Never thought Tarbuck was funny.

[Dingus]

In view of what has been revealed about Savile with the shocking revelations and extent of his crimes I welcomed the Operation Yewtree investigation being set up because I thought it was good that the Police were recognising that their failure to act in the past all those years ago when crimes about him and other celebrities were ignored by them was terrible.

 

I started to have reservations about how correct they were operating when they started naming names of the alleged accused and I still feel somewhat uneasy about that even though the Stuart Hall details have been so appalling to hear.

There have to be good reasons for them to be certain they are doing the right think naming people before trial otherwise they are going to be severely criticised for doing so in the future especially if it should come to light an innocent person has been falsely accused, though I don't think that will happen because a case won't go to trial without enough evidence.

The only one reason i'm hoping their procedure is right, is that by doing so future such offences will be prevented.

 

Its so often been highlighted how complacent and less concerned society's attitudes appeared to be with regard to some sexual offences were in the 60s/70s and for some time after, and I think that should be taken into account when viewing these situations, if only to learn from the past and avoid a continuation of that same relaxed attitude.

 

I will hazard a guess that more than half of those who have been accused will never be charged, and in most cases that will be because there isn't a case to answer. But that won't stop many innocent folk having their lives and careers ruined because of allegations that turned out to have no foundation.

Perhaps when the libel cases start and money starts being paid from the public purse to compensate those falsely named for their ruined lives, folk might start see this a little differently.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/15/bbc-lord-mcalpine-compensation-newsnight

 

 

BBC to pay Lord McAlpine £185,000 after false child abuse allegations

 

Former Conservative party treasurer's solicitor says ITV's This Morning is on 'a very long list' of those facing legal action.

 

The BBC said it had "agreed terms with Lord McAlpine to settle his claim of libel against the corporation. The settlement is comprehensive and reflects the gravity of the allegations that were wrongly made"

Earlier on Thursday, McAlpine's lawyer Andrew Reid said ITV's This Morning was top of "a very long list" of those facing legal action from his client over false accusations in relation to child abuse. Also likely to be targeted is Sally Bercow, the wife of Speaker John Bercow, who tweeted the peer's name after the transmission of the Newsnight programme, which did not reveal his name.

[quisquose]

I will hazard a guess that more than half of those who have been accused will never be charged, and in most cases that will be because there isn't a case to answer. But that won't stop many innocent folk having their lives and careers ruined because of allegations that turned out to have no foundation.

Perhaps when the libel cases start and money starts being paid from the public purse to compensate those falsely named for their ruined lives, folk might start see this a little differently.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/15/bbc-lord-mcalpine-compensation-newsnight

 

 

BBC to pay Lord McAlpine £185,000 after false child abuse allegations

 

Former Conservative party treasurer's solicitor says ITV's This Morning is on 'a very long list' of those facing legal action.

 

The BBC said it had "agreed terms with Lord McAlpine to settle his claim of libel against the corporation. The settlement is comprehensive and reflects the gravity of the allegations that were wrongly made"

Earlier on Thursday, McAlpine's lawyer Andrew Reid said ITV's This Morning was top of "a very long list" of those facing legal action from his client over false accusations in relation to child abuse. Also likely to be targeted is Sally Bercow, the wife of Speaker John Bercow, who tweeted the peer's name after the transmission of the Newsnight programme, which did not reveal his name.

 

Why is twitter gossip resulting in the defamation of Lord McAlpine relevant to the discussion on whether the police should be allowed to name people who they have arrested?

 

In hazarding your guess do you mean more than half of those who have been arrested will never be charged? We will never know how many have been accused, and of those arrested a number have already been charged.

[Dingus]

Why is twitter gossip resulting in the defamation of Lord McAlpine relevant to the discussion on whether the police should be allowed to name people who they have arrested?

 

In hazarding your guess do you mean more than half of those who have been arrested will never be charged? We will never know how many have been accused, and of those arrested a number have already been charged.

 

The McAlpine case is very relevant. It is a case where an innocent man had his name flashed around the media when someone falsely accused him of a sexual assault. It could easily have wrecked his life were he not able to demostrate that he was at public events at the time of the alleged incident.

 

Time will tell how many of those whose names have been raked up and whose reputations have been ruined have actually done anything wrong.

 

But a question for you. How would you feel if you were wrongly accused of a sexual offence and you arrived home to find a mob at your door and your photograph on the front page of the papers and on the 6 O'clock news? No charges remember, just someone passing the information into the public knowledge.

[quisquose]

The McAlpine case is very relevant. It is a case where an innocent man had his name flashed around the media when someone falsely accused him of a sexual assault. It could easily have wrecked his life were he not able to demostrate that he was at public events at the time of the alleged incident.

 

Time will tell how many of those whose names have been raked up and whose reputations have been ruined have actually done anything wrong.

 

But a question for you. How would you feel if you were wrongly accused of a sexual offence and you arrived home to find a mob at your door and your photograph on the front page of the papers and on the 6 O'clock news? No charges remember, just someone passing the information into the public knowledge.

 

Twitter (aka the mob) wrongly accused him of sexual assault. That's not the same as the police not choosing to withhold somebody's name when they arrest somebody for a crime. Something they have always had to decide, it's not a recent thing ... it's just become a recent discussion point in the media because celebrities are involved. Just as some used their celebrity to abuse vulnerable people, to commit crimes, some might now use it to be treated differently and escape justice.

 

I would imagine that the police deliberate these decisions at great length, and with concern for the implications. To assume that they want to release names on the back of a single accusation, or because there is some sort of "witch-hunt" against 70's light-entertainment celebrities is rather insulting.

 

Your question to me is rather simplistic, and how peeved I would be is irrelevant to the discussion. The only relevant matter is the balance of harms, there is no right way to investigate these crimes, no one way that should be followed, there is just a least wrong way. This least wrong way gives the police the opportunity to name, or not name, suspects in an attempt to establish truth and reduce overall harms.

 

Again read the letter sent to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown about Stuart Hall. If he'd not been named there would be no evidence against him. There may be some innocent people who have been arrested and named, but there will also be many who have been questioned or arrested and not named.

[skinz]

THIS POST NEED SERIOUS FLAGGING

 

The people that can best protect the next potential victims are the victims, if they don’t report the crime at the time the crime is committed they are allowing an abuser to continue abusing. Reporting it many years later doesn't stop anyone being abused.

 

 

What insidious logic you possess..The best way we can protect our children from abuse is to instill in our children that they must report abuse at the time it happens in order for abuse to stop. Has it ever occurred to that disjointed repellent mentality you're endowed with that the majority of sex/physical abuse takes place under the same roof as the victim and abuser, with the victim being under total control, and the abuser in total control?

 

There is absolutely no illusion to the reason why you perform on this forum. For real safety I do hope for many a sake that you are on the radar of any authoritative body that's looking in on this. If it's a case of amusement for you then I can say you are as dangerous if not more so than a potential abuser.

[MrSmith]

The best way we can protect our children from abuse is to instill in our children that they must report abuse at the time it happens in order for abuse to stop

 

I disagree.

[skinz]

The people that can best protect the next potential victims are the victims, if they don’t report the crime at the time the crime is committed they are allowing an abuser to continue abusing. Reporting it many years later doesn't stop anyone being abused.

 

The best way we can protect our children from abuse is to instill in our children that they must report abuse at the time it happens in order for abuse to stop

 

I disagree.

 

If you disagree then please feel free to explain the differences of the above two statements.

[MrSmith]

If you disagree then please feel free to explain the differences of the above two statements.

 

 

Take them both to school and ask your teacher.

[skinz]

Take them both to school and ask your teacher.

 

You really are dangerous.

[mikem8634]

Twitter (aka the mob) wrongly accused him of sexual assault. That's not the same as the police not choosing to withhold somebody's name when they arrest somebody for a crime. Something they have always had to decide, it's not a recent thing ... it's just become a recent discussion point in the media because celebrities are involved. Just as some used their celebrity to abuse vulnerable people, to commit crimes, some might now use it to be treated differently and escape justice.

 

I would imagine that the police deliberate these decisions at great length, and with concern for the implications. To assume that they want to release names on the back of a single accusation, or because there is some sort of "witch-hunt" against 70's light-entertainment celebrities is rather insulting.

 

Your question to me is rather simplistic, and how peeved I would be is irrelevant to the discussion. The only relevant matter is the balance of harms, there is no right way to investigate these crimes, no one way that should be followed, there is just a least wrong way. This least wrong way gives the police the opportunity to name, or not name, suspects in an attempt to establish truth and reduce overall harms.

 

Again read the letter sent to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown about Stuart Hall. If he'd not been named there would be no evidence against him. There may be some innocent people who have been arrested and named, but there will also be many who have been questioned or arrested and not named.

 

Very well put.