Fireman David Bryant found guilty of raping schoolboy almost 40 years ago

Bournemouth Echo: David Bryant David Bryant

A FIREFIGHTER honoured for his many years of service to the community has been found guilty of raping a schoolboy almost 40 years ago.

Retired David Bryant, 63, was convicted of buggery on a boy aged between 12 and 15 by a at Bournemouth Crown Court today.

During the trial the court heard that Bryant and a fellow retained firefighter, Dennis Goodman, who is now deceased, had befriended the victim and invited him to play darts with them at Christchurch Fire Station on three occasions during the 1970s.

On the third occasion, the victim, who was then aged around 14, was held down over a table by the pair, one of whom said “you’ll like this”.

They then took it in turns to rape him while having sex with each other.

The victim told the court he was crying out and screaming during the incident, but was told by one of the men “this is what you have come here for”.

Afterwards, he claimed, Mr Goodman threw a £5 note at him and asked if he wanted to come back.

He said he had not told his family after the incident as he didn’t want to cause any problems, and had only confided in a friend. His decision to go to the police came after a visit to the area two years ago, and was partly inspired by the Jimmy Savile revelations.

Speaking to the Daily Echo after the verdict, the victim said justice had been done.

“I have had 37 years of pain and now I can get some closure,” he said.

“I put my trust in the police and the Crown Prosecution Service and justice was served. But if it hadn’t gone that way at least I would have tried.

“All I ever wanted was for him to say sorry.

“I hope this success does inspire other people to come forward, there are people who will listen and can help.

“And these sorts of people need to be brought to justice.”

The trial jury took seven hours to reach a majority verdict. Judge Samuel Wiggs, released Bryant, of Grove Road East, Christchurch, on conditional bail and adjourned the case until January 24 next year for sentencing.

The defendant was working on a voluntary basis for Dorset Fire and Rescue when the allegation was made, and he was immediately suspended from the role. He has since been dismissed.

Speaking after the verdict, area commander Tim Spring said: “As with other public sector organisations, we have a raft of checks and safeguards for our staff and volunteers including the introduction of DBS checks that it started almost ten years ago.

“These aim to protect our staff and the vulnerable people that they come into contact with in a variety of environments.”

Comments (206)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:04pm Fri 20 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Surely others knew,what was going on,i doubt it was a secret.
Surely others knew,what was going on,i doubt it was a secret. pete woodley

4:50pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Arjay says...

Found gulity of rape -- and then given bail?......it really is a very strange justice system we seem to have on occasion??....
Found gulity of rape -- and then given bail?......it really is a very strange justice system we seem to have on occasion??.... Arjay

5:12pm Fri 20 Dec 13

susi.m says...

Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.
Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension. susi.m

5:28pm Fri 20 Dec 13

kazzzo says...

susi.m wrote:
Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.
Slight deviation but... He was retained so has little or no pension. The fat pension you refer to for whole timers is paid for every month with 13 % of their salary. Know anyone else that contributes that much since the age if 20?
[quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.[/p][/quote]Slight deviation but... He was retained so has little or no pension. The fat pension you refer to for whole timers is paid for every month with 13 % of their salary. Know anyone else that contributes that much since the age if 20? kazzzo

5:29pm Fri 20 Dec 13

ferndun says...

susi.m wrote:
Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.
You don't have to worry as the tax payer won't be funding his pension as he was a retained fireman and didn't have a pension. It's amazing how people jump to conclusions. Perhaps if you invested £300 a month out of your salary as fire fighters do in pension contributions you may have reap your just reward. Happy Christmas!
[quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.[/p][/quote]You don't have to worry as the tax payer won't be funding his pension as he was a retained fireman and didn't have a pension. It's amazing how people jump to conclusions. Perhaps if you invested £300 a month out of your salary as fire fighters do in pension contributions you may have reap your just reward. Happy Christmas! ferndun

5:29pm Fri 20 Dec 13

kazzzo says...

NB. Agree though - if he had one - take away!
NB. Agree though - if he had one - take away! kazzzo

5:52pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him.

its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just.

i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.
as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him. its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just. i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation. Sir Alan

5:53pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Not again !! says...

susi.m wrote:
Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.
What makes you think that this man gets a pension as a retained firefighter who has been retired for a number of years. What a pointless comment !
[quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.[/p][/quote]What makes you think that this man gets a pension as a retained firefighter who has been retired for a number of years. What a pointless comment ! Not again !!

5:56pm Fri 20 Dec 13

hooplaa says...

Doesnt make sense he got bailed! Should have been remanded in custody so he doesnt get to spend Christmas and new year with his family.
Doesnt make sense he got bailed! Should have been remanded in custody so he doesnt get to spend Christmas and new year with his family. hooplaa

5:59pm Fri 20 Dec 13

jill M says...

kazzzo wrote:
susi.m wrote:
Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.
Slight deviation but... He was retained so has little or no pension. The fat pension you refer to for whole timers is paid for every month with 13 % of their salary. Know anyone else that contributes that much since the age if 20?
The police also have that amount taken out of their wages to pay for their pension.
[quote][p][bold]kazzzo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.[/p][/quote]Slight deviation but... He was retained so has little or no pension. The fat pension you refer to for whole timers is paid for every month with 13 % of their salary. Know anyone else that contributes that much since the age if 20?[/p][/quote]The police also have that amount taken out of their wages to pay for their pension. jill M

6:14pm Fri 20 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

kazzzo wrote:
susi.m wrote:
Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.
Slight deviation but... He was retained so has little or no pension. The fat pension you refer to for whole timers is paid for every month with 13 % of their salary. Know anyone else that contributes that much since the age if 20?
Please stop trying to split this hair it's silly, because that is 13% (itemised for tax purposes) from a salary which as a whole package is entirely paid for by the public, so NO there are certainly not many of us whose employer pays that much on our behalf into our pension schemes - and then additionally subsidises them. Nor for that matter are we able to retire in our fifties and then enjoy an index linked works pension for several decades whilst still youthful enough to pursue a second career.
[quote][p][bold]kazzzo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.[/p][/quote]Slight deviation but... He was retained so has little or no pension. The fat pension you refer to for whole timers is paid for every month with 13 % of their salary. Know anyone else that contributes that much since the age if 20?[/p][/quote]Please stop trying to split this hair it's silly, because that is 13% (itemised for tax purposes) from a salary which as a whole package is entirely paid for by the public, so NO there are certainly not many of us whose employer pays that much on our behalf into our pension schemes - and then additionally subsidises them. Nor for that matter are we able to retire in our fifties and then enjoy an index linked works pension for several decades whilst still youthful enough to pursue a second career. muscliffman

6:15pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Moimccallion says...

Sir Alan wrote:
as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him.

its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just.

i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.
Alleged??? It has been proved so he is no longer the 'alleged victim'
As for compensation if you had been reading this story through the week you would have seen the victim had no intention of financial gain!!
If I read your comment correct it seems that you think that if you have committed a crime 35/37 years ago then they should get away with it!! Where is the justice in that???
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him. its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just. i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.[/p][/quote]Alleged??? It has been proved so he is no longer the 'alleged victim' As for compensation if you had been reading this story through the week you would have seen the victim had no intention of financial gain!! If I read your comment correct it seems that you think that if you have committed a crime 35/37 years ago then they should get away with it!! Where is the justice in that??? Moimccallion

6:24pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Telscombe Cliffy says...

Sir Alan wrote:
as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him.

its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just.

i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.
Agree , but there must have been other evidence? Surely you cannot be convicted just because someone just said you did it as there is room for lying and fabrication to discredit someone. This short article by the Echo may not contain all the facts. People need to actually be in court for the whole trial before making any comments here really.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him. its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just. i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.[/p][/quote]Agree , but there must have been other evidence? Surely you cannot be convicted just because someone just said you did it as there is room for lying and fabrication to discredit someone. This short article by the Echo may not contain all the facts. People need to actually be in court for the whole trial before making any comments here really. Telscombe Cliffy

6:30pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented Sir Alan

6:32pm Fri 20 Dec 13

itsneverblackorwhite says...

Arjay wrote:
Found gulity of rape -- and then given bail?......it really is a very strange justice system we seem to have on occasion??....
Judge Samuel Wiggs strikes again! The Judge who seems to be sympathetic to criminals especially according to reports in the Echo those crimes of a sexual nature!
[quote][p][bold]Arjay[/bold] wrote: Found gulity of rape -- and then given bail?......it really is a very strange justice system we seem to have on occasion??....[/p][/quote]Judge Samuel Wiggs strikes again! The Judge who seems to be sympathetic to criminals especially according to reports in the Echo those crimes of a sexual nature! itsneverblackorwhite

6:35pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Moimccallion wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him.

its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just.

i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.
Alleged??? It has been proved so he is no longer the 'alleged victim'
As for compensation if you had been reading this story through the week you would have seen the victim had no intention of financial gain!!
If I read your comment correct it seems that you think that if you have committed a crime 35/37 years ago then they should get away with it!! Where is the justice in that???
it was proven in court that 6 inocent people bombed a birmingham pub. only to find several years later they had been framed by the police and the crown so dont even go down that road.

also do you imagine anyone claiming compensation is going to go public about it . i doubt that very much.

can you remember what you were doing 4o years ago on a given day , ?
[quote][p][bold]Moimccallion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him. its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just. i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.[/p][/quote]Alleged??? It has been proved so he is no longer the 'alleged victim' As for compensation if you had been reading this story through the week you would have seen the victim had no intention of financial gain!! If I read your comment correct it seems that you think that if you have committed a crime 35/37 years ago then they should get away with it!! Where is the justice in that???[/p][/quote]it was proven in court that 6 inocent people bombed a birmingham pub. only to find several years later they had been framed by the police and the crown so dont even go down that road. also do you imagine anyone claiming compensation is going to go public about it . i doubt that very much. can you remember what you were doing 4o years ago on a given day , ? Sir Alan

6:41pm Fri 20 Dec 13

itsneverblackorwhite says...

Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
Well if what you say is true, then I am sure his legal team will be seeking an appeal
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]Well if what you say is true, then I am sure his legal team will be seeking an appeal itsneverblackorwhite

6:46pm Fri 20 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

jill M wrote:
kazzzo wrote:
susi.m wrote:
Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.
Slight deviation but... He was retained so has little or no pension. The fat pension you refer to for whole timers is paid for every month with 13 % of their salary. Know anyone else that contributes that much since the age if 20?
The police also have that amount taken out of their wages to pay for their pension.
Yes - and who pays those wages and later subsidises the pension?
[quote][p][bold]jill M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kazzzo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.[/p][/quote]Slight deviation but... He was retained so has little or no pension. The fat pension you refer to for whole timers is paid for every month with 13 % of their salary. Know anyone else that contributes that much since the age if 20?[/p][/quote]The police also have that amount taken out of their wages to pay for their pension.[/p][/quote]Yes - and who pays those wages and later subsidises the pension? muscliffman

6:47pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Veryhappyincomer says...

Sir Alan wrote:
as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him.

its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just.

i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.
I did jury service in a similar case a few years ago. One person's word against another. The defendant in that case had witnesses to disprove the alleged victim, and personally I could not see why the case had even been brought - the prosecutions case was so slim. Yet the defendant, whom I am convinced was the real innocent victim, was only acquitted on a majority verdict.
There are some people who think that if it goes to trial then the accused is automatically guilty, otherwise they wouldn't bring the case. And there are others who think that anyone brought to court for such a crime is an evil so and so, regardless of any actual evidence that is presented in court. They seem to forget the oath that they take to try the case on the evidence.
In this case, I would have loved to have had the time to sit through the case and be a fly on the wall of the jury room. Unless there was some really damning evidence, in a one on one case like this, I would have thought that the accused should never be convicted due to reasonable doubt.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him. its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just. i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.[/p][/quote]I did jury service in a similar case a few years ago. One person's word against another. The defendant in that case had witnesses to disprove the alleged victim, and personally I could not see why the case had even been brought - the prosecutions case was so slim. Yet the defendant, whom I am convinced was the real innocent victim, was only acquitted on a majority verdict. There are some people who think that if it goes to trial then the accused is automatically guilty, otherwise they wouldn't bring the case. And there are others who think that anyone brought to court for such a crime is an evil so and so, regardless of any actual evidence that is presented in court. They seem to forget the oath that they take to try the case on the evidence. In this case, I would have loved to have had the time to sit through the case and be a fly on the wall of the jury room. Unless there was some really damning evidence, in a one on one case like this, I would have thought that the accused should never be convicted due to reasonable doubt. Veryhappyincomer

6:55pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Veryhappyincomer wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him.

its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just.

i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.
I did jury service in a similar case a few years ago. One person's word against another. The defendant in that case had witnesses to disprove the alleged victim, and personally I could not see why the case had even been brought - the prosecutions case was so slim. Yet the defendant, whom I am convinced was the real innocent victim, was only acquitted on a majority verdict.
There are some people who think that if it goes to trial then the accused is automatically guilty, otherwise they wouldn't bring the case. And there are others who think that anyone brought to court for such a crime is an evil so and so, regardless of any actual evidence that is presented in court. They seem to forget the oath that they take to try the case on the evidence.
In this case, I would have loved to have had the time to sit through the case and be a fly on the wall of the jury room. Unless there was some really damning evidence, in a one on one case like this, I would have thought that the accused should never be convicted due to reasonable doubt.
very well put
[quote][p][bold]Veryhappyincomer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him. its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just. i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.[/p][/quote]I did jury service in a similar case a few years ago. One person's word against another. The defendant in that case had witnesses to disprove the alleged victim, and personally I could not see why the case had even been brought - the prosecutions case was so slim. Yet the defendant, whom I am convinced was the real innocent victim, was only acquitted on a majority verdict. There are some people who think that if it goes to trial then the accused is automatically guilty, otherwise they wouldn't bring the case. And there are others who think that anyone brought to court for such a crime is an evil so and so, regardless of any actual evidence that is presented in court. They seem to forget the oath that they take to try the case on the evidence. In this case, I would have loved to have had the time to sit through the case and be a fly on the wall of the jury room. Unless there was some really damning evidence, in a one on one case like this, I would have thought that the accused should never be convicted due to reasonable doubt.[/p][/quote]very well put Sir Alan

7:06pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Telscombe Cliffy says...

Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid. Telscombe Cliffy

7:09pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Telscombe Cliffy says...

Veryhappyincomer wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him.

its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just.

i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.
I did jury service in a similar case a few years ago. One person's word against another. The defendant in that case had witnesses to disprove the alleged victim, and personally I could not see why the case had even been brought - the prosecutions case was so slim. Yet the defendant, whom I am convinced was the real innocent victim, was only acquitted on a majority verdict.
There are some people who think that if it goes to trial then the accused is automatically guilty, otherwise they wouldn't bring the case. And there are others who think that anyone brought to court for such a crime is an evil so and so, regardless of any actual evidence that is presented in court. They seem to forget the oath that they take to try the case on the evidence.
In this case, I would have loved to have had the time to sit through the case and be a fly on the wall of the jury room. Unless there was some really damning evidence, in a one on one case like this, I would have thought that the accused should never be convicted due to reasonable doubt.
Yes, well said
[quote][p][bold]Veryhappyincomer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him. its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just. i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.[/p][/quote]I did jury service in a similar case a few years ago. One person's word against another. The defendant in that case had witnesses to disprove the alleged victim, and personally I could not see why the case had even been brought - the prosecutions case was so slim. Yet the defendant, whom I am convinced was the real innocent victim, was only acquitted on a majority verdict. There are some people who think that if it goes to trial then the accused is automatically guilty, otherwise they wouldn't bring the case. And there are others who think that anyone brought to court for such a crime is an evil so and so, regardless of any actual evidence that is presented in court. They seem to forget the oath that they take to try the case on the evidence. In this case, I would have loved to have had the time to sit through the case and be a fly on the wall of the jury room. Unless there was some really damning evidence, in a one on one case like this, I would have thought that the accused should never be convicted due to reasonable doubt.[/p][/quote]Yes, well said Telscombe Cliffy

7:14pm Fri 20 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

Sir Alan wrote:
Veryhappyincomer wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him.

its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just.

i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.
I did jury service in a similar case a few years ago. One person's word against another. The defendant in that case had witnesses to disprove the alleged victim, and personally I could not see why the case had even been brought - the prosecutions case was so slim. Yet the defendant, whom I am convinced was the real innocent victim, was only acquitted on a majority verdict.
There are some people who think that if it goes to trial then the accused is automatically guilty, otherwise they wouldn't bring the case. And there are others who think that anyone brought to court for such a crime is an evil so and so, regardless of any actual evidence that is presented in court. They seem to forget the oath that they take to try the case on the evidence.
In this case, I would have loved to have had the time to sit through the case and be a fly on the wall of the jury room. Unless there was some really damning evidence, in a one on one case like this, I would have thought that the accused should never be convicted due to reasonable doubt.
very well put
It is a tricky case because for me 'forty years ago' and 'reasonable doubt' are a very unhappy legal mix.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Veryhappyincomer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him. its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just. i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.[/p][/quote]I did jury service in a similar case a few years ago. One person's word against another. The defendant in that case had witnesses to disprove the alleged victim, and personally I could not see why the case had even been brought - the prosecutions case was so slim. Yet the defendant, whom I am convinced was the real innocent victim, was only acquitted on a majority verdict. There are some people who think that if it goes to trial then the accused is automatically guilty, otherwise they wouldn't bring the case. And there are others who think that anyone brought to court for such a crime is an evil so and so, regardless of any actual evidence that is presented in court. They seem to forget the oath that they take to try the case on the evidence. In this case, I would have loved to have had the time to sit through the case and be a fly on the wall of the jury room. Unless there was some really damning evidence, in a one on one case like this, I would have thought that the accused should never be convicted due to reasonable doubt.[/p][/quote]very well put[/p][/quote]It is a tricky case because for me 'forty years ago' and 'reasonable doubt' are a very unhappy legal mix. muscliffman

7:21pm Fri 20 Dec 13

ShuttleX says...

The law is an ****, or the law is spot on, depending if YOU think somebody is guilty or not.
The law is an ****, or the law is spot on, depending if YOU think somebody is guilty or not. ShuttleX

7:23pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Moimccallion says...

Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.
Were you on the jury??
If so you shouldn't even be commenting!!
A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court???
Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!!
[quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.[/p][/quote]Were you on the jury?? If so you shouldn't even be commenting!! A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court??? Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!! Moimccallion

7:24pm Fri 20 Dec 13

ferndun says...

jill M wrote:
kazzzo wrote:
susi.m wrote:
Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.
Slight deviation but... He was retained so has little or no pension. The fat pension you refer to for whole timers is paid for every month with 13 % of their salary. Know anyone else that contributes that much since the age if 20?
The police also have that amount taken out of their wages to pay for their pension.
Yes they do and they too are hacked off with the way they're being treated but can't strike. The majority would strike if they had the ability to do so
.
[quote][p][bold]jill M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kazzzo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.[/p][/quote]Slight deviation but... He was retained so has little or no pension. The fat pension you refer to for whole timers is paid for every month with 13 % of their salary. Know anyone else that contributes that much since the age if 20?[/p][/quote]The police also have that amount taken out of their wages to pay for their pension.[/p][/quote]Yes they do and they too are hacked off with the way they're being treated but can't strike. The majority would strike if they had the ability to do so . ferndun

7:31pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

Moimccallion wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.
Were you on the jury??
If so you shouldn't even be commenting!!
A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court???
Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!!
Lets hope you never have to try to disprove an allegation made by someone with no corroborating evidence and defend your liberty.
[quote][p][bold]Moimccallion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.[/p][/quote]Were you on the jury?? If so you shouldn't even be commenting!! A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court??? Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!![/p][/quote]Lets hope you never have to try to disprove an allegation made by someone with no corroborating evidence and defend your liberty. Macbeth100

7:33pm Fri 20 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
Moimccallion wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.
Were you on the jury??
If so you shouldn't even be commenting!!
A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court???
Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!!
Lets hope you never have to try to disprove an allegation made by someone with no corroborating evidence and defend your liberty.
all pals together.
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moimccallion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.[/p][/quote]Were you on the jury?? If so you shouldn't even be commenting!! A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court??? Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!![/p][/quote]Lets hope you never have to try to disprove an allegation made by someone with no corroborating evidence and defend your liberty.[/p][/quote]all pals together. pete woodley

7:34pm Fri 20 Dec 13

mikeymagic says...

ferndun wrote:
jill M wrote:
kazzzo wrote:
susi.m wrote:
Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.
Slight deviation but... He was retained so has little or no pension. The fat pension you refer to for whole timers is paid for every month with 13 % of their salary. Know anyone else that contributes that much since the age if 20?
The police also have that amount taken out of their wages to pay for their pension.
Yes they do and they too are hacked off with the way they're being treated but can't strike. The majority would strike if they had the ability to do so
.
Don't like the way you are using this forum for your own personal beliefs/issues. NO-one wins here, you either have an old bloke getting what is deserved or someone terrified about his future based on one persons word against his.
[quote][p][bold]ferndun[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jill M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kazzzo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: Can the law enable his fat pension to be taken away?. It is us the tax payer who is funding this pension.[/p][/quote]Slight deviation but... He was retained so has little or no pension. The fat pension you refer to for whole timers is paid for every month with 13 % of their salary. Know anyone else that contributes that much since the age if 20?[/p][/quote]The police also have that amount taken out of their wages to pay for their pension.[/p][/quote]Yes they do and they too are hacked off with the way they're being treated but can't strike. The majority would strike if they had the ability to do so .[/p][/quote]Don't like the way you are using this forum for your own personal beliefs/issues. NO-one wins here, you either have an old bloke getting what is deserved or someone terrified about his future based on one persons word against his. mikeymagic

7:42pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

pete woodley wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
Moimccallion wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.
Were you on the jury??
If so you shouldn't even be commenting!!
A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court???
Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!!
Lets hope you never have to try to disprove an allegation made by someone with no corroborating evidence and defend your liberty.
all pals together.
Hardly.......know anything about the case do you ?
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moimccallion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.[/p][/quote]Were you on the jury?? If so you shouldn't even be commenting!! A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court??? Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!![/p][/quote]Lets hope you never have to try to disprove an allegation made by someone with no corroborating evidence and defend your liberty.[/p][/quote]all pals together.[/p][/quote]Hardly.......know anything about the case do you ? Macbeth100

8:22pm Fri 20 Dec 13

shaft says...

The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.
The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime. shaft

8:31pm Fri 20 Dec 13

simcal says...

One persons word against another with no other evidence. Alleged to have happened 40 yrs ago. Sorry, but how did it get past the reasonable doubt test? It's just the police and CPS knowing it will be an easy prosecution and gauranteed conviction to make their statistics look good.
One persons word against another with no other evidence. Alleged to have happened 40 yrs ago. Sorry, but how did it get past the reasonable doubt test? It's just the police and CPS knowing it will be an easy prosecution and gauranteed conviction to make their statistics look good. simcal

8:33pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

shaft wrote:
The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.
Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ?

Birmingham Six
Guildford Four
Steven Dowling
Stefan Kiszko
Derek Bentley
Judith Ward
Angela Cannings
Barry George

The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal.

A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country,
[quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ? Birmingham Six Guildford Four Steven Dowling Stefan Kiszko Derek Bentley Judith Ward Angela Cannings Barry George The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal. A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country, Macbeth100

8:47pm Fri 20 Dec 13

simcal says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
shaft wrote:
The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.
Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ?

Birmingham Six
Guildford Four
Steven Dowling
Stefan Kiszko
Derek Bentley
Judith Ward
Angela Cannings
Barry George

The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal.

A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country,
The problem is when it comes to allegations of child abuse to many people just assume no smoke without fire. CPS just love this type of case. They get to show how good they are in prosecuting with a more or less certain conviction with very little work.
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ? Birmingham Six Guildford Four Steven Dowling Stefan Kiszko Derek Bentley Judith Ward Angela Cannings Barry George The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal. A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country,[/p][/quote]The problem is when it comes to allegations of child abuse to many people just assume no smoke without fire. CPS just love this type of case. They get to show how good they are in prosecuting with a more or less certain conviction with very little work. simcal

8:52pm Fri 20 Dec 13

shaft says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
shaft wrote:
The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.
Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ?

Birmingham Six
Guildford Four
Steven Dowling
Stefan Kiszko
Derek Bentley
Judith Ward
Angela Cannings
Barry George

The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal.

A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country,
You forgot Dick Turpin. Get real. You want to defend your friend, speak to the courts. Shameful crime.
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ? Birmingham Six Guildford Four Steven Dowling Stefan Kiszko Derek Bentley Judith Ward Angela Cannings Barry George The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal. A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country,[/p][/quote]You forgot Dick Turpin. Get real. You want to defend your friend, speak to the courts. Shameful crime. shaft

8:52pm Fri 20 Dec 13

beachcomber1 says...

Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this?
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this? beachcomber1

8:54pm Fri 20 Dec 13

simcal says...

If Bryant had gone to the police and made a complaint of blackmail, it could well have been the alleged victim on trial withe the roles reversed. Then again perhaps not because the police and CPS would have had to do some work!
If Bryant had gone to the police and made a complaint of blackmail, it could well have been the alleged victim on trial withe the roles reversed. Then again perhaps not because the police and CPS would have had to do some work! simcal

8:59pm Fri 20 Dec 13

simcal says...

beachcomber1 wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this?
How else can you explain the conviction when there was no other evidence?
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this?[/p][/quote]How else can you explain the conviction when there was no other evidence? simcal

9:03pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

Bryant disregarded the note because he didn't have a clue what it was about, he thought it was a prank or wind up. When Bryant didn't contact the alleged victim, the alleged victim went to the Police with his story. Don't you think if Bryant was trying to protect himself and cover up any mis deed in his past he would of at least contacted the so called victim on the telephone number on the note ?
Bryant disregarded the note because he didn't have a clue what it was about, he thought it was a prank or wind up. When Bryant didn't contact the alleged victim, the alleged victim went to the Police with his story. Don't you think if Bryant was trying to protect himself and cover up any mis deed in his past he would of at least contacted the so called victim on the telephone number on the note ? Macbeth100

9:07pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

simcal wrote:
beachcomber1 wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this?
How else can you explain the conviction when there was no other evidence?
Because it was a jury trail. Have you ever sat on a jury ? and seen first hand how different walks of life see the same case in different lights ?
[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this?[/p][/quote]How else can you explain the conviction when there was no other evidence?[/p][/quote]Because it was a jury trail. Have you ever sat on a jury ? and seen first hand how different walks of life see the same case in different lights ? Macbeth100

9:20pm Fri 20 Dec 13

simcal says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
simcal wrote:
beachcomber1 wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this?
How else can you explain the conviction when there was no other evidence?
Because it was a jury trail. Have you ever sat on a jury ? and seen first hand how different walks of life see the same case in different lights ?
If you actually believe half the jury even have the comprehension to understand a judges directions you are living in cloud cukoo land. Jury trial is only the least worse alternative. I would rather it was a panel of judges.
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this?[/p][/quote]How else can you explain the conviction when there was no other evidence?[/p][/quote]Because it was a jury trail. Have you ever sat on a jury ? and seen first hand how different walks of life see the same case in different lights ?[/p][/quote]If you actually believe half the jury even have the comprehension to understand a judges directions you are living in cloud cukoo land. Jury trial is only the least worse alternative. I would rather it was a panel of judges. simcal

9:22pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

shaft wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
shaft wrote:
The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.
Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ?

Birmingham Six
Guildford Four
Steven Dowling
Stefan Kiszko
Derek Bentley
Judith Ward
Angela Cannings
Barry George

The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal.

A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country,
You forgot Dick Turpin. Get real. You want to defend your friend, speak to the courts. Shameful crime.
Dick Turpin was guilty, don't trivialise the list of miscarriages of justice.Bryant isn't my friend by the way I want to live in a society where the population have faith in the justice system. Currently I don't and I just think it is highly suspect that he can be convicted by a majority and not beyond reasonable doubt of a crime he is alleged to have committed while at the same time he was out there saving lives and helping the community for which he was recognised and honoured for his bravery as a retained fire fighter.
[quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ? Birmingham Six Guildford Four Steven Dowling Stefan Kiszko Derek Bentley Judith Ward Angela Cannings Barry George The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal. A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country,[/p][/quote]You forgot Dick Turpin. Get real. You want to defend your friend, speak to the courts. Shameful crime.[/p][/quote]Dick Turpin was guilty, don't trivialise the list of miscarriages of justice.Bryant isn't my friend by the way I want to live in a society where the population have faith in the justice system. Currently I don't and I just think it is highly suspect that he can be convicted by a majority and not beyond reasonable doubt of a crime he is alleged to have committed while at the same time he was out there saving lives and helping the community for which he was recognised and honoured for his bravery as a retained fire fighter. Macbeth100

9:24pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

He was guilty
He was guilty Johns66

9:25pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

Johns66 wrote:
He was guilty
Prove it
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: He was guilty[/p][/quote]Prove it Macbeth100

9:26pm Fri 20 Dec 13

simcal says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
shaft wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
shaft wrote:
The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.
Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ?

Birmingham Six
Guildford Four
Steven Dowling
Stefan Kiszko
Derek Bentley
Judith Ward
Angela Cannings
Barry George

The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal.

A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country,
You forgot Dick Turpin. Get real. You want to defend your friend, speak to the courts. Shameful crime.
Dick Turpin was guilty, don't trivialise the list of miscarriages of justice.Bryant isn't my friend by the way I want to live in a society where the population have faith in the justice system. Currently I don't and I just think it is highly suspect that he can be convicted by a majority and not beyond reasonable doubt of a crime he is alleged to have committed while at the same time he was out there saving lives and helping the community for which he was recognised and honoured for his bravery as a retained fire fighter.
Some people believe the police never lie or the CPS never withold evidence.
This will go to appeal and very quietly with little fanfare the conviction will be set aside as unsafe. It won't be reported so the illusion of justice can be maintained.
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ? Birmingham Six Guildford Four Steven Dowling Stefan Kiszko Derek Bentley Judith Ward Angela Cannings Barry George The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal. A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country,[/p][/quote]You forgot Dick Turpin. Get real. You want to defend your friend, speak to the courts. Shameful crime.[/p][/quote]Dick Turpin was guilty, don't trivialise the list of miscarriages of justice.Bryant isn't my friend by the way I want to live in a society where the population have faith in the justice system. Currently I don't and I just think it is highly suspect that he can be convicted by a majority and not beyond reasonable doubt of a crime he is alleged to have committed while at the same time he was out there saving lives and helping the community for which he was recognised and honoured for his bravery as a retained fire fighter.[/p][/quote]Some people believe the police never lie or the CPS never withold evidence. This will go to appeal and very quietly with little fanfare the conviction will be set aside as unsafe. It won't be reported so the illusion of justice can be maintained. simcal

9:26pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

The world is full of people who hide behind there status in society. Yes like savill people in a position of trust
The world is full of people who hide behind there status in society. Yes like savill people in a position of trust Johns66

9:30pm Fri 20 Dec 13

simcal says...

Johns66 wrote:
He was guilty
lol, you mean he was found guilty by a jury. That does not mean he committed the crime.
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: He was guilty[/p][/quote]lol, you mean he was found guilty by a jury. That does not mean he committed the crime. simcal

9:31pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

I also think before you say the word blackmail in relation to the note first you should read the complete note and I believe mr bryant did go to the police before the accuser Sorry for the spelling
I also think before you say the word blackmail in relation to the note first you should read the complete note and I believe mr bryant did go to the police before the accuser Sorry for the spelling Johns66

9:32pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

simcal wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
shaft wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
shaft wrote:
The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.
Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ?

Birmingham Six
Guildford Four
Steven Dowling
Stefan Kiszko
Derek Bentley
Judith Ward
Angela Cannings
Barry George

The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal.

A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country,
You forgot Dick Turpin. Get real. You want to defend your friend, speak to the courts. Shameful crime.
Dick Turpin was guilty, don't trivialise the list of miscarriages of justice.Bryant isn't my friend by the way I want to live in a society where the population have faith in the justice system. Currently I don't and I just think it is highly suspect that he can be convicted by a majority and not beyond reasonable doubt of a crime he is alleged to have committed while at the same time he was out there saving lives and helping the community for which he was recognised and honoured for his bravery as a retained fire fighter.
Some people believe the police never lie or the CPS never withold evidence.
This will go to appeal and very quietly with little fanfare the conviction will be set aside as unsafe. It won't be reported so the illusion of justice can be maintained.
Meanwhile the damage to a possibly innocent man's reputation is already done.
[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ? Birmingham Six Guildford Four Steven Dowling Stefan Kiszko Derek Bentley Judith Ward Angela Cannings Barry George The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal. A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country,[/p][/quote]You forgot Dick Turpin. Get real. You want to defend your friend, speak to the courts. Shameful crime.[/p][/quote]Dick Turpin was guilty, don't trivialise the list of miscarriages of justice.Bryant isn't my friend by the way I want to live in a society where the population have faith in the justice system. Currently I don't and I just think it is highly suspect that he can be convicted by a majority and not beyond reasonable doubt of a crime he is alleged to have committed while at the same time he was out there saving lives and helping the community for which he was recognised and honoured for his bravery as a retained fire fighter.[/p][/quote]Some people believe the police never lie or the CPS never withold evidence. This will go to appeal and very quietly with little fanfare the conviction will be set aside as unsafe. It won't be reported so the illusion of justice can be maintained.[/p][/quote]Meanwhile the damage to a possibly innocent man's reputation is already done. Macbeth100

9:34pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

Johns66 wrote:
I also think before you say the word blackmail in relation to the note first you should read the complete note and I believe mr bryant did go to the police before the accuser Sorry for the spelling
OK so that makes it even more curiouser then ? Why would Bryant go to the Police if he thought a dirty secret, which would leave him wide open to prosecution, from years ago would come out ? he knew who the note was from, it doesn't make sense ? why not confront his accuser without the police ?
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: I also think before you say the word blackmail in relation to the note first you should read the complete note and I believe mr bryant did go to the police before the accuser Sorry for the spelling[/p][/quote]OK so that makes it even more curiouser then ? Why would Bryant go to the Police if he thought a dirty secret, which would leave him wide open to prosecution, from years ago would come out ? he knew who the note was from, it doesn't make sense ? why not confront his accuser without the police ? Macbeth100

9:35pm Fri 20 Dec 13

simcal says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
simcal wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
shaft wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
shaft wrote:
The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.
Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ?

Birmingham Six
Guildford Four
Steven Dowling
Stefan Kiszko
Derek Bentley
Judith Ward
Angela Cannings
Barry George

The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal.

A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country,
You forgot Dick Turpin. Get real. You want to defend your friend, speak to the courts. Shameful crime.
Dick Turpin was guilty, don't trivialise the list of miscarriages of justice.Bryant isn't my friend by the way I want to live in a society where the population have faith in the justice system. Currently I don't and I just think it is highly suspect that he can be convicted by a majority and not beyond reasonable doubt of a crime he is alleged to have committed while at the same time he was out there saving lives and helping the community for which he was recognised and honoured for his bravery as a retained fire fighter.
Some people believe the police never lie or the CPS never withold evidence.
This will go to appeal and very quietly with little fanfare the conviction will be set aside as unsafe. It won't be reported so the illusion of justice can be maintained.
Meanwhile the damage to a possibly innocent man's reputation is already done.
I could not agree more!
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shaft[/bold] wrote: The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer to put it to court. He will be sentenced and locked up with the other sex cases tarred as a child rapist. Why has the courts bailed him. Shameful crime.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the CPS are never wrong are they ? Birmingham Six Guildford Four Steven Dowling Stefan Kiszko Derek Bentley Judith Ward Angela Cannings Barry George The list goes on and this case is another to add to that list pending an appeal. A man of previous impeccable character who should be defiled by an accuser with not a shred of credible evidence is a travesty of the justice system in this country,[/p][/quote]You forgot Dick Turpin. Get real. You want to defend your friend, speak to the courts. Shameful crime.[/p][/quote]Dick Turpin was guilty, don't trivialise the list of miscarriages of justice.Bryant isn't my friend by the way I want to live in a society where the population have faith in the justice system. Currently I don't and I just think it is highly suspect that he can be convicted by a majority and not beyond reasonable doubt of a crime he is alleged to have committed while at the same time he was out there saving lives and helping the community for which he was recognised and honoured for his bravery as a retained fire fighter.[/p][/quote]Some people believe the police never lie or the CPS never withold evidence. This will go to appeal and very quietly with little fanfare the conviction will be set aside as unsafe. It won't be reported so the illusion of justice can be maintained.[/p][/quote]Meanwhile the damage to a possibly innocent man's reputation is already done.[/p][/quote]I could not agree more! simcal

9:42pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Yes you are right he was found guilty by a jury But the prisons are full of people protesting there innocence Nothing has need said about the other man involved mr goodman is it I think I read he had died. Does anyone know if he had any previous convictions for this sort of thing As it is understood this crime was committed together
Yes you are right he was found guilty by a jury But the prisons are full of people protesting there innocence Nothing has need said about the other man involved mr goodman is it I think I read he had died. Does anyone know if he had any previous convictions for this sort of thing As it is understood this crime was committed together Johns66

9:47pm Fri 20 Dec 13

simcal says...

Johns66 wrote:
Yes you are right he was found guilty by a jury But the prisons are full of people protesting there innocence Nothing has need said about the other man involved mr goodman is it I think I read he had died. Does anyone know if he had any previous convictions for this sort of thing As it is understood this crime was committed together
That does not mean some are not innocent! Earlier in the thread there was a list of people proved to be subsequently innocent. But hey they are all guilty that's why there in prison according to your logic. The concept of miscarriage of justice might be a tad complex for you to understand.
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: Yes you are right he was found guilty by a jury But the prisons are full of people protesting there innocence Nothing has need said about the other man involved mr goodman is it I think I read he had died. Does anyone know if he had any previous convictions for this sort of thing As it is understood this crime was committed together[/p][/quote]That does not mean some are not innocent! Earlier in the thread there was a list of people proved to be subsequently innocent. But hey they are all guilty that's why there in prison according to your logic. The concept of miscarriage of justice might be a tad complex for you to understand. simcal

9:54pm Fri 20 Dec 13

simcal says...

The fact he opted for a jury trial makes me think twice about his guilt. His solicitor and barrister would have advised against it. They would have explained the chances of him being found not guilty would be slim and the fact he opted for trial then any sentence would not have credit for an early guilty plea. What a state our criminal justice system has turned into as regards this type of alleged crime.
The fact he opted for a jury trial makes me think twice about his guilt. His solicitor and barrister would have advised against it. They would have explained the chances of him being found not guilty would be slim and the fact he opted for trial then any sentence would not have credit for an early guilty plea. What a state our criminal justice system has turned into as regards this type of alleged crime. simcal

9:54pm Fri 20 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

Arjay wrote:
Found gulity of rape -- and then given bail?......it really is a very strange justice system we seem to have on occasion??....
Apart from topping himself where do you think he's going?

Oh hang on.....
[quote][p][bold]Arjay[/bold] wrote: Found gulity of rape -- and then given bail?......it really is a very strange justice system we seem to have on occasion??....[/p][/quote]Apart from topping himself where do you think he's going? Oh hang on..... scrumpyjack

9:57pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

No you are right there have been many people put away that have been proved later to be innocent I agree but my personel view in this instance is justice was right having said that were any of us at the trial If not we are only commenting on what we have read Does anyone have an answer to my other question regarding mr goodman. As this my shed some light
No you are right there have been many people put away that have been proved later to be innocent I agree but my personel view in this instance is justice was right having said that were any of us at the trial If not we are only commenting on what we have read Does anyone have an answer to my other question regarding mr goodman. As this my shed some light Johns66

9:58pm Fri 20 Dec 13

simcal says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Arjay wrote:
Found gulity of rape -- and then given bail?......it really is a very strange justice system we seem to have on occasion??....
Apart from topping himself where do you think he's going?

Oh hang on.....
Love your sense of humour! lol
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arjay[/bold] wrote: Found gulity of rape -- and then given bail?......it really is a very strange justice system we seem to have on occasion??....[/p][/quote]Apart from topping himself where do you think he's going? Oh hang on.....[/p][/quote]Love your sense of humour! lol simcal

10:01pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Arjay wrote:
Found gulity of rape -- and then given bail?......it really is a very strange justice system we seem to have on occasion??....
Apart from topping himself where do you think he's going?

Oh hang on.....
Not to butlins
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arjay[/bold] wrote: Found gulity of rape -- and then given bail?......it really is a very strange justice system we seem to have on occasion??....[/p][/quote]Apart from topping himself where do you think he's going? Oh hang on.....[/p][/quote]Not to butlins Johns66

10:01pm Fri 20 Dec 13

simcal says...

Johns66 wrote:
No you are right there have been many people put away that have been proved later to be innocent I agree but my personel view in this instance is justice was right having said that were any of us at the trial If not we are only commenting on what we have read Does anyone have an answer to my other question regarding mr goodman. As this my shed some light
No previous, or he would not have passed a CRB check. Does that make you any wiser?
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: No you are right there have been many people put away that have been proved later to be innocent I agree but my personel view in this instance is justice was right having said that were any of us at the trial If not we are only commenting on what we have read Does anyone have an answer to my other question regarding mr goodman. As this my shed some light[/p][/quote]No previous, or he would not have passed a CRB check. Does that make you any wiser? simcal

10:04pm Fri 20 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

As lynch mobs are not allowed can we all offer this peice of crap the rope he probably looking for right about noe?
As lynch mobs are not allowed can we all offer this peice of crap the rope he probably looking for right about noe? scrumpyjack

10:08pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Does anybody know anymore about the boy involved Or now the man ??
Does anybody know anymore about the boy involved Or now the man ?? Johns66

10:13pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

We're there crb checks then in the sevenths was he still working when he died ??
We're there crb checks then in the sevenths was he still working when he died ?? Johns66

10:18pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

Johns66 wrote:
Yes you are right he was found guilty by a jury But the prisons are full of people protesting there innocence Nothing has need said about the other man involved mr goodman is it I think I read he had died. Does anyone know if he had any previous convictions for this sort of thing As it is understood this crime was committed together
No, Dennis Goodman had no convictions and like Bryant was a retained fire fighter
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: Yes you are right he was found guilty by a jury But the prisons are full of people protesting there innocence Nothing has need said about the other man involved mr goodman is it I think I read he had died. Does anyone know if he had any previous convictions for this sort of thing As it is understood this crime was committed together[/p][/quote]No, Dennis Goodman had no convictions and like Bryant was a retained fire fighter Macbeth100

10:37pm Fri 20 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

There are a lot who have no previous,i have helped to send down several,who had no previous,they were clever at not being caught.
There are a lot who have no previous,i have helped to send down several,who had no previous,they were clever at not being caught. pete woodley

10:40pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

pete woodley wrote:
There are a lot who have no previous,i have helped to send down several,who had no previous,they were clever at not being caught.
Police officer then ?
Or perhaps they have no previous convictions because they are both law abiding citizens in the service of their community and more importantly are both innocent of the accusation.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: There are a lot who have no previous,i have helped to send down several,who had no previous,they were clever at not being caught.[/p][/quote]Police officer then ? Or perhaps they have no previous convictions because they are both law abiding citizens in the service of their community and more importantly are both innocent of the accusation. Macbeth100

11:21pm Fri 20 Dec 13

shaft says...

simcal wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
simcal wrote:
beachcomber1 wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this?
How else can you explain the conviction when there was no other evidence?
Because it was a jury trail. Have you ever sat on a jury ? and seen first hand how different walks of life see the same case in different lights ?
If you actually believe half the jury even have the comprehension to understand a judges directions you are living in cloud cukoo land. Jury trial is only the least worse alternative. I would rather it was a panel of judges.
Guilty verdict passed how this child rapist is allowed bail hell knows. I bet his wife's mind is working over time. Shameful man shameful crime. On the register for the rest of his sad life.
[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this?[/p][/quote]How else can you explain the conviction when there was no other evidence?[/p][/quote]Because it was a jury trail. Have you ever sat on a jury ? and seen first hand how different walks of life see the same case in different lights ?[/p][/quote]If you actually believe half the jury even have the comprehension to understand a judges directions you are living in cloud cukoo land. Jury trial is only the least worse alternative. I would rather it was a panel of judges.[/p][/quote]Guilty verdict passed how this child rapist is allowed bail hell knows. I bet his wife's mind is working over time. Shameful man shameful crime. On the register for the rest of his sad life. shaft

11:28pm Fri 20 Dec 13

ms.realjustice says...

Moimccallion wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.
Were you on the jury??
If so you shouldn't even be commenting!!
A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court???
Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!!
interesting comments, not everything can be brought up in a court, if it were, Bryant would have had even a lesser chance of getting through this, maybe someone should ask his wife what she knows.
[quote][p][bold]Moimccallion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.[/p][/quote]Were you on the jury?? If so you shouldn't even be commenting!! A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court??? Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!![/p][/quote]interesting comments, not everything can be brought up in a court, if it were, Bryant would have had even a lesser chance of getting through this, maybe someone should ask his wife what she knows. ms.realjustice

11:38pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

ms.realjustice wrote:
Moimccallion wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.
Were you on the jury??
If so you shouldn't even be commenting!!
A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court???
Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!!
interesting comments, not everything can be brought up in a court, if it were, Bryant would have had even a lesser chance of getting through this, maybe someone should ask his wife what she knows.
Everything was brought up, even accusations against a dead man to able to be there to defend himself.Maybe you should let the court (and I don't mean the jury) decide ..be very interesting to see the sentence handed down by the look on the Judge's face today....well, we'll see in January. An we'll also see what the appeal brings. In the meantime....going to leave you armchair Columbo's jumping to conclusions.
[quote][p][bold]ms.realjustice[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moimccallion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.[/p][/quote]Were you on the jury?? If so you shouldn't even be commenting!! A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court??? Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!![/p][/quote]interesting comments, not everything can be brought up in a court, if it were, Bryant would have had even a lesser chance of getting through this, maybe someone should ask his wife what she knows.[/p][/quote]Everything was brought up, even accusations against a dead man to able to be there to defend himself.Maybe you should let the court (and I don't mean the jury) decide ..be very interesting to see the sentence handed down by the look on the Judge's face today....well, we'll see in January. An we'll also see what the appeal brings. In the meantime....going to leave you armchair Columbo's jumping to conclusions. Macbeth100

11:46pm Fri 20 Dec 13

ms.realjustice says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
ms.realjustice wrote:
Moimccallion wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.
Were you on the jury??
If so you shouldn't even be commenting!!
A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court???
Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!!
interesting comments, not everything can be brought up in a court, if it were, Bryant would have had even a lesser chance of getting through this, maybe someone should ask his wife what she knows.
Everything was brought up, even accusations against a dead man to able to be there to defend himself.Maybe you should let the court (and I don't mean the jury) decide ..be very interesting to see the sentence handed down by the look on the Judge's face today....well, we'll see in January. An we'll also see what the appeal brings. In the meantime....going to leave you armchair Columbo's jumping to conclusions.
sadly it wasnt!
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ms.realjustice[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moimccallion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.[/p][/quote]Were you on the jury?? If so you shouldn't even be commenting!! A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court??? Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!![/p][/quote]interesting comments, not everything can be brought up in a court, if it were, Bryant would have had even a lesser chance of getting through this, maybe someone should ask his wife what she knows.[/p][/quote]Everything was brought up, even accusations against a dead man to able to be there to defend himself.Maybe you should let the court (and I don't mean the jury) decide ..be very interesting to see the sentence handed down by the look on the Judge's face today....well, we'll see in January. An we'll also see what the appeal brings. In the meantime....going to leave you armchair Columbo's jumping to conclusions.[/p][/quote]sadly it wasnt! ms.realjustice

11:59pm Fri 20 Dec 13

cherrydragon says...

I personally am against "my word against his" what this turns into is a farce in court as it is down to the best solicitor / barrister who can spice the story to win over a jury. Sex crimes already have the majority of jury against the defendant - I know this from jury service myself.

Our court system is turning more and more into America. We need to have evidence presented rather than law people blowing stories and putting defendants / witnesses on the spot to make them split.

Cases like these are historical and there is probably no tangible evidence.

This is a hard situation for the legal system. Young people are less likely to report it at the time where there can be tangible evidence. As time goes on and they get far more confident, then they may be in a position to talk about it - but no evidence apart from your word. What would you do? Is it fair to expect a child bullied and manipulated to report it at the time? Or do you allow adults to recall experiences with no evidence and a sensationalised story by the legal system and press?

On this occasion, I see both sides and can offer no solution APART FROM: NO COMPENSATION. Then only more genuine cases will go forward. If money is not an issue, then they are seeking justice. In Europe, there were a drop by 70% of these types of cases when compensation stopped.

So let us STOP compensating these victims financially as money wont solve it, and maybe offer counselling instead. Then these cases are far more solid.
I personally am against "my word against his" what this turns into is a farce in court as it is down to the best solicitor / barrister who can spice the story to win over a jury. Sex crimes already have the majority of jury against the defendant - I know this from jury service myself. Our court system is turning more and more into America. We need to have evidence presented rather than law people blowing stories and putting defendants / witnesses on the spot to make them split. Cases like these are historical and there is probably no tangible evidence. This is a hard situation for the legal system. Young people are less likely to report it at the time where there can be tangible evidence. As time goes on and they get far more confident, then they may be in a position to talk about it - but no evidence apart from your word. What would you do? Is it fair to expect a child bullied and manipulated to report it at the time? Or do you allow adults to recall experiences with no evidence and a sensationalised story by the legal system and press? On this occasion, I see both sides and can offer no solution APART FROM: NO COMPENSATION. Then only more genuine cases will go forward. If money is not an issue, then they are seeking justice. In Europe, there were a drop by 70% of these types of cases when compensation stopped. So let us STOP compensating these victims financially as money wont solve it, and maybe offer counselling instead. Then these cases are far more solid. cherrydragon

12:33am Sat 21 Dec 13

ms.realjustice says...

cherrydragon wrote:
I personally am against "my word against his" what this turns into is a farce in court as it is down to the best solicitor / barrister who can spice the story to win over a jury. Sex crimes already have the majority of jury against the defendant - I know this from jury service myself.

Our court system is turning more and more into America. We need to have evidence presented rather than law people blowing stories and putting defendants / witnesses on the spot to make them split.

Cases like these are historical and there is probably no tangible evidence.

This is a hard situation for the legal system. Young people are less likely to report it at the time where there can be tangible evidence. As time goes on and they get far more confident, then they may be in a position to talk about it - but no evidence apart from your word. What would you do? Is it fair to expect a child bullied and manipulated to report it at the time? Or do you allow adults to recall experiences with no evidence and a sensationalised story by the legal system and press?

On this occasion, I see both sides and can offer no solution APART FROM: NO COMPENSATION. Then only more genuine cases will go forward. If money is not an issue, then they are seeking justice. In Europe, there were a drop by 70% of these types of cases when compensation stopped.

So let us STOP compensating these victims financially as money wont solve it, and maybe offer counselling instead. Then these cases are far more solid.
absolutely, I couldn't agree more and I know the person involved in this trial did not want any money, in fact he would happily burn any compensation because no amount of money could take away the trauma this has caused however a sorry might of helped this going to court.
[quote][p][bold]cherrydragon[/bold] wrote: I personally am against "my word against his" what this turns into is a farce in court as it is down to the best solicitor / barrister who can spice the story to win over a jury. Sex crimes already have the majority of jury against the defendant - I know this from jury service myself. Our court system is turning more and more into America. We need to have evidence presented rather than law people blowing stories and putting defendants / witnesses on the spot to make them split. Cases like these are historical and there is probably no tangible evidence. This is a hard situation for the legal system. Young people are less likely to report it at the time where there can be tangible evidence. As time goes on and they get far more confident, then they may be in a position to talk about it - but no evidence apart from your word. What would you do? Is it fair to expect a child bullied and manipulated to report it at the time? Or do you allow adults to recall experiences with no evidence and a sensationalised story by the legal system and press? On this occasion, I see both sides and can offer no solution APART FROM: NO COMPENSATION. Then only more genuine cases will go forward. If money is not an issue, then they are seeking justice. In Europe, there were a drop by 70% of these types of cases when compensation stopped. So let us STOP compensating these victims financially as money wont solve it, and maybe offer counselling instead. Then these cases are far more solid.[/p][/quote]absolutely, I couldn't agree more and I know the person involved in this trial did not want any money, in fact he would happily burn any compensation because no amount of money could take away the trauma this has caused however a sorry might of helped this going to court. ms.realjustice

12:55am Sat 21 Dec 13

ms.realjustice says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
ms.realjustice wrote:
Moimccallion wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.
Were you on the jury??
If so you shouldn't even be commenting!!
A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court???
Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!!
interesting comments, not everything can be brought up in a court, if it were, Bryant would have had even a lesser chance of getting through this, maybe someone should ask his wife what she knows.
Everything was brought up, even accusations against a dead man to able to be there to defend himself.Maybe you should let the court (and I don't mean the jury) decide ..be very interesting to see the sentence handed down by the look on the Judge's face today....well, we'll see in January. An we'll also see what the appeal brings. In the meantime....going to leave you armchair Columbo's jumping to conclusions.
so much evidence wasn't allowed at this stage but no doubt an appeal will be more enlightening especially for the dead one, so bring it on :)
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ms.realjustice[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moimccallion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.[/p][/quote]Were you on the jury?? If so you shouldn't even be commenting!! A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court??? Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!![/p][/quote]interesting comments, not everything can be brought up in a court, if it were, Bryant would have had even a lesser chance of getting through this, maybe someone should ask his wife what she knows.[/p][/quote]Everything was brought up, even accusations against a dead man to able to be there to defend himself.Maybe you should let the court (and I don't mean the jury) decide ..be very interesting to see the sentence handed down by the look on the Judge's face today....well, we'll see in January. An we'll also see what the appeal brings. In the meantime....going to leave you armchair Columbo's jumping to conclusions.[/p][/quote]so much evidence wasn't allowed at this stage but no doubt an appeal will be more enlightening especially for the dead one, so bring it on :) ms.realjustice

7:58am Sat 21 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

simcal wrote:
beachcomber1 wrote:
Sir Alan wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this?
How else can you explain the conviction when there was no other evidence?
you tell me , but because they could not get enough convictions for rape
they move the criteria to make convictions easier. how does that make for justice.
[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this?[/p][/quote]How else can you explain the conviction when there was no other evidence?[/p][/quote]you tell me , but because they could not get enough convictions for rape they move the criteria to make convictions easier. how does that make for justice. Sir Alan

8:06am Sat 21 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
pete woodley wrote: There are a lot who have no previous,i have helped to send down several,who had no previous,they were clever at not being caught.
Police officer then ? Or perhaps they have no previous convictions because they are both law abiding citizens in the service of their community and more importantly are both innocent of the accusation.
and the police have nothing to crow about , they do the minimum they need to do , and i know someone who recently made an allegation and dorset police and they refused to even to interview this person. to find out the facts.
so i have no faith in the police
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: There are a lot who have no previous,i have helped to send down several,who had no previous,they were clever at not being caught.[/p][/quote]Police officer then ? Or perhaps they have no previous convictions because they are both law abiding citizens in the service of their community and more importantly are both innocent of the accusation.[/p][/quote]and the police have nothing to crow about , they do the minimum they need to do , and i know someone who recently made an allegation and dorset police and they refused to even to interview this person. to find out the facts. so i have no faith in the police Sir Alan

9:06am Sat 21 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
There are a lot who have no previous,i have helped to send down several,who had no previous,they were clever at not being caught.
Police officer then ?
Or perhaps they have no previous convictions because they are both law abiding citizens in the service of their community and more importantly are both innocent of the accusation.
So because he was a fireman he should be treated differently. Absolute rubbish,positions like his are supposed to be positions of TRUST.No i am not a police officer,just an honest member of the public,who kept his eyes and ears open,and to who, some confided in.I am also fully aware that the police and courts sometimes get it wrong,in fact my present opinion of the police is very low.One case i was involved in concerned a lady customer of my shop,who told me she thought her husband was abusing her daughter,he was and convicted,that was not a nice story.
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: There are a lot who have no previous,i have helped to send down several,who had no previous,they were clever at not being caught.[/p][/quote]Police officer then ? Or perhaps they have no previous convictions because they are both law abiding citizens in the service of their community and more importantly are both innocent of the accusation.[/p][/quote]So because he was a fireman he should be treated differently. Absolute rubbish,positions like his are supposed to be positions of TRUST.No i am not a police officer,just an honest member of the public,who kept his eyes and ears open,and to who, some confided in.I am also fully aware that the police and courts sometimes get it wrong,in fact my present opinion of the police is very low.One case i was involved in concerned a lady customer of my shop,who told me she thought her husband was abusing her daughter,he was and convicted,that was not a nice story. pete woodley

9:27am Sat 21 Dec 13

joetheman says...

I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy. joetheman

9:30am Sat 21 Dec 13

Telscombe Cliffy says...

Moimccallion wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.
Were you on the jury??
If so you shouldn't even be commenting!!
A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court???
Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!!
No I was not in court, and certainly not on the jury, what makes you think that? My 'inkling' is from what the commenter was saying, it's called perception. I have no connection and don't know anyone involved in the case. Just saying people who do know about this case are on this thread and their comments are more factual and accurate -and also make interesting informed reading. This case to me is more about the way the justice system works. I would expect to see an appeal here. If there is, no doubt we will be debating this all again here.
[quote][p][bold]Moimccallion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.[/p][/quote]Were you on the jury?? If so you shouldn't even be commenting!! A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court??? Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!![/p][/quote]No I was not in court, and certainly not on the jury, what makes you think that? My 'inkling' is from what the commenter was saying, it's called perception. I have no connection and don't know anyone involved in the case. Just saying people who do know about this case are on this thread and their comments are more factual and accurate -and also make interesting informed reading. This case to me is more about the way the justice system works. I would expect to see an appeal here. If there is, no doubt we will be debating this all again here. Telscombe Cliffy

9:45am Sat 21 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
[quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ? Macbeth100

9:49am Sat 21 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

pete woodley wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
There are a lot who have no previous,i have helped to send down several,who had no previous,they were clever at not being caught.
Police officer then ?
Or perhaps they have no previous convictions because they are both law abiding citizens in the service of their community and more importantly are both innocent of the accusation.
So because he was a fireman he should be treated differently. Absolute rubbish,positions like his are supposed to be positions of TRUST.No i am not a police officer,just an honest member of the public,who kept his eyes and ears open,and to who, some confided in.I am also fully aware that the police and courts sometimes get it wrong,in fact my present opinion of the police is very low.One case i was involved in concerned a lady customer of my shop,who told me she thought her husband was abusing her daughter,he was and convicted,that was not a nice story.
Not at all, he shouldn't be treated differently because of his profession. But taking into account his impeccable previous character and his service to the community, he shouldn't be prosecuted on the doubtful words and contradictory statements of only one accuser with no tangible evidence either.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: There are a lot who have no previous,i have helped to send down several,who had no previous,they were clever at not being caught.[/p][/quote]Police officer then ? Or perhaps they have no previous convictions because they are both law abiding citizens in the service of their community and more importantly are both innocent of the accusation.[/p][/quote]So because he was a fireman he should be treated differently. Absolute rubbish,positions like his are supposed to be positions of TRUST.No i am not a police officer,just an honest member of the public,who kept his eyes and ears open,and to who, some confided in.I am also fully aware that the police and courts sometimes get it wrong,in fact my present opinion of the police is very low.One case i was involved in concerned a lady customer of my shop,who told me she thought her husband was abusing her daughter,he was and convicted,that was not a nice story.[/p][/quote]Not at all, he shouldn't be treated differently because of his profession. But taking into account his impeccable previous character and his service to the community, he shouldn't be prosecuted on the doubtful words and contradictory statements of only one accuser with no tangible evidence either. Macbeth100

9:52am Sat 21 Dec 13

Huey says...

Urghhhh that's what he's into is it? Just look at him, he sickens me.
Urghhhh that's what he's into is it? Just look at him, he sickens me. Huey

10:33am Sat 21 Dec 13

Lucy Lastick says...

Should you be naming the other man, who is now dead and has never been charged or convicted?
Should you be naming the other man, who is now dead and has never been charged or convicted? Lucy Lastick

10:34am Sat 21 Dec 13

joetheman says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology joetheman

10:37am Sat 21 Dec 13

retry69 says...

What or who do we believe,nasty story which ever side of the fence you sit on for different reasons but according to the Echos opinion section today they have made their mind up.
What or who do we believe,nasty story which ever side of the fence you sit on for different reasons but according to the Echos opinion section today they have made their mind up. retry69

10:38am Sat 21 Dec 13

Lucy Lastick says...

I worked in the Courts Service for twenty years (in another county) and I found the calibre of many jurors to be very poor. Many were incapable of understanding a case and many were of the opinion that if the defendant wasn't guilty he wouldn't be there. I saw some very bizarre verdicts.
I worked in the Courts Service for twenty years (in another county) and I found the calibre of many jurors to be very poor. Many were incapable of understanding a case and many were of the opinion that if the defendant wasn't guilty he wouldn't be there. I saw some very bizarre verdicts. Lucy Lastick

10:42am Sat 21 Dec 13

cherrydragon says...

It is troubling how people judge without knowing all the facts and how this society seems to think every sexual allegation is correct because "someone said so" so it must be right.

It is also distressing how people say the accuser is wrong as there is no tangible evidence.

It is dire how everyone judges one offence worse than the other. All offences that criminals get done for cause serious damage to society otherwise they would not go to court. In all honesty, I am more worried about the drug problems and lack of safety in Boscombe than sex offenders.

But of course, the drugs problem, people taking drugs in public etc does not get a mention as no one cares. Not the same as a historic accusation of sexual abuse that took place 40 years ago with no tangible evidence. I present a photo to the echo of someone doing drugs and who gives a ****! How many people in prison are in due to drugs related crime? 70%? 5% are sexual offenders....so out of curiosity, which is more damaging? Yet which does everyone harp on about?

Stop drinking and drugs! Far more dangerous. Stop kids smoking - much more of a problem to the young
It is troubling how people judge without knowing all the facts and how this society seems to think every sexual allegation is correct because "someone said so" so it must be right. It is also distressing how people say the accuser is wrong as there is no tangible evidence. It is dire how everyone judges one offence worse than the other. All offences that criminals get done for cause serious damage to society otherwise they would not go to court. In all honesty, I am more worried about the drug problems and lack of safety in Boscombe than sex offenders. But of course, the drugs problem, people taking drugs in public etc does not get a mention as no one cares. Not the same as a historic accusation of sexual abuse that took place 40 years ago with no tangible evidence. I present a photo to the echo of someone doing drugs and who gives a ****! How many people in prison are in due to drugs related crime? 70%? 5% are sexual offenders....so out of curiosity, which is more damaging? Yet which does everyone harp on about? Stop drinking and drugs! Far more dangerous. Stop kids smoking - much more of a problem to the young cherrydragon

10:43am Sat 21 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

joetheman wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology
You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.
[quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology[/p][/quote]You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up. Macbeth100

10:45am Sat 21 Dec 13

cherrydragon says...

retry69 wrote:
What or who do we believe,nasty story which ever side of the fence you sit on for different reasons but according to the Echos opinion section today they have made their mind up.
You are right. Jurors are human beings and sadly, the majority of people are swayed by gutter press like the Echo, the Sun and others. These sensationalize certain stories (like this one).

It is not to benefit you, it is to scare society and make money. We must NEVER forget, that reporters are in it to line their pockets so cases like this that cause mass hysteria are always propped up.

Society is not about thinking, it seems evident from these comments, it is about following and control.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: What or who do we believe,nasty story which ever side of the fence you sit on for different reasons but according to the Echos opinion section today they have made their mind up.[/p][/quote]You are right. Jurors are human beings and sadly, the majority of people are swayed by gutter press like the Echo, the Sun and others. These sensationalize certain stories (like this one). It is not to benefit you, it is to scare society and make money. We must NEVER forget, that reporters are in it to line their pockets so cases like this that cause mass hysteria are always propped up. Society is not about thinking, it seems evident from these comments, it is about following and control. cherrydragon

10:47am Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Lucy Lastick wrote:
Should you be naming the other man, who is now dead and has never been charged or convicted?
Is that right? Talk to his niece ,Bryant's wife!
[quote][p][bold]Lucy Lastick[/bold] wrote: Should you be naming the other man, who is now dead and has never been charged or convicted?[/p][/quote]Is that right? Talk to his niece ,Bryant's wife! Johns66

10:48am Sat 21 Dec 13

cherrydragon says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology
You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.
Joetheman represents the side of society that does not solve issues.

Locking people up - what purpose does that serve in this case? Sure he should be punished for his crime...but even if it was true (no tangible evidence) he has lived for over 40 years in the community without a problem.

But hey ho, lets all be tabloid and robots and get annoyed and demand we lock them up and throw away the key while we sit here and watch Boscombe turn into a pit of drug addicts, a nest of violent crime and see generations of young people turn to that way of life.

Let me guess Joetheman you 1/dont care or 2/ lock them all up as well!

GENIUS
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology[/p][/quote]You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Joetheman represents the side of society that does not solve issues. Locking people up - what purpose does that serve in this case? Sure he should be punished for his crime...but even if it was true (no tangible evidence) he has lived for over 40 years in the community without a problem. But hey ho, lets all be tabloid and robots and get annoyed and demand we lock them up and throw away the key while we sit here and watch Boscombe turn into a pit of drug addicts, a nest of violent crime and see generations of young people turn to that way of life. Let me guess Joetheman you 1/dont care or 2/ lock them all up as well! GENIUS cherrydragon

10:50am Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology
You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.
Ask Bryant's wife!
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology[/p][/quote]You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Ask Bryant's wife! Johns66

10:51am Sat 21 Dec 13

retry69 says...

cherrydragon wrote:
retry69 wrote:
What or who do we believe,nasty story which ever side of the fence you sit on for different reasons but according to the Echos opinion section today they have made their mind up.
You are right. Jurors are human beings and sadly, the majority of people are swayed by gutter press like the Echo, the Sun and others. These sensationalize certain stories (like this one).

It is not to benefit you, it is to scare society and make money. We must NEVER forget, that reporters are in it to line their pockets so cases like this that cause mass hysteria are always propped up.

Society is not about thinking, it seems evident from these comments, it is about following and control.
And of course the said reporters have done their job perfectly by attracting these comments haven't they ?
[quote][p][bold]cherrydragon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: What or who do we believe,nasty story which ever side of the fence you sit on for different reasons but according to the Echos opinion section today they have made their mind up.[/p][/quote]You are right. Jurors are human beings and sadly, the majority of people are swayed by gutter press like the Echo, the Sun and others. These sensationalize certain stories (like this one). It is not to benefit you, it is to scare society and make money. We must NEVER forget, that reporters are in it to line their pockets so cases like this that cause mass hysteria are always propped up. Society is not about thinking, it seems evident from these comments, it is about following and control.[/p][/quote]And of course the said reporters have done their job perfectly by attracting these comments haven't they ? retry69

10:55am Sat 21 Dec 13

cherrydragon says...

retry69 wrote:
cherrydragon wrote:
retry69 wrote:
What or who do we believe,nasty story which ever side of the fence you sit on for different reasons but according to the Echos opinion section today they have made their mind up.
You are right. Jurors are human beings and sadly, the majority of people are swayed by gutter press like the Echo, the Sun and others. These sensationalize certain stories (like this one).

It is not to benefit you, it is to scare society and make money. We must NEVER forget, that reporters are in it to line their pockets so cases like this that cause mass hysteria are always propped up.

Society is not about thinking, it seems evident from these comments, it is about following and control.
And of course the said reporters have done their job perfectly by attracting these comments haven't they ?
Oh yes. Bonuses all round I think! So easy for them. And we think we are a superior nation to the dictatorships in the middle east....shessh, you say "sex offender" and you get the crusades...you say pimp and druggies and who gives a ****. Biggest problem in our society - proven by the amount of convictions and we bury our heads in the sand because it "does not cause sensationalism"

But hey, if we sorted out our problems, we would progress. Why progress when we can stay in this pit of stupidity?
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrydragon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: What or who do we believe,nasty story which ever side of the fence you sit on for different reasons but according to the Echos opinion section today they have made their mind up.[/p][/quote]You are right. Jurors are human beings and sadly, the majority of people are swayed by gutter press like the Echo, the Sun and others. These sensationalize certain stories (like this one). It is not to benefit you, it is to scare society and make money. We must NEVER forget, that reporters are in it to line their pockets so cases like this that cause mass hysteria are always propped up. Society is not about thinking, it seems evident from these comments, it is about following and control.[/p][/quote]And of course the said reporters have done their job perfectly by attracting these comments haven't they ?[/p][/quote]Oh yes. Bonuses all round I think! So easy for them. And we think we are a superior nation to the dictatorships in the middle east....shessh, you say "sex offender" and you get the crusades...you say pimp and druggies and who gives a ****. Biggest problem in our society - proven by the amount of convictions and we bury our heads in the sand because it "does not cause sensationalism" But hey, if we sorted out our problems, we would progress. Why progress when we can stay in this pit of stupidity? cherrydragon

10:58am Sat 21 Dec 13

cherrydragon says...

Oh by not progressing, companies like Newsquest et al make more money. Brilliant!
Oh by not progressing, companies like Newsquest et al make more money. Brilliant! cherrydragon

11:03am Sat 21 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

retry69 wrote:
What or who do we believe,nasty story which ever side of the fence you sit on for different reasons but according to the Echos opinion section today they have made their mind up.
Oh yes the opinion of some second rate journo hack on the backwater paper called the Echo looking for their big break into the big time, counts for everything doesn't it ? Notice their opinion doesn't say proved...and compare this to their previous piece on David Bryant

http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/news/10
01549.print/

You believe the sensationalist opinion of a second rate hack passes for facts now do you ? says it all really ......
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: What or who do we believe,nasty story which ever side of the fence you sit on for different reasons but according to the Echos opinion section today they have made their mind up.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the opinion of some second rate journo hack on the backwater paper called the Echo looking for their big break into the big time, counts for everything doesn't it ? Notice their opinion doesn't say proved...and compare this to their previous piece on David Bryant http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/10 01549.print/ You believe the sensationalist opinion of a second rate hack passes for facts now do you ? says it all really ...... Macbeth100

11:05am Sat 21 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

Johns66 wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology
You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.
Ask Bryant's wife!
Why ? she isn't the one on trial ? shall we ask your wife (if you have one) about your dealings in your shop ? I'm sure you have things she doesn't know about ?
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology[/p][/quote]You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Ask Bryant's wife![/p][/quote]Why ? she isn't the one on trial ? shall we ask your wife (if you have one) about your dealings in your shop ? I'm sure you have things she doesn't know about ? Macbeth100

11:09am Sat 21 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
retry69 wrote:
What or who do we believe,nasty story which ever side of the fence you sit on for different reasons but according to the Echos opinion section today they have made their mind up.
Oh yes the opinion of some second rate journo hack on the backwater paper called the Echo looking for their big break into the big time, counts for everything doesn't it ? Notice their opinion doesn't say proved...and compare this to their previous piece on David Bryant

http://www.bournemou

thecho.co.uk/news/10

01549.print/

You believe the sensationalist opinion of a second rate hack passes for facts now do you ? says it all really ......
Hey you need to calm down, not taking any side just stating a fact which sadly is missing in a lot of these comments.If I wasn't such a gentleman I would say wind you fecking neck in and understand the comments before opening your gob DRAT,
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: What or who do we believe,nasty story which ever side of the fence you sit on for different reasons but according to the Echos opinion section today they have made their mind up.[/p][/quote]Oh yes the opinion of some second rate journo hack on the backwater paper called the Echo looking for their big break into the big time, counts for everything doesn't it ? Notice their opinion doesn't say proved...and compare this to their previous piece on David Bryant http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/10 01549.print/ You believe the sensationalist opinion of a second rate hack passes for facts now do you ? says it all really ......[/p][/quote]Hey you need to calm down, not taking any side just stating a fact which sadly is missing in a lot of these comments.If I wasn't such a gentleman I would say wind you fecking neck in and understand the comments before opening your gob DRAT, retry69

11:20am Sat 21 Dec 13

cherrydragon says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
Johns66 wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology
You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.
Ask Bryant's wife!
Why ? she isn't the one on trial ? shall we ask your wife (if you have one) about your dealings in your shop ? I'm sure you have things she doesn't know about ?
The crusades - what does it have to do with his wife?

People are totally out of order, I am starting to get amused by these ridiculous suggestions.

I know, let's ask The Sun, they are known for great facts
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology[/p][/quote]You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Ask Bryant's wife![/p][/quote]Why ? she isn't the one on trial ? shall we ask your wife (if you have one) about your dealings in your shop ? I'm sure you have things she doesn't know about ?[/p][/quote]The crusades - what does it have to do with his wife? People are totally out of order, I am starting to get amused by these ridiculous suggestions. I know, let's ask The Sun, they are known for great facts cherrydragon

11:48am Sat 21 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
Johns66 wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology
You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.
Ask Bryant's wife!
Why ? she isn't the one on trial ? shall we ask your wife (if you have one) about your dealings in your shop ? I'm sure you have things she doesn't know about ?
I am getting confused here is it johns66 or joetheman who has the shop that macbeth is on about ?.
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology[/p][/quote]You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Ask Bryant's wife![/p][/quote]Why ? she isn't the one on trial ? shall we ask your wife (if you have one) about your dealings in your shop ? I'm sure you have things she doesn't know about ?[/p][/quote]I am getting confused here is it johns66 or joetheman who has the shop that macbeth is on about ?. pete woodley

11:50am Sat 21 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

cherrydragon wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
Johns66 wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology
You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.
Ask Bryant's wife!
Why ? she isn't the one on trial ? shall we ask your wife (if you have one) about your dealings in your shop ? I'm sure you have things she doesn't know about ?
The crusades - what does it have to do with his wife?

People are totally out of order, I am starting to get amused by these ridiculous suggestions.

I know, let's ask The Sun, they are known for great facts
Yes people always say that Christchurch is a backward town....they even have lynch mobs on the Somerford estate....when they aren't busy collecting their giros......
[quote][p][bold]cherrydragon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology[/p][/quote]You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Ask Bryant's wife![/p][/quote]Why ? she isn't the one on trial ? shall we ask your wife (if you have one) about your dealings in your shop ? I'm sure you have things she doesn't know about ?[/p][/quote]The crusades - what does it have to do with his wife? People are totally out of order, I am starting to get amused by these ridiculous suggestions. I know, let's ask The Sun, they are known for great facts[/p][/quote]Yes people always say that Christchurch is a backward town....they even have lynch mobs on the Somerford estate....when they aren't busy collecting their giros...... Macbeth100

12:02pm Sat 21 Dec 13

retry69 says...

pete woodley wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
Johns66 wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology
You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.
Ask Bryant's wife!
Why ? she isn't the one on trial ? shall we ask your wife (if you have one) about your dealings in your shop ? I'm sure you have things she doesn't know about ?
I am getting confused here is it johns66 or joetheman who has the shop that macbeth is on about ?.
Either way keep your distance Pete some hotheads on here today wont do your health any good getting involved,stay safe :)
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology[/p][/quote]You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Ask Bryant's wife![/p][/quote]Why ? she isn't the one on trial ? shall we ask your wife (if you have one) about your dealings in your shop ? I'm sure you have things she doesn't know about ?[/p][/quote]I am getting confused here is it johns66 or joetheman who has the shop that macbeth is on about ?.[/p][/quote]Either way keep your distance Pete some hotheads on here today wont do your health any good getting involved,stay safe :) retry69

1:09pm Sat 21 Dec 13

joetheman says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology
You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.
you ignorant little man check the local press archives ,or check with the echo' unlike most comments on here I do not know if he is guilty or not, what I am saying is the other person allegedly involved was prosecuted in the 70s early 80s for touching a young boy at the fire station, FACT
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology[/p][/quote]You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]you ignorant little man check the local press archives ,or check with the echo' unlike most comments on here I do not know if he is guilty or not, what I am saying is the other person allegedly involved was prosecuted in the 70s early 80s for touching a young boy at the fire station, FACT joetheman

1:13pm Sat 21 Dec 13

joetheman says...

cherrydragon wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology
You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.
Joetheman represents the side of society that does not solve issues.

Locking people up - what purpose does that serve in this case? Sure he should be punished for his crime...but even if it was true (no tangible evidence) he has lived for over 40 years in the community without a problem.

But hey ho, lets all be tabloid and robots and get annoyed and demand we lock them up and throw away the key while we sit here and watch Boscombe turn into a pit of drug addicts, a nest of violent crime and see generations of young people turn to that way of life.

Let me guess Joetheman you 1/dont care or 2/ lock them all up as well!

GENIUS
I do care and yes lock them all up after castration
[quote][p][bold]cherrydragon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology[/p][/quote]You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Joetheman represents the side of society that does not solve issues. Locking people up - what purpose does that serve in this case? Sure he should be punished for his crime...but even if it was true (no tangible evidence) he has lived for over 40 years in the community without a problem. But hey ho, lets all be tabloid and robots and get annoyed and demand we lock them up and throw away the key while we sit here and watch Boscombe turn into a pit of drug addicts, a nest of violent crime and see generations of young people turn to that way of life. Let me guess Joetheman you 1/dont care or 2/ lock them all up as well! GENIUS[/p][/quote]I do care and yes lock them all up after castration joetheman

1:38pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

joetheman wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology
You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.
you ignorant little man check the local press archives ,or check with the echo' unlike most comments on here I do not know if he is guilty or not, what I am saying is the other person allegedly involved was prosecuted in the 70s early 80s for touching a young boy at the fire station, FACT
Provide the evidence then if you are so sure ? link to the archive page concerned or the court circular detailing the conviction ? no....you can't can you ? ...all hearsay and rumour with you little man ...FACT

Dead men can't speak can they....or else you'd be looking at a libel suit yourself.
[quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology[/p][/quote]You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]you ignorant little man check the local press archives ,or check with the echo' unlike most comments on here I do not know if he is guilty or not, what I am saying is the other person allegedly involved was prosecuted in the 70s early 80s for touching a young boy at the fire station, FACT[/p][/quote]Provide the evidence then if you are so sure ? link to the archive page concerned or the court circular detailing the conviction ? no....you can't can you ? ...all hearsay and rumour with you little man ...FACT Dead men can't speak can they....or else you'd be looking at a libel suit yourself. Macbeth100

1:38pm Sat 21 Dec 13

cherrydragon says...

joetheman wrote:
cherrydragon wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
joetheman wrote:
I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.
Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?
Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology
You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.
Joetheman represents the side of society that does not solve issues.

Locking people up - what purpose does that serve in this case? Sure he should be punished for his crime...but even if it was true (no tangible evidence) he has lived for over 40 years in the community without a problem.

But hey ho, lets all be tabloid and robots and get annoyed and demand we lock them up and throw away the key while we sit here and watch Boscombe turn into a pit of drug addicts, a nest of violent crime and see generations of young people turn to that way of life.

Let me guess Joetheman you 1/dont care or 2/ lock them all up as well!

GENIUS
I do care and yes lock them all up after castration
Ha ha castration....but what would you do to stop this in the first place?

Prevention is better than cure. this sensationalism doesnt work.

Preventing it in the first is surely far more effective??

Then again, I am thinking too much
[quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cherrydragon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joetheman[/bold] wrote: I was astounded that bail was granted But then I read who the judge was, judge Samuel Wigg, THE SEX OFFENDERS FRIEND, I wonder how many posters on this site know that the other fireman involved had been previously prosecuted for alleged offences against a young boy.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish.....but then again the dead one isn't here to fight the defamation of character and libel you have made against him is he ?[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish ! not libel or defamation but Fact, i await your apology[/p][/quote]You've got a long wait then....prove the dead man was previously convicted ....no you can't can you ? Put up or shut up.[/p][/quote]Joetheman represents the side of society that does not solve issues. Locking people up - what purpose does that serve in this case? Sure he should be punished for his crime...but even if it was true (no tangible evidence) he has lived for over 40 years in the community without a problem. But hey ho, lets all be tabloid and robots and get annoyed and demand we lock them up and throw away the key while we sit here and watch Boscombe turn into a pit of drug addicts, a nest of violent crime and see generations of young people turn to that way of life. Let me guess Joetheman you 1/dont care or 2/ lock them all up as well! GENIUS[/p][/quote]I do care and yes lock them all up after castration[/p][/quote]Ha ha castration....but what would you do to stop this in the first place? Prevention is better than cure. this sensationalism doesnt work. Preventing it in the first is surely far more effective?? Then again, I am thinking too much cherrydragon

1:40pm Sat 21 Dec 13

saynomore says...

Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
From your comments perhaps the police may show interest in you as you seem very defensive on this subject,just saying.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]From your comments perhaps the police may show interest in you as you seem very defensive on this subject,just saying. saynomore

1:43pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

saynomore wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
From your comments perhaps the police may show interest in you as you seem very defensive on this subject,just saying.
Taking an interest in the law and whether or not a miscarriage of justice has been committed .....does that make him worthy of attention ?

Oh what it must be like to live in your tiny Nazi mind "saynomore" !
[quote][p][bold]saynomore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]From your comments perhaps the police may show interest in you as you seem very defensive on this subject,just saying.[/p][/quote]Taking an interest in the law and whether or not a miscarriage of justice has been committed .....does that make him worthy of attention ? Oh what it must be like to live in your tiny Nazi mind "saynomore" ! Macbeth100

2:18pm Sat 21 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

saynomore,i think there are many who are wondering like you,about the support coming from Sir Alan,Macbeth100,and others,ex firemen perhaps,or something more worrying.I remember when the firemens strike was on, getting a anonymous letter from an alleged fireman saying my house would be burnt down,this was dealt with by c.i.d, i was also threatened in the street,driven at on the road,and roughed up and injured during a football match,attended by over 200 firemen after my blood.and of course the phone calls.The ECHO will remember this.
saynomore,i think there are many who are wondering like you,about the support coming from Sir Alan,Macbeth100,and others,ex firemen perhaps,or something more worrying.I remember when the firemens strike was on, getting a anonymous letter from an alleged fireman saying my house would be burnt down,this was dealt with by c.i.d, i was also threatened in the street,driven at on the road,and roughed up and injured during a football match,attended by over 200 firemen after my blood.and of course the phone calls.The ECHO will remember this. pete woodley

2:47pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

The fact remains he was found guilty. Had the other fireman been alive the outcome would possibly have been the same if there is a miscarriage of justice then an appeal would be the next step however if the appeal is without grounds and the second trial has the same outcome as the first. As I think it will Bryant's sentence could be doubled by the court of appeal
The fact remains he was found guilty. Had the other fireman been alive the outcome would possibly have been the same if there is a miscarriage of justice then an appeal would be the next step however if the appeal is without grounds and the second trial has the same outcome as the first. As I think it will Bryant's sentence could be doubled by the court of appeal Johns66

2:48pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Is there till nothing known about the person who made the allegation I find this strange would you not agree ..
Is there till nothing known about the person who made the allegation I find this strange would you not agree .. Johns66

2:55pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

saynomore wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
From your comments perhaps the police may show interest in you as you seem very defensive on this subject,just saying.
Sorry and your point is ?. Sounds like you have an interest in stopping people having a view on the issue. I wonder why
[quote][p][bold]saynomore[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]From your comments perhaps the police may show interest in you as you seem very defensive on this subject,just saying.[/p][/quote]Sorry and your point is ?. Sounds like you have an interest in stopping people having a view on the issue. I wonder why Sir Alan

2:58pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Not at all just asking I seems strange
Not at all just asking I seems strange Johns66

3:00pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Opinions vary and everyone is entitled to them the last time I checked it was still a free country
Opinions vary and everyone is entitled to them the last time I checked it was still a free country Johns66

3:00pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

pete woodley wrote:
saynomore,i think there are many who are wondering like you,about the support coming from Sir Alan,Macbeth100,and others,ex firemen perhaps,or something more worrying.I remember when the firemens strike was on, getting a anonymous letter from an alleged fireman saying my house would be burnt down,this was dealt with by c.i.d, i was also threatened in the street,driven at on the road,and roughed up and injured during a football match,attended by over 200 firemen after my blood.and of course the phone calls.The ECHO will remember this.
Don't you just love this mans conspiracy theory ..making wild accusations again . Jumping to conclusions with no evidence. God help anyone if you were on the jury
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: saynomore,i think there are many who are wondering like you,about the support coming from Sir Alan,Macbeth100,and others,ex firemen perhaps,or something more worrying.I remember when the firemens strike was on, getting a anonymous letter from an alleged fireman saying my house would be burnt down,this was dealt with by c.i.d, i was also threatened in the street,driven at on the road,and roughed up and injured during a football match,attended by over 200 firemen after my blood.and of course the phone calls.The ECHO will remember this.[/p][/quote]Don't you just love this mans conspiracy theory ..making wild accusations again . Jumping to conclusions with no evidence. God help anyone if you were on the jury Sir Alan

3:47pm Sat 21 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Sir Alan,your comments certainly make me wonder ,who and what you are,but do not worry, those like you who do not come out in the open,i do not worry about.We are all aware how .JS got away with it.
Sir Alan,your comments certainly make me wonder ,who and what you are,but do not worry, those like you who do not come out in the open,i do not worry about.We are all aware how .JS got away with it. pete woodley

4:01pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Who is js ???
Who is js ??? Johns66

4:03pm Sat 21 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

johns66. jimmy saville
johns66. jimmy saville pete woodley

4:08pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Sorry I'm a bit dippy sometimes
Sorry I'm a bit dippy sometimes Johns66

4:10pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

But I do thing that sir Alan is a bit of an armchair lawyer. In other words a tosser
But I do thing that sir Alan is a bit of an armchair lawyer. In other words a tosser Johns66

4:19pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Johns66 wrote:
But I do thing that sir Alan is a bit of an armchair lawyer. In other words a tosser
No more than you are . Next time attend a trial and see how justice works you might soon have a different view. But of course no doubt you have managed a blameless life.
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: But I do thing that sir Alan is a bit of an armchair lawyer. In other words a tosser[/p][/quote]No more than you are . Next time attend a trial and see how justice works you might soon have a different view. But of course no doubt you have managed a blameless life. Sir Alan

4:20pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Johns66 wrote:
Sorry I'm a bit dippy sometimes
Yep you are
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: Sorry I'm a bit dippy sometimes[/p][/quote]Yep you are Sir Alan

4:30pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

pete woodley wrote:
Sir Alan,your comments certainly make me wonder ,who and what you are,but do not worry, those like you who do not come out in the open,i do not worry about.We are all aware how .JS got away with it.
But how do you know what happened as you were not there. No one should be convicted on such flimsy evidence . How would you feel if it was you accused and you were innocent. Maybe just reflect on that . I have no flag to fly for mr Bryant . But I do like to think justice was done and after seeing British justice at work I feel very uneasy how someone can be convicted just because someone says it happened. With no real evidence.as I said not even all the jury was convinced. And 7 hours of deliberation that's a long time if it's as straightforward as a lot on here claim
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Sir Alan,your comments certainly make me wonder ,who and what you are,but do not worry, those like you who do not come out in the open,i do not worry about.We are all aware how .JS got away with it.[/p][/quote]But how do you know what happened as you were not there. No one should be convicted on such flimsy evidence . How would you feel if it was you accused and you were innocent. Maybe just reflect on that . I have no flag to fly for mr Bryant . But I do like to think justice was done and after seeing British justice at work I feel very uneasy how someone can be convicted just because someone says it happened. With no real evidence.as I said not even all the jury was convinced. And 7 hours of deliberation that's a long time if it's as straightforward as a lot on here claim Sir Alan

4:34pm Sat 21 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

simcal wrote:
beachcomber1 wrote:
Sir Alan wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this?
How else can you explain the conviction when there was no other evidence?
I leave a pine cone by the front door as elephants are scared of them.

It works a treat - not seen one elephant in my house so far.
[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]i wasn't aware the change in the law about corroboration applied to an offence such as this?[/p][/quote]How else can you explain the conviction when there was no other evidence?[/p][/quote]I leave a pine cone by the front door as elephants are scared of them. It works a treat - not seen one elephant in my house so far. scrumpyjack

4:39pm Sat 21 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
Johns66 wrote: He was guilty
Prove it
Already has been.
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: He was guilty[/p][/quote]Prove it[/p][/quote]Already has been. scrumpyjack

4:43pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Huey wrote:
Urghhhh that's what he's into is it? Just look at him, he sickens me.
I wonder what you look like
[quote][p][bold]Huey[/bold] wrote: Urghhhh that's what he's into is it? Just look at him, he sickens me.[/p][/quote]I wonder what you look like Sir Alan

4:50pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Sir your comments. Please may I ask we're you at the trial ,
Sir your comments. Please may I ask we're you at the trial , Johns66

4:51pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Huey says...

Sir Alan wrote:
Huey wrote:
Urghhhh that's what he's into is it? Just look at him, he sickens me.
I wonder what you look like
Why? Are you gay like the naughty fireman?
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huey[/bold] wrote: Urghhhh that's what he's into is it? Just look at him, he sickens me.[/p][/quote]I wonder what you look like[/p][/quote]Why? Are you gay like the naughty fireman? Huey

4:55pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

The thing is what do these child molesters or rapists look like it's not as if they wear a badge
The thing is what do these child molesters or rapists look like it's not as if they wear a badge Johns66

5:23pm Sat 21 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

Sir Alan wrote:
pete woodley wrote: Sir Alan,your comments certainly make me wonder ,who and what you are,but do not worry, those like you who do not come out in the open,i do not worry about.We are all aware how .JS got away with it.
But how do you know what happened as you were not there. No one should be convicted on such flimsy evidence . How would you feel if it was you accused and you were innocent. Maybe just reflect on that . I have no flag to fly for mr Bryant . But I do like to think justice was done and after seeing British justice at work I feel very uneasy how someone can be convicted just because someone says it happened. With no real evidence.as I said not even all the jury was convinced. And 7 hours of deliberation that's a long time if it's as straightforward as a lot on here claim
You admit you do not know what the evidence was so how do you know it is flimsy? That's right you don't. The jury did though.

7 hours might just show that they took this seriously and did not want to much a knee jerk decision and wanted to go through everything to make sure they all fully understood.

And you must think we are stupid if you think we believe for one minute you are not in some way linked to this man.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Sir Alan,your comments certainly make me wonder ,who and what you are,but do not worry, those like you who do not come out in the open,i do not worry about.We are all aware how .JS got away with it.[/p][/quote]But how do you know what happened as you were not there. No one should be convicted on such flimsy evidence . How would you feel if it was you accused and you were innocent. Maybe just reflect on that . I have no flag to fly for mr Bryant . But I do like to think justice was done and after seeing British justice at work I feel very uneasy how someone can be convicted just because someone says it happened. With no real evidence.as I said not even all the jury was convinced. And 7 hours of deliberation that's a long time if it's as straightforward as a lot on here claim[/p][/quote]You admit you do not know what the evidence was so how do you know it is flimsy? That's right you don't. The jury did though. 7 hours might just show that they took this seriously and did not want to much a knee jerk decision and wanted to go through everything to make sure they all fully understood. And you must think we are stupid if you think we believe for one minute you are not in some way linked to this man. scrumpyjack

5:35pm Sat 21 Dec 13

jaylo says...

well done for bringing this man to justice may you now find some peace,ignore the trolls its there job to be idiots..............
well done for bringing this man to justice may you now find some peace,ignore the trolls its there job to be idiots.............. jaylo

5:36pm Sat 21 Dec 13

scrumpyjack says...

Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police?

If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with?

To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.
Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police? If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with? To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true. scrumpyjack

6:11pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Lucy Lastick says...

I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom.
I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom. Lucy Lastick

6:26pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Very very good comments from all very entertaining
Very very good comments from all very entertaining Johns66

6:31pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Anyway have a great Christmas and a fab new year to all I'm off now to open a bottle of jd
Anyway have a great Christmas and a fab new year to all I'm off now to open a bottle of jd Johns66

6:37pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police?

If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with?

To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.
That is exactly what I was thinking
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police? If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with? To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.[/p][/quote]That is exactly what I was thinking Johns66

6:46pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Telscombe Cliffy says...

Lucy Lastick wrote:
I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom.
Surely you've heard of Jimmy Saville?
[quote][p][bold]Lucy Lastick[/bold] wrote: I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom.[/p][/quote]Surely you've heard of Jimmy Saville? Telscombe Cliffy

6:55pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Lucy Lastick says...

Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Lucy Lastick wrote:
I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom.
Surely you've heard of Jimmy Saville?
Did he live in Dorset? Mate of yours was he?
[quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lucy Lastick[/bold] wrote: I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom.[/p][/quote]Surely you've heard of Jimmy Saville?[/p][/quote]Did he live in Dorset? Mate of yours was he? Lucy Lastick

7:07pm Sat 21 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Lucy Lastick wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Lucy Lastick wrote:
I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom.
Surely you've heard of Jimmy Saville?
Did he live in Dorset? Mate of yours was he?
who is lucy lastick,what school is she from.
[quote][p][bold]Lucy Lastick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lucy Lastick[/bold] wrote: I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom.[/p][/quote]Surely you've heard of Jimmy Saville?[/p][/quote]Did he live in Dorset? Mate of yours was he?[/p][/quote]who is lucy lastick,what school is she from. pete woodley

7:14pm Sat 21 Dec 13

retry69 says...

pete woodley wrote:
Lucy Lastick wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Lucy Lastick wrote:
I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom.
Surely you've heard of Jimmy Saville?
Did he live in Dorset? Mate of yours was he?
who is lucy lastick,what school is she from.
St.Trinians ?
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lucy Lastick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lucy Lastick[/bold] wrote: I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom.[/p][/quote]Surely you've heard of Jimmy Saville?[/p][/quote]Did he live in Dorset? Mate of yours was he?[/p][/quote]who is lucy lastick,what school is she from.[/p][/quote]St.Trinians ? retry69

7:25pm Sat 21 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Johns66 wrote:
Anyway have a great Christmas and a fab new year to all I'm off now to open a bottle of jd
you have to be on benefits to afford a bottle of that,dont forget,keep off the streets after 6pm.
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: Anyway have a great Christmas and a fab new year to all I'm off now to open a bottle of jd[/p][/quote]you have to be on benefits to afford a bottle of that,dont forget,keep off the streets after 6pm. pete woodley

7:26pm Sat 21 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Johns66 wrote:
Anyway have a great Christmas and a fab new year to all I'm off now to open a bottle of jd
you have to be on benefits to afford a bottle of that,dont forget,keep off the streets after 6pm.
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: Anyway have a great Christmas and a fab new year to all I'm off now to open a bottle of jd[/p][/quote]you have to be on benefits to afford a bottle of that,dont forget,keep off the streets after 6pm. pete woodley

7:30pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Macbeth100 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
Johns66 wrote: He was guilty
Prove it
Already has been.
Fallen into the trap for the unintelligent again....not proven.....found guilty by a Jury ...it's not the same thing at all.

As has been said before it took the jury 7 hours to reach a "majority" verdict after they couldn't agree on a unanimous verdict.....so jurors who had heard all the evidence presented in court didn't agree with the verdict. I'l leave it for you armchair Columbo's to chew over the case of which you know nothing about except what you read in the Echo. Suffice it to say Pete Woodley (the serial commentator in the Echo) and so called expert on everything in the known world so it seems....I hope you never find yourself in a similar situation to Bryant with an un substantiated allegation pursued against you into court......
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: He was guilty[/p][/quote]Prove it[/p][/quote]Already has been.[/p][/quote]Fallen into the trap for the unintelligent again....not proven.....found guilty by a Jury ...it's not the same thing at all. As has been said before it took the jury 7 hours to reach a "majority" verdict after they couldn't agree on a unanimous verdict.....so jurors who had heard all the evidence presented in court didn't agree with the verdict. I'l leave it for you armchair Columbo's to chew over the case of which you know nothing about except what you read in the Echo. Suffice it to say Pete Woodley (the serial commentator in the Echo) and so called expert on everything in the known world so it seems....I hope you never find yourself in a similar situation to Bryant with an un substantiated allegation pursued against you into court...... Macbeth100

7:38pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Lucy Lastick says...

pete woodley wrote:
Lucy Lastick wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Lucy Lastick wrote:
I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom.
Surely you've heard of Jimmy Saville?
Did he live in Dorset? Mate of yours was he?
who is lucy lastick,what school is she from.
I went to the school where I learned that Savile is spelled with only one l.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lucy Lastick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lucy Lastick[/bold] wrote: I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom.[/p][/quote]Surely you've heard of Jimmy Saville?[/p][/quote]Did he live in Dorset? Mate of yours was he?[/p][/quote]who is lucy lastick,what school is she from.[/p][/quote]I went to the school where I learned that Savile is spelled with only one l. Lucy Lastick

7:40pm Sat 21 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

I recently nearly did,having had a false malicious allegation made against me,and have had a apoligy from the police.Just remind yourself it was a MAJORITY verdict.And as for it taking 7 hours did you want them to rush it ?.
I recently nearly did,having had a false malicious allegation made against me,and have had a apoligy from the police.Just remind yourself it was a MAJORITY verdict.And as for it taking 7 hours did you want them to rush it ?. pete woodley

8:33pm Sat 21 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Macbeth100 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
Johns66 wrote: He was guilty
Prove it
Already has been.
Fallen into the trap for the unintelligent again....not proven.....found guilty by a Jury ...it's not the same thing at all.

As has been said before it took the jury 7 hours to reach a "majority" verdict after they couldn't agree on a unanimous verdict.....so jurors who had heard all the evidence presented in court didn't agree with the verdict. I'l leave it for you armchair Columbo's to chew over the case of which you know nothing about except what you read in the Echo. Suffice it to say Pete Woodley (the serial commentator in the Echo) and so called expert on everything in the known world so it seems....I hope you never find yourself in a similar situation to Bryant with an un substantiated allegation pursued against you into court......
That comment contains a blatant lie, you imply that Pete Woodley is the only serial commentator in the Echo and so called expert on everything in the known world in fact I can name at least three others (sorry wooders) :)
[quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: He was guilty[/p][/quote]Prove it[/p][/quote]Already has been.[/p][/quote]Fallen into the trap for the unintelligent again....not proven.....found guilty by a Jury ...it's not the same thing at all. As has been said before it took the jury 7 hours to reach a "majority" verdict after they couldn't agree on a unanimous verdict.....so jurors who had heard all the evidence presented in court didn't agree with the verdict. I'l leave it for you armchair Columbo's to chew over the case of which you know nothing about except what you read in the Echo. Suffice it to say Pete Woodley (the serial commentator in the Echo) and so called expert on everything in the known world so it seems....I hope you never find yourself in a similar situation to Bryant with an un substantiated allegation pursued against you into court......[/p][/quote]That comment contains a blatant lie, you imply that Pete Woodley is the only serial commentator in the Echo and so called expert on everything in the known world in fact I can name at least three others (sorry wooders) :) retry69

8:44pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Veryhappyincomer says...

pete woodley wrote:
I recently nearly did,having had a false malicious allegation made against me,and have had a apoligy from the police.Just remind yourself it was a MAJORITY verdict.And as for it taking 7 hours did you want them to rush it ?.
Jury Service at a court somewhere near you, with a judge already mentioned in this thread. Case - historic child abuse. First 30 minutes, name badges on the table, made by one of the young mummys on the jury, so that we get each others name right. Eat packed lunch. 18 year old starts drawing pictures on the whiteboard which are not case related.
Select a foreman. Very important. A foreman's view can steer the jury. Foreman then goes through the charges and asks each person in turn what their vote is. Foreman surprised at dissenting views in what they consider to be an open and shut case.
More women on a jury means more chance of a conviction, especially if they are young or parents. Comments include "My husband/brother/fath
er is a policeman and he says that they wouldn't bring it to court if he wasn't guilty". Another - "he looks weird, he must be guilty".
Six are convinced one way, three are convinced the other and three don't really care. 18 year old wants to talk about anything except the case as he doesn't want to go back to work yet and is enjoying his state sponsored holiday. Heated arguments, with a request to the judge to be allowed out for some fresh air (called a cigarette break).
4.00pm troop back into court to tell the judge that we can't reach a unanimous verdict. Go home. Sleepless night for some.
Back to court next day. One of the three die hards finally gives way as they have had enough of this and want to go home. 10-2 result reached. Verdict passed. Time taken? 5 to 7 hours easily.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: I recently nearly did,having had a false malicious allegation made against me,and have had a apoligy from the police.Just remind yourself it was a MAJORITY verdict.And as for it taking 7 hours did you want them to rush it ?.[/p][/quote]Jury Service at a court somewhere near you, with a judge already mentioned in this thread. Case - historic child abuse. First 30 minutes, name badges on the table, made by one of the young mummys on the jury, so that we get each others name right. Eat packed lunch. 18 year old starts drawing pictures on the whiteboard which are not case related. Select a foreman. Very important. A foreman's view can steer the jury. Foreman then goes through the charges and asks each person in turn what their vote is. Foreman surprised at dissenting views in what they consider to be an open and shut case. More women on a jury means more chance of a conviction, especially if they are young or parents. Comments include "My husband/brother/fath er is a policeman and he says that they wouldn't bring it to court if he wasn't guilty". Another - "he looks weird, he must be guilty". Six are convinced one way, three are convinced the other and three don't really care. 18 year old wants to talk about anything except the case as he doesn't want to go back to work yet and is enjoying his state sponsored holiday. Heated arguments, with a request to the judge to be allowed out for some fresh air (called a cigarette break). 4.00pm troop back into court to tell the judge that we can't reach a unanimous verdict. Go home. Sleepless night for some. Back to court next day. One of the three die hards finally gives way as they have had enough of this and want to go home. 10-2 result reached. Verdict passed. Time taken? 5 to 7 hours easily. Veryhappyincomer

8:53pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Johns66 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police?

If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with?

To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.
That is exactly what I was thinking
as i understand from the evidence presented in court. the accuser saw on the internet that mr bryant had retired from the fire service, , and he claimed he had come to bournemouth to find the other person who is now deceased.
so not quite how you make it out to be, and why would you send a threatening note to someone, before going to the police, sorry but something stinks
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police? If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with? To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.[/p][/quote]That is exactly what I was thinking[/p][/quote]as i understand from the evidence presented in court. the accuser saw on the internet that mr bryant had retired from the fire service, , and he claimed he had come to bournemouth to find the other person who is now deceased. so not quite how you make it out to be, and why would you send a threatening note to someone, before going to the police, sorry but something stinks Sir Alan

9:01pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Johns66 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police?

If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with?

To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.
That is exactly what I was thinking
i suggest you look at the criminal injuries compensation website and see what sort of payout you can get from them for sexual assault, starting point is about £11.000 and can go much higher, i do not suggest for one minute this is going to happen but its something to think about .
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police? If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with? To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.[/p][/quote]That is exactly what I was thinking[/p][/quote]i suggest you look at the criminal injuries compensation website and see what sort of payout you can get from them for sexual assault, starting point is about £11.000 and can go much higher, i do not suggest for one minute this is going to happen but its something to think about . Sir Alan

9:06pm Sat 21 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Sir Alan wrote:
Johns66 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police?

If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with?

To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.
That is exactly what I was thinking
as i understand from the evidence presented in court. the accuser saw on the internet that mr bryant had retired from the fire service, , and he claimed he had come to bournemouth to find the other person who is now deceased.
so not quite how you make it out to be, and why would you send a threatening note to someone, before going to the police, sorry but something stinks
The only thing that stinks is your attitude to a legal jury decision, and your reluctance to accept others who agree with it.You obviously are connected.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police? If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with? To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.[/p][/quote]That is exactly what I was thinking[/p][/quote]as i understand from the evidence presented in court. the accuser saw on the internet that mr bryant had retired from the fire service, , and he claimed he had come to bournemouth to find the other person who is now deceased. so not quite how you make it out to be, and why would you send a threatening note to someone, before going to the police, sorry but something stinks[/p][/quote]The only thing that stinks is your attitude to a legal jury decision, and your reluctance to accept others who agree with it.You obviously are connected. pete woodley

9:13pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
pete woodley wrote: Sir Alan,your comments certainly make me wonder ,who and what you are,but do not worry, those like you who do not come out in the open,i do not worry about.We are all aware how .JS got away with it.
But how do you know what happened as you were not there. No one should be convicted on such flimsy evidence . How would you feel if it was you accused and you were innocent. Maybe just reflect on that . I have no flag to fly for mr Bryant . But I do like to think justice was done and after seeing British justice at work I feel very uneasy how someone can be convicted just because someone says it happened. With no real evidence.as I said not even all the jury was convinced. And 7 hours of deliberation that's a long time if it's as straightforward as a lot on here claim
You admit you do not know what the evidence was so how do you know it is flimsy? That's right you don't. The jury did though.

7 hours might just show that they took this seriously and did not want to much a knee jerk decision and wanted to go through everything to make sure they all fully understood.

And you must think we are stupid if you think we believe for one minute you are not in some way linked to this man.
sorry to dissapoint but i have no connection other than wanting to see justice done, but its a matter of record and you can no doubt get the court transcripts its basically one person word against another and no other evidence ,how do you know the accuser is not telling lies, how do you know how can you be certain, and remember how would you feel if the same accusation was made against you and you had just your word to defend yourself with no other evidence. i thiunk if found guilty you would feel a bit sick.

I would also refer you to a recent case of a man who was jailed for 8 years for rape and actually served nearly 17 years because he refused to accept he was guilty, and guess what they recently quashed his conviction as another mans dna was dscovered on the victims clothes proving he was inocent.
so nothing is as black and white as you make it out to be.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Sir Alan,your comments certainly make me wonder ,who and what you are,but do not worry, those like you who do not come out in the open,i do not worry about.We are all aware how .JS got away with it.[/p][/quote]But how do you know what happened as you were not there. No one should be convicted on such flimsy evidence . How would you feel if it was you accused and you were innocent. Maybe just reflect on that . I have no flag to fly for mr Bryant . But I do like to think justice was done and after seeing British justice at work I feel very uneasy how someone can be convicted just because someone says it happened. With no real evidence.as I said not even all the jury was convinced. And 7 hours of deliberation that's a long time if it's as straightforward as a lot on here claim[/p][/quote]You admit you do not know what the evidence was so how do you know it is flimsy? That's right you don't. The jury did though. 7 hours might just show that they took this seriously and did not want to much a knee jerk decision and wanted to go through everything to make sure they all fully understood. And you must think we are stupid if you think we believe for one minute you are not in some way linked to this man.[/p][/quote]sorry to dissapoint but i have no connection other than wanting to see justice done, but its a matter of record and you can no doubt get the court transcripts its basically one person word against another and no other evidence ,how do you know the accuser is not telling lies, how do you know how can you be certain, and remember how would you feel if the same accusation was made against you and you had just your word to defend yourself with no other evidence. i thiunk if found guilty you would feel a bit sick. I would also refer you to a recent case of a man who was jailed for 8 years for rape and actually served nearly 17 years because he refused to accept he was guilty, and guess what they recently quashed his conviction as another mans dna was dscovered on the victims clothes proving he was inocent. so nothing is as black and white as you make it out to be. Sir Alan

9:22pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Sir Alan wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
pete woodley wrote: Sir Alan,your comments certainly make me wonder ,who and what you are,but do not worry, those like you who do not come out in the open,i do not worry about.We are all aware how .JS got away with it.
But how do you know what happened as you were not there. No one should be convicted on such flimsy evidence . How would you feel if it was you accused and you were innocent. Maybe just reflect on that . I have no flag to fly for mr Bryant . But I do like to think justice was done and after seeing British justice at work I feel very uneasy how someone can be convicted just because someone says it happened. With no real evidence.as I said not even all the jury was convinced. And 7 hours of deliberation that's a long time if it's as straightforward as a lot on here claim
You admit you do not know what the evidence was so how do you know it is flimsy? That's right you don't. The jury did though.

7 hours might just show that they took this seriously and did not want to much a knee jerk decision and wanted to go through everything to make sure they all fully understood.

And you must think we are stupid if you think we believe for one minute you are not in some way linked to this man.
sorry to dissapoint but i have no connection other than wanting to see justice done, but its a matter of record and you can no doubt get the court transcripts its basically one person word against another and no other evidence ,how do you know the accuser is not telling lies, how do you know how can you be certain, and remember how would you feel if the same accusation was made against you and you had just your word to defend yourself with no other evidence. i thiunk if found guilty you would feel a bit sick.

I would also refer you to a recent case of a man who was jailed for 8 years for rape and actually served nearly 17 years because he refused to accept he was guilty, and guess what they recently quashed his conviction as another mans dna was dscovered on the victims clothes proving he was inocent.
so nothing is as black and white as you make it out to be.
well pete i did not see you in court , so really you are commenting on things you do not know anything about. other than what you read in the echo.

if the evidence was so overwhelming then the jury would not have been split or taken so long, it would have been a quick deliberation.

ever seen 12 angry me its a great film , maybe you should watch it pete
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Sir Alan,your comments certainly make me wonder ,who and what you are,but do not worry, those like you who do not come out in the open,i do not worry about.We are all aware how .JS got away with it.[/p][/quote]But how do you know what happened as you were not there. No one should be convicted on such flimsy evidence . How would you feel if it was you accused and you were innocent. Maybe just reflect on that . I have no flag to fly for mr Bryant . But I do like to think justice was done and after seeing British justice at work I feel very uneasy how someone can be convicted just because someone says it happened. With no real evidence.as I said not even all the jury was convinced. And 7 hours of deliberation that's a long time if it's as straightforward as a lot on here claim[/p][/quote]You admit you do not know what the evidence was so how do you know it is flimsy? That's right you don't. The jury did though. 7 hours might just show that they took this seriously and did not want to much a knee jerk decision and wanted to go through everything to make sure they all fully understood. And you must think we are stupid if you think we believe for one minute you are not in some way linked to this man.[/p][/quote]sorry to dissapoint but i have no connection other than wanting to see justice done, but its a matter of record and you can no doubt get the court transcripts its basically one person word against another and no other evidence ,how do you know the accuser is not telling lies, how do you know how can you be certain, and remember how would you feel if the same accusation was made against you and you had just your word to defend yourself with no other evidence. i thiunk if found guilty you would feel a bit sick. I would also refer you to a recent case of a man who was jailed for 8 years for rape and actually served nearly 17 years because he refused to accept he was guilty, and guess what they recently quashed his conviction as another mans dna was dscovered on the victims clothes proving he was inocent. so nothing is as black and white as you make it out to be.[/p][/quote]well pete i did not see you in court , so really you are commenting on things you do not know anything about. other than what you read in the echo. if the evidence was so overwhelming then the jury would not have been split or taken so long, it would have been a quick deliberation. ever seen 12 angry me its a great film , maybe you should watch it pete Sir Alan

9:28pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Victor Nealon, freed after 17 years in jail when DNA evidence pointed to another perpetrator, google the case all those who think that juries dont get it wrong now and then.
Victor Nealon, freed after 17 years in jail when DNA evidence pointed to another perpetrator, google the case all those who think that juries dont get it wrong now and then. Sir Alan

9:14am Sun 22 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.
How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?. pete woodley

9:15am Sun 22 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Sir Alan wrote:
Johns66 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police?

If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with?

To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.
That is exactly what I was thinking
i suggest you look at the criminal injuries compensation website and see what sort of payout you can get from them for sexual assault, starting point is about £11.000 and can go much higher, i do not suggest for one minute this is going to happen but its something to think about .
The criminal injuries don't pay out anymore for historic cases the victim would have been told about this before it even went to the cps. If the victim tried to my a private claim bryant would be released for a retrial as this is evidence of a motive which is of course very important and was absent in this case. Compensation claim would be like finding some DNA evidence.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police? If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with? To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.[/p][/quote]That is exactly what I was thinking[/p][/quote]i suggest you look at the criminal injuries compensation website and see what sort of payout you can get from them for sexual assault, starting point is about £11.000 and can go much higher, i do not suggest for one minute this is going to happen but its something to think about .[/p][/quote]The criminal injuries don't pay out anymore for historic cases the victim would have been told about this before it even went to the cps. If the victim tried to my a private claim bryant would be released for a retrial as this is evidence of a motive which is of course very important and was absent in this case. Compensation claim would be like finding some DNA evidence. Johns66

10:35am Sun 22 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

pete woodley wrote:
How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.
everyone knows you pete
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.[/p][/quote]everyone knows you pete Sir Alan

10:36am Sun 22 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Johns66 wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
Johns66 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote: Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police? If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with? To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.
That is exactly what I was thinking
i suggest you look at the criminal injuries compensation website and see what sort of payout you can get from them for sexual assault, starting point is about £11.000 and can go much higher, i do not suggest for one minute this is going to happen but its something to think about .
The criminal injuries don't pay out anymore for historic cases the victim would have been told about this before it even went to the cps. If the victim tried to my a private claim bryant would be released for a retrial as this is evidence of a motive which is of course very important and was absent in this case. Compensation claim would be like finding some DNA evidence.
if that is the case why are people claiming compensation for the jimmy savile case
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police? If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with? To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.[/p][/quote]That is exactly what I was thinking[/p][/quote]i suggest you look at the criminal injuries compensation website and see what sort of payout you can get from them for sexual assault, starting point is about £11.000 and can go much higher, i do not suggest for one minute this is going to happen but its something to think about .[/p][/quote]The criminal injuries don't pay out anymore for historic cases the victim would have been told about this before it even went to the cps. If the victim tried to my a private claim bryant would be released for a retrial as this is evidence of a motive which is of course very important and was absent in this case. Compensation claim would be like finding some DNA evidence.[/p][/quote]if that is the case why are people claiming compensation for the jimmy savile case Sir Alan

10:39am Sun 22 Dec 13

Telscombe Cliffy says...

Lucy Lastick wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
Lucy Lastick wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Lucy Lastick wrote:
I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom.
Surely you've heard of Jimmy Saville?
Did he live in Dorset? Mate of yours was he?
who is lucy lastick,what school is she from.
I went to the school where I learned that Savile is spelled with only one l.
Thought you didn't know the names?
[quote][p][bold]Lucy Lastick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lucy Lastick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lucy Lastick[/bold] wrote: I only moved to Dorset last year. I knew it was a small county but I didn't realise until I read the above comments that everybody seems to know everything about everybody else. You even name names and know who is related to whom.[/p][/quote]Surely you've heard of Jimmy Saville?[/p][/quote]Did he live in Dorset? Mate of yours was he?[/p][/quote]who is lucy lastick,what school is she from.[/p][/quote]I went to the school where I learned that Savile is spelled with only one l.[/p][/quote]Thought you didn't know the names? Telscombe Cliffy

10:48am Sun 22 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Sir Alan wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.
everyone knows you pete
So why did you not recognise me in court.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.[/p][/quote]everyone knows you pete[/p][/quote]So why did you not recognise me in court. pete woodley

11:06am Sun 22 Dec 13

grazzer says...

Having sifted through all the comments on this case l am now able to sum up thus:
Calling the law an A ** in a case of this nature is an unfortunate choice of words.
l have read all of Shakespeare's plays and nowhere does it mention that Macbeth even had a shop
lf this boy was so traumatised why is it that neither his parents nor his close friends noticed that something was bothering him and why did they not take any steps to ascertain his problem
Finally how did he manage to keep this secret for 37 years
lt could be that the other fireman was the chief culprit and on hearing of his death he decided to wreak vengeance elsewhere
Having sifted through all the comments on this case l am now able to sum up thus: Calling the law an A ** in a case of this nature is an unfortunate choice of words. l have read all of Shakespeare's plays and nowhere does it mention that Macbeth even had a shop lf this boy was so traumatised why is it that neither his parents nor his close friends noticed that something was bothering him and why did they not take any steps to ascertain his problem Finally how did he manage to keep this secret for 37 years lt could be that the other fireman was the chief culprit and on hearing of his death he decided to wreak vengeance elsewhere grazzer

11:35am Sun 22 Dec 13

poolebabe says...

Victims need to feel empowered that they are able to do something about abuse, no matter how long ago it was. I have read some fair points about innocent people being accused, but some go further in assuming that the guilty party must be innocent in a word against another trial. This is often how abusers silence their victims by implying no one would believe them. These abusers need to know that isn't going to be the case, and even if the victim is shamed into silence for many years, they can still be held accountable for their crimes. I think this is a good result. Yes there are some people who do lie sadly, but surely we should assume that the vast majority of allegations are true? Clearly the judge and jury did in this case. No matter how long it took to reach a verdict, they did find him guilty.
Victims need to feel empowered that they are able to do something about abuse, no matter how long ago it was. I have read some fair points about innocent people being accused, but some go further in assuming that the guilty party must be innocent in a word against another trial. This is often how abusers silence their victims by implying no one would believe them. These abusers need to know that isn't going to be the case, and even if the victim is shamed into silence for many years, they can still be held accountable for their crimes. I think this is a good result. Yes there are some people who do lie sadly, but surely we should assume that the vast majority of allegations are true? Clearly the judge and jury did in this case. No matter how long it took to reach a verdict, they did find him guilty. poolebabe

11:45am Sun 22 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

poolebabe,very sensible comments.
poolebabe,very sensible comments. pete woodley

12:30pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

pete woodley wrote:
How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.
Ok Pete what court was the case in
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.[/p][/quote]Ok Pete what court was the case in Sir Alan

12:44pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Sir Alan wrote:
Johns66 wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
Johns66 wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote: Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police? If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with? To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.
That is exactly what I was thinking
i suggest you look at the criminal injuries compensation website and see what sort of payout you can get from them for sexual assault, starting point is about £11.000 and can go much higher, i do not suggest for one minute this is going to happen but its something to think about .
The criminal injuries don't pay out anymore for historic cases the victim would have been told about this before it even went to the cps. If the victim tried to my a private claim bryant would be released for a retrial as this is evidence of a motive which is of course very important and was absent in this case. Compensation claim would be like finding some DNA evidence.
if that is the case why are people claiming compensation for the jimmy savile case
U might find the evidence for his abuse was overwhelming and maybe some have jumped on the bandwagon in the hope that they get something but you may also find that many will be unsuccessful if there is no tangible evidence that they were in the same place at the same time. If compensation was the motive then why choose a fireman who everyone knows aren't exactly rolling in it.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: Also, why would he make this up if he hasn't lived in the area for - it mentions it was a return visit that was the catalyst for him going to Police? If he hadn't seen this man for 37 years why would he remember his name and why would he make such a serious accusation for someone he had no dealings with? To me, the only reasonable reason is that because it's true.[/p][/quote]That is exactly what I was thinking[/p][/quote]i suggest you look at the criminal injuries compensation website and see what sort of payout you can get from them for sexual assault, starting point is about £11.000 and can go much higher, i do not suggest for one minute this is going to happen but its something to think about .[/p][/quote]The criminal injuries don't pay out anymore for historic cases the victim would have been told about this before it even went to the cps. If the victim tried to my a private claim bryant would be released for a retrial as this is evidence of a motive which is of course very important and was absent in this case. Compensation claim would be like finding some DNA evidence.[/p][/quote]if that is the case why are people claiming compensation for the jimmy savile case[/p][/quote]U might find the evidence for his abuse was overwhelming and maybe some have jumped on the bandwagon in the hope that they get something but you may also find that many will be unsuccessful if there is no tangible evidence that they were in the same place at the same time. If compensation was the motive then why choose a fireman who everyone knows aren't exactly rolling in it. Johns66

12:46pm Sun 22 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Sir Alan wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.
Ok Pete what court was the case in
Cant you remember,must be your age.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.[/p][/quote]Ok Pete what court was the case in[/p][/quote]Cant you remember,must be your age. pete woodley

12:47pm Sun 22 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Sir Alan wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.
Ok Pete what court was the case in
Cant you remember,must be your age.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.[/p][/quote]Ok Pete what court was the case in[/p][/quote]Cant you remember,must be your age. pete woodley

12:48pm Sun 22 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Sir Alan wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.
Ok Pete what court was the case in
Cant you remember,must be your age.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.[/p][/quote]Ok Pete what court was the case in[/p][/quote]Cant you remember,must be your age. pete woodley

12:48pm Sun 22 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Sir Alan wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.
Ok Pete what court was the case in
Cant you remember,must be your age.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: How do you know you did not see me in court ?,do you know me ?.[/p][/quote]Ok Pete what court was the case in[/p][/quote]Cant you remember,must be your age. pete woodley

12:52pm Sun 22 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Sorry Sir alan,sticky keys.You must admit Poolebabes comments were very sensible,and unbiased.
Sorry Sir alan,sticky keys.You must admit Poolebabes comments were very sensible,and unbiased. pete woodley

1:29pm Sun 22 Dec 13

a.g.o.g. says...

poolebabe wrote:
Victims need to feel empowered that they are able to do something about abuse, no matter how long ago it was. I have read some fair points about innocent people being accused, but some go further in assuming that the guilty party must be innocent in a word against another trial. This is often how abusers silence their victims by implying no one would believe them. These abusers need to know that isn't going to be the case, and even if the victim is shamed into silence for many years, they can still be held accountable for their crimes. I think this is a good result. Yes there are some people who do lie sadly, but surely we should assume that the vast majority of allegations are true? Clearly the judge and jury did in this case. No matter how long it took to reach a verdict, they did find him guilty.
Hmmmm.
Yes it is right that children were given right to present on-corroborated evidence in pursuit of justice against their alleged assailant/s but whether it can be applied fairly in historic cases must be held to question.
Surely one of the most important lines of defense against false claim is that of an alibi which, if duly corroborated, could in itself exonerate the accused and which, by long distance of time between alleged offence and accusation in historic cases, is not reasonably available to the accused and which, in this case, would have to covered him for a period of around 100 days with the Plaintiff being unsure as to when between the ages of 12 & 15, the alleged offence was committed upon him,
So,unless other damning evidence other than that of vague time and place was presented to The Court this "conviction" could herald a flood of similar claims upon members of the mature generations particularly if they were in any way given charge over children and will make every member of the younger element to think twice if ever that responsibility of charge was offered to them.
Additionally, what now happens to all those previous to the relaxation of corroboration legislation cases in which the children, from lacking hard evidence, were not allowed to proceed to Court?
Re-open them all for further consideration ?!
[quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: Victims need to feel empowered that they are able to do something about abuse, no matter how long ago it was. I have read some fair points about innocent people being accused, but some go further in assuming that the guilty party must be innocent in a word against another trial. This is often how abusers silence their victims by implying no one would believe them. These abusers need to know that isn't going to be the case, and even if the victim is shamed into silence for many years, they can still be held accountable for their crimes. I think this is a good result. Yes there are some people who do lie sadly, but surely we should assume that the vast majority of allegations are true? Clearly the judge and jury did in this case. No matter how long it took to reach a verdict, they did find him guilty.[/p][/quote]Hmmmm. Yes it is right that children were given right to present on-corroborated evidence in pursuit of justice against their alleged assailant/s but whether it can be applied fairly in historic cases must be held to question. Surely one of the most important lines of defense against false claim is that of an alibi which, if duly corroborated, could in itself exonerate the accused and which, by long distance of time between alleged offence and accusation in historic cases, is not reasonably available to the accused and which, in this case, would have to covered him for a period of around 100 days with the Plaintiff being unsure as to when between the ages of 12 & 15, the alleged offence was committed upon him, So,unless other damning evidence other than that of vague time and place was presented to The Court this "conviction" could herald a flood of similar claims upon members of the mature generations particularly if they were in any way given charge over children and will make every member of the younger element to think twice if ever that responsibility of charge was offered to them. Additionally, what now happens to all those previous to the relaxation of corroboration legislation cases in which the children, from lacking hard evidence, were not allowed to proceed to Court? Re-open them all for further consideration ?! a.g.o.g.

3:34pm Sun 22 Dec 13

poolebabe says...

Why not? I can only imagine what a victim has to go through in reporting these crimes, then to see a defendant live their life free of the possibility of a conviction. When laws change or new evidence comes to light, of course certain cases should be looked at again, victim focussed!

I dont think some people realise just how much a victim has to invest in order to go through the abuse and re-live through that to the police, their friends and family and if they are "lucky" the court.

Imagine after going through to the police stage, only for the case to be dropped? That does not mean the person is innocent or guilty because only the court can decide that. I find it hard to see so many people without empathy for victims of abuse. Victims need to feel empowered. Every single abuser should be looking over their shoulders right now, because cases like this do give the balance of power to the victim. Its OK to speak up, and so they should. There is a clear line of right and wrong. It is something the victim has to live with for life, and as such, no statute of limitations should ever be in place, and including looking at certain cases again. Just like they did with Savile, because quite often, further victims are found, and finally they can move on with their lives.
Why not? I can only imagine what a victim has to go through in reporting these crimes, then to see a defendant live their life free of the possibility of a conviction. When laws change or new evidence comes to light, of course certain cases should be looked at again, victim focussed! I dont think some people realise just how much a victim has to invest in order to go through the abuse and re-live through that to the police, their friends and family and if they are "lucky" the court. Imagine after going through to the police stage, only for the case to be dropped? That does not mean the person is innocent or guilty because only the court can decide that. I find it hard to see so many people without empathy for victims of abuse. Victims need to feel empowered. Every single abuser should be looking over their shoulders right now, because cases like this do give the balance of power to the victim. Its OK to speak up, and so they should. There is a clear line of right and wrong. It is something the victim has to live with for life, and as such, no statute of limitations should ever be in place, and including looking at certain cases again. Just like they did with Savile, because quite often, further victims are found, and finally they can move on with their lives. poolebabe

3:55pm Sun 22 Dec 13

John T says...

pete woodley wrote:
Sorry Sir alan,sticky keys.You must admit Poolebabes comments were very sensible,and unbiased.
Another fine mess you have got yourself into, eh, old fella!
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Sorry Sir alan,sticky keys.You must admit Poolebabes comments were very sensible,and unbiased.[/p][/quote]Another fine mess you have got yourself into, eh, old fella! John T

4:00pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

pete woodley wrote:
Sorry Sir alan,sticky keys.You must admit Poolebabes comments were very sensible,and unbiased.
For you info court 5. As I said I do not know what happened I was not there at the time of the alleged offense. But it was quite noticeable that the judge spent a lot of time summing up the accusers evidence but very little on the defendants case.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Sorry Sir alan,sticky keys.You must admit Poolebabes comments were very sensible,and unbiased.[/p][/quote]For you info court 5. As I said I do not know what happened I was not there at the time of the alleged offense. But it was quite noticeable that the judge spent a lot of time summing up the accusers evidence but very little on the defendants case. Sir Alan

4:29pm Sun 22 Dec 13

pete woodley says...

Sir Alan wrote:
pete woodley wrote:
Sorry Sir alan,sticky keys.You must admit Poolebabes comments were very sensible,and unbiased.
For you info court 5. As I said I do not know what happened I was not there at the time of the alleged offense. But it was quite noticeable that the judge spent a lot of time summing up the accusers evidence but very little on the defendants case.
Must admit i was not there as no particular axe to grind.Did Bryant or accuser bring any character witnesses.Were there any other "witnesses"etc,calle
d.Was the judge questioning the accusers evidence,or just summing up,also did Bryant have any sort of defence,or had he been advised to keep quiet.The echo report is very vague,and will lead to a lot of rumours.There was already some before the case.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: Sorry Sir alan,sticky keys.You must admit Poolebabes comments were very sensible,and unbiased.[/p][/quote]For you info court 5. As I said I do not know what happened I was not there at the time of the alleged offense. But it was quite noticeable that the judge spent a lot of time summing up the accusers evidence but very little on the defendants case.[/p][/quote]Must admit i was not there as no particular axe to grind.Did Bryant or accuser bring any character witnesses.Were there any other "witnesses"etc,calle d.Was the judge questioning the accusers evidence,or just summing up,also did Bryant have any sort of defence,or had he been advised to keep quiet.The echo report is very vague,and will lead to a lot of rumours.There was already some before the case. pete woodley

4:54pm Sun 22 Dec 13

denisjames says...

pete woodley wrote:
Macbeth100 wrote:
Moimccallion wrote:
Telscombe Cliffy wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers.

and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented
I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.
Were you on the jury??
If so you shouldn't even be commenting!!
A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court???
Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!!
Lets hope you never have to try to disprove an allegation made by someone with no corroborating evidence and defend your liberty.
all pals together.
All I can say is that if you knew the man you too would be astonished at this verdict. I wasn't there so I don't know what Judge Wiggs gave but I know that the prosecution has to convince the jury of guilt and presumably this was the case but I say once again that if you knew the man you too would be surprised to say the least.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Macbeth100[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moimccallion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telscombe Cliffy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: with respect i was, and yes you can be convicted with no corroboration since they changed the law, so its one persons word against anothers. and as is say even some of the jury were not convinced after all the evidence was presented[/p][/quote]I had an inkling you were there in court, and your comments are of course most valid.[/p][/quote]Were you on the jury?? If so you shouldn't even be commenting!! A large majority of cases boil down to one persons word against the other.. What is the point in ANYONE taking someone to court??? Listen up all you victims of a crime... If you haven't got witnesses /DNA/CCTV don't bother to report it as idiots like sir Alan believes your not worth it!!![/p][/quote]Lets hope you never have to try to disprove an allegation made by someone with no corroborating evidence and defend your liberty.[/p][/quote]all pals together.[/p][/quote]All I can say is that if you knew the man you too would be astonished at this verdict. I wasn't there so I don't know what Judge Wiggs gave but I know that the prosecution has to convince the jury of guilt and presumably this was the case but I say once again that if you knew the man you too would be surprised to say the least. denisjames

5:03pm Sun 22 Dec 13

poolebabe says...

I don't think you can make assumptions based on the judges summing up of evidence. Especially if the only defence was "it wasn't me" Do you expect a judge to make something Up? If it was such a miscarriage of justice, then surely a not guilty verdict would have been the result? The jury would have course had to deliberate carefully. So much was at stake, including implicating a dead man for goodness sake. Imagine what that' s done to his family. They can't ask him now can they? This, I believe could also explain why careful consideration of the verdict was needed. Turning some of the arguments on the head, for some who feel the jury weren't convinced. Although we can only speculate because we weren't there. My opinion is based on the fact he was found guilty in a court of law. I see absolutely nothing to suggest this was an "alleged" incident. He's guilty by legal definition. I hope the victim can now have closure. Unless he sees some of these comments that is!
I don't think you can make assumptions based on the judges summing up of evidence. Especially if the only defence was "it wasn't me" Do you expect a judge to make something Up? If it was such a miscarriage of justice, then surely a not guilty verdict would have been the result? The jury would have course had to deliberate carefully. So much was at stake, including implicating a dead man for goodness sake. Imagine what that' s done to his family. They can't ask him now can they? This, I believe could also explain why careful consideration of the verdict was needed. Turning some of the arguments on the head, for some who feel the jury weren't convinced. Although we can only speculate because we weren't there. My opinion is based on the fact he was found guilty in a court of law. I see absolutely nothing to suggest this was an "alleged" incident. He's guilty by legal definition. I hope the victim can now have closure. Unless he sees some of these comments that is! poolebabe

5:25pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Sir Alan am I correct in thinking you were in court. If so please tell me what part you played. Juror in the public gallery what and where
Sir Alan am I correct in thinking you were in court. If so please tell me what part you played. Juror in the public gallery what and where Johns66

5:37pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

You see the press going on about this hero fireman who has had many commendations A council figure ,a pillar of the community But For all we know the boy who is now a man could be of the same sort of good standing I think the only reason this man came back after so many years. Is that he needed this closure. The truth plain and simple. I think I may go to the court on the 24th just to see the man who had the courage and bravery to come back after so long. For justice. I take my hat off to him
You see the press going on about this hero fireman who has had many commendations A council figure ,a pillar of the community But For all we know the boy who is now a man could be of the same sort of good standing I think the only reason this man came back after so many years. Is that he needed this closure. The truth plain and simple. I think I may go to the court on the 24th just to see the man who had the courage and bravery to come back after so long. For justice. I take my hat off to him Johns66

6:29pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Johns66 wrote:
Sir Alan am I correct in thinking you were in court. If so please tell me what part you played. Juror in the public gallery what and where
that i am afraid is a state secret
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: Sir Alan am I correct in thinking you were in court. If so please tell me what part you played. Juror in the public gallery what and where[/p][/quote]that i am afraid is a state secret Sir Alan

6:32pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

poolebabe wrote:
I don't think you can make assumptions based on the judges summing up of evidence. Especially if the only defence was "it wasn't me" Do you expect a judge to make something Up? If it was such a miscarriage of justice, then surely a not guilty verdict would have been the result? The jury would have course had to deliberate carefully. So much was at stake, including implicating a dead man for goodness sake. Imagine what that' s done to his family. They can't ask him now can they? This, I believe could also explain why careful consideration of the verdict was needed. Turning some of the arguments on the head, for some who feel the jury weren't convinced. Although we can only speculate because we weren't there. My opinion is based on the fact he was found guilty in a court of law. I see absolutely nothing to suggest this was an "alleged" incident. He's guilty by legal definition. I hope the victim can now have closure. Unless he sees some of these comments that is!
Victor Nealon, freed after 17 years in jail when DNA evidence pointed to another perpetrator, google the case all those who think that juries dont get it wrong now and then.
[quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: I don't think you can make assumptions based on the judges summing up of evidence. Especially if the only defence was "it wasn't me" Do you expect a judge to make something Up? If it was such a miscarriage of justice, then surely a not guilty verdict would have been the result? The jury would have course had to deliberate carefully. So much was at stake, including implicating a dead man for goodness sake. Imagine what that' s done to his family. They can't ask him now can they? This, I believe could also explain why careful consideration of the verdict was needed. Turning some of the arguments on the head, for some who feel the jury weren't convinced. Although we can only speculate because we weren't there. My opinion is based on the fact he was found guilty in a court of law. I see absolutely nothing to suggest this was an "alleged" incident. He's guilty by legal definition. I hope the victim can now have closure. Unless he sees some of these comments that is![/p][/quote]Victor Nealon, freed after 17 years in jail when DNA evidence pointed to another perpetrator, google the case all those who think that juries dont get it wrong now and then. Sir Alan

6:38pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Sir Alan wrote:
poolebabe wrote:
I don't think you can make assumptions based on the judges summing up of evidence. Especially if the only defence was "it wasn't me" Do you expect a judge to make something Up? If it was such a miscarriage of justice, then surely a not guilty verdict would have been the result? The jury would have course had to deliberate carefully. So much was at stake, including implicating a dead man for goodness sake. Imagine what that' s done to his family. They can't ask him now can they? This, I believe could also explain why careful consideration of the verdict was needed. Turning some of the arguments on the head, for some who feel the jury weren't convinced. Although we can only speculate because we weren't there. My opinion is based on the fact he was found guilty in a court of law. I see absolutely nothing to suggest this was an "alleged" incident. He's guilty by legal definition. I hope the victim can now have closure. Unless he sees some of these comments that is!
Victor Nealon, freed after 17 years in jail when DNA evidence pointed to another perpetrator, google the case all those who think that juries dont get it wrong now and then.
But you can say the same regarding peter sutcliffe pulled in twice for qui stoning by the police and released because they could not hang on to him as a result two more women were killed no one is saying our legal system is perfect But it's what we have it is I think without doubt the best in the world
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: I don't think you can make assumptions based on the judges summing up of evidence. Especially if the only defence was "it wasn't me" Do you expect a judge to make something Up? If it was such a miscarriage of justice, then surely a not guilty verdict would have been the result? The jury would have course had to deliberate carefully. So much was at stake, including implicating a dead man for goodness sake. Imagine what that' s done to his family. They can't ask him now can they? This, I believe could also explain why careful consideration of the verdict was needed. Turning some of the arguments on the head, for some who feel the jury weren't convinced. Although we can only speculate because we weren't there. My opinion is based on the fact he was found guilty in a court of law. I see absolutely nothing to suggest this was an "alleged" incident. He's guilty by legal definition. I hope the victim can now have closure. Unless he sees some of these comments that is![/p][/quote]Victor Nealon, freed after 17 years in jail when DNA evidence pointed to another perpetrator, google the case all those who think that juries dont get it wrong now and then.[/p][/quote]But you can say the same regarding peter sutcliffe pulled in twice for qui stoning by the police and released because they could not hang on to him as a result two more women were killed no one is saying our legal system is perfect But it's what we have it is I think without doubt the best in the world Johns66

6:42pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Sir Alan wrote:
Johns66 wrote:
Sir Alan am I correct in thinking you were in court. If so please tell me what part you played. Juror in the public gallery what and where
that i am afraid is a state secret
Come on we're you there because if you were you know more about how this went down than the rest of us
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: Sir Alan am I correct in thinking you were in court. If so please tell me what part you played. Juror in the public gallery what and where[/p][/quote]that i am afraid is a state secret[/p][/quote]Come on we're you there because if you were you know more about how this went down than the rest of us Johns66

6:42pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Johns66 wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
poolebabe wrote:
I don't think you can make assumptions based on the judges summing up of evidence. Especially if the only defence was "it wasn't me" Do you expect a judge to make something Up? If it was such a miscarriage of justice, then surely a not guilty verdict would have been the result? The jury would have course had to deliberate carefully. So much was at stake, including implicating a dead man for goodness sake. Imagine what that' s done to his family. They can't ask him now can they? This, I believe could also explain why careful consideration of the verdict was needed. Turning some of the arguments on the head, for some who feel the jury weren't convinced. Although we can only speculate because we weren't there. My opinion is based on the fact he was found guilty in a court of law. I see absolutely nothing to suggest this was an "alleged" incident. He's guilty by legal definition. I hope the victim can now have closure. Unless he sees some of these comments that is!
Victor Nealon, freed after 17 years in jail when DNA evidence pointed to another perpetrator, google the case all those who think that juries dont get it wrong now and then.
But you can say the same regarding peter sutcliffe pulled in twice for qui stoning by the police and released because they could not hang on to him as a result two more women were killed no one is saying our legal system is perfect But it's what we have it is I think without doubt the best in the world
im sure you would think that , but then you are not facing prison are you , and im sure as hell dont think victor would agree with you 17 years for a crime he didnt even commit and you are proud of that , next you will be denying the holocaust happned.
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: I don't think you can make assumptions based on the judges summing up of evidence. Especially if the only defence was "it wasn't me" Do you expect a judge to make something Up? If it was such a miscarriage of justice, then surely a not guilty verdict would have been the result? The jury would have course had to deliberate carefully. So much was at stake, including implicating a dead man for goodness sake. Imagine what that' s done to his family. They can't ask him now can they? This, I believe could also explain why careful consideration of the verdict was needed. Turning some of the arguments on the head, for some who feel the jury weren't convinced. Although we can only speculate because we weren't there. My opinion is based on the fact he was found guilty in a court of law. I see absolutely nothing to suggest this was an "alleged" incident. He's guilty by legal definition. I hope the victim can now have closure. Unless he sees some of these comments that is![/p][/quote]Victor Nealon, freed after 17 years in jail when DNA evidence pointed to another perpetrator, google the case all those who think that juries dont get it wrong now and then.[/p][/quote]But you can say the same regarding peter sutcliffe pulled in twice for qui stoning by the police and released because they could not hang on to him as a result two more women were killed no one is saying our legal system is perfect But it's what we have it is I think without doubt the best in the world[/p][/quote]im sure you would think that , but then you are not facing prison are you , and im sure as hell dont think victor would agree with you 17 years for a crime he didnt even commit and you are proud of that , next you will be denying the holocaust happned. Sir Alan

6:48pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them
No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them Johns66

6:57pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Johns66 wrote:
No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them
i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call.
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them[/p][/quote]i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call. Sir Alan

7:03pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

You are right what you are saying anyone could have comme to the fire station. As for the flats I would think those would have been very heavily sound proofed due to it being a fire station or it could be just luck these two did not get Caught. Baiting in mind these two had the advantage of roughly knowing who was likely to vist if anybody
You are right what you are saying anyone could have comme to the fire station. As for the flats I would think those would have been very heavily sound proofed due to it being a fire station or it could be just luck these two did not get Caught. Baiting in mind these two had the advantage of roughly knowing who was likely to vist if anybody Johns66

7:11pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

Johns66 wrote:
You are right what you are saying anyone could have comme to the fire station. As for the flats I would think those would have been very heavily sound proofed due to it being a fire station or it could be just luck these two did not get Caught. Baiting in mind these two had the advantage of roughly knowing who was likely to vist if anybody
on a retained station you never know who or when people would come in, especially in 1976 the busiest year ever for the fire service. lots of fire calls.

i beleive it was stated that the alleged victim screamed as loud as he could
for several minutes. tell me would you have taken that chance that someone might have walked in
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: You are right what you are saying anyone could have comme to the fire station. As for the flats I would think those would have been very heavily sound proofed due to it being a fire station or it could be just luck these two did not get Caught. Baiting in mind these two had the advantage of roughly knowing who was likely to vist if anybody[/p][/quote]on a retained station you never know who or when people would come in, especially in 1976 the busiest year ever for the fire service. lots of fire calls. i beleive it was stated that the alleged victim screamed as loud as he could for several minutes. tell me would you have taken that chance that someone might have walked in Sir Alan

7:14pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

But you and I are (normal). What rational people like ourselves would do is not what out hers would
But you and I are (normal). What rational people like ourselves would do is not what out hers would Johns66

7:24pm Sun 22 Dec 13

ashleycross says...

Presumably the younger men in our remaining prisons in Dorset are self harming en masse to guarantee places in the comparative safety of the hospital wing with the prospect of this man moving into the premises.
Presumably the younger men in our remaining prisons in Dorset are self harming en masse to guarantee places in the comparative safety of the hospital wing with the prospect of this man moving into the premises. ashleycross

7:32pm Sun 22 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Over 200 comments later,are we any the wiser ? Uh Nope :)
Over 200 comments later,are we any the wiser ? Uh Nope :) retry69

7:40pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

retry69 wrote:
Over 200 comments later,are we any the wiser ? Uh Nope :)
No we are not all we really know is this man was tried and convicted of the rape of a young boy these people are in a position of trust within the community as with most people with these tendencies if there was to be an appeal My personal view is the outcome would most likely be the same. Then what do the do gooders say another appeal ????
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Over 200 comments later,are we any the wiser ? Uh Nope :)[/p][/quote]No we are not all we really know is this man was tried and convicted of the rape of a young boy these people are in a position of trust within the community as with most people with these tendencies if there was to be an appeal My personal view is the outcome would most likely be the same. Then what do the do gooders say another appeal ???? Johns66

8:42pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Telscombe Cliffy says...

retry69 wrote:
Over 200 comments later,are we any the wiser ? Uh Nope :)
It's not a wide debate though, it's the same dozen or so people.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: Over 200 comments later,are we any the wiser ? Uh Nope :)[/p][/quote]It's not a wide debate though, it's the same dozen or so people. Telscombe Cliffy

9:01pm Sun 22 Dec 13

simcal says...

Conviction will be overturned on appeal. Everything else is academic.
Conviction will be overturned on appeal. Everything else is academic. simcal

9:38pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

simcal wrote:
Conviction will be overturned on appeal. Everything else is academic.
Don't think so if he gets 5 yrs he will serve 3 If it is taken to appeal and the same result is given he will end up with 10 yrs he is guilty accept his fate and do his time. These 2 must have known that these type of secrets will always come out in the end.
[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: Conviction will be overturned on appeal. Everything else is academic.[/p][/quote]Don't think so if he gets 5 yrs he will serve 3 If it is taken to appeal and the same result is given he will end up with 10 yrs he is guilty accept his fate and do his time. These 2 must have known that these type of secrets will always come out in the end. Johns66

9:49pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Johns66 says...

Anyway roll on the 24th jan and we will see what the child rapist gets
Anyway roll on the 24th jan and we will see what the child rapist gets Johns66

8:48am Mon 23 Dec 13

poolebabe says...

Sir Alan wrote:
Johns66 wrote:
No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them
i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call.
You miss the point. No one is saying a jury is a fool proof way of getting a correct decision, but the vast majority of them do. It is the system we have, and one we should have faith in. The guy was found guilty whether you can understand the logic or not. Your opinion, mine or anyone else's does not change that. The man is guilty, from the verdict he did not allegedly rape a boy, he did rape a boy, he will go to prison and rightly so. If he was found innocent, no one would be able to comment otherwise, but the victim will know what some people think of this verdict. Perhaps start thinking of him instead of the the person that's been found guilty in a court of law.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them[/p][/quote]i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call.[/p][/quote]You miss the point. No one is saying a jury is a fool proof way of getting a correct decision, but the vast majority of them do. It is the system we have, and one we should have faith in. The guy was found guilty whether you can understand the logic or not. Your opinion, mine or anyone else's does not change that. The man is guilty, from the verdict he did not allegedly rape a boy, he did rape a boy, he will go to prison and rightly so. If he was found innocent, no one would be able to comment otherwise, but the victim will know what some people think of this verdict. Perhaps start thinking of him instead of the the person that's been found guilty in a court of law. poolebabe

10:13am Mon 23 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

poolebabe wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
Johns66 wrote: No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them
i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call.
You miss the point. No one is saying a jury is a fool proof way of getting a correct decision, but the vast majority of them do. It is the system we have, and one we should have faith in. The guy was found guilty whether you can understand the logic or not. Your opinion, mine or anyone else's does not change that. The man is guilty, from the verdict he did not allegedly rape a boy, he did rape a boy, he will go to prison and rightly so. If he was found innocent, no one would be able to comment otherwise, but the victim will know what some people think of this verdict. Perhaps start thinking of him instead of the the person that's been found guilty in a court of law.
you did not answer my point though what if it happened to you, how would you feel if your were just for arguments sake innocent. but for what ever reason you were not believed.
[quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them[/p][/quote]i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call.[/p][/quote]You miss the point. No one is saying a jury is a fool proof way of getting a correct decision, but the vast majority of them do. It is the system we have, and one we should have faith in. The guy was found guilty whether you can understand the logic or not. Your opinion, mine or anyone else's does not change that. The man is guilty, from the verdict he did not allegedly rape a boy, he did rape a boy, he will go to prison and rightly so. If he was found innocent, no one would be able to comment otherwise, but the victim will know what some people think of this verdict. Perhaps start thinking of him instead of the the person that's been found guilty in a court of law.[/p][/quote]you did not answer my point though what if it happened to you, how would you feel if your were just for arguments sake innocent. but for what ever reason you were not believed. Sir Alan

10:56am Mon 23 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Johns66 wrote:
Anyway roll on the 24th jan and we will see what the child rapist gets
I understand your comment but surely you must have other things to look forward to :)
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: Anyway roll on the 24th jan and we will see what the child rapist gets[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but surely you must have other things to look forward to :) retry69

10:56am Mon 23 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Johns66 wrote:
Anyway roll on the 24th jan and we will see what the child rapist gets
I understand your comment but surely you must have other things to look forward to :)
[quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: Anyway roll on the 24th jan and we will see what the child rapist gets[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but surely you must have other things to look forward to :) retry69

11:36am Mon 23 Dec 13

The Witch says...

Interesting comments from many and having worked in the legal system at Crown Court (not Bournemouth) I agree that the comment about those attending jury service is sadly true, many of those called for jury service do not have a clue about what is going on and I've been in court when the judge has called a halt to the proceedings because one member of the jury had fallen asleep!
British justice is based on trial by jury made up of members of the public and maybe the time has come to call a halt to this ancient and dated way of finding the accused guilty or not.
But what do we put in its place? Judges alone making the decision on the evidence put before them? Some sort of truth drug being administered? Both alleged victim and defendant being put under hypnosis?
It won't happen as too much money is engendered through our present court system in fees for judges, barristers and all their staff etc, they are not going to give up their nice 'little' earners without a fight.
Interesting comments from many and having worked in the legal system at Crown Court (not Bournemouth) I agree that the comment about those attending jury service is sadly true, many of those called for jury service do not have a clue about what is going on and I've been in court when the judge has called a halt to the proceedings because one member of the jury had fallen asleep! British justice is based on trial by jury made up of members of the public and maybe the time has come to call a halt to this ancient and dated way of finding the accused guilty or not. But what do we put in its place? Judges alone making the decision on the evidence put before them? Some sort of truth drug being administered? Both alleged victim and defendant being put under hypnosis? It won't happen as too much money is engendered through our present court system in fees for judges, barristers and all their staff etc, they are not going to give up their nice 'little' earners without a fight. The Witch

5:31pm Mon 23 Dec 13

poolebabe says...

Sir Alan wrote:
poolebabe wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
Johns66 wrote: No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them
i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call.
You miss the point. No one is saying a jury is a fool proof way of getting a correct decision, but the vast majority of them do. It is the system we have, and one we should have faith in. The guy was found guilty whether you can understand the logic or not. Your opinion, mine or anyone else's does not change that. The man is guilty, from the verdict he did not allegedly rape a boy, he did rape a boy, he will go to prison and rightly so. If he was found innocent, no one would be able to comment otherwise, but the victim will know what some people think of this verdict. Perhaps start thinking of him instead of the the person that's been found guilty in a court of law.
you did not answer my point though what if it happened to you, how would you feel if your were just for arguments sake innocent. but for what ever reason you were not believed.
I would think that was obvious. If I was accused of something, then I would have to have faith in the justice system. Putting all your fears aside, there is a strong possibility this guy actually did what he was accused of. Stronger than the possibility of him being innocent. You want to see him walk free just because you don't agree with the verdict? Have you got children? Can you actually imagine what it is like to be abused? Perverts don't come with a warning label, and the defence would always be, it wasn't me. So based on that defence alone, I find it quite incredible the amount of support you give to someone who has been found guilty of such a disgusting crime. No matter how flimsy you perceive the law to be, that is a fact. If the person was innocent, you would not be able to speculate on his guilt, so why should you when he is found guilty? Its messed up. Me? I'm all for the victim. What a terrible ordeal he has lived with for so many years.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them[/p][/quote]i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call.[/p][/quote]You miss the point. No one is saying a jury is a fool proof way of getting a correct decision, but the vast majority of them do. It is the system we have, and one we should have faith in. The guy was found guilty whether you can understand the logic or not. Your opinion, mine or anyone else's does not change that. The man is guilty, from the verdict he did not allegedly rape a boy, he did rape a boy, he will go to prison and rightly so. If he was found innocent, no one would be able to comment otherwise, but the victim will know what some people think of this verdict. Perhaps start thinking of him instead of the the person that's been found guilty in a court of law.[/p][/quote]you did not answer my point though what if it happened to you, how would you feel if your were just for arguments sake innocent. but for what ever reason you were not believed.[/p][/quote]I would think that was obvious. If I was accused of something, then I would have to have faith in the justice system. Putting all your fears aside, there is a strong possibility this guy actually did what he was accused of. Stronger than the possibility of him being innocent. You want to see him walk free just because you don't agree with the verdict? Have you got children? Can you actually imagine what it is like to be abused? Perverts don't come with a warning label, and the defence would always be, it wasn't me. So based on that defence alone, I find it quite incredible the amount of support you give to someone who has been found guilty of such a disgusting crime. No matter how flimsy you perceive the law to be, that is a fact. If the person was innocent, you would not be able to speculate on his guilt, so why should you when he is found guilty? Its messed up. Me? I'm all for the victim. What a terrible ordeal he has lived with for so many years. poolebabe

9:51pm Mon 23 Dec 13

Sir Alan says...

poolebabe wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
poolebabe wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
Johns66 wrote: No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them
i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call.
You miss the point. No one is saying a jury is a fool proof way of getting a correct decision, but the vast majority of them do. It is the system we have, and one we should have faith in. The guy was found guilty whether you can understand the logic or not. Your opinion, mine or anyone else's does not change that. The man is guilty, from the verdict he did not allegedly rape a boy, he did rape a boy, he will go to prison and rightly so. If he was found innocent, no one would be able to comment otherwise, but the victim will know what some people think of this verdict. Perhaps start thinking of him instead of the the person that's been found guilty in a court of law.
you did not answer my point though what if it happened to you, how would you feel if your were just for arguments sake innocent. but for what ever reason you were not believed.
I would think that was obvious. If I was accused of something, then I would have to have faith in the justice system. Putting all your fears aside, there is a strong possibility this guy actually did what he was accused of. Stronger than the possibility of him being innocent. You want to see him walk free just because you don't agree with the verdict? Have you got children? Can you actually imagine what it is like to be abused? Perverts don't come with a warning label, and the defence would always be, it wasn't me. So based on that defence alone, I find it quite incredible the amount of support you give to someone who has been found guilty of such a disgusting crime. No matter how flimsy you perceive the law to be, that is a fact. If the person was innocent, you would not be able to speculate on his guilt, so why should you when he is found guilty? Its messed up. Me? I'm all for the victim. What a terrible ordeal he has lived with for so many years.
yes i am only to aware of what its like to be abused, as it happened to me as a child and at a much younger age, but i did not need to make a song and dance about it years later , its in the past and nothing now can change that.
[quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them[/p][/quote]i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call.[/p][/quote]You miss the point. No one is saying a jury is a fool proof way of getting a correct decision, but the vast majority of them do. It is the system we have, and one we should have faith in. The guy was found guilty whether you can understand the logic or not. Your opinion, mine or anyone else's does not change that. The man is guilty, from the verdict he did not allegedly rape a boy, he did rape a boy, he will go to prison and rightly so. If he was found innocent, no one would be able to comment otherwise, but the victim will know what some people think of this verdict. Perhaps start thinking of him instead of the the person that's been found guilty in a court of law.[/p][/quote]you did not answer my point though what if it happened to you, how would you feel if your were just for arguments sake innocent. but for what ever reason you were not believed.[/p][/quote]I would think that was obvious. If I was accused of something, then I would have to have faith in the justice system. Putting all your fears aside, there is a strong possibility this guy actually did what he was accused of. Stronger than the possibility of him being innocent. You want to see him walk free just because you don't agree with the verdict? Have you got children? Can you actually imagine what it is like to be abused? Perverts don't come with a warning label, and the defence would always be, it wasn't me. So based on that defence alone, I find it quite incredible the amount of support you give to someone who has been found guilty of such a disgusting crime. No matter how flimsy you perceive the law to be, that is a fact. If the person was innocent, you would not be able to speculate on his guilt, so why should you when he is found guilty? Its messed up. Me? I'm all for the victim. What a terrible ordeal he has lived with for so many years.[/p][/quote]yes i am only to aware of what its like to be abused, as it happened to me as a child and at a much younger age, but i did not need to make a song and dance about it years later , its in the past and nothing now can change that. Sir Alan

11:29pm Mon 23 Dec 13

a.g.o.g. says...

The Witch wrote:
Interesting comments from many and having worked in the legal system at Crown Court (not Bournemouth) I agree that the comment about those attending jury service is sadly true, many of those called for jury service do not have a clue about what is going on and I've been in court when the judge has called a halt to the proceedings because one member of the jury had fallen asleep!
British justice is based on trial by jury made up of members of the public and maybe the time has come to call a halt to this ancient and dated way of finding the accused guilty or not.
But what do we put in its place? Judges alone making the decision on the evidence put before them? Some sort of truth drug being administered? Both alleged victim and defendant being put under hypnosis?
It won't happen as too much money is engendered through our present court system in fees for judges, barristers and all their staff etc, they are not going to give up their nice 'little' earners without a fight.
Quite so, and this verdict entirely based it would seem on uncorroborated allegation of an assault taking place somewhere within a 3 year time span, some 40 years ago and therefore eliminating any reasonable chance of an alibi, will sure get the tills ringing overtime when they who had their cases refused prosecution through lack of that corroboration before the Law was changed for children claiming abuse upon them.
[quote][p][bold]The Witch[/bold] wrote: Interesting comments from many and having worked in the legal system at Crown Court (not Bournemouth) I agree that the comment about those attending jury service is sadly true, many of those called for jury service do not have a clue about what is going on and I've been in court when the judge has called a halt to the proceedings because one member of the jury had fallen asleep! British justice is based on trial by jury made up of members of the public and maybe the time has come to call a halt to this ancient and dated way of finding the accused guilty or not. But what do we put in its place? Judges alone making the decision on the evidence put before them? Some sort of truth drug being administered? Both alleged victim and defendant being put under hypnosis? It won't happen as too much money is engendered through our present court system in fees for judges, barristers and all their staff etc, they are not going to give up their nice 'little' earners without a fight.[/p][/quote]Quite so, and this verdict entirely based it would seem on uncorroborated allegation of an assault taking place somewhere within a 3 year time span, some 40 years ago and therefore eliminating any reasonable chance of an alibi, will sure get the tills ringing overtime when they who had their cases refused prosecution through lack of that corroboration before the Law was changed for children claiming abuse upon them. a.g.o.g.

9:03am Tue 24 Dec 13

poolebabe says...

Sir Alan wrote:
poolebabe wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
poolebabe wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
Johns66 wrote: No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them
i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call.
You miss the point. No one is saying a jury is a fool proof way of getting a correct decision, but the vast majority of them do. It is the system we have, and one we should have faith in. The guy was found guilty whether you can understand the logic or not. Your opinion, mine or anyone else's does not change that. The man is guilty, from the verdict he did not allegedly rape a boy, he did rape a boy, he will go to prison and rightly so. If he was found innocent, no one would be able to comment otherwise, but the victim will know what some people think of this verdict. Perhaps start thinking of him instead of the the person that's been found guilty in a court of law.
you did not answer my point though what if it happened to you, how would you feel if your were just for arguments sake innocent. but for what ever reason you were not believed.
I would think that was obvious. If I was accused of something, then I would have to have faith in the justice system. Putting all your fears aside, there is a strong possibility this guy actually did what he was accused of. Stronger than the possibility of him being innocent. You want to see him walk free just because you don't agree with the verdict? Have you got children? Can you actually imagine what it is like to be abused? Perverts don't come with a warning label, and the defence would always be, it wasn't me. So based on that defence alone, I find it quite incredible the amount of support you give to someone who has been found guilty of such a disgusting crime. No matter how flimsy you perceive the law to be, that is a fact. If the person was innocent, you would not be able to speculate on his guilt, so why should you when he is found guilty? Its messed up. Me? I'm all for the victim. What a terrible ordeal he has lived with for so many years.
yes i am only to aware of what its like to be abused, as it happened to me as a child and at a much younger age, but i did not need to make a song and dance about it years later , its in the past and nothing now can change that.
Well it sounds like you come to terms with that well enough. Good for you. The same can't be said for everyone, and for a lot of victims of child abuse, it's not until many years later they come to terms with what happened and start to understand they were not to blame. A lot of victims then start to feel guilt for not saying anything, and wonder if there are other victims they could have protected by speaking out. I think it is an incredibly brave thing to do, considering what people think of it. So called "coming out the woodwork" like they are somehow in the wrong. The public have a duty to listen to victims, and victims should be believed. Anyway, that's enough from me on the subject. The guy is guilty, and I hope he serves his time well and the victim can move on with his life.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them[/p][/quote]i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call.[/p][/quote]You miss the point. No one is saying a jury is a fool proof way of getting a correct decision, but the vast majority of them do. It is the system we have, and one we should have faith in. The guy was found guilty whether you can understand the logic or not. Your opinion, mine or anyone else's does not change that. The man is guilty, from the verdict he did not allegedly rape a boy, he did rape a boy, he will go to prison and rightly so. If he was found innocent, no one would be able to comment otherwise, but the victim will know what some people think of this verdict. Perhaps start thinking of him instead of the the person that's been found guilty in a court of law.[/p][/quote]you did not answer my point though what if it happened to you, how would you feel if your were just for arguments sake innocent. but for what ever reason you were not believed.[/p][/quote]I would think that was obvious. If I was accused of something, then I would have to have faith in the justice system. Putting all your fears aside, there is a strong possibility this guy actually did what he was accused of. Stronger than the possibility of him being innocent. You want to see him walk free just because you don't agree with the verdict? Have you got children? Can you actually imagine what it is like to be abused? Perverts don't come with a warning label, and the defence would always be, it wasn't me. So based on that defence alone, I find it quite incredible the amount of support you give to someone who has been found guilty of such a disgusting crime. No matter how flimsy you perceive the law to be, that is a fact. If the person was innocent, you would not be able to speculate on his guilt, so why should you when he is found guilty? Its messed up. Me? I'm all for the victim. What a terrible ordeal he has lived with for so many years.[/p][/quote]yes i am only to aware of what its like to be abused, as it happened to me as a child and at a much younger age, but i did not need to make a song and dance about it years later , its in the past and nothing now can change that.[/p][/quote]Well it sounds like you come to terms with that well enough. Good for you. The same can't be said for everyone, and for a lot of victims of child abuse, it's not until many years later they come to terms with what happened and start to understand they were not to blame. A lot of victims then start to feel guilt for not saying anything, and wonder if there are other victims they could have protected by speaking out. I think it is an incredibly brave thing to do, considering what people think of it. So called "coming out the woodwork" like they are somehow in the wrong. The public have a duty to listen to victims, and victims should be believed. Anyway, that's enough from me on the subject. The guy is guilty, and I hope he serves his time well and the victim can move on with his life. poolebabe

1:41am Wed 25 Dec 13

steve.in.sydney says...

Good to see you're back Pete, but I have to agree with retry69, and would urge you to take his advice. Don't let the hotheads suck you in. Enjoy your Christmas everybody (hotheads as well).
Good to see you're back Pete, but I have to agree with retry69, and would urge you to take his advice. Don't let the hotheads suck you in. Enjoy your Christmas everybody (hotheads as well). steve.in.sydney

4:30pm Wed 25 Dec 13

Huey says...

Sir Alan wrote:
poolebabe wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
poolebabe wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
Johns66 wrote: No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them
i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call.
You miss the point. No one is saying a jury is a fool proof way of getting a correct decision, but the vast majority of them do. It is the system we have, and one we should have faith in. The guy was found guilty whether you can understand the logic or not. Your opinion, mine or anyone else's does not change that. The man is guilty, from the verdict he did not allegedly rape a boy, he did rape a boy, he will go to prison and rightly so. If he was found innocent, no one would be able to comment otherwise, but the victim will know what some people think of this verdict. Perhaps start thinking of him instead of the the person that's been found guilty in a court of law.
you did not answer my point though what if it happened to you, how would you feel if your were just for arguments sake innocent. but for what ever reason you were not believed.
I would think that was obvious. If I was accused of something, then I would have to have faith in the justice system. Putting all your fears aside, there is a strong possibility this guy actually did what he was accused of. Stronger than the possibility of him being innocent. You want to see him walk free just because you don't agree with the verdict? Have you got children? Can you actually imagine what it is like to be abused? Perverts don't come with a warning label, and the defence would always be, it wasn't me. So based on that defence alone, I find it quite incredible the amount of support you give to someone who has been found guilty of such a disgusting crime. No matter how flimsy you perceive the law to be, that is a fact. If the person was innocent, you would not be able to speculate on his guilt, so why should you when he is found guilty? Its messed up. Me? I'm all for the victim. What a terrible ordeal he has lived with for so many years.
yes i am only to aware of what its like to be abused, as it happened to me as a child and at a much younger age, but i did not need to make a song and dance about it years later , its in the past and nothing now can change that.
Ah that explains a lot.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]poolebabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Johns66[/bold] wrote: No not at all all I am saying is none of us are infallible we all make mistakes. Like the two fireman I'm sure that they never thought that 37 yrs later there little secret would come back and bite there arse. Well at least on of them[/p][/quote]i say again how can you be sure it happened every person jailed for false rape allegations made up a story. some get away with thankfully most are found out. who in there right mind would rape someone in a fire station when 2 families were living in the flats upstairs, and when anyone could have come onto the fire station in response to a fire call.[/p][/quote]You miss the point. No one is saying a jury is a fool proof way of getting a correct decision, but the vast majority of them do. It is the system we have, and one we should have faith in. The guy was found guilty whether you can understand the logic or not. Your opinion, mine or anyone else's does not change that. The man is guilty, from the verdict he did not allegedly rape a boy, he did rape a boy, he will go to prison and rightly so. If he was found innocent, no one would be able to comment otherwise, but the victim will know what some people think of this verdict. Perhaps start thinking of him instead of the the person that's been found guilty in a court of law.[/p][/quote]you did not answer my point though what if it happened to you, how would you feel if your were just for arguments sake innocent. but for what ever reason you were not believed.[/p][/quote]I would think that was obvious. If I was accused of something, then I would have to have faith in the justice system. Putting all your fears aside, there is a strong possibility this guy actually did what he was accused of. Stronger than the possibility of him being innocent. You want to see him walk free just because you don't agree with the verdict? Have you got children? Can you actually imagine what it is like to be abused? Perverts don't come with a warning label, and the defence would always be, it wasn't me. So based on that defence alone, I find it quite incredible the amount of support you give to someone who has been found guilty of such a disgusting crime. No matter how flimsy you perceive the law to be, that is a fact. If the person was innocent, you would not be able to speculate on his guilt, so why should you when he is found guilty? Its messed up. Me? I'm all for the victim. What a terrible ordeal he has lived with for so many years.[/p][/quote]yes i am only to aware of what its like to be abused, as it happened to me as a child and at a much younger age, but i did not need to make a song and dance about it years later , its in the past and nothing now can change that.[/p][/quote]Ah that explains a lot. Huey

12:49pm Fri 27 Dec 13

delta3 says...

Sir Alan wrote:
Moimccallion wrote:
Sir Alan wrote:
as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him.

its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just.

i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.
Alleged??? It has been proved so he is no longer the 'alleged victim'
As for compensation if you had been reading this story through the week you would have seen the victim had no intention of financial gain!!
If I read your comment correct it seems that you think that if you have committed a crime 35/37 years ago then they should get away with it!! Where is the justice in that???
it was proven in court that 6 inocent people bombed a birmingham pub. only to find several years later they had been framed by the police and the crown so dont even go down that road.

also do you imagine anyone claiming compensation is going to go public about it . i doubt that very much.

can you remember what you were doing 4o years ago on a given day , ?
I know I was not buggering school boys in a Fire Station. Sicko finally caught, how many others had he raped?
[quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Moimccallion[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Alan[/bold] wrote: as you will see not all the jury was not convinced as it was a majority verdict and after over 7 hours , and no doubt the compensation the alleged victim can now claim will make for a happy xmas for him. its very easy for someone to make an allegation and very hard to to defend against . and after nearly 40 years please how can that be just. i hope none of you are faced with this type of situation.[/p][/quote]Alleged??? It has been proved so he is no longer the 'alleged victim' As for compensation if you had been reading this story through the week you would have seen the victim had no intention of financial gain!! If I read your comment correct it seems that you think that if you have committed a crime 35/37 years ago then they should get away with it!! Where is the justice in that???[/p][/quote]it was proven in court that 6 inocent people bombed a birmingham pub. only to find several years later they had been framed by the police and the crown so dont even go down that road. also do you imagine anyone claiming compensation is going to go public about it . i doubt that very much. can you remember what you were doing 4o years ago on a given day , ?[/p][/quote]I know I was not buggering school boys in a Fire Station. Sicko finally caught, how many others had he raped? delta3

12:47pm Wed 1 Jan 14

Johns66 says...

The man has been found guilty of raping a child. Now let him feel the full force of the law. I hope he goes away for twenty years. And if he does come out he comes in a coffin. But the fire service are also at fault as all this happened on there premises
The man has been found guilty of raping a child. Now let him feel the full force of the law. I hope he goes away for twenty years. And if he does come out he comes in a coffin. But the fire service are also at fault as all this happened on there premises Johns66

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree