embotr Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I've probably only got one last thing to say bout it all, which is... a) There was a large paedo ring just in my own small village in the late 60's, early 70's...fortunately only spending 3 months/year there & being too young to even leave the house unattended, neither I nor my brother were ever ensared or whatever...but you add in all this Savile thing...and I cannot but help but think it was a huge issue going on during that time, yet un-punished & a lot brushed under the carpet...like all this grooming stuff in Rochdale & elswhere was, deliberately, until recently. b) It's a shame that the only ones willing to debate a very real issue publicly are either paranoid about lizards taking over the world, or outright racists...if googling any of these subjects is anything to go by. But then again I'm not an idiot...and know that's how minority extreme organisations advance...by capitalising on, & exploiting issues being ignored or covered up by the mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 It all depends on how accurate this "list" is. Schofield himself said he found it after a few seconds of trawling the internet which has no degree of accuracy or accountability whatsoever. A couple of weeks ago the BBC reported about a young actor in trouble for sexually abusing a 14 year old boy in a theatre. A quick Google brought me six names on various forums, but only one was correct. How would you feel if you were famous but completely innocent and Schofield wrote your name down in that list simply because someone on that forum didn't like you or your work and decided to have a bit of anonymous fun? if they have done nothing wrong they shouldnt have anything to worry about. if they are innocent they will sue for thousands anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purdy Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 if they have done nothing wrong they shouldnt have anything to worry about. if they are innocent they will sue for thousands anyway. You can only sue for thousands if the folk who are spreading false rumours have thousands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 This was my feeling too. He admitted on live TV that he researched and wrote this list. Let's see if he backtracks and says someone else did, which exposes him as a liar at the very least. I'm sure if I googled "Schofield" "Paedo" and "nonce" I could find a wealth of sites and information accusing him of unsavoury things. It really does come to something when someone thinks a trawl of social network sites might bring up "evidence" worth confronting the PM with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Yes as i said before,it does no favour to victims when false allegations are made by someone. I'm not sure if we can mention the name so i won't, but hearing about a Lord who is devastated after being wrongly accused and has had his name all over the internet is terrible. It may result in the real guilty ones continuing to get away with these crimes because of these type of false reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 I would remind users that this forum is classed as a publication in the eyes of the law, posts made here are not legally regarded as ephemeral or of limited scope like a chat with a friend in a pub, they can be read world wide. Posts making derogatory or inflammatory comments about a living person, may subsequently be read by that person and if that causes them offence they can take the person making the derogatory and inflammatory comments to court. How does it work with the forum? Does SF share any of the responsibility for the posts on the site, or is it only the poster who is responsible? It makes more sense to me if only the poster of a 'derogatory and inflammatory comment' is held responsible. I think that's the way it's been working whenever people are taken to court for posting illegal stuff on Facebook, Twitter and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 How does it work with the forum? Does SF share any of the responsibility for the posts on the site, or is it only the poster who is responsible? It makes more sense to me if only the poster of a 'derogatory and inflammatory comment' is held responsible. I think that's the way it's been working whenever people are taken to court for posting illegal stuff on Facebook, Twitter and the like. As esme said it's the person who makes the post who can be sued for posting illegal content. However if the forum refused to remove alledged illegal or defamatory content when requested then I think they would be regarded as a willing publisher and jointly liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Given the case of mistaken identity with the tory peer confirmed by the accuser today who has unreservedly appoligised I think the forums cautious stance about naming names seems pretty sensible. This should be a matter for the police, not online speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 The guy who accused Lord McAlpine is now saying that he was entirely mistaken and he has no evidence he is a child abuser. It does seem to me that people have been trying to make political capital out of this and people on the left wing have been far too quick to be gleeful and rub their hands over this. It now appears this may have been extremely premature..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Given the case of mistaken identity with the tory peer confirmed by the accuser today who has unreservedly appoligised I think the forums cautious stance about naming names seems pretty sensible. This should be a matter for the police, not online speculation. No doubt this will only encourage "conspiracy theorists" to claim Messham has been threatened / bought into silence by the "establishment". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.