Leamington Fox Posted 11 January 2017 Posted 11 January 2017 I can't really see this as a legitimate thread. None of us have the faintest idea about the truth or otherwise of the allegations. I think it is best left alone completely.
sylofox Posted 11 January 2017 Posted 11 January 2017 On 09/01/2017 at 11:16, NewquayFox said: Might be where he got those tights from.... Classic Bantz
sylofox Posted 11 January 2017 Posted 11 January 2017 2 hours ago, Leamington Fox said: I can't really see this as a legitimate thread. None of us have the faintest idea about the truth or otherwise of the allegations. I think it is best left alone completely. I think it is right or wrong. He was never questioned. So we only one side of the story. We can only ever have one side now. So the only way he can be proven innocent is if the so called victims break down and admit to lies. This is wrong in so many ways in my eyes.
Fox92 Posted 11 January 2017 Posted 11 January 2017 15 minutes ago, sylofox said: I think it is right or wrong. He was never questioned. So we only one side of the story. We can only ever have one side now. So the only way he can be proven innocent is if the so called victims break down and admit to lies. This is wrong in so many ways in my eyes. Plenty of people were never questioned and have since died. Look at the recent abuse with football coaches. I'm not commenting on what has happened here but to dismiss it as "we only have one side" isn't really enough.
Kitchandro Posted 11 January 2017 Posted 11 January 2017 Leaves the club in a very awkward position. You have to say two separate accusations is quite a coincidence if he's innocent. But if it can't be proven does the club sever it's ties? I'm certainly not comfortable with him as one of Leicester City's greatest icons after this.
foxinsocks Posted 11 January 2017 Posted 11 January 2017 5 hours ago, sylofox said: I think it is right or wrong. He was never questioned. So we only one side of the story. We can only ever have one side now. So the only way he can be proven innocent is if the so called victims break down and admit to lies. This is wrong in so many ways in my eyes. I understood ...let me know if i am wrong.... that these allegations were considered by the police in 2002. So there may well be records of interviews or answers by keith. However... as we know there were a number of times when policemen investigating savile, cyril smith, and jenner either gave up or were told to do so... often after special branch had convescated their notes. I would like to see those special branch officers reveal who gave such orders and why. Back to keith. The investigating officers could...if they wish... verify that they were not "called off" in which case we can presume that the dpp decided there was no likelyhood of a conviction. What worries me about these claims is the similar mo ... how did two complainers allege the same mo with blindfolds etc ?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.