green Posted November 11, 2012 Author Share Posted November 11, 2012 Or was he. Perhaps he just made it up. Its a matter of public record that Steve Messham was abused as a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis 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. You didn't answer my point about your contradicting yourself. As for the point you did raise above, you originally mentioned some form of vigilante justice which could take many forms, from one person to a mob and risks targetting the wrong people. You'd be better off exposing why the abuse had been swept under the carpet in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Its a matter of public record that Steve Messham was abused as a child. As my reply has been deleted it seems I'm not allowed to question your statement. It seems however that others can. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231212/A-victim-delusions-Astonishing-story-BBC-DIDNT-tell-troubled-star-witness.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 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? How about I ask you something. I don't know if you have children, if not imagine you'd been abused. but what would you do if say your daughter or son told you a teacher at school had raped them, you know your kid isn't lying, but the authorities don't take you seriously, or even if they do but can't provide the evidence to take the person to court? Wouldn't you be inclined to do something about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 You didn't answer my point about your contradicting yourself. As for the point you did raise above, you originally mentioned some form of vigilante justice which could take many forms, from one person to a mob and risks targetting the wrong people. You'd be better off exposing why the abuse had been swept under the carpet in the first place. I don't see any contradiction, I think you're being deliberately awkward and suggesting I'm saying something I'm not. Same old bunch playing games. Think what you like , I'm done explaining it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 Or was he. Perhaps he just made it up. I really cannot believe you posted that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 As my reply has been deleted it seems I'm not allowed to question your statement. It seems however that others can. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231212/A-victim-delusions-Astonishing-story-BBC-DIDNT-tell-troubled-star-witness.html Thanks for the link. Take particular notice of this bit before you post any more stupid stuff: In his first police statement, on March 30, 1992, he said he was physically assaulted by three people, indecently assaulted by two male care workers, Peter Howarth and Stephen Norris, and that two female care workers had sex with him. Both Howarth and Norris subsequently stood trial and were convicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 I don't see any contradiction, I think you're being deliberately awkward and suggesting I'm saying something I'm not. Same old bunch playing games. Think what you like , I'm done explaining it. Lets just quote your message which started this line: Quote: Originally Posted by green I fear the circus is being used to cover a few peoples back. Seems that way doesn't it. They are so good at it, I'll give them that. The problem is people might seek their own justice if they don't get it from the authorities. I would. No mention of "me and my own" in that. It certainly comes across to me, and apparently others, that you are referring to anyone you believe has escaped justice, not just those who had hypothetically abused you or members of your family. There are plenty of ways available these days to the man on the street to 'out' criminals they have identified, which the powers that be have very (too?) little control over. The problem comes when identities are mistaken. Imagine what damage could have been caused to numerous families if a group had decided last week to issue some vigilante justice on McAlpine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 In his first police statement, on March 30, 1992, he said he was physically assaulted by three people, indecently assaulted by two male care workers, Peter Howarth and Stephen Norris, and that two female care workers had sex with him. Both Howarth and Norris subsequently stood trial and were convicted. This is a long way from a paedophile ring within government being covered up, which is what all the furore has been about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 11, 2012 Share Posted November 11, 2012 This is a long way from a paedophile ring within government being covered up, which is what all the furore has been about. The post you refer to was to point out a serious error another poster made. Take it in the context it was meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.