badlad Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Do the family of the guilty deserve to suffer as well. As much as the families of the innocent. So you have a conviction for sexual offences against children and your 10 year old daughter is spat at in the street and picked on at school.You are in prison and your wife and children are having the windows in the house smashed and petrol poured through the letter box.All because of the way you got your jollies! And thats acceptable then is it.Guilty by association. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 So you have a conviction for sexual offences against children and your 10 year old daughter is spat at in the street and picked on at school.You are in prison and your wife and children are having the windows in the house smashed and petrol poured through the letter box.All because of the way you got your jollies! And thats acceptable then is it.Guilty by association. I suppose that's what could happen if your dad was the local nonce. I don't really see what your point is? You're saying that just because someone has family they should be exempt from being named and shamed? Totally ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Yeah /agree Mr Sultan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badlad Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 So you have a conviction for sexual offences against children and your 10 year old daughter is spat at in the street and picked on at school.You are in prison and your wife and children are having the windows in the house smashed and petrol poured through the letter box.All because of the way you got your jollies! And thats acceptable then is it.Guilty by association. I suppose that's what could happen if your dad was the local nonce. I don't really see what your point is? You're saying that just because someone has family they should be exempt from being named and shamed? Totally ridiculous. Increasing the number of victims of one persons actions,Now thats ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 So you have a conviction for sexual offences against children and your 10 year old daughter is spat at in the street and picked on at school.You are in prison and your wife and children are having the windows in the house smashed and petrol poured through the letter box.All because of the way you got your jollies! And thats acceptable then is it.Guilty by association. I suppose that's what could happen if your dad was the local nonce. I don't really see what your point is? You're saying that just because someone has family they should be exempt from being named and shamed? Totally ridiculous. Increasing the number of victims of one persons actions,Now thats ridiculous. Gary Glitter has a 7 year old son. I bet he gets the piss taken out of him a bit at school - what with his old man being a filthy third world trawling paedo and all that. Are you suggesting they should not have named and shamed him to spare his kid any hurt feelings. (Thought not ....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 Why shouldn't the guilty be named? The innocent often are, as in "Mr ***** has been charged with rape/incecent assault/assault/theft etc, before the case has even got to court. If they are cleared it's too late, the names are out and people connect that fact with guilt. There is a case for the accusers name to be published also. We're not talking about people yet to be convicted. That's a different discussion. Shock horror, but I disagree. How to address he subject of convicted criminals being named without addressing the total injustice of innocent people being pilloried for the sake of a malicious allegation leading to ostrasisation and the possibility of harm to them and their families by vigilantism and misguided ideas of 'justice'. You catch some little scroat in your garden at night, he gets a slap and sent on his way. Next day a visit from police, scroat says you gave mhim a slap, you are arrested and your name is published. Neighbours read, Mr ***** arrested for assault on a 14 yr old boy. Now wait for the backlash. "No smoke without fire" "Look at him, he looks like one" Etc; now where do you stand on the subject? ( I have no idea if anyone here has ever been in that position, except myself, just for argument) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badlad Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 So you have a conviction for sexual offences against children and your 10 year old daughter is spat at in the street and picked on at school.You are in prison and your wife and children are having the windows in the house smashed and petrol poured through the letter box.All because of the way you got your jollies! And thats acceptable then is it.Guilty by association. I suppose that's what could happen if your dad was the local nonce. I don't really see what your point is? You're saying that just because someone has family they should be exempt from being named and shamed? Totally ridiculous. Increasing the number of victims of one persons actions,Now thats ridiculous. Gary Glitter has a 7 year old son. I bet he gets the piss taken out of him a bit at school - what with his old man being a filthy third world trawling paedo and all that. Are you suggesting they should not have named and shamed him to spare his kid any hurt feelings. (Thought not ....) You surely dont want the embarssment of having the obvious pointed out to you, Do you? Thought not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 So you have a conviction for sexual offences against children and your 10 year old daughter is spat at in the street and picked on at school.You are in prison and your wife and children are having the windows in the house smashed and petrol poured through the letter box.All because of the way you got your jollies! And thats acceptable then is it.Guilty by association. I suppose that's what could happen if your dad was the local nonce. I don't really see what your point is? You're saying that just because someone has family they should be exempt from being named and shamed? Totally ridiculous. Increasing the number of victims of one persons actions,Now thats ridiculous. Gary Glitter has a 7 year old son. I bet he gets the piss taken out of him a bit at school - what with his old man being a filthy third world trawling paedo and all that. Are you suggesting they should not have named and shamed him to spare his kid any hurt feelings. (Thought not ....) You surely dont want the embarssment of having the obvious pointed out to you, Do you? Thought not! I think you should Braniac. If its up to your usual standard of debate it won't be too difficult to laugh ait what you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 23, 2008 Share Posted November 23, 2008 I thought our legal system was public except in exceptional circumstances, that is why any one of us can go and sit in the public gallery. Allow restrictions on the public nature of these matters who knows where it will end. The penalty of an open legal system is that people (who have been found guilty) will have their names published, I far prefer that then having the whole systems closed down to public reporting, airing and scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 You sometimes get a snotty usher looking you over though (fair enough if you look a bit dodgy and don't turn your phone off and that). A neighbour went to a few court cases and was always getting looked at by the court usher. She eventually came up to him once and asked what he was doing and why was he there and that the High Bailiff was asking about him. He told her that in that case he would communicate with the High Bailiff directly not through her. He wrote to the High Bailiff who kindly replied in terms to say that he had asked no such thing. On the Isle of Man, Court Cases are not displayed in the foyer or listed anywhere for the public. That is tantamount to a secret court system in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 On the Isle of Man, Court Cases are not displayed in the foyer or listed anywhere for the public. That is tantamount to a secret court system in my book. A few years ago I tried to find out when a specific case was to be heard. I got nowhere. Couldn't get the information out of anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.