OWNx.com
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is "Nick" innocent?
#1
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018...ng-charged

The media aren't giving the public enough information to know if "Nick" was telling the truth or not.  If he was telling the truth, he was putting himself and others in danger and may have been protecting other people.

Given that David Icke has long and openly accused Edward Heath of abominations against children, the public need to know exactly what this man is accused of.

Justice has to be seen to be done, they can't just lock this guy away saying he lied without explaining to us why they think he lied, and telling us whether he has denied it...

Of course they hushed up the claims of Marc Dutroux.
Reply
#2
I figure if there wasn't any truth to his claims, they probably wouldn't be prosecuting him to the extent they are. Considering how old he was during the alleged events, it's pretty certain his memory of them is less than accurate. It's absurd anyone would be held accountable (or credible) for an accurate account of events under those circumstances. If that's all they have on him, his lawyers should be able to make hash of the charges. Of course, that will also put an end to going after his alleged abusers, but we all know there's no such thing as a VIP pedophile ring. They're all public servants and philanthropists who would never hurt a child for any reason : )
Reply
#3
(07-04-2018, 02:06 AM)mason Wrote: I figure if there wasn't any truth to his claims, they probably wouldn't be prosecuting him to the extent they are. Considering how old he was during the alleged events, it's pretty certain his memory of them is less than accurate. It's absurd anyone would be held accountable (or credible) for an accurate account of events under those circumstances. If that's all they have on him, his lawyers should be able to make hash of the charges. Of course, that will also put an end to going after his alleged abusers, but we all know there's no such thing as a VIP pedophile ring. They're all public servants and philanthropists who would never hurt a child for any reason : )

I think just the opposite: If they can prove he perjured himself they must charge him.
Reply
#4
(07-05-2018, 05:27 AM)Iandrew_o Wrote:
(07-04-2018, 02:06 AM)mason Wrote: I figure if there wasn't any truth to his claims, they probably wouldn't be prosecuting him to the extent they are. Considering how old he was during the alleged events, it's pretty certain his memory of them is less than accurate. It's absurd anyone would be held accountable (or credible) for an accurate account of events under those circumstances. If that's all they have on him, his lawyers should be able to make hash of the charges. Of course, that will also put an end to going after his alleged abusers, but we all know there's no such thing as a VIP pedophile ring. They're all public servants and philanthropists who would never hurt a child for any reason : )

I think just the opposite: If they can prove he perjured himself they must charge him.

You say that as if you believe the decision whether to charge him wasn't motivated by politics. If it wasn't, there would be little reason for the unusual secrecy around the evidence. They "must" charge him because he accused ranking government figures.
Reply
#5
(07-05-2018, 11:05 AM)mason Wrote:
(07-05-2018, 05:27 AM)Iandrew_o Wrote:
(07-04-2018, 02:06 AM)mason Wrote: I figure if there wasn't any truth to his claims, they probably wouldn't be prosecuting him to the extent they are. Considering how old he was during the alleged events, it's pretty certain his memory of them is less than accurate. It's absurd anyone would be held accountable (or credible) for an accurate account of events under those circumstances. If that's all they have on him, his lawyers should be able to make hash of the charges. Of course, that will also put an end to going after his alleged abusers, but we all know there's no such thing as a VIP pedophile ring. They're all public servants and philanthropists who would never hurt a child for any reason : )

I think just the opposite: If they can prove he perjured himself they must charge him.

You say that as if you believe the decision whether to charge him wasn't motivated by politics. If it wasn't, there would be little reason for the unusual secrecy around the evidence. They "must" charge him because he accused ranking government figures.

In America, they avoid releasing the evidence before trial to avoid prejudicing the potential jury pool  The evidence is released during the course of the trial.
Reply
#6
ModestProposals, you are correct.  It didn't occur to me that this news item was sub judice.  I just thought the media were being secretive and some poor guy was being tied up with serious charges secretly when the public have a right to know all the details, and he has a right to have his innocence or otherwise scrutinised by the public.  Obviously, we hope, the details will be reported when his trial is over.  I tried to find out, and found this on a UK forum

Discussing Sub judice topics
We have recently come by some information that states once a person has been arrested or charged, it should not be discussed on websites or social networking sites, so as not to prejudice the case.

This means that for legal reasons, members should not post news related topics which are classed as sub judice.

Under UK law, criminal proceedings are considered to be sub judice:
•once a person is arrested,
•if a warrant for arrest has been issued,
•if a summons has been issued
•if a person has been charged

This remains active until conviction, or until the court case has been closed.

The moderating team will remove any topic which is brought to our attention, as discussing matters which are sub judice

https://www.netmums.com/coffeehouse/othe...opics.html

Also
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25210867


So the Moderator here might want to remove this thread.  Sorry, I hadn't realised.
Reply
#7
If they didn't want to prejudice the case, they wouldn't release all the charges including police opinions. Notice the original article in the Guardian wasn't removed. It was posted AFTER the charges had been filed, and that article implies guild very strongly. The reason for the attempts to censor blogs and forums is to prevent discussion of the egregious injustice often used by the courts and prosecutors to railroad the accused.

In America, for example, the rape case at Duke university would have gone very different had it not been for a single blogger (I forget his name) who documented all the violations and lies by the judge and prosecutor. A case that would have ended with innocent young men in prison instead ended with the prosecutor disbarred and defending himself against criminal misconduct.

In this case the police appear to have made complete fools of themselves while conducting a very public investigation of prominent public figures. That they and the public figures would want to exact revenge on "Nick" is understandable. We'll probably never know if any of his allegations were true, though after reading about the investigation I have second thoughts about saying they wouldn't go after him if there wasn't any truth to his claims. He seems to have pissed off a lot of powerful people.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
OWNx.com