Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:

well as someone who was threatend with the police for child abuse (not sexual) by a social worker i'm very glad my name and details were not published because of the hysterical response from some people on here today over this case of course our lawyers quickly made the problem go away but the accusation was made, now does that mean i've ever had anything to o with harming a child? absolutely not, but if i hadnt been in a position to get a solicitor involved at the very beginning i could have found myself under arrest (although i do trust the justice system enough to believe i would not have been charged).

my "crime"? i allowed our boys to climb trees and one fell out during a water fight and was fairly badly injured (broke 2 arms and a leg), they still climb trees, its called being children.

did you know by the way that you can end up on the sex offenders register for getting caught urinating in a public place? i'm pretty sure that it wasnt what it was designed for but is yet another reason for not allowing general access to the register.


I understand about the suspicion thing we had some very odd questions asked when our eldest broke his arm at 18 months old climbing from his cot into his brother's...he fell down the gap between the cots...but both children had to be examined in the hospital.

I didn't know the register included that type of thing...I thought it was only more serious crimes. Disappointed
P
quote:
Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
did you know by the way that you can end up on the sex offenders register for getting caught urinating in a public place? i'm pretty sure that it wasnt what it was designed for but is yet another reason for not allowing general access to the register.

It's worse in Scotland because of a quirk in the law there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sco...and_west/7098116.stm
FM
quote:
Originally posted by Daniel J*:
quote:
Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
did you know by the way that you can end up on the sex offenders register for getting caught urinating in a public place? i'm pretty sure that it wasnt what it was designed for but is yet another reason for not allowing general access to the register.

It's worse in Scotland because of a quirk in the law there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sco...and_west/7098116.stm


its scary stuff.

as i say just look at the comments from some posters in that other thread and then imaging the absolute carnage that would follow the release of the register to the public, not only those who really are sex offenders but the vast majority who have committed very minor offences (like urinating in a public place or being seen to simulate sex with a bicycle behind closed doors or pretending to have sex with the pavement) i could see the mob wanting to string them up too along with people who arent even on the register at all but happen to share the same or similar name, much like that poor paediatrician who was assaulted and hounded out of her home after one of the tabloids whipped things into a frenzy one year.
B
Hmm right...you've all got me thinking about the name release situation.

Would it be deemed acceptable to release the persons name after they were convicted and only if convicted.

That way any unknown victims at the time would then be able to get any help they may needed.

or

No name releases at all and just let things be - as in prison being the justice served.
P
quote:
Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:
Hmm right...you've all got me thinking about the name release situation.

Would it be deemed acceptable to release the persons name after they were convicted and only if convicted.

That way any unknown victims at the time would then be able to get any help they may needed.

or

No name releases at all and just let things be - as in prison being the justice served.


i wouldnt have an issue with names being released after conviction along with any details but doing it before is just poisoning the water when it comes to getting a fair trial.

just think if you had read or seen all the stuff in the papers about this case can you honestly say that you could be impartial on a jury in the unlikely event that she pleaded not guilty?

if however you knew nothing at all about the case because it hadnt been everywhere in the press and online isnt it more likely that you would be able to weigh up the evidence provided and decide on guilt or innocence based on that?
B
quote:
Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:

i wouldnt have an issue with names being released after conviction along with any details but doing it before is just poisoning the water when it comes to getting a fair trial.

just think if you had read or seen all the stuff in the papers about this case can you honestly say that you could be impartial on a jury in the unlikely event that she pleaded not guilty?

if however you knew nothing at all about the case because it hadnt been everywhere in the press and online isnt it more likely that you would be able to weigh up the evidence provided and decide on guilt or innocence based on that?


I could be impartial on most crimes I'd like to think, but would find it really difficult with this one I must admit. A lot of info' does seem to be everywhere, I've only read here and one news site...oh and heard it on the radio when the story broke. There is no way I could be impartial if I had looked at everything available.

It's almost that in order to get a 'clean' trial the names need not to be released then.
P

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×