Loading...

Friday, 29 November 2013

Injustice

Just because the Jury couldn't be sure, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Duncan (Wilf) Whiley of Havwoods accessories Ltd. had his holdall at court today in case he got convicted.

The smug response of his supporters was enough to make anyone who knows the truth about the said PBCC member vomit.


13 comments:

  1. I have been told that in Scotland they state "not proven" rather than "not guilty" which makes better sense - I don't know if they also have a 'not guilty' - they should really. In this case it was I would say, not proven - and i say that because the prosecution case was not strong enough. This did not mean it did not happen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The “not guilty” and “not proven” verdicts in Scottish courts are identical in their legal effect: they both lead to acquittal, but they have different effects on the reputation of the accused. “Not proven” usually implies that the jury thinks or at least suspects that he is guilty but the evidence was not strong enough to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

    If an accused person is acquitted in a criminal case he sometimes subsequently loses a civil case brought against him by the victim, because a lower standard of proof is required in civil cases.

    I know nothing at all about the recent case, but I do know that a surprisingly large number of my ex-EB friends say they were sexually abused when they were among the Brethren.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So in Scotland you have both? Excellent - I like that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. An English civil case requires only 'the balance of probability' rather than the criminal proof of 'beyond reasonable doubt.' Again, if convicted in a civil case they cannot receive a judicial punishment but the way is opened for further action such as compensation. Steven Lawrence's killers got away in the criminal court but were found guilty in a civil case. The double jeopardy rules were changed and his killers were then able to be properly prosecuted.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That the CPS saw fit to charge Duncan Whiley of Preston with a rape committed over 45 years since is in itself a good reason to believe the victim's account of how brutal an attack it was. The police, the CPS, the body language expert and her barrister believed her. I gather there are ongoing investigations into other alleged sex abuse cases committed years ago, and more it is hoped may emerge. The victim came forward knowing that there was only a 50/50 chance of a guilty verdict, but she did the right thing in the hopes that others would follow suit. It has transpired that the brethren in Preston undertook their own 'investigations' some years ago into her complaint rather than report it to the police. There appears to be a smokescreen to protect this chap's reputation... perhaps those close to him have their doubts, after the victim's case was strong and ironically his defence only called one pathetic witness - her own treacherous brethren sister!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was there all week - the question of why the brethren did not report it themselves to the police for investigation was not asked. They did their own investigation - did you do it? No. End

    ReplyDelete
  7. James Taylor Jnr (died 1970) is the 'Beloved' of this group of Exclusive Brethren. In his final year of life, he pestered and abused women followers and was unfaithful to his wife with Mrs Madeline Ker (she was a consenting adult).

    In Volume 148 of his ministry in July and August 1970 it's recorded that he seemed to think it was OK to "chase women" (August 5 1970, page 168), to speak of women as "silly" (July 21 1970, pages 144 & 158), to talk about giving women "a good wallop" and "a good beating" and to assert that women are "something because a man wants them" (July 8 1970 page 126).

    As far as I know, Bruce D Hales and Garth Christie have never repudiated this ministry, nor have they condemned James Taylor Jnr's behaviour towards women.

    Add to that the fact that John S Hales (father and 'beloved brother' of Bruce D Hales) thought that women were dependent on their husbands and couldn't be thinkers in their own right, and you have a community whose influential leaders downgrade and distort the integrity and capabilities of half their members.

    This, in my opinion, is likely to cause confusion and uncertainty among the 'brothers' in this group of Exclusive Brethren. Apart from anything else, it also shows how out of touch and old-fashioned the PBCC is in its thinking about gender issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well JTjr might have "pestered and abused women followers" in his final year of life, but it is my understanding that he was performing exactly this type of disgusting behaviour towards women at least two decades earlier in his life than that. A witness told me so, and UK elders know about it. Their response was not so much to sweep the revelation under the carpet, but to nail the carpet back to the floor afterwards as well.

      The whole EB/PBCC leadership 'purity' farce is a juggernaut that they cannot and will not allow to be damaged - in effect it funds their whole lifestyle, and props up the 'validity' of their idea that what they are involved in is somehow Christian, rather than just a superstitious chauvinistic family-wrecking cult.

      Delete
  8. “Out of touch and old fashioned” is a gentle way of putting it. The Brethren’s isolation has made it possible for them to lag far behind the rest of the developed world in many important ways, both intellectually and morally.

    While other churches and society at large have made huge progress in recognising how far-reaching and important is the principle of equality, there have been hardly any signs of Brethren making progress in that direction.

    While other churches have welcomed the enormous advances in all kinds of knowledge and accommodated them into their own belief systems, making them more robust, honest and soundly based, the Brethren are stuck with a thoroughly discredited mixture of truth, superstition, pretence, folklore and frank falsehood.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Slimey Duncan Whiley has just had his snivelling request for a refund of 80k rejected by the court because the CPS had such a strong case against him. Perhaps the brethren will have a whip round for him? Diddums.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Whiley requested a REFUND? For/of what?

    I'm sure the HEB have already contributed to his 'case' in some form or other... but perhaps are they trying to get him to pay them back now, so he's gone to the court to get some moolah to add back into their 'fighting fund'? Unsuccessfully I gather.

    My heart bleeds for him... well no it doesn't actually, it bleeds for the woman who bravely faced the court - and D.Whiley's expensive wily barrister - to tell her truth about events that she says happened to her many many years ago in the Brethren. This was not a fair trial, IMHO - is one allowed to opine that on social media?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you can express your opinion, so long as you make it clear that it is your opinion. If you state it as an established fact when it is only an opinion then you could be guilty of defamation. If it is any reassurance to you, I know of several judicious people who share your opinion.

      Delete
    2. An order as to costs is not automatically given when a defendant is acquitted - it is discretionary. The CPS and police considered that they were in possession of sufficient information which could possibly lead to a conviction and proceeded with the prosecution on that basis. The corroborative evidence against Whiley was strong enough for the CPS to reject his claim for reimbursement - tough!

      Delete