Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 05, 2017, 05:15:28 PM
-
I see many of Twitters have decided he is guilty as breach of a subjective moral code
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41503143
-
By all accounts Heath was not a very nice man, but that does not make him a child molester.
-
By all accounts Heath was not a very nice man, but that does not make him a child molester.
I guess the question here, in relation to historic allegations of abuse, is whether it is right to investigate and come to conclusions even when the alleged perpetrator is dead.
Some think that because the person cannot defend themselves in a court of law that they must therefore be presumed innocent and that no investigation can be warranted.
Alternatively the the victims have a right to a form of justice, and while that cannot result in the perpetrator being convicted (as he or she is dead), a level of justice is served if an investigation concludes that they were a victim and in all likelihood a specific person was the perpetrator.
I err towards the latter view.
-
I knew someone, now dead, who used to serve with Heath during WW2 and knew him well. His son told me his father would not have been a bit surprised about the allegations made against Heath, as there were sexual abuse rumours concerning him even in those days.
-
I knew someone, now dead, who used to serve with Heath during WW2 and knew him well. His son told me his father would not have been a bit surprised about the allegations made against Heath, as there were sexual abuse rumours concerning him even in those days.
And the winner of the hearsay prize is....
-
I guess the question here, in relation to historic allegations of abuse, is whether it is right to investigate and come to conclusions even when the alleged perpetrator is dead.
Some think that because the person cannot defend themselves in a court of law that they must therefore be presumed innocent and that no investigation can be warranted.
Alternatively the the victims have a right to a form of justice, and while that cannot result in the perpetrator being convicted (as he or she is dead), a level of justice is served if an investigation concludes that they were a victim and in all likelihood a specific person was the perpetrator.
I err towards the latter view.
and the winner of the false dichotomy award goes to...
-
And the winner of the hearsay prize is....
Do you think that allegations involving living victims but dead alleged perpetrators should be thoroughly investigated?
-
and the winner of the false dichotomy award goes to...
Any chance in actually engaging in the discussion, given that the original post was yours.
-
Any chance in actually engaging in the discussion, given that the original post was yours.
Pointing out that you are using a false dichotomy is surely engaging in the discussion? Effectively your line is assuming guilt because it cannot be disproved. That seems odd to me.
-
Do you think that allegations involving living victims but dead alleged perpetrators should be thoroughly investigated?
Yes. Do you think that someone saying that the son of someone who knew someone wouldn't be surprised by something is an allegation is a good reason for an investigation?
-
Pointing out that you are using a false dichotomy is surely engaging in the discussion?
Not really it is kind of Vlad style debate-bankerly I'm afraid. Had you made that point and then gone further to elaborate on the relevance of your point to the actual topic, then fine - but you didn't.
Effectively your line is assuming guilt because it cannot be disproved. That seems odd to me.
I don't think it is - I think it is a legal process that attempts to find facts - that is different to one that is engaged in the process of trying and convicting (or otherwise) a living person. We have all sorts of legal processes whose purpose is to find facts.
-
Not really it is kind of Vlad style debate-bankerly I'm afraid. Had you made that point and then gone further to elaborate on the relevance of your point to the actual topic, then fine - but you didn't.
I don't think it is - I think it is a legal process that attempts to find facts - that is different to one that is engaged in the process of trying and convicting (or otherwise) a living person. We have all sorts of legal processes whose purpose is to find facts.
Do you have to justify the point that someone, in this case you, was making a false dichotomy? Good to see though that you have accepted that you were.
In what way isn't assumption of guilt your position? Absolutely there needs to be a different process if the accused is dead. But surely assuming that the accusation if it cannot be disproved is true, as your position seems to be, exactly does that?
-
Yes.
Do you think that someone saying that the son of someone who knew someone wouldn't be surprised by something is an allegation is a good reason for an investigation?
No - but no-one is suggesting that there should be an investigation purely on the basis of Floo's post, are they.
-
No - but no-one is suggesting that there should be an investigation purely on the basis of Floo's post, are they.
Didn't say they were. But it is hearsay, and not even relevant hearsay, isn't it? So pointing that out would be surely ok?
-
In what way isn't assumption of guilt your position? Absolutely there needs to be a different process if the accused is dead. But surely assuming that the accusation if it cannot be disproved is true, as your position seems to be, exactly does that?
If there is an investigation the purpose would be to find fact - there would be no presumption that the accused is guilty. But I suspect (but might be completely wrong) that there need not be an presumption of innocence either for someone who is dead as the presumption of innocent is reserved for legal proceedings where a specific person is charged with a crime and taken through the court system. That cannot happen in this case as the person is dead.
-
Didn't say they were. But it is hearsay, and not even relevant hearsay, isn't it? So pointing that out would be surely ok?
While I accept that hearsay is weak evidence, it is not no evidence. It isn't uncommon for courts to use wider anecdotal evidence of types of behaviour to paint a more complete picture of the accused that might support or not support the accusation. That someone has a well established reputation for acting in a particular manner isn't evidence that they did in a particular circumstance, but it supports specific evidence. The reverse is also true - courts often take account of 'character witness'-type statements indicating that an action someone is accused of is out of character. Doesn't prove they didn't do it, but again is valuable supporting evidence when building up a picture of the accused as a character.
-
If there is an investigation the purpose would be to find fact - there would be no presumption that the accused is guilty. But I suspect (but might be completely wrong) that there need not be an presumption of innocence either for someone who is dead as the presumption of innocent is reserved for legal proceedings where a specific person is charged with a crime and taken through the court system. That cannot happen in this case as the person is dead.
I think you are a bit confused abut how a presumption of innocence works, but that's missing the point. Your position seems to be that if an accusation cannot be disproved that we assume guilt which seems odd to me. The investigation into Heath has found only that there was enough to question, and the police carrying out the investigation were clear that it didn't mean he was guilty. why you want to have some presumption of guilt here, I have no idea
-
While I accept that hearsay is weak evidence, it is not no evidence. It isn't uncommon for courts to use wider anecdotal evidence of types of behaviour to paint a more complete picture of the accused that might support or not support the accusation. That someone has a well established reputation for acting in a particular manner isn't evidence that they did in a particular circumstance, but it supports specific evidence. The reverse is also true - courts often take account of 'character witness'-type statements indicating that an action someone is accused of is out of character. Doesn't prove they didn't do it, but again is valuable supporting evidence when building up a picture of the accused as a character.
Ah you don't understand hearsay, how cute. And you think that the son of someone who knew someone saying they wouldn't be surprised by something is even close to being useful is quite scary. It's like Salem but if someone whose dad saw Salem once said 'Definitely witches' and off you go as a new William Stoughton
-
I think you are a bit confused abut how a presumption of innocence works, but that's missing the point. Your position seems to be that if an accusation cannot be disproved that we assume guilt which seems odd to me. The investigation into Heath has found only that there was enough to question, and the police carrying out the investigation were clear that it didn't mean he was guilty. why you want to have some presumption of guilt here, I have no idea
I have made is clear that I am neither presuming guilt nor presuming innocence. That is what happens in court proceedings whose purpose is to find fact. As the purpose of this kind of investigation is not to determine guilt or otherwise (that's the job of a court when a living individual has been charged with a crime, which isn't the case here) the notion of presumption of innocence or presumption of guilt seems moot.
-
I have made is clear that I am neither presuming guilt nor presuming innocence. That is what happens in court proceedings whose purpose is to find fact. As the purpose of this kind of investigation is not to determine guilt or otherwise (that's the job of a court when a living individual has been charged with a crime, which isn't the case here) the notion of presumption of innocence or presumption of guilt seems moot.
That's not even mere sophistry. I am talking about your position which seems to be that if accusations are not disproved then they should be assumed to nbe ture. Now if you want to qualify that or explain that your position is something else , please go ahead
-
Whether an alleged perpetrator is dead or alive it is only right allegations of sexual abuse are thoroughly investigated. Some victims of sexual abuse can be damaged for life after such an experience.
-
Ah you don't understand hearsay, how cute.
Wrong
And you think that the son of someone who knew someone saying they wouldn't be surprised by something is even close to being useful is quite scary. It's like Salem but if someone whose dad saw Salem once said 'Definitely witches' and off you go as a new William Stoughton
Completely wrong.
The notion that a particular act from someone accused of that act is out of character or otherwise is entirely relevant as evidence in a court of law. It is, of course, nowhere close to being determinative, but it is relevant. So, for example, were someone to be accused of violent assault character statements indicating that he had never been violent, had no reputation for violence would act to cast some doubt on the validity of the accusation. The converse is true - if the accused had a longstanding reputation for being a violent thug then that supports the plausibility of the accusation, albeit it would still need to rest on specific evidence in that particular case.
This happens all the time in courts of law.
-
That's not even mere sophistry. I am talking about your position which seems to be that if accusations are not disproved then they should be assumed to nbe ture. Now if you want to qualify that or explain that your position is something else , please go ahead
I suggest you read my posts - they say nothing of the sort.
And while criminal court proceedings in much of England require a binary verdict (guilty/not guilty) we are not dealing with criminal court proceedings, as there isn't a living person charged with an offence. And even in criminal courts not all jurisdictions provide a binary choice - as you are well aware in Scotland there are 3 outcomes, guilty/not guilty/not proven. A not proven verdict will mean that the accused is acquitted, it does not mean the person is presumed guilty, or not guilty.
-
Wrong
Completely wrong.
The notion that a particular act from someone accused of that act is out of character or otherwise is entirely relevant as evidence in a court of law. It is, of course, nowhere close to being determinative, but it is relevant. So, for example, were someone to be accused of violent assault character statements indicating that he had never been violent, had no reputation for violence would act to cast some doubt on the validity of the accusation. The converse is true - if the accused had a longstanding reputation for being a violent thug then that supports the plausibility of the accusation, albeit it would still need to rest on specific evidence in that particular case.
This happens all the time in courts of law.
Which 'particular act" was being referred to in Floo"s post?
-
Which 'particular act" was being referred to in Floo"s post?
I think the point being that the accusations against Heath are related to sex abuse. While in no way determinative it is entirely relevant to bring to a court of law (whether a criminal court involving a living defendant charged with an offence, or a finding of facts investigation where the accused is dead) evidence that the accused had a reputation as a sex pest (for example). Again it would never be determinative, but would support the notion that the accusation is plausible in a manner that it might not be were the alleged act to seem entirely out of character.
-
I suggest you read my posts - they say nothing of the sort.
And while criminal court proceedings in much of England require a binary verdict (guilty/not guilty) we are not dealing with criminal court proceedings, as there isn't a living person charged with an offence. And even in criminal courts not all jurisdictions provide a binary choice - as you are well aware in Scotland there are 3 outcomes, guilty/not guilty/not proven. A not proven verdict will mean that the accused is acquitted, it does not mean the person is presumed guilty, or not guilty.
Apart from your simplistic approach to Not Proven (about which if you want to have a discussion, I have a thread about thee bastard verdict already running), this is entirely irrelevant to your position. Do you want to explain or clarify it?
-
I think the point being that the accusations against Heath are related to sex abuse. While in no way determinative it is entirely relevant to bring to a court of law (whether a criminal court involving a living defendant charged with an offence, or a finding of facts investigation where the accused is dead) evidence that the accused had a reputation as a sex pest (for example). Again it would never be determinative, but would support the notion that the accusation is plausible in a manner that it might not be were the alleged act to seem entirely out of character.
And how is someone's dead dad's, who you have no idea of what relationship they had to Heath, opinion about what they would not be surprised by at a relevant to your above post?
-
Which 'particular act" was being referred to in Floo"s post?
Following on from my previous post.
There is another way in which taking account of broader accounts of a person's character can help in an investigation. If an individual has a 'reputation', for being violent, or abusive, for example talking to a person who has heard about that reputation may reveal further alleged victims (yes, I heard that he beat up that kid when he got so angry). This may allow that 'kid' to be identified who might provide much more concrete evidence to support the accusation.
-
And how is someone's dead dad's, who you have no idea of what relationship they had to Heath, opinion about what they would not be surprised by at a relevant to your above post?
Given the length of time passed then this is likely to be of limited or no value to an investigation. But that wouldn't be the case if it were perhaps a bit more recent, so in the 1960s.
Sure this is heresy from someone who is dead, but it might lead to people that dead person worked with etc who are still alive who may be able to put more flesh on the bones of the allegations linked to the 'reputation', leading perhaps in due course to new victims able to come forward and actually give direct evidence. This is certainly what seemed to happen with Savile.
-
I see many of Twitters have decided he is guilty as breach of a subjective moral code
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41503143
Accusations against dead people should be dismissed.
1. They cannot defend themselves from the grave.
2. It is a waste of tax payers money.
If all the accusations against all the celebrities were true. How come no member of Joe Public got wind of it.
Prime minister or not, famous or not, prominent or not. What parent left their child at that age alone with a stranger?
I would not leave my 11 year old child alone with Ted Heath or any other person. So how did all this abuse happen. We were not allowed out of our parents site without chaperones.
-
So it is all the fault of the parents if their children are sexually abused is it, not the paedophiles who perpetrate it?
-
Accusations against dead people should be dismissed.
I'm sure the victims of abuse will be tremendously comforted by that nugget of advice.
-
I'm sure the victims of abuse will be tremendously comforted by that nugget of advice.
I am sure they will! ::)
-
Accusations against dead people should be dismissed.
1. They cannot defend themselves from the grave.
No they can't, but by the same token, nor can they be damaged by the allegations.
2. It is a waste of tax payers money.
How about providing the victims with some sense of vindication and/or closure. Quite often the victims of sexual abuse somehow feel it is their fault. If an enquiry finds their attacker guilty, maybe they can stop blaming themselves and get on with their lives.
If all the accusations against all the celebrities were true. How come no member of Joe Public got wind of it.
In the case of Jimmy Savile, they did, but nobody did anything about it because it was Jimmy Savile.
Prime minister or not, famous or not, prominent or not. What parent left their child at that age alone with a stranger?
I guess it was a different age.
-
I recall in 1974 (I can be certain about the year because of my personal circumstances at the time) going to a nightclub performance in Nottingham. The headline act was Norman Wisdom. It was, I recall, supposed to be "adult humour".
One of the other performers intoned "Edward Heath, Superqueer, how many bums have you felt this year?". I was uncertain at the time as to whether this was simply intended as an insult to a notable politician who was unmarried - and therefore of questionable sexuality - or whether it reflected a truth of which the performer was clearly aware. Given the nature of the venue and the reaction of the audience I considered it to be the former. This was well before the public acceptance of the gay and lesbian community.
I have no idea whether the allegations against Edward Heath have any credibility, but the time has now passed for any investigation to be of any value. Heath is dead, and the experiences of William Roache, Paul Gambacini and Neil and Christine Hamilton suggest that following complaints about the alleged past activities of "celebrities" is frequently extremely costly but totally counter productive.
.....
ProfD - there is a world of difference between "heresy" and "hear say".
-
One of the other performers intoned "Edward Heath, Superqueer, how many bums have you felt this year?".
To the tune of Jesus Christ Superstar?
-
I recall in 1974 (I can be certain about the year because of my personal circumstances at the time) going to a nightclub performance in Nottingham. The headline act was Norman Wisdom. It was, I recall, supposed to be "adult humour".
One of the other performers intoned "Edward Heath, Superqueer, how many bums have you felt this year?". I was uncertain at the time as to whether this was simply intended as an insult to a notable politician who was unmarried - and therefore of questionable sexuality - or whether it reflected a truth of which the performer was clearly aware. Given the nature of the venue and the reaction of the audience I considered it to be the former. This was well before the public acceptance of the gay and lesbian community.
I recall many years ago (when Heath was still alive) the journalist Anthony Howard saying that it was generally regarded in journalistic circles that Heath was what used to be known as 'neuter' - the old-fashioned term, now never heard in this context, for asexual; so married to politics (and his well-known outside interests) that he had no inclination for an intimate relationship with anyone, male or female. Innuendos about homosexuality were common coin about anyone in the public eye who was unmarried and who had no known close relationships.
I have no idea whether the allegations against Edward Heath have any credibility, but the time has now passed for any investigation to be of any value.
Of any value to whom?
What about the value to victims of abuse (speaking generally, not with reference to Heath) feeling that they have been listened to and taken seriously?
-
ProfD - there is a world of difference between "heresy" and "hear say".
There is indeed - and one that autocorrect doesn't really recognise.
-
Accusations against dead people should be dismissed.
1. They cannot defend themselves from the grave.
2. It is a waste of tax payers money.
So you have no interest in justice for the victim then.
-
To the tune of Jesus Christ Superstar?
Yes (within the limits of the performer's singing ability).
-
I recall many years ago (when Heath was still alive) the journalist Anthony Howard saying that it was generally regarded in journalistic circles that Heath was what used to be known as 'neuter' - the old-fashioned term, now never heard in this context, for asexual; so married to politics (and his well-known outside interests) that he had no inclination for an intimate relationship with anyone, male or female.
I seem to remember the same was said about Savile - that he never had time for a relationship and wasn't interested in sex. That all his energies were spent on his work and devotion to his mother.
-
I seem to remember the same was said about Savile - that he never had time for a relationship and wasn't interested in sex. That all his energies were spent on his work and devotion to his mother.
We now know that not to be true (although the rather disturbing post-mortem devotion to "the Duchess" was). We don't know what was the case with Heath.
Also IIRC there were credible allegations about Savile going back, if not to the beginning of his 'career' of abuse, then to not long into it, which were never looked into.
-
What about the value to victims of abuse (speaking generally, not with reference to Heath) feeling that they have been listened to and taken seriously?
I have written before - some time ago - on this forum about my own experiences in early adolescence. I don't particularly want to go into them again, but I can assure you that this is not a subject of which I devoid of experience.
As far as the Heath case is concerned, as far as I can determine, the "strongest" case refers to events over 50 years ago, and, if the statement by an officer of the police force involved is correct, would be unlikely to be conclusive in any way.
-
So it is all the fault of the parents if their children are sexually abused is it, not the paedophiles who perpetrate it?
Is there any logic in what you are suggesting.
Common sense tells us that a person who commits a crime are the only person responsible.
Common sense tells us we question how any adult such a Ted Heath can be left with an 11 year old boy in a house at
night where he could commit such an act.
Your problem is you never really read the original post information in context with the reply.
You judge everything and everyone to your own mental attitude regarding the person you reply to, looking for fault if religious and accepting it without questioning when they are not religious.
Prejudice is not a good thing whatever form it takes when it allows you, to believe accusing others of wrong is acceptable when you blatantly know they never said anything which would condone your answer.
-
Is there any logic in what you are suggesting.
Common sense tells us that a person who commits a crime are the only person responsible.
Common sense tells us we question how any adult such a Ted Heath can be left with an 11 year old boy in a house at
night where he could commit such an act.
Your problem is you never really read the original post information in context with the reply.
You judge everything and everyone to your own mental attitude regarding the person you reply to, looking for fault if religious and accepting it without questioning when they are not religious.
Prejudice is not a good thing whatever form it takes when it allows you, to believe accusing others of wrong is acceptable when you blatantly know they never said anything which would condone your answer.
What on earth are you wittering on about?
-
What on earth are you wittering on about?
I rest my case... Floo, should you ever wish to discuss contents of any post which are in line with the subject matter I will be more than pleased to do so. But I do wish, you would not just throw comments and create issues which are not related or really relevant. :)
-
It was a very different world 50 years ago, I was seven and no-one said much about sexual abuse then.
Children were left with people not known and still are, it can't be avoided - teachers, doctors, nurses, youth workers for example. Fifty years ago all of those had far more authority than they do now & there were not so many background checks. (The vast majority were fine.)
In any case, most abuse is carried out by friends or family.
When I was a child people seemed to like Jimmy Saville, eccentric, fun and all that which is how he got away with it for so long. What particularly horrified me about the cases that came to light was the thought of him molesting innocent children in hospital who maybe could not move or speak. Not just children, it's makes my stomach churn. He was a revolting piece of work.
I don't know about Ted Heath. A few years ago someone I know well told me a few things about him, that they had been told, but I recall saying at the time it was only hearsay. I don't see how anything can be proven now but it can help victims of historical abuse to talk or write about it, it breaks the hold the abuser has had on them. They have to be careful who they are talking to though because any victim remains vulnerable. They need to be sure that they protect themselves.
-
ALL cases of sexual abuse should be investigated, whether they took place many years ago or today. I wish my husband's uncle by marriage, who abused him when he was a small boy, had been made to face a court of law. My father-in-law had words with him, and my husband wasn't abused by him again. However, that evil piece of the proverbial worked as a clown for kids parties, which gave him plenty of opportunity to touch kids up.
-
Oh yeuch. It goes on and on doesn't it?
-
So you have no interest in justice for the victim then.
With the antics of the Christian clergy as background - she wants justice for the accused so that it will flow on to any accused members of the clergy!
-
With the antics of the Christian clergy as background - she wants justice for the accused so that it will flow on to any accused members of the clergy!
I really hope that isn't the case.
But if it were then it is misplaced. The clergy abuse issues are critically ones of organisational failure to deal with abuse, and further seemingly to collude to prevent reputational damage. This goes way beyond individual wrong-doing and of course cannot be closed down when individuals accused of abuse have died as the organisation remains, and therefore remains to be robustly investigated for institutional failures and wrong-doing with damages potential due to victims from the organisation well after the accused individual is dead and cannot face individual charges.
-
I really hope that isn't the case.
But if it were then it is misplaced. The clergy abuse issues are critically ones of organisational failure to deal with abuse, and further seemingly to collude to prevent reputational damage. This goes way beyond individual wrong-doing and of course cannot be closed down when individuals accused of abuse have died as the organisation remains, and therefore remains to be robustly investigated for institutional failures and wrong-doing with damages potential due to victims from the organisation well after the accused individual is dead and cannot face individual charges.
An what odds are you offering that the Catholic Church is going to change its ruling that it answers only to its God in these matters!?
-
An what odds are you offering that the Catholic Church is going to change its ruling that it answers only to its God in these matters!?
Hopefully, those people in the Catholic Church who helped paedophile priests evade justice will be answering only to their god from inside a prison cell. I'm not holding my breath though.
-
Hopefully, those people in the Catholic Church who helped paedophile priests evade justice will be answering only to their god from inside a prison cell. I'm not holding my breath though.
Me too neither!
-
Nor me!
-
Reading about Cyril Smith, makes you realize why the police are determined not to let anyone off the hook now, even if they're dead. Smith was arrested several times, and then released, despite strong evidence incriminating him; information about his abuse of children was gathered by a detective, and then mysteriously disappeared; police enquiries about him go back to 1970, and then of course, he was knighted in 1988. There is a strong stink about this case, and it seems likely that any investigation about him was suspended from higher up, although by whom exactly, is not known.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41547471
-
Reading about Cyril Smith, makes you realize why the police are determined not to let anyone off the hook now, even if they're dead. Smith was arrested several times, and then released, despite strong evidence incriminating him; information about his abuse of children was gathered by a detective, and then mysteriously disappeared; police enquiries about him go back to 1970, and then of course, he was knighted in 1988. There is a strong stink about this case, and it seems likely that any investigation about him was suspended from higher up, although by whom exactly, is not known.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41547471
It is sickening how many men in the public eye died without having the sexual abuse allegations thoroughly investigated. >:(
-
Yes it is. I saw Cyril Smith on the news this evening - at least an old newsreel of him. He got away with it for years, like many others, in a culture of cover ups, though why anyone thought Smith was worth covering up I do not know.
There was a programme on BBC 1 tonight about sexual abuse perpetrated by school kids - teenagers I presume. I might watch it on iplayer if I can't sleep. Sexual abuse by people you know is far more common than the cases that make the headlines.
-
Yes it is. I saw Cyril Smith on the news this evening - at least an old newsreel of him. He got away with it for years, like many others, in a culture of cover ups, though why anyone thought Smith was worth covering up I do not know.
It was not a cover-up for the benefit of Cyril Smith, unfortunately.
It was geared to protect anyone in parliament, the Civil Service, the military, the clergy and the entire aristocracy from top to bottom.
One of the instruments of that covering up was Freemasonary, the Brotherhood.
I know of one child, under sixteen at the time, who was raped several times, and his attacker warned him to keep his trap shut because his attacker was a freemason and, he told his victim, so were most police officers, most doctors, most lawyers and most judges, who had sworn a "sacred and binding oath" to protect all their Bretheren against all comers low and high who were not of the Brotherhood.
-
I recall hearing of an incident (most likely, though, to be apocryphal) of an accused man (possibly for murder) giving the judge a secret masonic gesture and receiving a reply stating that that would not help him here.
I am wary of stories of the believed protection of Freemasonry in such circumstances. If only because a non-masonic policeman, prosecutor, judge - whatever - could readily construct a charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. I wonder if the assailant in Owlswing's case wasn't merely using it as a frightener, and was not actually a member of the masons?
-
ALL cases of sexual abuse should be investigated, whether they took place many years ago or today. I wish my husband's uncle by marriage, who abused him when he was a small boy, had been made to face a court of law. My father-in-law had words with him, and my husband wasn't abused by him again. However, that evil piece of the proverbial worked as a clown for kids parties, which gave him plenty of opportunity to touch kids up.
Does your husband know you are talking about his personal issues on a public forum?
I am sorry to hear your husband was the victim of any type of abuse.
Your Father-in-law allowed him to carry on as a clown and did nothing to keep other children safe?
Neglectful in his parenting role and in his duty to the safety of other Children. Would never let him near my children or my home and family again.
-
So you have no interest in justice for the victim then.
How do you propose you get justice if the person dead?
How do you propose to tell who is telling the truth?
So the truth is you have no real justified reason for writing such a thing but the same prejudicial glasses you look through when the reply comes from a believer.
Common sense tells you that justice cannot be obtained if the perpetrator is dead.
How do you propose to prove or un-prove the allegations? At this stage it is just allegations. What about justice for the
person whose name could be being marred if innocent.
Historic child abuse against a dead person can bring no justice for either party. The said Perpertrator or the said victim.
You going to dig Ted Heath up and put him on trial?
One thing I am assured about, is that one day everyone will know when Christ returned and the people are judged what they did and did not do.
Abhorrent acts such as child abuse can never be seen as anything but an act of pure evil. Justice and truth is something everyone is entitled to. But sometimes the truth is that no justice is served or truth when it cannot be taken to court and a jury given chance to produce a verdict over the evidence.
So I have interest in Justice for everyone including the dead and the living.
But you and I, we both know their is no justice where the perpetrator is dead.
-
Hopefully, those people in the Catholic Church who helped paedophile priests evade justice will be answering only to their god from inside a prison cell. I'm not holding my breath though.
Why is everyone calling the Roman Catholic Church the Catholic Church.
The Church of England and Rome are CHRISTIAN churches. Catholic is a word which means 'universal' everywhere.
Hence both Churches are Catholic and both Christian.
I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church and have no interest in it's clergy who stand accused of abuse getting off with anything.
It is sick that people even in 'goading' could suggest such horrible things about innocent people because they are not capable of producing a good argument against the other persons posts. I have always been clear that I hold no truck with persons who abuse Children. I believe Justice is for all and innocent people should not go to prison if they did not wrong.
Dead people cannot defend themselves. BUT it appears justice is sometimes mocked for making the right stands.
-
Yes it is. I saw Cyril Smith on the news this evening - at least an old newsreel of him. He got away with it for years, like many others, in a culture of cover ups, though why anyone thought Smith was worth covering up I do not know.
There was a programme on BBC 1 tonight about sexual abuse perpetrated by school kids - teenagers I presume. I might watch it on iplayer if I can't sleep. Sexual abuse by people you know is far more common than the cases that make the headlines.
So the program proved he did it?
There was forensic evidence to prove he did what he was accused of doing?
At first I was drawn in with the allegations. Personally, I believe the amount of people accused, there was no way it would have been contained, people had to be turning blind eyes. But who given the way we are today would have turned a blind eye to child abuse. Floo was saying her Father-in-law appeared to do just that. Not warning other parents or going to the police.
Shame can be misplaced and keep people quiet, but what caused this sudden historic and large rise in sexual allegations against Children from prominent figures in society?
-
It was not a cover-up for the benefit of Cyril Smith, unfortunately.
It was geared to protect anyone in parliament, the Civil Service, the military, the clergy and the entire aristocracy from top to bottom.
One of the instruments of that covering up was Freemasonary, the Brotherhood.
I know of one child, under sixteen at the time, who was raped several times, and his attacker warned him to keep his trap shut because his attacker was a freemason and, he told his victim, so were most police officers, most doctors, most lawyers and most judges, who had sworn a "sacred and binding oath" to protect all their Bretheren against all comers low and high who were not of the Brotherhood.
The Masons do not use their power or brotherhood to pervert the course of justice. If you commit a crime you do the time.
-
I recall hearing of an incident (most likely, though, to be apocryphal) of an accused man (possibly for murder) giving the judge a secret masonic gesture and receiving a reply stating that that would not help him here.
I am wary of stories of the believed protection of Freemasonry in such circumstances. If only because a non-masonic policeman, prosecutor, judge - whatever - could readily construct a charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. I wonder if the assailant in Owlswing's case wasn't merely using it as a frightener, and was not actually a member of the masons?
Oh he was a member all right, as were his father-in-law and three of his sons.
-
How do you propose you get justice if the person dead?
How do you propose to tell who is telling the truth?
So the truth is you have no real justified reason for writing such a thing but the same prejudicial glasses you look through when the reply comes from a believer.
Common sense tells you that justice cannot be obtained if the perpetrator is dead.
How do you propose to prove or un-prove the allegations? At this stage it is just allegations. What about justice for the
person whose name could be being marred if innocent.
Historic child abuse against a dead person can bring no justice for either party. The said Perpertrator or the said victim.
You going to dig Ted Heath up and put him on trial?
One thing I am assured about, is that one day everyone will know when Christ returned and the people are judged what they did and did not do.
Abhorrent acts such as child abuse can never be seen as anything but an act of pure evil. Justice and truth is something everyone is entitled to. But sometimes the truth is that no justice is served or truth when it cannot be taken to court and a jury given chance to produce a verdict over the evidence.
So I have interest in Justice for everyone including the dead and the living.
But you and I, we both know their is no justice where the perpetrator is dead.
Maybe the word "closure" should be substituted foir the word "justice" in these cases?
-
The Masons do not use their power or brotherhood to pervert the course of justice. If you commit a crime you do the time.
Rubbish!
You are female and know even less than I do, a male, about the inner workings of Freemasonry a chauvenistic male-on!y SECRET organisation!
If you do know anything about their innerworkings someone has broken a sacred oath taken at initiation.
Please pull your "I-know-everything" head in on this one!
-
So the program proved he did it?
There was forensic evidence to prove he did what he was accused of doing?
At first I was drawn in with the allegations. Personally, I believe the amount of people accused, there was no way it would have been contained, people had to be turning blind eyes. But who given the way we are today would have turned a blind eye to child abuse. Floo was saying her Father-in-law appeared to do just that. Not warning other parents or going to the police.
Shame can be misplaced and keep people quiet, but what caused this sudden historic and large rise in sexual allegations against Children from prominent figures in society?
You seem to be defending alleged child abusers! >:(
-
You seem to be defending alleged child abusers! >:(
I'd have thought that defending alleged child abusers is exactly what the law allows and demands.
-
So the program proved he did it?
There was forensic evidence to prove he did what he was accused of doing?
At first I was drawn in with the allegations. Personally, I believe the amount of people accused, there was no way it would have been contained, people had to be turning blind eyes. But who given the way we are today would have turned a blind eye to child abuse. Floo was saying her Father-in-law appeared to do just that. Not warning other parents or going to the police.
Shame can be misplaced and keep people quiet, but what caused this sudden historic and large rise in sexual allegations against Children from prominent figures in society?
It's partly the realization of how many abuse victims were historically abused and told to shut up. I think some of Savile's victims had this done, and many victims of priests and teachers. So the various authorities are trying to reverse this trend, by taking accusations seriously. I think it's OK, as long as it's done equally, I mean, Fred the plumber will be investigated just as much as Lord Unzipmyfly.
-
It's partly the realization of how many abuse victims were historically abused and told to shut up. I think some of Savile's victims had this done, and many victims of priests and teachers. So the various authorities are trying to reverse this trend, by taking accusations seriously. I think it's OK, as long as it's done equally, I mean, Fred the plumber will be investigated just as much as Lord Unzipmyfly.
All sex abuse allegations should receive equal serious attention from the authorities
-
All sex abuse allegations should receive equal serious attention from the authorities
The most important word in your post is "SHOULD" - however its importance is not necessarily going to make it happen.
-
The most important word in your post is "SHOULD" - however its importance is not necessarily going to make it happen.
So the allegation that Richard the Third sexually abused the Princes in the Tower should receive equally serious attention as that your child is being abused by a teacher?
-
Sassy I haven't seen a programme devoted to Cyril Smith abuse, only news reports, some of them a while back but the story is back in the news now. The programme I mentioned was a documentary on BBC1 about kids being abused by other kids. I did watch it and wished I hadn't, it was upsetting.
(Catholic with a small 'c' (catholic)means universal; with a Capital C it means the Catholic Church.)
-
I recall hearing of an incident (most likely, though, to be apocryphal) of an accused man (possibly for murder) giving the judge a secret masonic gesture and receiving a reply stating that that would not help him here.
I have relatives who are Free Masons. Using Masonic connections in that way is, according to them, strictly prohibited. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen, but the Masons I know would have had him expelled.
I am wary of stories of the believed protection of Freemasonry in such circumstances. If only because a non-masonic policeman, prosecutor, judge - whatever - could readily construct a charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. I wonder if the assailant in Owlswing's case wasn't merely using it as a frightener, and was not actually a member of the masons?
It goes further than the legal system. You're also not supposed to use Masonic connections to procure an advantage in business either. I think a lot of the stories you hear about the Masons are made up.
-
... apart from the one about Jack the Ripper being a Mason, which is 100% true.
-
Why is everyone calling the Roman Catholic Church the Catholic Church.
The Church of England and Rome are CHRISTIAN churches. Catholic is a word which means 'universal' everywhere.
Hence both Churches are Catholic and both Christian.
In your head, just pretend that everywhere I write "Catholic" by itself, I have actually written "Roman Catholic". By the way, the Roman Catholic Church would not describe the C of E as catholic.
I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church and have no interest in it's clergy who stand accused of abuse getting off with anything.
Good for you. However, your denial is not really necessary, it never occurred to me that you did approve of the Roman Catholic Church's actions.
-
Maybe the word "closure" should be substituted foir the word "justice" in these cases?
Yes. I think so.
-
I have relatives who are Free Masons. Using Masonic connections in that way is, according to them, strictly prohibited. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen, but the Masons I know would have had him expelled.
It goes further than the legal system. You're also not supposed to use Masonic connections to procure an advantage in business either. I think a lot of the stories you hear about the Masons are made up.
I agree totally with your summation of the situation - but I would ask this - if a person in authority over an under-age child, a child who had been subjected to a multiple rape by that person in authority, told the child that the Brotherhood would protect the perpetrator what are the chances of the victim knowing that the truth was otherwise.
-
I agree totally with your summation of the situation - but I would ask this - if a person in authority over an under-age child, a child who had been subjected to a multiple rape by that person in authority, told the child that the Brotherhood would protect the perpetrator what are the chances of the victim knowing that the truth was otherwise.
Pretty much zero I think.
I can't comment about what Freemasonry was like in the past, only what it is like today. Also, even if a freemason pedophile would not use his position to escape justice, there's nothing to stop him from telling the victim otherwise and relying on the popular perception of the Freemasons to keep the victim quiet.
By the way, freemasonry is a lot more open than it used to be. They have events that are open to guests and if you ask one, they'll probably be glad to show you round their temple. Also, there's a whole masonic order for women.
-
Pretty much zero I think.
I can't comment about what Freemasonry was like in the past, only what it is like today. Also, even if a freemason pedophile would not use his position to escape justice, there's nothing to stop him from telling the victim otherwise and relying on the popular perception of the Freemasons to keep the victim quiet.
By the way, freemasonry is a lot more open than it used to be. They have events that are open to guests and if you ask one, they'll probably be glad to show you round their temple. Also, there's a whole masonic order for women.
The incident that I was referring to happened about fifty-five/sixty years ago - there or thereabouts.
-
I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church and have no interest in it's clergy who stand accused of abuse getting off with anything.
Nor am I a member of the RCC but that doesn't stop me being concerned about justice for the victims. The notion that you are only interested in crimes where the accused is 'a bit like you' is bizarre.
-
At first I was drawn in with the allegations. Personally, I believe the amount of people accused, there was no way it would have been contained, people had to be turning blind eyes.
Is there a tipping point at which an event becomes too big to be viable to contain?
What would that number of people involved be, roughly, do you think?
-
A lowlife creep called Richard Hillgrove of a PR firm, defended Harvey Weinstein on the Victoria Derbyshire show this morning. He said there was nothing criminal about Weinstein's behaviour, as it was par for the course in Hollywood! >:(
-
A lowlife creep called Richard Hillgrove of a PR firm, defended Harvey Weinstein on the Victoria Derbyshire show this morning. He said there was nothing criminal about Weinstein's behaviour, as it was par for the course in Hollywood! >:(
He's been accused of rape. We'll see how that goes and then talk about who's a criminal.
Anyway, the "what is legal" line and the "what makes you an arsehole" line are not the same thing.
-
He's been accused of rape. We'll see how that goes and then talk about who's a criminal.
Anyway, the "what is legal" line and the "what makes you an arsehole" line are not the same thing.
Sexual harassment isn't legal is it?
-
Sexual harassment isn't legal is it?
In some circumstances it's difficult to prove.
A man acts in such a way that makes a woman feel sufficiently uncomfortable to feel sexually harrassed, but doesn't do anything explicitly stated as illegal. No one denies that that's how she feels (and shouldn't have to feel that way), but that's going to end up as a he-said-she-said tournament. Tricky. Hence JP's comment: "The "what is legal" line and the "what makes you an arsehole" line are not the same thing."
Although laws surrounding sexual harassment exist, they generally do not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or minor isolated incidents — that is, they do not impose a "general civility code" [...] The legal and social understanding of sexual harassment [...] varies by culture.
I think it's close to impossible for any written law(s) to include every possible instance of where someone feels harassed in a sexual manner. People are too variable.
-
Sexual harassment isn't legal is it?
You might have misunderstood what I meant. I'm not defending this Richard Hillgrove, I'm pointing out that, at least some of, the accusations are of rape. I think it is incredible that anybody would claim that nothing Weinstein did was illegal. And yes, I'm sure some forms of sexual harassment are illegal in the States.
My second point was that "he did nothing illegal" isn't really much of a defence. Whether what he did was illegal or not, he's still an arsehole.
-
My second point was that "he did nothing illegal" isn't really much of a defence. Whether what he did was illegal or not, he's still an arsehole.
Which alas has never been illegal.
-
Which alas has never been illegal.
If it was illegal, I think most of us would have seen the inside of a prison cell at some point in our lives.
-
I had no time for heath as a Tory, but most of these accusations have been dismissed as nonsense, and I expect that the rest will be in time. It is worth noting that the first person to accuse heath of sexual assault was David Icke in the late 90s, when heath was still alive. He also accused heath of being a 12-foot long shape-shifting lizard, which is probably why Heath decided not to sue for slander: it would have been taking Icke seriously. (Ickis is obviously mentally ill, and deserves sympathy rather than riducule, but he should not be taken seriously on his own terms.)
-
I agree with you Pease. People are all too ready to jump on bandwagon.
-
Maybe the word "closure" should be substituted foir the word "justice" in these cases?
That is true Owlswing,
There is no closure for anyone and it is sad that those hurting have no Justice.
-
Rubbish!
You are female and know even less than I do, a male, about the inner workings of Freemasonry a chauvenistic male-on!y SECRET organisation!
My Father-in-law a mason. Have repaired his Apron on a couple of occasions. As for being a female. Their are now female lodges
in the masonic lodges. But when they started out they could only have one female per occupation unlike the men who had several members of any line of work.
If you do know anything about their inner-workings someone has broken a sacred oath taken at initiation.
Females have worked within the male lodges for many years. My grandmother and my aunt are such females. Neither broke
any rules. But there are known masons of old who have spoke out about the order but I am not sure about the grand order.
Please pull your "I-know-everything" head in on this one!
I have some knowledge and no one is " I-Know-Everything" but what I speak about comes from personal experience
and much studying through internet exposure and even news on tv.
They have ceremony that is true for induction into the order. Shown on TV what happens as they are lead in blind-folded and also have to swear an oath of allegiance and secrecy. Secret handshakes etc. But in truth there is alot once hidden now known because people who left revealed what they should not and it became public knowledge.
-
It's partly the realization of how many abuse victims were historically abused and told to shut up. I think some of Savile's victims had this done, and many victims of priests and teachers. So the various authorities are trying to reverse this trend, by taking accusations seriously. I think it's OK, as long as it's done equally, I mean, Fred the plumber will be investigated just as much as Lord Unzipmyfly.
Hi Wigs,
I believe there would have to have been an enormous cover up for so much to have been allowed to go on.
My own parents would have over-turned every stone to get anyone responsible for hurting one of us, had it been the case.
I find it very difficult to understand what other adults were doing to allow such a wide scale of harm to children to go on and not speaking out.
Whether celebrity, priest or joe bloggs, all should be persued with the same vigorous action to bring them to justice.
It seems so vast for them to have got away with it so long. WHO can be trusted?
-
Hi Wigs,
I believe there would have to have been an enormous cover up for so much to have been allowed to go on.
My own parents would have over-turned every stone to get anyone responsible for hurting one of us, had it been the case.
I find it very difficult to understand what other adults were doing to allow such a wide scale of harm to children to go on and not speaking out.
Whether celebrity, priest or joe bloggs, all should be persued with the same vigorous action to bring them to justice.
It seems so vast for them to have got away with it so long. WHO can be trusted?
But they have got away with it, even when complaints have been made! Complaints were made about that evil turd, Saville, from as early as 1959, yet a blind eye was turned as it was convenient to do so! >:(
-
That is true Owlswing,
There is no closure for anyone and it is sad that those hurting have no Justice.
Just a little more pedantry from me - "justice" is a process, not an outcome. Justice is the means by which closure may be obtained. it is also a process which may lead to a totally different conclusion.
-
Just a little more pedantry from me - "justice" is a process, not an outcome. Justice is the means by which closure may be obtained. it is also a process which may lead to a totally different conclusion.
Yes - it might and if the accuser really was the vistim the conclusion has, at various times, been suicide or mental collapse.