This is why laws will never move forward here in the uk

[LS]

While we have newspapers who can print salacious and misleading stories like this in order to further their own agendas, we will never make any progress whatsoever when it comes to getting the public to understand that FAs happen. Daily.

In today's Scum they have gone to great lengths to report about a couple who have put up an 8ft screen to stop their neighbour from "leering" at their children. They also reported that the couple allegedly obtained the neighbour's offence history by asking the police for a disclosure.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...y-parents.html

There are several glaring inaccuracies with this story:

1. The fence (without screen) is 6ft high. How tall are the couple's children FFS? It would be impossible to see them even without the screen.

2. You cannot ask for a disclosure, or receive any information, if the person you're asking about has NO unsupervised contact with your children. You cannot just ask about someone who merely lives in the vicinity or, in this case, someone who lives across the road and is clearly not a next-door neighbour, as you can see from their picture.

While the gutter press continue to print articles like this and mislead the public - who make up the juries which decide if the accused is guilty or innocent - the public will continue to be pig-ignorant of the facts around them, and collectively everyone accused of a crime will find it harder and harder for the facts to be heeded.

And while that continues to happen MPs will continue to also be ignorant to the fact that one FA is one FA too many, because they too read this toilet roll.

Maybe it's too much to ask for reporting to be factual and to let the public be given the right information on which to make informed decisions, instead of feeding them misleading drivel just because The Scum wants the public to be rabid towards certain sections of the community. It won't help if you've been FA'd or wrongly convicted, because the public incorrectly continues to believe that you can't be wrongly convicted or FA'd, and the blame for that lies squarely on this newsrag.

Only then will we get a legal system which does not support liars, and would be more interested in the truth than in just getting convictions.

[Saffron]

Hmmm. I have often thought this when certain people who are given new identities are exposed by The Tabloids. Their locations/addresses are exposed by the Scum and the Daily [Hate] Mail. Then the public purse has to pay for them to be moved to a new address, and the tabloids scream even louder about the cost! Which is ridiculous, because if the tabloid hadn't run their little "Expose" in the first place, there would be no need for the convicted person to be moved. Yet these papers seem proud of what they have done: "We tracked down so and so and found him sitting in a park watching children playing nearby...."

Well, I'm sorry but it is practically impossible to walk anywhere in a town without seeing kids. And if he has been released then why shouldn't he sit in a public park? One has to assume that he has paid his debt to society and has been released because he is no longer a danger.

[LS]

... or worse still, the public purse doesn't pay for them to be moved.

And when we get instances like yesterday where a man was murdered and set on fire in Scotland, I do wonder if there's more to the story and if the newspapers have blood on their hands.

[Amre]

This sounds like a brilliant idea! I could put one up, then I wouldn't have to watch my son obliterating my garden like some fair haired tazmina devil.

Looks like the Sun has it in for this guy tho. If you Google his name there's a whole array of infringements attributed to him. My personal favorite would be that his market stall was set up to lure unsuspecting kids! A source said: "He must know a case of cuddly toys will tempt children".
A case of cuddly toys would tempt me too. Seems to me that they are just out of **** to say about this guy. He gave a child a toy while its mother chatted to him, THE fiend!
This guy was released from jail in 1997. The suns not gonna leave him alone ever. Its a really ****ty situation.

[LS]

They do that with anyone and everyone accused of a child sex offence, regardless of innocence or guilt; a conviction's good enough, even though we all know how easy it is to be convicted without a shred of evidence.
Sun journos really are the scum of the earth in my opinion; they never let the truth get in the way of a good fable.
Murdoch should have shut down that rag with the other one.

Their constant picking on people is going to backfire big style on them one day when someone they "out" retaliates.

[Amre]

They shouldn't be picking on anyone. Children pick on other children, Adults are meant to know better. I think the kicker in this one is he plead guilty, but he served his time. 15 years of being hounded is quite enough.
Its interesting here because it was this guys ex that started this all up again.

[LS]

Yep, adults are meant to know better.

However, when you have someone pulling your tail often enough, dogs will turn and bite.
Just a matter of time.

Yes, I do wonder if his ex did it out of pique, but they did say they had been running a different story on him. I doubt it was over his market stall, though.

[LS]

PS. Also we don't know why he pleaded guilty. We have had people here who have pleaded guilty when they were clearly innocent, because they were scared of how much prison time was involved if they tried to maintain their innocence.

Prior to my case I would have taken that at face value. Now I question if someone is actually guilty, rather than taking the word of a scabby rag or a corrupt court for it.

[Amre]

Thats one thing i really don't understand why innocent people plead guilty, just cant get my head around it at all. Ok yeah, they get a shorter sentence, but what sort of life will they have when released? Sex offenders reg for life. They can forget about traveling cant live near and schools or clubs. Sarahs law means at anytime, anyone can request their details. Iatest with a not guilty plea they can appeal. Its mostly due to piss poor barristers. No no, a we blemish on the barristers record wouldn't do at all.

Pleading guilty reminds me of the Micheal Jackson fiasco. I was a huge fan growing up until that came out. I never thought he did it at all. Then he payed the kid to settle it out of court. For me that was it. I equated payment to guilt. No one knows if he did it or not and its likely he just paid to make the whole mess just go away.

[LS]

Most of what you write is correct.

Firstly, the reason some plead guilty when they are innocent is that they are scared of the length of the prison sentence. If the accused is elderly, which is often the case, old age might mean passing away in the middle of a 4-year sentence, which wouldn't be an issue for a much younger person.

It also explains why issues of restrictions in later life would be of less importance to them than what happens in the immediate future. Meaning, going for a short sentence at the expense of the rest of one's days on a register.

There's nothing about where you can or can't live, in the register. And travel restrictions are really only notifications to the flatfeet to let them know when you are away for 3 days or more. On the other side of the coin, this also provides you with an alibi, should anything untoward occur in your manor while you are away.

"Horrible Legislation" is my name for that detested bit of writing which has been named after someone else in order to make up for the parents' own inadequacies.
Horrible Legislation does not entitle anyone to request your details willy-nilly. People can ask for your details only if you have regular, unsupervised access to their children.
If you are not babysitting, or are not being routinely left alone with someone else's children, then your details can not be given out. Just living "across the way" from a family does not give them the right to demand your history, and an honest flatfoot should make that clear to the asking party at the time of asking.

Of course, they have to find an honest flatfoot first.....

[Amre]

Most of what I say!? All of what I say is always 100%
right all the time. Just ask my husband!

I saw an app that uses GPRS to find convicts and posts pictures, names address ect! Might be us based tho

[LS]

Well, most of what you say. eg "sex offender register for life."
Depends on sentence:
up to 6mths sentence - 5 yrs SOR
6mths to 30 mths - 10 yrs SOR
30mths+ - lifelong SOR

Hmm, so he admits you're right when you're really wrong, then? Knows which side his bread's buttered....

Woe betide anyone who turns up on my doorstep with that app. At the very least they'll be made to eat their iphone before I set about them with something large, heavy, hard and hammer-shaped.
And if it's a scum journo there'll be petrol and a flame to follow.

[Amre]

Now now LS, don't get crazy! Iphones never did anything wrong. They are majestic creatures and deserve our love and respect.
Guess who just outted herself as an apple fanboy lol

[asimov]

Amre, i will be totally honest and say that for about 1 week (was about 10 months into the whole sordid mess) i considered pleading guilty as i had just been diagnosed with depression and put on tablets.
Being sent to prison when totally innocent would have messed my life up forever. I am a Coach/Bus driver by trade and i would never have been able to do that again or indeed work with the public either. It may sound sad but driving is both my hobby and my life and i would have lost both.
It really does depend on many things, like age as LS says, or personal circumstances like myself or those that risk loosing houses, kids, partners etc and really is a viscious circle, truly a case of damned if you do, damned if you dont.

[Amre]

At some point I think everyone considers it. The brief tells them it's the "best" thing to do, but a lot of the time they have their own agendas. Most FAs that plead guilty just want it over. I can't really blame them, I dont know what I'd do in that situation so I guess it's easy for me to be gung-ho about something I never experienced.
My experience with the courts was not a positive one and, In some ways FAs and genuine victims have similar experiences of the legal system. In my case he pled not guilty and the whole trial fiasco went on. After I gave my evidence in court he refused to give evidence and my barrister took me aside and asked me if I would except a plea from him at this point. So he plead guilty to a lesser charge of sexual assault and I really regretted it. I should of just let the jury decide. Nothing I can do about it now, but I understand how a FA could regret a guilty plea for the rest of their life. He only pled so the judge would go easy on him and my barrister told me he would most likely get probation and be free to go that day. The judge Gave him 8 years tho.