BoxRec

On the front of today's Doncaster Star there's a 65 year old health and safety manager who was caught in a peado sting, he travelled to a park to meet (he thought) a 14 year old girl 'little Laura' for sex. Wasn't jailed.

BigRed wrote:http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ext_Story4

Cleared of all charges.

I know we've poked fun at this case, but it must be very gruelling to go through this if you are innocent.

Some of the comments on here are disgusting

It has been proven he did nothing so shame on the people who made these comments. Would be great if he could do something about the slanderous comments made on here.

He was convicted of his hairdo! I didn't see anything else said!

Just because there is not enough evidence to convict doesn't mean something untoward didnt happen. We werent in the courtroom,so we cant judge correctly. It's highly unlikely nothing untoward happened, its not like Bob Shannon is a rich superstar. Who knows. Withput knowing more we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

However he needs to be convicted of crimes against hair, and the sentence is a number 2 all over (mind you, David Lemieux may not agree as he copied Bob's look).

[quote="reggaereggae"]Just because there is not enough evidence to convict doesn't mean something untoward didnt happen. We werent in the courtroom,so we cant judge correctly. It's highly unlikely nothing untoward happened, its not like Bob Shannon is a rich superstar. Who knows. Withput knowing more we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

This is exactly why these sorts of allegations can ruin a man whether convicted or not. Its unfair. He was named and will now forever be associated with this allegation. The general public will always think there was no smoke without fire. What the general public don't know is it is now very easy to bring a case to court in relation to sex offences. It can literally be one word against the other, no physical evidence, no forensics, no witnesses. This does not happen with any other type of crime. Don't take my word for it. Scour your local papers and look how many times cases of this nature are either kicked out or the defendant found not guilty. It happens down my way weekly. These cases would not have passed the threshold test for prosecution a few years ago.

Bob Shannon has probably paid the price for lax, hopeless investigations of yesteryear, where the police and prosecution services did not investigate this type of crime properly and failed to support, or believe genuine victims. It is now pretty much the case that all alleged victims of sexual offences will be believed, supported and cases taken to court. I don't necessarily have an issue with that.

However, I do believe that reporting restrictions should be in place. Names and photographs should not appear in the press until a man is convicted.

We will never know the full story, because we were not there. Benefit of the doubt is great, but Bob Shannon is now tarnished. He cannot afford a PR team to help clear his name. William Roach (Ken Barlow) was able to do so as was the radio DJ Paul Gambicini.They were able to get into the mainstream press and state their cases and rightly so. For the rest of us, we can't afford that privilege.

Guys, remember there but for the grace of God......Any ex-girlfriend with an axe to grind, or grudge can make this type of allegation at any time. The stress it can cause you and your family is horrendous.

Now, getting back to his hair......

CharlesListon wrote:
This is exactly why these sorts of allegations can ruin a man whether convicted or not. Its unfair. He was named and will now forever be associated with this allegation. The general public will always think there was no smoke without fire. What the general public don't know is it is now very easy to bring a case to court in relation to sex offences. It can literally be one word against the other, no physical evidence, no forensics, no witnesses. This does not happen with any other type of crime. Don't take my word for it. Scour your local papers and look how many times cases of this nature are either kicked out or the defendant found not guilty. It happens down my way weekly. These cases would not have passed the threshold test for prosecution a few years ago.

Bob Shannon has probably paid the price for lax, hopeless investigations of yesteryear, where the police and prosecution services did not investigate this type of crime properly and failed to support, or believe genuine victims. It is now pretty much the case that all alleged victims of sexual offences will be believed, supported and cases taken to court. I don't necessarily have an issue with that.

However, I do believe that reporting restrictions should be in place. Names and photographs should not appear in the press until a man is convicted.

We will never know the full story, because we were not there. Benefit of the doubt is great, but Bob Shannon is now tarnished. He cannot afford a PR team to help clear his name. William Roach (Ken Barlow) was able to do so as was the radio DJ Paul Gambicini.They were able to get into the mainstream press and state their cases and rightly so. For the rest of us, we can't afford that privilege.

Guys, remember there but for the grace of God......Any ex-girlfriend with an axe to grind, or grudge can make this type of allegation at any time. The stress it can cause you and your family is horrendous.

Now, getting back to his hair......

Yes some good points. But as I understood I thought very few accusations Of sexual impropriety or rape get brought to court?

No mate. It's the other way round.

They didn't used to, which was wrong. But now the percentage is really high. They shouldn't name the guy unless he gets done in my opinion.

reggaereggae wrote:Just because there is not enough evidence to convict doesn't mean something untoward didnt happen. We werent in the courtroom,so we cant judge correctly. It's highly unlikely nothing untoward happened, its not like Bob Shannon is a rich superstar. Who knows. Withput knowing more we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

However he needs to be convicted of crimes against hair, and the sentence is a number 2 all over (mind you, David Lemieux may not agree as he copied Bob's look).

On what factual basis is your statement based?? Unbelievable ignorance.

12 members of the jury, who heard all of the evidence, simply didn't believe the complainant.

Do people really think that being cleared of charges proves someone's innocence? What about their guilt when a guilty verdict is reached?

I haven't followed the case much,I'm not suggesting that Shannon did what he was accused of, and I don't think stones should be cast at someone merely based on an accusation (that gives unreasonable people far too much power to damage others), but should we be treating the outcomes of the criminal justice process as reflections of reality? Or would it be better to view them as the potentially flawed judgements of error-prone humans?

People make false allegations everyday for numerous reasons. Its for the prosecution to prove their case and if twelve independent and objective members of the public, having heard all of the evidence make a sensible and balanced decision which returns a not guilty verdict then the accused should rightly be treated as an innocent man.

The system isn't bullet proof, of course.

The issue I took exception to was someone on here making an unfounded, unsubstantiated and completely speculative statement that Shannon must have done something wrong simply because a complaint was made. That is ignorant and dangerous.

liamlion wrote:People make false allegations everyday for numerous reasons. Its for the prosecution to prove their case and if twelve independent and objective members of the public, having heard all of the evidence make a sensible and balanced decision which returns a not guilty verdict then the accused should rightly be treated as an innocent man.

The system isn't bullet proof, of course.

The issue I took exception to was someone on here making an unfounded, unsubstantiated and completely speculative statement that Shannon must have done something wrong simply because a complaint was made. That is ignorant and dangerous.

X2.

liamlion wrote:People make false allegations everyday for numerous reasons. Its for the prosecution to prove their case and if twelve independent and objective members of the public, having heard all of the evidence make a sensible and balanced decision which returns a not guilty verdict then the accused should rightly be treated as an innocent man.

The system isn't bullet proof, of course.

The issue I took exception to was someone on here making an unfounded, unsubstantiated and completely speculative statement that Shannon must have done something wrong simply because a complaint was made. That is ignorant and dangerous.

That is an eminently sensible position and I agree with your take on reggaereggae's comment.

What I don't agree with, however, are the claims made by others that these types of rulings prove innocence. In my view the criminal justice system shouldn't be given that degree of credibility.

However, I do believe that reporting restrictions should be in place. Names and photographs should not appear in the press until a man is convicted.

Never a truer word spoken ... A lawyer once told me ,, everyone in jail says there innocent ,, But the facts are . She said , an awful lot are , theres lots convicted , merely for being in the wrong place at the wrong time ,

Like I've already said, I heard 15 years ago rumours about Bob Shannon, no smoke without fire

pimp wrote:Like I've already said, I heard 15 years ago rumours about Bob Shannon, no smoke without fire

Someone calling themselves 'pimp' taking the moral high ground

pimp wrote:Like I've already said, I heard 15 years ago rumours about Bob Shannon, no smoke without fire

PM me please

crusader wrote:Do people really think that being cleared of charges proves someone's innocence? What about their guilt when a guilty verdict is reached?

I haven't followed the case much,I'm not suggesting that Shannon did what he was accused of, and I don't think stones should be cast at someone merely based on an accusation (that gives unreasonable people far too much power to damage others), but should we be treating the outcomes of the criminal justice process as reflections of reality? Or would it be better to view them as the potentially flawed judgements of error-prone humans?

I think that comes down to what faith people have in the legal system. I would like to think this country has one of the best legal systems in the world and that it gets its judgments right the vast majority of the time i therefore choose to accept its verdicts. However the reality it is it can't possibly be correct 100% of the time.

A jury saying he is innocent, doesn't necessarily mean they thought he was innocent. To be given a guilty verdict there has to be evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt, which is hard without either witnesses or dna proving sexual inter course. The jury could well think he is the worst human being on the planet and definitely did it, but without specific evidence they can't give guilty.

But as others have said, innocent or not, his plan has changed forever regardless of verdict

OJ Simpson was found not guilty, whilst Peter Sutcliffe was found guilty. It proves the justice system is a pile of pish.

You can`t simply judge a man`s guilt by the state of his hair, no matter how stupid it looks. We don`t know the merits of the case, thus have to guided by the verdict reached. Ergo the man is innocent in the eyes of the law.

Look at Dave Lee Travis, Jim`ll fix it and Rolf Harris. All British institutions who did a "old of grade work for charidy" now labelled as deviant monsters. No way did Saville pleasure himself over pictures of an umpa lumpa, I`m just not having it.

[quote="forcefraser"]OJ Simpson was found not guilty, whilst Peter Sutcliffe was found guilty. It proves the justice system is a pile of pish.

Was Sutcliffe not guilty then-Have I missed something ?

Still cannot view this thread without wondering what `fraggled of as a tree-jumper ` means.
I understand the context,but the terminology ........... :??

Forcefraser is right, he got cleared. Can't ask anymore than that.

forcefraser wrote:OJ Simpson was found not guilty, whilst Peter Sutcliffe was found guilty. It proves the justice system is a pile of pish.

You can`t simply judge a man`s guilt by the state of his hair, no matter how stupid it looks. We don`t know the merits of the case, thus have to guided by the verdict reached. Ergo the man is innocent in the eyes of the law.

Look at Dave Lee Travis, Jim`ll fix it and Rolf Harris. All British institutions who did a "old of grade work for charidy" now labelled as deviant monsters. No way did Saville pleasure himself over pictures of an umpa lumpa, I`m just not having it.

Peter Sutcliffe was innocent?

Dierdre Rasheed was innocent.