Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Fri Jul 04, 2014 6:13 pm  

Standee wrote:

I hope someone stabs you just a little bit, that wont be murder by your logic.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. I don't think you do either.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Fri Jul 04, 2014 7:09 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

On the issue of the Cambridge allegation. The woman said that she was 13 years old when Harris groped her. It is supposed to have had a traumatic affect on her life. Her trust in men was devastated.

This will have had a massive impact on her childhood. Her schooling would have been damaged. Relationships with boys would have been devastated.

The ages of 13 and 16 are massively, massively different. When you're 13 years old you're halfway through your secondary school education. When you are 16 high school is ending or is close to ending. That's when the major exams are.

If she claims she was 13 when this happened when she actually met Harris when she was 16 her testimony simply cannot be trusted. If she was 3 years out of date when the offence was committed, maybe he didn't grope her butt but he actually just put his arm around her.

How many famous people did you meet when you were a kid? Apart from RL players and football players I think I met one - Ted Rodgers, when I was 11 years old at Wembley Stadium.

I'd suggest that most people generally have a similar experience of meeting stars. It's a massive rarity. And even more rare will be when a star decides to grab their butt.

If this happened, she'd be able to work out how old she was. She wasn't. IMO it didn't happen.

I have to say, that is a most worrying part of the testimony, you might be a few months out with an old memory of the most traumatic thing that happened in your life, but not three years, not when those three years were the difference between being 13 or 16, those are massively formative years and there is a world of difference, it baffles me why his defence didn't make more of it (assuming they didn't) as its one allegation that should have been struck off the list immediately, you can't imagine any other court case being allowed to continue when the witness can't remember within three years when the offence happened.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Fri Jul 04, 2014 7:34 pm  

I'm not sure jailing Harris is the right 'punishment' - Let's be honest, his greatest punishment is his personal shame and embarrassment that this whole case has brought to him. Putting him in jail (at the taxpayer's expense) is probably the safest and most face-saving environment for him.

I'd have preferred for him to be stripped of ALL his assets - Basically, leave him penniless, stick him in a low-end council house and don't give him any chance to hide.

Every day would be a living hell - That home would be far more of a prison than any he will occupy over the next few years. The fear that people walking past, just metres away, know he is there, appalled at his actions, that nagging doubt that some might even be highly charged enough to want to hand out some of their own punishment.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:14 pm  

Standee wrote:

you disgust me, utterly and totally.

I hope someone stabs you just a little bit, that wont be murder by your logic.

what a reprehensible member of the species you are.

What a narrow minded & pathetic 'threat', you threatening harm to another human being puts you in the realms of all the other thugs on this forum and worse...

You clearly aren't able to objectively look at what has been said by LGJM and how the massive disparity between the 'abused' persons statement with regard when the incident happened just doesn't 'add up'.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sat Jul 05, 2014 12:27 am  

Standee wrote:

you disgust me, utterly and totally.

I hope someone stabs you just a little bit, that wont be murder by your logic.

what a reprehensible member of the species you are.

Yet there's only 1 person on this thread wishing harm upon another member of that species. Who is the most reprehensible or disgusting?

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sat Jul 05, 2014 12:29 pm  

no threats here, just making comment that anyone who finds it in themselves to apologise or justify someone like Harris is, in my eyes, a fairly vile individual. I think you'll find if there was any hint of a threat, I wouldn't be posting for some time.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:29 pm  

Standee wrote:

no threats here, just making comment that anyone who finds it in themselves to apologise or justify someone like Harris is, in my eyes, a fairly vile individual.

I believe that everyone deserves a fair trial. I think that the British justice system works pretty much along those lines. If a known murderer is on trial and his case is messed up by incompetent police work, I think the British justice system will see that murderer walk because of the failure of the police.

Because of that, the police, prosecution lawyers and the CPS have to make exceptionally strong cases to gain a conviction for anything. Utterly vile creatures will be dealing drugs for years, beating people up, running prostitution rings even though they are well known. Simply because proof and evidence are actually required to lock people up.

I think if any cop, lawyer or judge looked at what evidence was offered during these trials dispassionately, they'd agree that the Yewtree trials barely qualify as British justice.

Jerry Chicken questions why Harris' defence team didn't kick up a fuss over the 3 year discrepancy. IMO it shouldn't have even needed his defence team to do it. In any other trial I think the judge would be throwing that out before the defence team can point it out. But in this case everyone just accepts it as the vital piece of evidence to prove Harris is lying.

I think offending paedophiles are pretty much the scum of the earth. I share people's repulsion of them. I have a 4 year old daughter. I have had female friends who have been raped. I want this world to be a world without any form of sexual violence towards anybody.

But I think the incorrect, lazy and flippant way that Harris is being painted as a predatory paedophile is staggering.

I started to read an article in the Guardian website where a journalist was questioning himself because he'd interviewed Harris, Saville and Hall and wasn't able to spot that they were vile paedos. I cannot believe that people still think they can pick out the kiddie fiddler just by looking them, or interviewing them for a few hours.

If this makes me a vile individual in your eyes then I don't care. I don't think it's actually your eyes that's the problem though, it's your defective brain. I've argued my points at length. If I'm wrong people can point out where I'm wrong. It's just a lot easier to want Harris dead and questioning the motives of anyone who thinks this is not right.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:43 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I believe that everyone deserves a fair trial. I think that the British justice system works pretty much along those lines. If a known murderer is on trial and his case is messed up by incompetent police work, I think the British justice system will see that murderer walk because of the failure of the police.

Because of that, the police, prosecution lawyers and the CPS have to make exceptionally strong cases to gain a conviction for anything. Utterly vile creatures will be dealing drugs for years, beating people up, running prostitution rings even though they are well known. Simply because proof and evidence are actually required to lock people up.

I think if any cop, lawyer or judge looked at what evidence was offered during these trials dispassionately, they'd agree that the Yewtree trials barely qualify as British justice.

Jerry Chicken questions why Harris' defence team didn't kick up a fuss over the 3 year discrepancy. IMO it shouldn't have even needed his defence team to do it. In any other trial I think the judge would be throwing that out before the defence team can point it out. But in this case everyone just accepts it as the vital piece of evidence to prove Harris is lying.

I think offending paedophiles are pretty much the scum of the earth. I share people's repulsion of them. I have a 4 year old daughter. I have had female friends who have been raped. I want this world to be a world without any form of sexual violence towards anybody.

But I think the incorrect, lazy and flippant way that Harris is being painted as a predatory paedophile is staggering.

I started to read an article in the Guardian website where a journalist was questioning himself because he'd interviewed Harris, Saville and Hall and wasn't able to spot that they were vile paedos. I cannot believe that people still think they can pick out the kiddie fiddler just by looking them, or interviewing them for a few hours.

If this makes me a vile individual in your eyes then I don't care. I don't think it's actually your eyes that's the problem though, it's your defective brain. I've argued my points at length. If I'm wrong people can point out where I'm wrong. It's just a lot easier to want Harris dead and questioning the motives of anyone who thinks this is not right.

where have I said I want Harris dead? I want him to suffer the same as his victims, if you don't believe the evidence, statements and verdict then fine, that is your decision, my view is he IS a predatory paedophile, and, fortunately, 12 of my peers agreed.

As I say, maybe he just raped someone "a little bit", lets let him off, you haven't argued your point at any length, you have attempted to justify your opinion, they are not the same thing. And the "I have friends who ......" is a little like saying "I am not racist, I have a black friend", it exposes you. Harris is now in Prison, and he will possibly endure worse abuse than he committed against anyone, at least he won't be guessing what it is yet, because hell know, he's been the perpetrator before!

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:01 pm  

maybe the Lord God arrogant Portuguese t/pot will read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28174592

maybe the Lord God arrogant Portuguese t/pot will read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28174592

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:15 pm  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28173294 and this one, maybe?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28173294 and this one, maybe?