switchlogic:
Carryfast:
at least actually called a ■■■■■■■■■■ by at least some of the publicAnd thats a witch hunt is it? Think you and him need to man up a little and get on with it.
In which case that should also apply in the case of that Conservative Party member who’s been in the news recently after his name was used by person/person’s unknown within the establishment in an obvious diversionary tactic to pervert the course of justice.
The difference between you and Joe Crackpot and Lord McAlpine is nobody knows or cares you you and your mate are.
switchlogic:
The difference between you and Joe Crackpot and Lord McAlpine is nobody knows or cares you you and your mate are.
Cameron made it clear exactly what the ‘difference’ is in his statement to Schofield which made it clear,by comparison with the case against DLT and Joe Philpot’s experience,that perverts in high places are looking after their own,as usual.As opposed to letting accusations by the public towards what was/is a legal marriage go unchallenged.Which still leaves the outstanding issue of an obvious attempt by the establishment to pervert the course of justice owing to the simple question as to how and why did that Conservative Party member’s name get put by the law,to obviously someone else’s photograph and how and even why any name at all was and/or was needed to be given,by the law,to the victim,after the victim had identified the person in the photograph,which the law showed him,as the person/one of the person’s who attacked him 
. 
I’m no expert on the law in this country, but can somebody please explain what the hell is going on with all these recent cases and allegations of child abuse? From what I can make out, several people have accused Jimmy Saville of abusing them, and before any legal process has taken place, he has been pronounced guilty by various sections of the public - even the police officer leading the investigation has already pronounced him to be one of the most prolific ■■■ offenders ever. Isn’t this up to a judge / jury to decide, under due process, or does the fact that he’s already dead mean we no longer have to worry about such legal niceties?
And with the latest one, about the Conservative minister - it seems that somebody who was abused has accused the Tory, the Tory has been identified via Social Media, and has come out all guns blazing and suing everybody - as a result the investigation (if it ever started) has now been dropped and has gone away. Does this mean that if I ever get accused of a crime, I just need to deny it and threaten to sue, and it won’t go any further? I’m not saying the man is guilty or innocent, but once an acccusation is made, do the police no longer need to investigate?
I’m getting a bit concerned with the latest hysteria about paedophilia, that before long we’ll have mobs out attacking paediatrician’s houses again - ignorance is a dangerous thing in any country, let alone when it is exploited by the gutter press to push their own agenda.
Gary
scaniason:
I’m no expert on the law in this country, but can somebody please explain what the hell is going on with all these recent cases and allegations of child abuse? From what I can make out, several people have accused Jimmy Saville of abusing them, and before any legal process has taken place, he has been pronounced guilty by various sections of the public - even the police officer leading the investigation has already pronounced him to be one of the most prolific ■■■ offenders ever. Isn’t this up to a judge / jury to decide, under due process, or does the fact that he’s already dead mean we no longer have to worry about such legal niceties?And with the latest one, about the Conservative minister - it seems that somebody who was abused has accused the Tory, the Tory has been identified via Social Media, and has come out all guns blazing and suing everybody - as a result the investigation (if it ever started) has now been dropped and has gone away. Does this mean that if I ever get accused of a crime, I just need to deny it and threaten to sue, and it won’t go any further? I’m not saying the man is guilty or innocent, but once an acccusation is made, do the police no longer need to investigate?
I’m getting a bit concerned with the latest hysteria about paedophilia, that before long we’ll have mobs out attacking paediatrician’s houses again - ignorance is a dangerous thing in any country, let alone when it is exploited by the gutter press to push their own agenda.
Gary
Savile is dead so there’s no way of bringing him to justice.But the evidence against him ‘if’ he’d have been brought to trial would probably have been enough to convict him. 
The Conservative Party member in the recent news isn’t implicated at all so had/has no case to answer.But.The real question is how and why was it that his name got put in the frame at all when it wasn’t him who the victim actually identified to the law during a photograph identity parade .The victim id’d a photo and then it was the law,not the victim,who put an obviously incorrect name to it and then for some reason also gave that incorrect name to the victim. 
The only person who’d have gained from that was the real suspect who’d been identified by the victim and who in any normal police investigation would have been correctly identified by the law and then arrested with no need to inform the victim who the law had actually identified from the photo and then arrested until the case reached a later stage.
You only need to read the Savile topic from start to finish to realise that many of the general public haven’t got a clue how to differentiate paedophilia from a large age gap relationship that’s within the law.
What happened to Iraq anyway. IMHO all these Middle East johnnys need a Saddam Hussein or Gadaffi to keep them in line bunch if nutters the lot of them. 
That geezer in Iran aint a patch on gadaffi have you seem what he wears. Gadaffi was a style guru. My nan always said Saddam had something of the Omar sherif about him. Well before he went for the beard and rope around the neck look anyway.
Carryfast:
scaniason:
I’m no expert on the law in this country, but can somebody please explain what the hell is going on with all these recent cases and allegations of child abuse? From what I can make out, several people have accused Jimmy Saville of abusing them, and before any legal process has taken place, he has been pronounced guilty by various sections of the public - even the police officer leading the investigation has already pronounced him to be one of the most prolific ■■■ offenders ever. Isn’t this up to a judge / jury to decide, under due process, or does the fact that he’s already dead mean we no longer have to worry about such legal niceties?And with the latest one, about the Conservative minister - it seems that somebody who was abused has accused the Tory, the Tory has been identified via Social Media, and has come out all guns blazing and suing everybody - as a result the investigation (if it ever started) has now been dropped and has gone away. Does this mean that if I ever get accused of a crime, I just need to deny it and threaten to sue, and it won’t go any further? I’m not saying the man is guilty or innocent, but once an acccusation is made, do the police no longer need to investigate?
I’m getting a bit concerned with the latest hysteria about paedophilia, that before long we’ll have mobs out attacking paediatrician’s houses again - ignorance is a dangerous thing in any country, let alone when it is exploited by the gutter press to push their own agenda.
Gary
Savile is dead so there’s no way of bringing him to justice.But the evidence against him ‘if’ he’d have been brought to trial would probably have been enough to convict him.
The Conservative Party member in the recent news isn’t implicated at all so had/has no case to answer.But.The real question is how and why was it that his name got put in the frame at all when it wasn’t him who the victim actually identified to the law during a photograph identity parade
You only need to read the Savile topic from start to finish to realise that many of the general public haven’t got a clue how to differentiate paedophilia from a large age gap relationship that’s within the law.
Agreed that Savile can’t be brought to justice, but does that mean that all the normal checks and balances can be ignored? For the investigating officer to publicly announce that he is guilty seems very wrong to me - police pronnouncing guilt or innocence rather than a proper legal process. There was a time when it was the police’s job to arrest and gather evidence, and let a properly constructed court decide whether they were right or wrong.
As for the other case - there’s something qbout it which stinks badly. I’ll go back over it as from what you’ve said, I’ve misunderstood what happened. Whatever did happen through, once agin it looks as though the police are instrumental in cocking things up again…
As for age gaps and paedophilia, law is pretty much by definition black & white, so if somebody has a ■■■■■■ relationship with somebody under 16, they have broken the law. What action is taken is, and should be, a bit more flexible, but the cold hard truth is tha a crime has been committed, and the fact shouldn’t be ignored.
Gary
kr79:
What happened to Iraq anyway. IMHO all these Middle East johnnys need a Saddam Hussein or Gadaffi to keep them in line bunch if nutters the lot of them.
That geezer in Iran aint a patch on gadaffi have you seem what he wears. Gadaffi was a style guru. My nan always said Saddam had something of the Omar sherif about him. Well before he went for the beard and rope around the neck look anyway.
I shall envy the man who got Gadadfi’s hat and gold chain till the day I die. What I would give for a geniuine Gadaffi hat.
Joe philpot is a ■■■■■■■■■. He groomed a young girl and now he’s married her.
This is another thread gone completely off the rails.
Key words to look out for:
1970s
Top of the pops
Joe Philpot
Jimmy saville
Young wife
Legal
switchlogic:
kr79:
What happened to Iraq anyway. IMHO all these Middle East johnnys need a Saddam Hussein or Gadaffi to keep them in line bunch if nutters the lot of them.
That geezer in Iran aint a patch on gadaffi have you seem what he wears. Gadaffi was a style guru. My nan always said Saddam had something of the Omar sherif about him. Well before he went for the beard and rope around the neck look anyway.I shall envy the man who got Gadadfi’s hat and gold chain till the day I die. What I would give for a geniuine Gadaffi hat.
That was a good look. I liked the milatary uniform with the braid and scrambled egg on it. With the female bodyguards sourondung him
FarnboroughBoy11:
Joe philpot is a ■■■■■■■■■. He groomed a young girl and now he’s married her.
This is another thread gone completely off the rails.Key words to look out for:
1970s
Top of the pops
Joe Philpot
Jimmy saville
Young wife
Legal
Prince Charles and di too.
Anyway I best fire up this pile of junk American lorry. Not a patch on my old automatic Volvo from England.
I can hear the Commodore 64 in leatherhead rumbling in to life now.
scaniason:
Agreed that Savile can’t be brought to justice, but does that mean that all the normal checks and balances can be ignored? For the investigating officer to publicly announce that he is guilty seems very wrong to me - police pronnouncing guilt or innocence rather than a proper legal process. There was a time when it was the police’s job to arrest and gather evidence, and let a properly constructed court decide whether they were right or wrong.As for the other case - there’s something qbout it which stinks badly. I’ll go back over it as from what you’ve said, I’ve misunderstood what happened. Whatever did happen through, once agin it looks as though the police are instrumental in cocking things up again…
As for age gaps and paedophilia, law is pretty much by definition black & white, so if somebody has a ■■■■■■ relationship with somebody under 16, they have broken the law. What action is taken is, and should be, a bit more flexible, but the cold hard truth is tha a crime has been committed, and the fact shouldn’t be ignored.
Gary
That issue concerning coppers applying guilt before trial is nothing new.
You’re right about the stink which applies to the other case.There is a point where ■■■■ up becomes so unbelievable to turn into conspiracy.I think in that case it’s a safe bet to factor in the double standards which apply as soon as the homosexuals in high places angle applies.Hence the legalisation by Parlaiment of homosexual acts and Cameron’s leaping to the defence of that lot but no surprise not a word in defence of any witch hunt against heterosexuals such as in Joe Philpot’s case and others like him.
As for age gaps that’s just the problem.The law is black and white but public perceptions aren’t.In which case it’s possible for a so called ‘adult’ over 18 to be branded a ■■■■■■■■■■ by the public,and increasingly the authorities,for being in a relationship with a so called ‘child’ girl because she’s under 18.Which effectively is just US federal law being applied in Britain and no surprise no solicitors leaping to the defence of such cases.
FarnboroughBoy11:
Joe philpot is a ■■■■■■■■■. He groomed a young girl and now he’s married her.
This is another thread gone completely off the rails.
No suprise that there’ll be no solicitors out there rushing to sue you for damages.If he’s a ■■■■■■■■■■ why the zb would he want to marry the girl which obviously means growing old with her in a lifetime relationship as she grows old herself being that she’s in her mid 20’s now .If you’re right he’d be in jail.
It’s not a thread that’s gone off the rails because it’s all about a great country which has a zb corrupt government which uses bs propaganda tactics to change public perceptions and manipulates the law of the land to suit it’s will.
Carryfast:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Joe philpot is a ■■■■■■■■■. He groomed a young girl and now he’s married her.
This is another thread gone completely off the rails.No suprise that there’ll be no solicitors out there rushing to sue you for damages.If he’s a ■■■■■■■■■■ why the zb would he want to marry the girl which obviously means growing old with her in a lifetime relationship as she grows old herself being that she’s in her mid 20’s now
It’s not a thread that’s gone off the rails because it’s all about a great country which has a zb corrupt government which uses bs propaganda tactics to change public perceptions and manipulates the law of the land to suit it’s will.
Because he will be brown bread before she starts getting wrinkly, he’s just worked the system. It’s wrong. She was a 10 year old girl going round his house to do homework. It’s sick man.
FarnboroughBoy11:
Carryfast:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Joe philpot is a ■■■■■■■■■. He groomed a young girl and now he’s married her.
This is another thread gone completely off the rails.No suprise that there’ll be no solicitors out there rushing to sue you for damages.If he’s a ■■■■■■■■■■ why the zb would he want to marry the girl which obviously means growing old with her in a lifetime relationship as she grows old herself being that she’s in her mid 20’s now
It’s not a thread that’s gone off the rails because it’s all about a great country which has a zb corrupt government which uses bs propaganda tactics to change public perceptions and manipulates the law of the land to suit it’s will.
Because he will be brown bread before she starts getting wrinkly, he’s just worked the system. It’s wrong. She was a 10 year old girl going round his house to do homework. It’s sick man.
So now you’re saying that just marrying a girl with an age gap which means that the husband might be dead before she ‘gets wrinkly’ in your view is the same thing as paedophilia .Which would obviously apply in the case of that zb who I lost out to and many other older blokes who’ve married women even if those women were over 18 let alone 16 at the time. Although having said that even with a 30 + year age gap there’s a reasonable chance that the bloke will live to see more than a few lines and wrinkles,on his around 50 year old wife,before he goes.
But no she wasn’t 10 when he ‘met’ her she was 15 just like Diana Spencer was when Charles first met her.It’s just that things took a different course in the case of Joe Philpot’s marriage than they did in the case of Charles’.Probably because Joe Philpot actually loved his future wife enough and had enough bottle to take on the public’s ideas on the age thing.Unlike Charles and the establishment did in the case of Diana.
As for the word ‘sick’ that’s what those BBC East Enders script writers are now saying about marriages between cousins in the Lauren Branning storyline so yet more pc bs.Which the inconvenient truth of the marriage between Queen Victoria and Albert seems to have blown out of the water big time. 
You got a point there Geoffrey I mean look at prince Charles that jug eared fool is an advert against ■■■■■■ in anyone’s book. I think that’s why they got Kate Middleton in water the old blue blood down a bit.
Think that’s why Prince Harry looks more normal with Charles not been his biological father.
Is it illegal to marry a cousin ?. Hope not most of the natives here in the town in Canada I’m living in will be screwed I think until a few of us Brits and Germans turned up in the last few years there was only four different last names in the steinbach phone book.
kr79:
You got a point there Geoffrey I mean look at prince Charles that jug eared fool is an advert against ■■■■■■ in anyone’s book. I think that’s why they got Kate Middleton in water the old blue blood down a bit.
Think that’s why Prince Harry looks more normal with Charles not been his biological father.
Is it illegal to marry a cousin ?. Hope not most of the natives here in the town in Canada I’m living in will be screwed I think until a few of us Brits and Germans turned up in the last few years there was only four different last names in the steinbach phone book.
As I said Diana didn’t seem to think so considering all she needed to do was change her mind and put an advert in the peronal ads of the local papers that she was looking for a normal working class bloke of around her own age.
As I said elsewhere there were/are one or three of my cousins who I’d have gone for if they’d have given me the chance.One married the bloke of around her own age who she’d been with since she was 14.While another was a second cousin who decided to marry a bloke of 47 when she was 16 which was almost a case of history repeating itself.Except unlike the example before,when I lost out to the same type of age gap issue,I never even had time to ask that one for a date before he’d knocked her up and married her just like Joe Philpot did with his wife. The third one is the former of those two girls’ daughter.She’s around the same age as Lauren in East Enders and at least as good looking arguably even better if that’s possible. But she doesn’t want me either just like her mum didn’t. 
But seriously it’s not illegal to marry a cousin because in reality the genetic defects issue is just mostly bs and there’s actually no more real risk than any other type of marriage.The risks are actually probably worse in the case of a totally unrelated but older mother than marrying a young cousin while second cousins are effectively totally unrelated from the point of view of birth issues anyway.Unluckily for me that uninformed bs might possibly be one of the reasons why I didn’t manage to beat that East Enders storyline by at least around 30 years and do what Albert did with Victoria. 
As for Prince Harry if I was him he could do a lot worse than trying pull his 18 year old cousin and certainly seems a better idea to me than going for a bird of around his own age like his brother did.
As for the colonies how else do you think we kept it all British without the Native Indians,French and Spanish out populating us and pushing the few of us there would have been back into the Atlantic.
Mainly German origin round here.
kr79:
Mainly German origin round here.
If you’re living In Steinbach, then you’re about 100 mile North of my Bro…Just follow the Red river South…