I1L2T3 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Would that include naming the wrong man on national TV. I see George Entwistle has resigned. Perhaps a few others who sought to make capital out of destroying innocent people should consider doing likewise. This is the problem as I see it. Both the alleged abusers and those claiming to have been abused need to be protected while any investigations take place and if not guilty of anything placed in a position where their name is cleared. If we had a judicial system that had been dealing with these issues correctly in the past then Lord mcAlpine would have been unequivocally off the hook. He would have been clearly proved to be not connected years ago, rumours would not have developed and he would not have had to go public in the national media to defend himself. If we had a judicial system that had been dealing with these issues correctly in the past then the victims would not be now seeking to use the media for redress. Remember that the media is manipulative. It needs to sell copy, needs to attract viewers to justify airtime etc... Sometimes it gets the story it wants even when there is no story there. Fundamentally things have to be dealt with in ways that make it clear to everyone there is no cover-up taking place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 This is the problem as I see it. Both the alleged abusers and those claiming to have been abused need to be protected while any investigations take place and if not guilty of anything placed in a position where their name is cleared. If we had a judicial system that had been dealing with these issues correctly in the past then Lord mcAlpine would have been unequivocally off the hook. He would have been clearly proved to be not connected years ago, rumours would not have developed and he would not have had to go public in the national media to defend himself. If we had a judicial system that had been dealing with these issues correctly in the past then the victims would not be now seeking to use the media for redress. Remember that the media is manipulative. It needs to sell copy, needs to attract viewers to justify airtime etc... Sometimes it gets the story it wants even when there is no story there. Fundamentally things have to be dealt with in ways that make it clear to everyone there is no cover-up taking place. I do believe that is exactly what happened and the police seem to agree that the matter was fully investigated years ago. All this blew up because Tom Watson decided to blog insinuations about people and police cover ups all based on no evidence whatsoever. What we should be saying is shouldn't Tom Watson have taken any evidence to the police rather than blurting out a pack of non truths on his blog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 I do believe that is exactly what happened and the police seem to agree that the matter was fully investigated years ago. All this blew up because Tom Watson decided to blog insinuations about people and police cover ups all based on no evidence whatsoever. What we should be saying is shouldn't Tom Watson have taken any evidence to the police rather than blurting out a pack of non truths on his blog? I think he possibly does have evidence. The bit that went wrong is he had nothing on Lord McAlpine. In fact he wasn't even talking about Lord McAlpine. If you read the details of the original Bryn Estyn enquiry two things went wrong that led to problems for Lord McAlpine. One is that it was never clear in the enquiry which of the McAlpine family the allegations related to - but it was easy to put two and two together and work out it was not Lord McApline. Journalists at the time worked it out for themselves which is why there was no media follow-up in that respect. The other thing was that went wrong was a half-baked attempt at secrecy during the enquiry. Lord McAlpine (and others) could easily have been publicly cleared but they weren't. Hence the snowballing rumours over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 I do believe that is exactly what happened and the police seem to agree that the matter was fully investigated years ago ............. Except that Mr Messham (and others) were raped as children, and they are fully convinced that the perpetrators and their accomplices have never been brought to account. There was a cover up. Of and by whom, I don't know. But justice was not served at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Except that Mr Messham (and others) were raped as children, and they are fully convinced that the perpetrators and their accomplices have never been brought to account. There was a cover up. Of and by whom, I don't know. But justice was not served at that time. Or simply perhaps insufficient evidence at the time to identify those responsible (Messham has hardly proved a reliable witness as to the perpetrators). I'm surprised the 4 members of staff convicted of abuse have seemingly never named names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Or simply perhaps insufficient evidence at the time to identify those responsible (Messham has hardly proved a reliable witness as to the perpetrators). I'm surprised the 4 members of staff convicted of abuse have seemingly never named names. Mr Messham might seem unreliable but he is claiming he was repeatedly raped by adults when he was a child. And he has consistently claimed this for a long time, including at the previous enquiries. Don't lose sight of that for a minute. If the person you see now seems a mess you have to step back and question why he is like he is now. He deserves some compassion. Why are you surprised the convicted staff never named names? If there were others it doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Longcol isn't putting anything in your mouth as your foot is in the way. In your first post you said you would. Then you said you're not sure you would. So which is it? The problem with the lynch-mob mentality is that innocent people get named, like McAlpine. Remember the people who attacked a surgery because of the word Paediatrician on the door? That's how thick some people are. If on your minds, saying Id be inclined to seek my own justice if me or mine were abused and it was swept under the carpet, is the same as I'm"going to start lynch mobs for people accused of being paedophiles without any evidence?" and I did say this could be a problem should the authorities be seen to be doing that, then you are weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 If on your minds, saying Id be inclined to seek my own justice if me or mine were abused and it was swept under the carpet, is the same as I'm"going to start lynch mobs for people accused of being paedophiles without any evidence?" and I did say this could be a problem should the authorities be seen to be doing that, then you are weird. What, precisely, does seeking 'your own justice' look like in your view? What will you do if you find someone you're convinced is guilty and the state don't want to know? Kill them? Beat them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted November 11, 2012 Author Share Posted November 11, 2012 Interesting article in the Independent this morning :- The Jillings report: How the truth about North Wales child abuse scandal was suppressed http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-jillings-report-how-the-truth-about-north-wales-child-abuse-scandal-was-suppressed-8303903.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Except that Mr Messham (and others) were raped as children, and they are fully convinced that the perpetrators and their accomplices have never been brought to account. There was a cover up. Of and by whom, I don't know. But justice was not served at that time. Or was he. Perhaps he just made it up. If on your minds, saying Id be inclined to seek my own justice if me or mine were abused and it was swept under the carpet, is the same as I'm"going to start lynch mobs for people accused of being paedophiles without any evidence?" and I did say this could be a problem should the authorities be seen to be doing that, then you are weird. What would you do if someone made false allegations about you being a paedo and you awoke to find a few hundred thugs painting the outside of your house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.