Wednesday, 24 October 2012

So, Riddle Me This....

...if the feminist crackpots regard anonymity for men accused of rape as an awful idea, preventing further victims from coming forward, why the double standard here?
A television actor has been charged with the rape of a teenage boy. The star, who cannot be named for legal reasons, allegedly attacked the 14-year-old at a theatre in the London area.
Is it because they think they've got all the victims already?
He is also accused of three other sex attacks and an "assault by beating" at a London school, Scotland Yard said.
Or is it because, if the 'Mail' is correct, the actor in question is only 17 himself?

But if so....doesn't that totally invalidate the crazy feminist's objection? Why should the age matter if the lack of anonymity is purely to encourage further victims?

I guess we might know in November, when he appears at court. They'll have to name him then, won't they?

16 comments:

AndrewWS said...

No, they won't *have* to name him then if the judge orders that he not be named.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

It'll be to protect the identity of the victim.

Henry Crun said...

It's already on the Daily Mail site that the "actor" in question is some scrote from Eastenders.

AndrewWS said...

Rumours surfacing here

http://www.twitmunin.com/en/921336/eastenders-star-joshua-pascoe-arrested-in-connection-with-alleged-sexual-assault/

and elsewhere. Take them as seriously as you like.

Farenheit211 said...

I've been in a few courts (for work not as a customer) in my time and it is beyond time that we bring back the presumption of anonymity for both rape victims and defendants. There could and should however be legal means to waive the anonymity of the defendant if there were multiple rapes where there may be hidden victims.

JuliaM said...

It can't be Joshua Pascoe - he's already been named back in May:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/900265-eastenders-joshua-pascoe-arrested-for-alleged-sexual-assault-connection

There's be no need not to name him again, surely?

Anonymous said...

There’s a difference between being arrested and being charged, this person has been charged now. And I think it is him. Too many things point to it being him.

Robert the Biker said...

If that's the clown in question, he doesn't look up to beating a wet puppy. Ah well, if he goes down, he'll be able to show his hard man act to the lads in Pentonville.

MTG said...

Pretty disgusting stuff which defies reading in its entirety. Yorkshire news is far more wholesome....I may consume a token piece of bacon whilst watching archive footage of Dixon of Dock Green, this evening.

Anonymous said...

Well done MTG, once again your sad obsession rises like vomit from a drunk northern slapper on a night oot!

Anonymous said...

What is it with 'Stenders actors -they can't all be scuzz surely? I'm waiting for the next instalment of Leslie 'German Taxi Driver Murderer' Grantham 'news'. Sleazy cunt!

Anonymous said...

http://chris-ukorg.org/joshua-pascoe-sutton-2/

Anonymous said...

To some extent, it is a civilised act to protect the name of a 'minor', whether a victim or suspected offender, until the offence has been proved. A colleague of mine was accused of a sexual assault, was named in the local paper, had his house attacked, his car burnt and his children attacked at school. It eventually transpired that the accuser was a deranged mental health patient who had previously made claims that she had been raped by, amongst others, Elvis Presley, Englebert Humperdink and the manager of the local ice rink (whose name escapes me for the moment). No apologies from the press, from the people who attacked his house or his children or burnt his car. Oh, Hum, life goes on.! Unless anyone is charged with an offence and found guilty, their identity should be withheld and anyone revealing it found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to a fairly large prison sentence. But then I'm biased. I gave him the money to buy a new car, so he could move his family to another town!
Penseivat

John Pickworth said...

Gosh darn'it, them Paedos are getting younger every day.

JuliaM said...

"...and it is beyond time that we bring back the presumption of anonymity for both rape victims and defendants."

It was a campaign promise. And lasted as long as they usually do. :/

"What is it with 'Stenders actors -they can't all be scuzz surely?"

I guess actors no longer act..

"To some extent, it is a civilised act to protect the name of a 'minor', whether a victim or suspected offender, until the offence has been proved."

Agreed, but the feminist whackjobs won't have it.

Anonymous said...

There is no obligation upon the court to maintain anonymity after conviction, and that is of either the victim or offender, unless the victim is a child. The court can order that the name is divulged.
In circumstances where the victim and offender are closely related the offender/s name/s may be concealed because revealing the offender/s name/s would reveal that of the victim by association.
This has been so for decades.

John.