Eric Arthur Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 It's being killed off because of a lack of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 The inquiry being killed off slowly. I suspected as much but at least others are saying it. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/18/vip-paedophile-inquiry-being-killed-off-claims-harvey-proctor Well, accused of under aged sex with boys in 1986 and charged with gross indecency, Harvey Proctor would say that wouldn't he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesther Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 How much physical, hard evidence could a 50 odd year old now, be expected to produce of an assault 30+ years ago? How much did the Savile victims produce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 It's being killed off because of a lack of evidence. Today's lunchtime news reports 3 clear opportunities, complete with all the evidence necessary, were missed in efforts to prosecute Janner, before he had any health issues. Why was this? They say 'the victims were seriously let down.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Today's lunchtime news reports 3 clear opportunities, complete with all the evidence necessary, were missed in efforts to prosecute Janner, before he had any health issues. Why was this? They say 'the victims were seriously let down.' The article isn't about Janner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 The article isn't about Janner. Not sure which article you mean. If it's the one about the Inquiry being killed off, that's just Harvey Proctor's opinion, which I've already given a response to. And it goes on to say further stuff has come to light regarding Harvey Proctor which is being investigated. Doesn't sound like it's being killed off to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Not sure which article you mean. If it's the one about the Inquiry being killed off, that's just Harvey Proctor's opinion, which I've already given a response to. And it goes on to say further stuff has come to light regarding Harvey Proctor which is being investigated. Doesn't sound like it's being killed off to me. The one linked in #470, that I responded to in #471, which you replied to in #472. Go and follow the link, read the article, get up to speed with the news and lack of evidence that you're referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 470 is the link to Harvey Proctor's claim, Your link in 471 underlined 'Lack of evidence' leads articles about various miscarriages of justice. If you're referring to the police having 'insufficient evidence to proceed' against Lord Bramall, (who, interestingly enough we probably would never have heard about if it hadn't been for Harvey Proctor spilling the beans and putting his name very forcefully into the public domain,) what of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 #470 refers to an article about Lord Bramall who has been exonerated due to a lack of evidence. God help us if people with your powers of deduction ever get near our legal system. You'll have everyone tested on the ducking stool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 #470 refers to an article about Lord Bramall who has been exonerated due to a lack of evidence. God help us if people with your powers of deduction ever get near our legal system. You'll have everyone tested on the ducking stool. Actually he hasn't been exonerated, he has been the beneficiary of 'insufficient evidence,' which is different in law. That means they can re-open the case should further evidence come to light. I have no opinion about Lord Bramall. Harvey Proctor is a different matter. ---------- Post added 21-01-2016 at 22:50 ---------- In spite of many people 'knowing' about Jimmy Savile, and many complaints to the Police by victims at the time, Jimmy Savile appears to have got away with child abuse for more than 40 years, largely because of a deferential attitude to someone with a high profile and friends in high places. Are we making the same mistakes all over again? Not only that, but Jimmy Savile, it turns out, with his unquestioned access to vulnerable children, was also a procurer of children for the rich and famous. When are they going to find out who was on his client list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now