Jackson Cleared

For more ***effect*** you could have done your whole post in BOLD CAPITALS.

Is it me ! or is the Right Honourable Member for Kiwiland being exceptionally and uncharacteristically sarcastic over the last few days ?


Fritz Von I hate rugby me, although I did play it for years, rather than talk about it

The bold was a typo after highlighting the sections in the quoted section he did not set the unbold feature

Any way I agree with him re the excess protection of kids from real life experience. - It is another aspect of the princess diana public grief syndrome and concern while allowing kids to grow up sitting by TVs and computers games.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
For more ***effect*** you could have done your whole post in BOLD CAPITALS.

Had I written it in normal type, my text would have intermingled with yours!

I guess I should have used italics.....

At least I didn't write it CAPS!

Real life experience dosn't usually involve sleeping in an adult stranger's bed.

Back on the jury issue, I was very impressed that the jury justified their verdict to the press. I think that it should set a precedent. If jurors expected to have to justify their verdicts, it should lead to fewer ridiculous ones.

Next step - maybe we should have to justify the way we vote?

quote:

Next step - maybe we should have to justify the way we vote?

Especially in Florida innit

quote:

Originally posted by KenM:

Back on the jury issue, I was very impressed that the jury justified their verdict to the press. I think that it should set a precedent. If jurors expected to have to justify their verdicts, it should lead to fewer ridiculous ones.

In New Zealand it is a criminal offence to even approach a juror about a trial with which they are involved.

As I believe it is everywhere else in the Western World, innit ?

Fritz Von I believe he refers to the post trial interviews, (No sarcasm intended there)

quote:

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
Is it me ! or is the Right Honourable Member for Kiwiland being exceptionally and uncharacteristically sarcastic over the last few days ?


Fritz Von I hate rugby me, although I did play it for years, rather than talk about it

I just found that drawing the inference that my post was in any way accusatory was rather tedious and it certainly did not warrant the rather self-righteous and posturing reaction it got. Bah humbug.

Quite agree on the rugby. Hate it. Hope the Lions win all their games and send a lot of my countrymen into a deep depression.

quote:

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
As I believe it is everywhere else in the Western World, innit ?

Fritz Von I believe he refers to the post trial interviews, (No sarcasm intended there)

Jurors in New Zealand who talked to the media after a trial would be off to a contempt of court hearing with the journalists. They wouldn't even get time to pick up their toothbrushes.

Don't you mean Tooth-Pitcairn-Picks ?

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I just found that drawing the inference that my post was in any way accusatory was rather tedious and it certainly did not warrant the rather self-righteous and posturing reaction it got. Bah humbug.

I found, as a single man, the inference in your post; that a single man cannot be trusted was indeed accusatory.
Tedium doesn't come into it.
Look at your original post and try to understand that the reaction you recieved was not a self-righteous and posturing reaction.
I would say you provoked that kind of reaction; my sister in law called in this afternoon and read your original post and was horrified at your implication.
As a person interested in social justice, I am somewhat baffled and concerened at your lack of understanding as to why, as a single man, I should take offence.
A man is equiped to be a rapist but not all men are.
A woman is equiped to be a prostitute but not all women are.
Men and women whether single or not, are equiped to be child molesters but not all are.

Quite right, I went out with a Chinese bird once so I'm used to that kind of thing ?

Fritz Von Being a lesbian I don't understand it all fully though ?


P.S. If you find the above Cynical, you'll be right because you guys (Once again) are going rouind in never ending egoistic daft circles. I personally think Monsieur Toys remark about an ex colleague/friend getting ousted and career ended before it began as very profound, and I can relate to it. I've also 'boringly I know'mentioned the fact that my Mother ran a Girls hostel from baby's to 18 year olds for some 40 years, seeing and hearing of all these probs etc onm a day to day basis, and trying to weedle out the truth. Jackson is irrelevent to you, as My friend commneted recently, I sincerely think many are sad he was cleared, and you still find him guilty regardless; LAW you don't know the meaning of the word. Jungle bloody witch hunt disguised as educated bored western white boys more like, innit Nothing knew there then, let's hear alöl the false indignation now, bet there'll be silence, as per always !

In a recent survey 25% of boys and girls said they had been abused or an attempt had been made to abuse them.

My mother told me not to talk to strangers almost every time I left the house. The same advice was given to my brother and sisters. What I was never told was what to do if a stranger talked to me! We were taught absolute obedience to all adults or god help you! Answering back to an adult was a punishable offense! An absolute, unbreakable rule.

So what should a kid do if an adult approaches them with an uncomfortable suggestion? Are today's kids being given lessons at school on a good strategy for such moments? It is certain that very few would be given suitable advice at home. One assumes that paedophiles are experts at shaming a victim into silence since cases in childrens homes and institutions only come to light much later.

Since one in four kids is likely to be approached this suggests that there are large numbers of active paedophiles on the loose and many millions of potential targets in each new generation. Paedophilia is an incurable disease according to a danish professor of psychiatry talking on the radio recently. He seemed surprisingly unaware of the two house bricks treatment.

quote:

Originally posted by blythe:

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I just found that drawing the inference that my post was in any way accusatory was rather tedious and it certainly did not warrant the rather self-righteous and posturing reaction it got. Bah humbug.

I found, as a single man, the inference in your post; that a single man cannot be trusted was indeed accusatory.
Tedium doesn't come into it.
Look at your original post and try to understand that the reaction you recieved was not a self-righteous and posturing reaction.
I would say you provoked that kind of reaction; my sister in law called in this afternoon and read your original post and was horrified at your implication.
As a person interested in social justice, I am somewhat baffled and concerened at your lack of understanding as to why, as a single man, I should take offence.
A man is equiped to be a rapist but not all men are.
A woman is equiped to be a prostitute but not all women are.
Men and women whether single or not, are equiped to be child molesters but not all are.

blythe

I will concede that perhaps I should have provided more clue as to whom my question was directed; which was at parents. I feel, however, that you were quite impolite to me in answering my post the way you did. Perhaps you could have checked with me that I meant what you thought I did rather than fly off the handle?

I quite agree with some of the contributors to this thread that in day to day life my character seems to be brought into question by my gender which I find quite annoying sometimes. This leaves me in the unfortunate position of taking great care at times not to be left in the position that I might be subject to false accusations. I can imagine few things worse than being falsely accused because no matter how blameless the accused might be there is no real exoneration from this particular accusation.

Deane

I'm glad you guys are not getting taxpayers legal aid for all this 'Mega thole searchin', innit. Goodnight.


Pish: Paedophilia is in no way a disease IMHO rather an unnaceptable (and illegal) aspect of certain modern societies, if one seriously thinks & believes that it is, then they're living in cloud cuckoo land, but this is the Padded Cell afterall, innit, now it's really goodnight, say goodnight Teddy

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
blythe

I will concede that perhaps I should have provided more clue as to whom my question was directed; which was at parents. I feel, however, that you were quite impolite to me in answering my post the way you did. Perhaps you could have checked with me that I meant what you thought I did rather than fly off the handle?

Deane, even directing your question at parents still comes across in the same way to my eyes. I appologise for being impolite which is obviously how you read my reply - I wasn't intending to be impolite but concede that yes, I did indeed fly off the handle.

I quite agree with some of the contributors to this thread that in day to day life my character seems to be brought into question by my gender which I find quite annoying sometimes. From this comment, can I assume that you're female? I had imagined you to be a "typical male" not having witnessed anything to suggest otherwise in this thread This leaves me in the unfortunate position of taking great care at times not to be left in the position that I might be subject to false accusations. I can imagine few things worse than being falsely accused because no matter how blameless the accused might be there is no real exoneration from this particular accusation. I don't quite understand why you feel your gender might leave you in a position that you might be subject to false allegations, unless I've missed something in another thread(s). Feel free to private me or ignore should you choose not answer

Deane

Regards, Martin.

Was talking to some of the people I work with regarding the verdict. Comments were made about money buying justice. I then had a thought - can it not be the other way around? Without money you can not get a fair trial because you can not afford competent legal council and / or investigators. With regard to the jury....as the members have mentioned in various bits I have read, some think he was / is guilty of molesting a child, but not this one, at least not by the evidence they were given. I find it quite interesting to note that this high-priced legal help is just doing its job the way it should be done. I wonder if it was just a normal "joe" using legal-aide if there would be any chance of the same verdict for the same reasons. Reasonable doubt. Unfortunately I really do doubt it.

Just a thought - anybody care to comment / rip me to shreds??

I do have another question regarding justice in the US of A. Why is it not mandetory that persons convicted of a capital crime where there is potential DNA evidece - be checked? From what I have read it is usually a big battle to open the evidence to DNA testing to colaborate or refute the conviction? Is this because of the elected official not wanting to be seen to make a mistake thus hampering his career or re-election prospects?

Am I mistaken on this point?

regards,

michael

quote:

Originally posted by mykel:
I wonder if it was just a normal "joe" using legal-aide if there would be any chance of the same verdict for the same reasons. Reasonable doubt. Unfortunately I really do doubt it.

Just a thought - anybody care to comment / rip me to shreds??

I get the impression that a large part of the Jackson defence was the private investigator's inquiries into the family of the alleged victim. Without this information the defence would not have been as effective as it was. Of course, an average "joe" wouldn't be able to afford a P.I. so that kind of answers the question.

It seems to me that the scales are always weighted heavily in favour of the prosecution - backed as they usually are by the huge apparatus of the State. If that is true then an expensive lawyer only ever balances the scales.

The matter of police or prosecution incompetence is, of course, another matter entirely.

All this "buying justice" stuff is a nonsense in this case because the bottom line is that the prosecution did not have a coherent case and no actual evidence of Jacksons guilt was presented.

He can recoup some of his expenses once a few libel lawsuits are launched. Then there are the lucrative appearances on chat shows. Despite his previously flagging career a few martyred expressions on TV will keep him going until he can collect his pension and move into sheltered accomodation.

I designed the computer software used by the Scottish Legal Aid Board to handle the evaluation of legal aid requests and the processing of payments to lawyers working in those cases. In a criminal prosecution in this country a lot of money can be spent by the defence team even though the defendant can't afford to pay for it. Also the lawyers working legal aid cases aren't the dregs (as appears to be the case in some other countries) but in fact nearly every lawyer involved in criminal cases will carry out a significant element of legal aid work.

In Scotland I'm confident that if an average Joe was accused of the same crimes as Jackson was then, based on the evidence actually presented, a conviction would be very unlikely and in fact I think it unlikely (though not impossible) that a prosecution would even have taken place. Also in the Jackson case much of the stuff the prosecution did present would not have existed for an average Joe - .e.g the Bashir documentary, disgruntled employees looking for a payout, celebrity chasing families making a living out of legal action.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Comments (plural?) Out of order? This is pathetic. STOP READING THINGS INTO MY POSTS!

Read my original post again and use the comprehension skills that you guys picked up.

You can blame my A Level english lit teacher for that - she told me never to take things at face value. Even AT face value, you imply single men are a danger to children. The mistake is yours as far as I can tell.

I'm not having a go by the way - just stating how I read that post.

EDIT - removal of highly sensitive info.

quote:

Originally posted by domfjbrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Comments (plural?) Out of order? This is pathetic. STOP READING THINGS INTO MY POSTS!

Read my original post again and use the comprehension skills that you guys picked up.

You can blame my A Level english lit teacher for that - she told me never to take things at face value. Even AT face value, you imply single men are a danger to children. The mistake is yours as far as I can tell.

I'm not having a go by the way - just stating how I read that post.

EDIT - removal of highly sensitive info.

Thank you domfjbrown, I was beginning to think it really was me reading things into it!

Martin.

It was as clear as a bell to me, I just didn't want to seem to be the odd one out !!! should I maybe say something next time ?


Fritz Von Subliminally speaking of course