re: Operation Yewtree
 

and some become homosexual because of the lack of trust in the gender of the abuser

---------- Post added at 09:43 ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 ----------

we are told Homosexuality is genetic and all that it is really is a physical attraction to the same gender. If this is the case then any sexual attraction to anything ie animals dead bodies and children could equally be genetic

Now personally I do not subscribe to this and I know there is a chance of come backs but throughout the ages people have fancied and had sex with whoever they want male or female I just think it is lust which to me is a choice afteral if a lesbian fancies just women then why are so many with a butch girl? same with men and camp men the genetic argument makes no sense to me

Either way everyone can control their urges you do not have to have sex so saying paedophilia is genetic and therefore normal would not be a defence

re: Operation Yewtree
 

Rolf Harris faces new Yewtree sex offences allegations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23581847

Been charged.
 

http://news.sky.com/story/1129093/da...ssault-charges

Just announced, sick world we live in.:(

Re: Been charged.
 

Indeed it is Arthur but you do know the difference between 'charged' and 'guilty' yes?

(thread title amended seeing as it has moved on from just being about JS)

Re: Operation Yewtree
 

IF GUILTY then string him up.

Re: Operation Yewtree
 

Yes Russ, l do know the difference between Charged and Guilty.

The DPS must have very good evidence to charge him though, but we will let the courts decide - in the normal manner.

Re: Operation Yewtree
 

The CPS prosecute if it is

A) in the Public Interest
B) has the likelyhood of success

The jury has the final word, based on their interpretation of the evidence.

Re: Operation Yewtree
 

So why do you consider the world to be 'sick' based on the fact someone has been charged?

Re: Operation Yewtree
 

Well it appears no action is being taken against Jim Davidson.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23787754

One of the things which bothers me about all this is that any number of people have or are going to have their names associated with this abuse and for those who're innocent there's virtually no way they can ever prove it. If it isn't incumbent upon the CPS to clarify just what they mean when they say 'insufficient evidence' perhaps it ought to be. It seems to me that the term 'insufficient' is extremely vague and doesn't allow the public to distinguish between 'virtually no hard evidence' and 'not quite enough evidence' for example. Where such accusations are shown to have been malicious I'd also like to see a great deal more publicity of that fact since it's extremely unfair on the those falsely accused if the facts aren't made very clear for all to see.

Re: Operation Yewtree
 

I think the CPS should simply say there is no case to answer. Saying insufficient evidence does give the impression there was something dodgy but not enough to go to court and thus leaves a suspicion of guilt on the person. We can't have a scenario where someone has such an accusation levelled against them stick because of the whims of the CPS. If there is no court trial there is no guilty verdict and if there is no guilty verdict then you're presumed innocent.

Re: Operation Yewtree
 

Insufficient evidence to charge does not automatically mean the person is innocent..

Re: Operation Yewtree
 

What about getting charged going to court full hearing with jury but then found not guilty what does that imply to a person that they must be guilty because it went to court so there must have been enough evidence regardless of the outcome?

Re: Operation Yewtree
 

That's true but until found guilty, a person is innocent.

Re: Operation Yewtree
 

In the eyes of the law, that is exactly what it automatically means.

Re: Operation Yewtree
 

It's what it should mean as far as everyone is concerned. Otherwise the state has the ability to label someone 'sort of guilty' without a trial.