Operation Yewtree

Originally Posted by MarkC1984

A percentage of paedophiles, I don't have an exact figure, were themselves abused as young children. That unfortunately seems to be a vicious circle.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by iFrankie

I would love to know how people turn out like this there must be thousands if not millions of paedophiles in the world, surely its not a mental illness? i can't seem to grasp millions of people having the same mental sickness.

Is it a gene deformity? did something happen during pregnancy when the baby was growing, is it possible for millions of people to have the same deformity?! the questions the questions!!.

Scientists should be looking at it, brain scans etc.

I always say the act is evil the person is not.

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

[denphone]

Rolf Harris faces new Yewtree sex offences allegations.

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

[Arthurgray50@blu]

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

Just announced, sick world we live in.

[Russ]

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)

[MalteseFalcon]

IF GUILTY then string him up.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

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.

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

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.

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

[Osem]

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.

Originally Posted by Osem

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 evidence' and 'not quite enough evidence' for example.

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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

[Gavin78]

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?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Stuart

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

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

Originally Posted by Stuart

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

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

Originally Posted by Stuart

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

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.