Craven arms Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 whats reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 We may never know unless it goes to court and he's found guilty as he's under 17, section 39 of the Children and Young People's Act prevents identification. Judges sometimes, but not always, lift the anonymity after conviction. Very, very rarely before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottyun69 Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 I've 'ben' told that it's someone from Eastenders. Probably one of those Mitchell kids!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tins Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 Why do we need to know? Innocent until proven guilty, which hasn't happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted October 24, 2012 Report Share Posted October 24, 2012 His arrest was published by the national newspapers back in May so the hidden identity thing is a bit of a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 What have I missed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted October 25, 2012 Report Share Posted October 25, 2012 His arrest was published by the national newspapers back in May so the hidden identity thing is a bit of a farce. Yes, I've pointed this out on other forums. The story came out May / June. Google "soap actor arrested" for date range May 2012 and there you have it reported in all the national press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 End up the same place as his character maybe?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eskay Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I think people accused of sexual crimes should have complete anonimity until found guilty and sentenced regardless of whether they are actors, footballers etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I think people accused of sexual crimes should have complete anonimity until found guilty and sentenced regardless of whether they are actors, footballers etc. I think that should be the same for any crime, until proven guilty or not guilty. Too many people willing to linch people based on what the media reports. I feel sorry for that uni lecturer who looked a little weird. The red tops hung that poor bugger out to dry and stuffed up his life, just because he looked a little odd, never mind the facts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 I think that should be the same for any crime, until proven guilty or not guilty. Too many people willing to linch people based on what the media reports. I feel sorry for that uni lecturer who looked a little weird. The red tops hung that poor bugger out to dry and stuffed up his life, just because he looked a little odd, never mind the facts! I agree in the main and the case you mentioned was wrong in every sense of the word, however there are occasions when police need more eye witness evidence when building cases and especially with historic cases against 'famous' people where there may be some people who believe that they may be believed if there is more than one other person making the same allegation, I realise that this also allows some nutters to join in as well, but they are usually easy to weed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.