Kevin Webster not a paedo

UncleRuckus · 10 Sep 2013 at 20:34

Biohazard said:
Where's hurfdurf?

He got enraged with the cisgender privileged scum and left to burn some bras.

ozaudio · 10 Sep 2013 at 20:44

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6hRMB57P2U

estebanrey · 10 Sep 2013 at 20:50

ozaudio said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6hRMB57P2U

LOL but be careful, I've been suspended on more than one occasion for linking to a video with a naughty word in.

This is a 'family friendly' forum......unless you are posting soft core porn in the form of a animated image in the 'Awesome GIFs in here please! (Data Heavy)' thread of course in which case you are fine.

Von Smallhausen · 10 Sep 2013 at 20:52

Spook187 said:
Which could entail he was innocent all the time, just because somebody goes to court does that mean they are all guilty

I would have love to seen the face of the clown coppers who charged him, no bonus for them this month.

Police did charge him but the authority to do so would have been from the CPS. Also, police don't get a bonus for such things but if you are to insult the force then at least get your facts in order.

Suarez7 · 10 Sep 2013 at 20:54

estebanrey said:
This is a 'family friendly' forum......unless you are posting soft core porn in the form of a animated image in the 'Awesome GIFs in here please! (Data Heavy)' thread of course in which case you are fine.

Hahahaha, so true

Spook187 · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:04

Von Smallhausen said:
Police did charge him but the authority to do so would have been from the CPS. Also, police don't get a bonus for such things but if you are to insult the force then at least get your facts in order.

The way you're saying that is like the police have done no wrong, please forgive my lack of knowledge about the CPS, but surely they thought they had good evidence to get a conviction which they clearly did not, that was my point, so someone got it wrong which I feel is the police, my opinion that is all.

Burnsy2023 · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:10

Spook187 said:
The way you're saying that is like the police have done no wrong, please forgive my lack of knowledge about the CPS, but surely they thought they had good evidence to get a conviction which they clearly did not, that was my point, so someone got it wrong which I feel is the police, my opinion that is all.

What? Just because a conviction isn't the end result doesn't mean the Police did anything wrong. If they collected all the evidence that was possible, showed that to the CPS who thought there was a realistic chance of prosecution but then the jury simply don't believe the evidence of the victim, how is the Police at fault?

Also, this seems apt here:

Harlan Ellison said:
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

nick.lidgett · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:11

So how exactly did the police screw up?

Richie · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:18

This whole "he ain't innocent, he is just not guilty which is not the same" seems to indicate the following from some people:

1. Never accused of a crime - wholly innocent
2. Accused of a crime but found Not Guilty - could have done it so not innocent as per 1 and should be considered as such.

Completely wrong TBH.

Burnsy2023 · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:26

Richie said:
This whole "he ain't innocent, he is just not guilty which is not the same" seems to indicate the following from some people:

1. Never accused of a crime - wholly innocent
2. Accused of a crime but found Not Guilty - could have done it so not innocent as per 1 and should be considered as such.

Completely wrong TBH.

There's a difference between not knowing either way and assuming guilt or innocence. I'm sure there are plenty of rapists that have never been accused publically as well.

Spook187 · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:27

Burnsy2023 said:
What? Just because a conviction isn't the end result doesn't mean the Police did anything wrong. If they collected all the evidence that was possible, showed that to the CPS who thought there was a realistic chance of prosecution but then the jury simply don't believe the evidence of the victim, how is the Police at fault?

Blimey, so it's the CPS fault ok i can live with that, so the CPS are wrong and not the police ok that's fine.

Burnsy2023 · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:29

Spook187 said:
Blimey, so it's the CPS fault ok i can live with that, so the CPS are wrong and not the police ok fine.

I'm not even blaming the CPS, in fact I'm not blaming anyone. Sometimes this is the outcome of a court case and that's the system doing what it's designed to do.

muon · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:30

Richie said:
This whole "he ain't innocent, he is just not guilty which is not the same" seems to indicate the following from some people:

1. Never accused of a crime - wholly innocent
2. Accused of a crime but found Not Guilty - could have done it so not innocent as per 1 and should be considered as such.

Completely wrong TBH.

No.

1. Innocent until proven guilty. Never been charged with a crime.
2. Charged with a crime. Found not guilty of that crime as there was insufficient evidence.
3. Charged with a crime. Found not guilty as evidence was disproven.

Even 1 doesn't mean you are innocent of all crimes. I have no doubt there are people out there who got off free.

Three very different scenarios. I ask again. Has the word of the girl been disproven?

Until it has 2 is very different from 3.

Similarly the girl has something to lose.

By 2 happening there is the possibility she's lying as she hasn't been proven correct. However that again is different from 3.

2 requires the person to make a decision as to who you want to believe. I don't know either of them and so wouldn't dare take a position. I wouldn't judge someone who knowing the facts available to them makes a decision.

Afaik, in the eyes of the law the second scenario has a prescribed outcome which has little to do with what has or hasn't been proven. It is to stop miscarriages of justice. Being 30%, 60% or 90% certain isn't good enough (even if 9/10 times the person did commit the crime).

No1newts · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:31

Burnsy2023 said:
Ok, let me give you an example:

I went to a concern for welfare call where a female was suicidal and somewhere in a country park. We had dog units out, marine unit, the helicopter and local units. She was found by the marine unit close to a river and was absolutely inconsolable. I was with her for around 3 hours and she cried constantly for around 75% of that. She was detained under the mental health act and I was to transport her to a place of safety.

Her current boyfriend explained the circumstances: her ex boyfriend had raped her and he had just been found not guilty by the jury. She didn't take this news well and was frankly terrified of him - terror that an oscar winning actor can't convey in the way that she did. It was bone chilling. After we'd arrived at the POS and were waiting for her assessment we got talking - about what she went through, how she was feeling and what she was going to do knowing her ex no longer had any bail restrictions.

He ex was found not guilty. Do I believe he was innocent? I have no doubt whatsoever that she was telling the whole truth - no doubt at all. Did the jury make a mistake? Was the evidence strong enough to convince the jury who didn't see her in the state I did or have the conversation we had? I don't know, but I do know that he certainly wasn't innocent and you can tell me all you want that he was proven innocent. All of that doesn't change the fact that this lady couldn't fake the state she was in nor the conversation we had. I also had access to further information about his past that the jury won't have had, all of which builds a picture that the court will never see.

This isn't even an unusual story. There are many examples of people you know have committed a crime being found not guilty, perhaps because the jury doesn't have the whole picture due to some evidence being inadmissible. That doesn't change the facts though.

You may keep arguing that I'm wrong, but perhaps I have a perspective that you don't.

Perhaps we are just missing one another's points.

As I said a few posts back one can do the act, but until they are proven guilty they are innocent "innocent until proven guilty" Bring found not guilty means as far as the law is concerned you are innocent. That is the point I am putting across, he is legally innocent. This is right and proper legally.

As to your point I agree, someone may have commuted an act, more than likely committed an act but, and I know this will sound callous, but you cannot subvert a whole legal system which ultimately works and works well for the (admittedly) horrible instances like the one you have re-told.

Burnsy2023 · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:32

muon said:
No.

1. Innocent until proven guilty. Never been charged with a crime.
2. Charged with a crime. Found not guilty of that crime as there was insufficient evidence.
3. Charged with a crime. Found not guilty as evidence was disproven.

Three very different scenarios. I ask again. Has the word of the girl been disproven?

Even 1 doesn't mean you are innocent of all crimes. I have no doubt there are people out there who got off free.

Until it has 2 is very different from 3.

Similarly the girl has something to lose.

By 2 happening there is the possibility she's lying as she hasn't been proven correct. However that again is different from 3.

2 requires the person to make a decision as to who you want to believe. I don't know either of them and so wouldn't dare take a position. I wouldn't judge someone who knowing the facts available to them makes a decision.

Afaik, in the eyes of the law the second scenario has a prescribed outcome which has little to do with what has or hasn't been proven. It is to stop miscarriages of justice. Being 30%, 60% or 90% certain isn't good enough (even if 9/10 times the person did commit the crime).

3. rarely happens. Doubt may be cast as to the consistency or how reliable some evidence is, but it's rarely disproven. When it is disproven, it tends to be on forensic evidence only.

Burnsy2023 · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:34

No1newts said:
Perhaps we are just missing one another's points.

As I said a few posts back one can do the act, but until they are proven guilty they are innocent "innocent until proven guilty" Bring found not guilty means as far as the law is concerned you are innocent. That is the point I am putting across, he is legally innocent. This is right and proper legally.

As to your point I agree, someone may have commuted an act, more than likely committed an act but, and I know this will sound callous, but you cannot subvert a whole legal system which ultimately works and works well for the (admittedly) horrible instances like the one you have re-told.

Perhaps we are missing each other's points. I don't disagree with what you've written there.

spoffle · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:38

Burnsy, I find some of your views quite disturbing considering the fact that you are a police officer.

The one in particular I can't help but remember is when you were saying that responsibility lies with a man when it comes to consensual intimacy regardless of how drunk both people are.

I think it might be the same for others, so they can't help but read some of your further views with prejudice based on your previously expressed views.

No1newts · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:38

Burnsy2023 said:
Perhaps we are missing each other's points. I don't disagree with what you've written there.

Same, I didn't disagree with what you should, I think we are just putting more emphasis on the each end of the spectrum whilst agreeing in the middle.

Sneaky Peaky · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:47

As I said earlier though I can't believe no one has mentioned the mothers responsibility in all this, why on earth was she letting him have regular unsupervised access to a 6 year old girl who presumably wasn't even a close relation?

UncleRuckus · 10 Sep 2013 at 21:50

Sneaky Peaky said:
As I said earlier though I can't believe no one has mentioned the mothers responsibility in all this, why on earth was she letting him have regular unsupervised access to a 6 year old girl who presumably wasn't even a close relation?

The same reason parents let their kids go visit Michael Jackson's Neverland ranch.