Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

I've just seen this in the local rag:-

Teenage girl 'repeatedly and systematically raped and sexually abused' by gang of predatory paedophiles, court told (From Lancashire Telegraph)

The defendants and what they are accused of - Accrington Observer

The stall holder says he's innocent:-

Market stallholder: 'I am innocent' - Accrington Observer

He would say that wouldn't he?

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

What happened to innocent till proven guilty?

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

Obviously,They're 'all' innocent until proven guilty,I wouldn't be surprised if there's a band of shaven head thugs marching through our town in the near future though.

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

anyone would want to see someone guilty of crimes like these punished but yet again lives are trashed before a guilty verdict is given by a court and jury

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

This thread to me, is a deliberate attempt to provoke a negative reaction,something only a knobhead would do, i have thought that for a fair while, now yeh have proved it.:rolleyes:

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

Obviously, whoever committed these offences needs locking up but Cashy's right - I'm not sure the original comments were posted for the right reasons so, I won't be adding any more thoughts to it, as they say on Dragon's Den - I'm out!

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

To a degree, I think the media is at fault. Details should not be published until there has been a guilty verdict reached...and if the verdict is one of innocence then, it should not appear at all.
This article is damaging to a market trader who may have done nothing wrong.
We do not need to hear of this until it has been proved that he is guilty of the offences of which he has been accused

This local(?) paper is not what it used to be many years ago. I do not trust what I read in it anymore...it is only useful for lighting the fire and cleaning the windows.

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

The local media is not at fault for his stupidity.:rolleyes:

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

Cashy, he did actually put in the title 'allegedly'.
To me this means that you make your own mind up, or it may mean that he questions the allegations.
He posted links to an articles in local media. Now if the local media had not published these articles there would have been nothing to post about...so while you are entitled to have an opinion about who is at fault..To my mind,it is certainly the fault of local media.
Local media may say that they are performing a vital public service.
It would be far better if they confined themselves to reporting only proven cases, rather than whipping up hysteria(and possibly racial tensions).
These offences are alleged to have taken place some time during the 90's but are only being investigated now...more than two decades later.

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

I agree fully things like this should NOT be printed until a guilty verdict has been given, but fact is they are its happened with many people, that has little to do with the reason this clown posted this, thats my opinion.

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

Too expensive to light your fire and clean your windows

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

Yes, you are right.
Himself says he only gets it to see who has shuffled off this mortal coil...and if he isn't recorded he knows he can do another week.
Me? I would cancel it. It used to be interesting reading the small ads and looking at the jobs, but these days all of the adverts seem to relate to Manchester/ Heywood...so not local.

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

There will always be people who make contentious statements(both on here and in the media) to get a response.
I just think it is sad that a business may be adversely affected by a story that should never have been printed until a guilty verdict has been pronounced.

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

Fish&chips papers

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

just dont use the telegraph as toilet paper it will leave more crap behind than it removes

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

It's pointless trying to explain to him M,he's made his mind up :rolleyes:....I shouldn't have to (and I won't) explain my motives for posting this thread.

While the media do tarnish innocent folks reputations by publishing their identities before they're even found guilty,for me, I see it as a problem with the person if they want to make presumptions of guilt before the justice procedure has run its course.

Publishing these folks names,however much potential it has to damage their reputation, could potentially encourage other victims (if there are any) into coming forward so I can see it from both sides.

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

Make all the bullshine excuses yeh want, its obviously not just me that can see the light.:rolleyes:

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

It also makes it easier for someone to falsely accuse the alleged perpetrator...and this in turn has adverse effects on future convictions, because like all sexual offences of historic nature, the forensic proof is long gone.

I find it difficult to grasp how jurors can erase stories printed in the media(that includes social media too) from their mind. If you know nothing about the person you are trying, then you CAN rely on only the evidence in front of you.
Which is why the past offences of a person being prosecuted are not known to the jury.
In truth, the story just gives folk something to gossip about...which is exactly what we are doing here(though I make no assumptions about this man or the offences that he is alleged to have committed).
So, on that note I think it is time for me to bow out of the discussion as I think I have covered what I wanted to say.

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

In today's LET it's reported that all of these men have been found not guilty of the alleged offences - just hope that the original article didn't do too much harm

Re: Wrong un's (allegedly)
 

what a surprise

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk