[News] Do we need statute of limitations for historic allegations?

[Tom Bombadil]

Stanley Johnson, father of Boris, now being accused of smacking a female MP's bottom at the 2003 Party Conference.

Funnily enough he has no recollection of the incident, but in mitigation he's in his 80's.

The same as this 'alleged' conversation at Yorkshire 12 years ago, which looks set to destroy Michael Vaughan's career and reputation.

How far back is far enough?

Out of interest have you heard any of Azeem Rafiq's testimony to MP's this morning.Powerful and appalling stuff. He told one story of being held down and having red wine forced down his throat. He was fifteen at the time and he's a muslim. This happened about 2006. Should we ignore this?

 

[Stat Brother]

When will these rich people realise it isn't the 1800s anymore and they can't treat other people like their playthings?

Hmmmmm, there's a flaw in that assessment.





Still it's always nice to the woke cycle complete.

Who's more needy?

Us Wokeists and our desperate need to be offended.
Or
The Gammons and their desperate need to be offended by our offendedness.



Woke - The label used for people who would rather the world was a healthy safer place for all.
'Clearly the enemy.

 

[schmunk]

Funnily enough I was earlier today reading an interview from 2003 about a female banker with a sex discrimination complaint related to her bonus, and I was struck by this passage related to wider discrimination (my bolding):

"Her recent experiences do not stop her encouraging young women to choose the City as a career and she believes more women will help change it, particularly when it comes to networking. The golf course or even the lap dancing club might give way to something else.

Even so, she has no time for complaints about bottom pinching and other sexually charged jibes. Barton's aim is not to change the working culture of the City - 7.30am starts and the 10pm finishes - which she regards as the 'nature of the beast' - or some of the macho behaviour, particularly on the trading floors where she says 'the men are ghastly to other men'."


The point being that such behaviour was even at the time regarded as notably unacceptable, but swept under the carpet as "boys will be boys". It wasn't the right thing to do at the time, and should be recognised as such now.

 

[ConfusedGloryHunter]

Yes, there absolutely should be. It should come into force 100 years after either the death of the alleged transgressor or the death of their last surviving victim, whichever is the later. So Henry VIII is now safe but it is still possible they might catch Jack the Ripper.

 

[dsr-burnley]

So which crimes are no longer illegal after a certain period? Should we also close down any investigations into unsolved murders prior to 2003?

Is that a "I don't like Boris Johnson's Dad" sort of argument, or is it a genuine contribution?

On the assumption that it is genuine, there are already different rules as time goes by for different crimes. For example, anyone who was convicted of shoplifting more than 20 years ago but wasn't sent to jail, does not have a criminal record now. It's been wiped for public records purposes. Anyone who committed murder or other serious crimes, has not had their record wiped.

Same thing with bottom pinching. If you rate it on a par with murder, then the comparison with murder is fair and reasonable. If you rate it less seriously, then rank it with crimes of a similar degree for "statute of limitations" purposes.

Anyway, unless the DPP has taken leave of its senses, this crime is already de facto time barred. At 20 years distance, can they prove (i) that it happened at all, and (ii) that the woman objected? Remember bottom smacking per se isn't an offence; only if the smackee objects. And it's easier to prove objection to the incident if you don't wait 18 years to register your objection.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

In the United Kingdom, there are time limits after which court actions cannot be taken in certain types of cases. These differ across the three legal systems in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is almost unique in the world in that it has no statute of limitations for any criminal offence tried above magistrate level.

In other words, summary offences - magistrates level, do have a statute of limitation (btw you don't get sent to jail for shoplifting!)

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Nobody is seriously talking about criminal sanctions for Johnson, Vaughan etc etc, so the question isn't really about whether there should be a Statute of Limitations.

It's more about whether it's fair for society to be holding people to the standards of the today for stuff they did in the past.

My view. Sometimes yes and sometimes no

 

[Lenny Rider]

Also, I gather, Harty' that you don't 'believe' that Vaughan did anything. I'm sure he'll be 'relieved' to have your support.

Its 12 years ago, it now transpires as well as Vaughan denying he said it, one of the four Asian players involved has come out and said he didn't hear it.

Devils advocate here, what if Vaughan's a marmite figure at Yorkshire, and the three players quoted have got together to smear him, knowing the whole issue will see them be believed rather than Vaughan?

I abhor racism in every shape or form, back in the day when on Anti Nazi League marches as a teenager, but ultimately this is down to one man's word against three others', regardless of their race, colour or creed?

 

[Da Man Clay]

Its 12 years ago, it now transpires as well as Vaughan denying he said it, one of the four Asian players involved has come out and said he didn't hear it.

Devils advocate here, what if Vaughan's a marmite figure at Yorkshire, and the three players quoted have got together to smear him, knowing the whole issue will see them be believed rather than Vaughan?

I abhor racism in every shape or form, back in the day when on Anti Nazi League marches as a teenager, but ultimately this is down to one man's word against three others', regardless of their race, colour or creed?

That is certainly a take… not a particular good one, but, a take nonetheless

 

[Dick Swiveller]

Its 12 years ago, it now transpires as well as Vaughan denying he said it, one of the four Asian players involved has come out and said he didn't hear it.

Devils advocate here, what if Vaughan's a marmite figure at Yorkshire, and the three players quoted have got together to smear him, knowing the whole issue will see them be believed rather than Vaughan?

I abhor racism in every shape or form, back in the day when on Anti Nazi League marches as a teenager, but ultimately this is down to one man's word against three others', regardless of their race, colour or creed?

Have you seen Vaughan's historic Tweets doing the rounds? If you abhor racism as much as you claim, you may well want to find a better hill to die on. Whilst they prove nothing, it is more smoke that you wonder if it comes from a fire.

 

[MattBackHome]

Devils advocate here, what if Vaughan's a marmite figure at Yorkshire, and the three players quoted have got together to smear him, knowing the whole issue will see them be believed rather than Vaughan?

On toast?

 

[Boys 9d]

Would those who advocate a statute of limitations be happy if it had been applied to Russell Bishop?

 

[rippleman]

Yes, there absolutely should be. It should come into force 100 years after either the death of the alleged transgressor or the death of their last surviving victim, whichever is the later. So Henry VIII is now safe but it is still possible they might catch Jack the Ripper.

The Whitechapel Murders were committed in 1888. Mary Jane Kelly (the last of the canonical five victims) was murdered on 9 November 1888. The last victim, and the murderer(s), will have been dead over a century and therefore would fall outside your 100 year statute of limitations. However, the identity of the Whitechapel Murderer is very unlikely to ever be established "beyond reasonable doubt".

ETA The Special Branch files that may have contained valuable information regarding the murders "went missing" and other relevant official documents were redacted within an inch of their lives. All adds fuel to the conspiracy theorists' fires.

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/the-secret-police-files/

 

[Whitechapel]

Have you seen Vaughan's historic Tweets doing the rounds? If you abhor racism as much as you claim, you may well want to find a better hill to die on. Whilst they prove nothing, it is more smoke that you wonder if it comes from a fire.

View attachment 142204

Let’s not forget this classic too;



But no, no. These people clearly waited 15 years to come forward because Vaughn is marmite

 

[Whitechapel]

The Whitechapel Murders were committed in 1888. Mary Jane Kelly (the last of the canonical five victims) was murdered on 9 November 1888. The last victim, and the murderer(s), will have been dead over a century and therefore would fall outside your 100 year statute of limitations. However, the identity of the Whitechapel Murderer is very unlikely to ever be established "beyond reasonable doubt".

 

[Lenny Rider]

Interesting that this is a " Blue on Blue " allegation....I'm also a bit surprised the recipient has sat on the evidence for so long.

Or just another smear by the Anti Johnson faction within the Tory Party or the wider media?

Punish the guilty of course, but I don't think we've seen blurred lines this in our lifetime.

What about the recently accused who ended up totally exonerated despite the trial by media, Sir Cliff, Tarby and, dare I say it on here, Jim Davidson?

 

[Lenny Rider]

Would those who advocate a statute of limitations be happy if it had been applied to Russell Bishop?

Different context.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Would those who advocate a statute of limitations be happy if it had been applied to Russell Bishop?

Strictly speaking, he had already been tried, but advances with DNA meant there was fresh evidence, so the CPS could apply to the High Court for Double Jeopardy.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

Devils advocate here, what if Vaughan's a marmite figure at Yorkshire, and the three players quoted have got together to smear him, knowing the whole issue will see them be believed rather than Vaughan?

Could they also be behind the government's attempts to keep UFO sightings under wraps?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Have you seen Vaughan's historic Tweets doing the rounds? If you abhor racism as much as you claim, you may well want to find a better hill to die on. Whilst they prove nothing, it is more smoke that you wonder if it comes from a fire.

View attachment 142204

Well there are areas of London that fit that bill so what's the Problem?

Regards
DF