Forum menu
Is that the few facts she picks of the many available, or the vast majority she chooses to ignore?
jivehoneyjive - Member
Is that the few facts she picks of the many available, or the vast majority she chooses to ignore?
That could very easily apply to someone else...
Makes you think...
Oh, and while the subject of accusations against various people in high profile places regarding so-called historical abuse, the police are currently actively persuing cases against 256 people who are, in fact, dead!
Under English/UK law, there is no legal avenue for taking a case against a dead person before a court of law, as I understand it, so just why are these muppets spending huge amounts of money and squandering valuable resources chasing people who can never, [i]ever[/i] be prosecuted?
so just why are these muppets spending huge amounts of money and squandering valuable resources chasing people who can never, ever be prosecuted?
Because the victims have the right for it to be legally established that the allegations they made were true, if indeed they were.
In too many cases the claims made by victims of child abuse were falsely dismissed as unreliable. Establishing that they told the truth, whilst obviously denying them full justice, could perhaps help to bring some sort of closure for them.
Furthermore it can highlight institutional failures and reduce to possibility of institutional failures in the future.
Establishing whether child abuse occurred is not just about punishing the perpetrators.
Fair point ernie
Also perhaps a means of piecing together the wider network, to prevent continuing abuse to children right now and in the future?
Whatever the reason, there is no doubt that when it comes to the amount of money and resources (and lives) squandered, it'll pale in comparison to the [s]defence industry[/s] arms trade and wars started under false pretences.
At least Cliff is a good Christian:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Tony Blair is a nonce ?
When the person who has been accused, is unable to defend themself, due to being dead, then the justice being s dished out is somewhat flawed.
The accused cannot answer charges and therefore we have a somewhat one sided investigation here. The accused always is assumed innocent and always has the right to a fair trail. This cannot happen with a corpse.
You both have a point as we do need to expose cases where agencies turned a blind eye or were remiss as we need to learn the lessons to prevent it happening again
Is that the few facts she picks of the many available, or the vast majority she chooses to ignore?
Staire is dead
It was beaten to death by the limp flaccid body of self awareness 😯
Catch 22, as the cases of Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith, Leon Brittan, Greville Janner and many others show...
On the one hand, the accused is no longer around to defend themselves... on the other, there is a significant body of evidence to show they were protected on multiple occasions, under several different governments, by several departments and agencies, whilst alive.
All very odd...
The accused always is assumed innocent and always has the right to a fair trail. This cannot happen with a corpse.
Why not? Today Matthew Daley was found guilty of manslaughter over a 'road rage' killing, he did not give any evidence in court, does that mean that he didn't receive a fair trial?
It is perfectly possible imo to have a fair trial even if the defendant can't defend themselves.
EDIT : This a bit of a side issue which isn't really relevant to the historic child abuse cases. If Lord Janner were still alive there would be, due to his dementia, be a "trial of the facts", as he is now dead there will instead be an investigation into the allegations against him. This both fair and money well spent imo.
In some circumstance their best defence may be to not give evidence
However they will still talk to and instruct a solicitor thereby defending themself. Clearly, clairvoyance aside, a corpse cannot do this
Your broad point about learning the lesson is a fair.
Out of interest what punishments were you thinking of dishing out to the corpse? Community service? Hard labour. I reckon solitary confinement 6 foot under in a wooden box is a good one.
Out of interest what punishments were you thinking of dishing out to the corpse? Community service? Hard labour. I reckon solitary confinement 6 foot under in a wooden box is a good one.
I thought I had dealt with that point with my previous comment :
[i]"Establishing whether child abuse occurred is not just about punishing the perpetrators."[/i]
I don't think I can expand on that really.
Perhaps it's more about relief for someone who has spent a lifetime trying to come to terms with what happened to them and not being believed...
and:
a means of piecing together the wider network, to prevent continuing abuse to children right now and in the future
For Ernie, in true JHJ style.
I remembered that Blair had been prosecuted for sex in the toilets but all trace seemed to have vanished from the web. Some references still remain on blogs if you use duckduckgo. Anyhow: [url= https://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/tony-blairs-dirty-little-secrets/ ]Blair[/url]
I can no longer find any reference to his victims being younger boys.
@ ernie and JHJ
Both of which laudable aims can be achieved without a "trial " of a corpse.
I don't know why you keep wanting to drag "a corpse" onto the thread.
The following question was asked :
[i] "so just why are these muppets spending huge amounts of money and squandering valuable resources chasing people who can never, ever be prosecuted?"[/i]
To which I pointed out : Establishing whether child abuse occurred is not just about punishing the perpetrators.
No where have I suggested taking a corpse to court. I find your apparent obsession with cadavers a little bizarre.
Nice try ernie at a dig but nowhere near as funny as usual but possibly more caustic than usual.
Anyway we agree we should not take the dead to court so lets all move on to something a little more rational.
nowhere near as funny as usual but possibly more caustic than usual.
Thank you for your critique. I'll bear in mind your comments.
I've just spent five minutes hunting for this thread when rt60 had already bumped it.
I'll still add my link: [url= https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jun/16/cliff-richard-will-not-face-charges-over-sexual-abuse-claims ]Cliff goes free.[/url]