Vigilante justice - ex football coach

Uther · 28 Nov 2016 at 15:21

JunglistE said:
I wasn't aware he had already been convicted. Why is he out in public?

Because our justice system is a bit of a joke?

tom_e · 28 Nov 2016 at 15:22

cheesyboy said:
Come off it. It's beyond reasonable doubt that at least some of these new accusations are legit.

In most cases I would agree with you. But there's just so little room for doubt on this one.

I'm not disagreeing with you but like I said it's a slippery slope in general.

Dis86 · 28 Nov 2016 at 15:24

cheesyboy said:
Come off it. It's beyond reasonable doubt that at least some of these new accusations are legit.

In most cases I would agree with you. But there's just so little room for doubt on this one.

Is there? Has it been proven in a court of law?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe it has.

I thought you were beyond 'once a criminal, always a criminal'?

Burnsy2023 · 28 Nov 2016 at 15:34

Vigilante justice - a contradiction in terms if ever I saw one.

cheesyboy · 28 Nov 2016 at 15:40

Dis86 said:
Is there? Has it been proven in a court of law?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe it has.

I thought you were beyond 'once a criminal, always a criminal'?

I'm not saying he's gone out and paedoed again and will always continue to paedo. I'm saying that it's quite a leap to imagine that a man who pleaded guilty to ~20 offences, whilst another ~20 were left on file (some not taken further out of concern for the effect of court on the victims) has had all his paedo activities accounted for by the justice system. Those 20 on file, for a start, he was never found guilty of. Neither was he cleared of them.

dowie · 28 Nov 2016 at 15:45

tom_e said:
Never heard of Munchausen's syndrome? Same thing basically, to draw attention to yourself and make people feel like you're a victim.

Like all the fat and gender confused people on tumbler?

aardvark · 28 Nov 2016 at 15:47

i thought he was already in jail.

but why wasn't he arrested/monitored by the police then?

daz · 28 Nov 2016 at 15:53

I bet he tried to take his own life rather than this being a vigilante action.

platypus · 28 Nov 2016 at 16:06

wildman said:
I believe this wasn't a beating, he tried to top himself.

I would expect this to be the case.

Greebo · 28 Nov 2016 at 16:10

Arazi said:
Maybe he has tried to top himself? I didnt think of that at first.

This. When i first heard it I assumed he had tried to commit suicide.

Greebo · 28 Nov 2016 at 16:11

The IPB said:
He has been charged before, jesus people read the damn link it says it clear as day.

tom_e said:
Does that automatically make him guilty of any new accusations?

While he probably is, it's a very slippery slope to go down.

Seriously? If you have been found guilty of a crime before you must be guilty of a new allegation?

Tom_e is spot on.

The IPB · 28 Nov 2016 at 16:12

Greebo said:
Seriously? If you have been found guilty of a crime before you must be guilty of a new allegation?

Tom_e is spot on.

Read my reply.

"At what point did I say he was?

In the context of the person I quoted, he is saying mud sticks, in this case mud sticks because he is a convicted pedophile. The media cannot ruin his life by labeling him as such, because he is already known as a pedophile"

Uther · 28 Nov 2016 at 16:15

Greebo said:
Seriously? If you have been found guilty of a crime before you must be guilty of a new allegation?

Tom_e is spot on.

Well when it involves multiple cases of paedophilia, including rape, then I wouldn't dismiss it...

BennyC · 28 Nov 2016 at 16:19

OpenToSuggestions said:
It is never OK to do this based on suspicion alone.
Being at the centre of a sex abuse scandal is one thing, a guilty conviction is another.

Agreed entirely, no matter how highly likely a conviction may be perceived to occur you just can't go around doing things like this.

Muban · 28 Nov 2016 at 16:21

JunglistE said:
.......... a few years ago, Joanna Yeates was murdered no more than 5 minutes away from my house. Everyone blamed the landlord and had his 'mugshot' on the front of all the papers (tbh, he did look a bit dodgy) and a Witch-hunt started....

Then it turned out he was innocent.

There is a good film on Netflix about that 'The Lost Honour of Christopher Jeffries'.

cheesyboy · 28 Nov 2016 at 16:24

Greebo said:
Seriously? If you have been found guilty of a crime before you must be guilty of a new allegation?

Tom_e is spot on.

If he'd been a convicted serial murderer and 20 years later they'd found more bodies buried in the garden he'd owned at the time, would you look at that and say "well, he's not necessarily guilty just because he did all that murdering before"?

A reasonable person would look at the facts and conclude that, yes, he's almost certainly guilty of murdering those people too.

It's very strange with this particular case to be trying to suggest that there's any significant likelihood that he might not have raped these people coming forwards.

tom_e · 28 Nov 2016 at 16:26

cheesyboy said:
If he'd been a convicted serial murderer and 20 years later they'd found more bodies buried in the garden he'd owned at the time, would you look at that and say "well, he's not necessarily guilty just because he did all that murdering before"?

A reasonable person would look at the facts and conclude that, yes, he's almost certainly guilty of murdering those people too.

It's very strange with this particular case to be trying to suggest that there's any significant likelihood that he might not have raped these people coming forwards.

Physical evidence and evidence based on the say so of another person are 2 very different things, whether you can understand that someone may lie about it or not.

Either way you'll notice that people are still tried when evidence of other crimes come to light rather than just having it tagged onto them.

TrafficMaster · 28 Nov 2016 at 16:43

I do not understand how he was convicted of child rape, but then allowed to continue to commit another 23 crimes in a role with children??

Greebo · 28 Nov 2016 at 17:09

cheesyboy said:
If he'd been a convicted serial murderer and 20 years later they'd found more bodies buried in the garden he'd owned at the time, would you look at that and say "well, he's not necessarily guilty just because he did all that murdering before"?

A reasonable person would look at the facts and conclude that, yes, he's almost certainly guilty of murdering those people too.

It's very strange with this particular case to be trying to suggest that there's any significant likelihood that he might not have raped these people coming forwards.

No he should stand trial but it doesnt mean in your case, its "oh he must have done it, lets go round and kill him"

Greebo · 28 Nov 2016 at 17:10

TrafficMaster said:
I do not understand how he was convicted of child rape, but then allowed to continue to commit another 23 crimes in a role with children??

Because this all happened before he was convicted and at the same time?