charges must be laid within 18 months

Common assault has a time limit, but ABH and GBH - which are tried in a Crown Court - have no time limit.




yes confused the charges..(unbelievable for this great intellect )..but goes to prove my point..brutally shove and old man so that he eventually dies and walk free but if it's a grope of a breast..have your career and life destroyed.

SP17 wrote:
hedda qc wrote:
GBH charges must be laid within 18 months

Common assault has a time limit, but ABH and GBH - which are tried in a Crown Court - have no time limit.


Not too good on the law then, hedda...

It is the hypocrisy that sticks in my throat

Ask anyone who was a child in the 1960 and the 1970s to list their major worries as a youngster and I can guarantee that the fear of physical violence at the hands of adults or their peers will occur much more often than any fear of sexual molestation. Of course battering young children to the point of physical damage was quite legal in that era so none of the authority figures such as teachers who indulged in it need lose sleep over possible prosecution. Nonetheless, it does beg the question why it is acceptable for our society to persecute old men for gentle bottom fondling or a bit of furtive groping forty plus years ago while giving teachers who spent their time thrashing the same parts of kids anatomy with canes, belts,slippers or their bare hands a free pass. No wonder the rest of the world think the British are both sexually weird and unnaturally cruel to their children

very difficult judging people on yesterday's 'morals'.

Should I sue the school that allowed me to be viciously caned by an English Master who went absolutely puce in the face when he was caning young boys. And the slightest infraction drew his ire.

I recall telling my mother after I left school and she was visibly shocked and said she would have removed me from the school as she was opposed to corporal punishment.

of course the problem was- it was perfectly legal and school teachers had the power to decide how much punishment..a light tap or six of the best !

no wonder we flocked to the incredibly handsome 22 yr old phys ed master who loved demonstrating his Olympic athlete skills for teams of adoring boys.

I know which one is more likely end up in court