"mert1639"  wrote:
 

>
>"Cynic"  wrote in message 
>news:1g36f4phd1ldtqf6o6k8ujcsf7vgviugfp@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:00:30 +0100, "mert1639"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>>>She was on the engine and he started touching her.  He wasn't helping 
>>>>>her
>>>>>get up to or down from the the cab.  There is no reason to touch 
>>>>>anyone's
>>>>>bottom on the cab of an engine.
>>
>>>> And how do you know this, exactly?  Were you there?
>>
>>>I know there is no need to put your hand up a grils skirt on an engine.  I
>>>work on a steam railway myself.
>>>Can you please say why he should put his hand up a girls skirt on an 
>>>engine?
>>>As i said he was convicted of putting his hand up girls' skirts in 1968 
>>>and
>>>1974.
>>
>> There are many situations in which a person must touch a child,
>> especially in an unfamiliar and cramped environment that has hazards.
>> Touching even a bottom may be perfectly reasonable in many
>> circumstances, and an *inadvertent* touch in that area is even more
>> possible.
>>
>Can you please tell me why somone would have to put their hand up a girl's 
>skirt on a steam engine?  The engine in question wasn't even in service, so 
>there's no way he could claim it was an emergency.
>
>> Unless I had actually seen the incident, or had it described to me in
>> far more detail than I have seen so far, I will not jump to the
>> conclusion that there was a sexual motive.  Witnesses have been known
>> to over-react.
>>
>I think this is called clutching at straws.  I must ask, what are your 
>motives for wanting to defend this sex offender? 
>

Ah, the old "well you must be a terrorist because you're against
locking them up for 42 days without trial" argument.