Sal Paradise wrote:I am not sure this is quite right - just because you are not believed or you cannot provide evidence that is greater than your word against someone else's doesn't mean you haven't received justice. In many of the cases the alleged victims couldn't say when or where the abuse occured - if you were a defendant how do you deal with that? We should be very careful when naming people without real evidence. Dave Jones the soccer manager is a classic example of high profile individual who will be forever blighted by a false accusation of this nature. I have no idea and nor do any of us on here as to exactly what went on in Wrexham - if it can be proved correctly that abuse of minors did occur those responsible should have the full weight of the law thrown at them, regardless of their social status. I completely agree about not just naming people casually. The Waterhouse Inquiry reached a conclusion that abuse had occurred, but (IIRC) it was decided that names would not be published or prosecutions made in order that people would be more ready to give evidence. There are some interesting things here, in a letter from 2000, by Simon Regan, the (now deceased) co-founder of Scallywag, which did it's own investigation into the issues. One of the points he made is that prosecutions are difficult, not least because victims tend to be unreliable witness, simply because they're so damaged emotionally and mentally and, when faced with rather good QCs, are unlikely to be able to 'compete'.

Sal Paradise wrote:I am not sure this is quite right - just because you are not believed or you cannot provide evidence that is greater than your word against someone else's doesn't mean you haven't received justice. In many of the cases the alleged victims couldn't say when or where the abuse occured - if you were a defendant how do you deal with that? We should be very careful when naming people without real evidence. Dave Jones the soccer manager is a classic example of high profile individual who will be forever blighted by a false accusation of this nature. I have no idea and nor do any of us on here as to exactly what went on in Wrexham - if it can be proved correctly that abuse of minors did occur those responsible should have the full weight of the law thrown at them, regardless of their social status. I completely agree about not just naming people casually. The Waterhouse Inquiry reached a conclusion that abuse had occurred, but (IIRC) it was decided that names would not be published or prosecutions made in order that people would be more ready to give evidence. There are some interesting things here, in a letter from 2000, by Simon Regan, the (now deceased) co-founder of Scallywag, which did it's own investigation into the issues. One of the points he made is that prosecutions are difficult, not least because victims tend to be unreliable witness, simply because they're so damaged emotionally and mentally and, when faced with rather good QCs, are unlikely to be able to 'compete'.

On the Cameron/Schofield incident the problem is that a number of the internet rumours about senior Tories being paedophiles are pointing at people who are either known to be gay or are openly gay, and Cameron will know this like anyone else who has really been paying attention. It may surprise some people, but I read a quote from Stonewall fairly recently which pointed out that the Conservative Party has more openly gay MPs than all the other parties put together, and there are plenty of other high profile figures who are openly gay. So when Cameron says he’s worried about a witch hunt against gay people in particular, it’s not because he is linking gay people and paedophiles, it is because the rumours flying around, consciously or not, appear to be doing this. So I think some people today criticising him in the media for linking two separate issues probably haven’t worked this out and see it as an easy opportunity to put the boot in.

On the related subject of public inquiries It’s become something of a political fad to call for public inquiries into just about everything and anything, and the public is now buying into this rather hollow form of gesture politics as a serious response. It’s almost a stock call to every issue that arises now, and if authorities don’t do it immediately then critics claim they’re hiding something. What most people don’t understand is that public inquiries cost massive amounts of money, even small ones cost millions, with all the consultants, lawyers, researchers, professional quangocrats etc… and if you rush into them to show something is being done (booty covering) then same critics who wanted a knee jerk inquiry will claim they’re flawed or a whitewash and demand yet another inquiry, all the while the consultants and lawyers rub their hands together. So having inquiries is fine if they are carefully considered once the initial heat dies down, but the knee-jerk “we must order an inquiry” line is an expensive token gesture.

I've mentioned exactly the same today elsewhere. I think everyone on here knows I'm not Camerons biggest fan but I do think he's getting some unfair stick over this. Anyone with half a brain could understand what he was trying to get at. It would be quite easy for me to jump on the bandwagon and call him like some are as its been quite easy to do over the last 2 years, but in all fairness it wouldn't be right in this case. I can't believe I'm about to say this but ... cut him some slack people!

Mintball wrote:I completely agree about not just naming people casually. The Waterhouse Inquiry reached a conclusion that abuse had occurred, but (IIRC) it was decided that names would not be published or prosecutions made in order that people would be more ready to give evidence. There are some interesting things here, in a letter from 2000, by Simon Regan, the (now deceased) co-founder of Scallywag, which did it's own investigation into the issues. One of the points he made is that prosecutions are difficult, not least because victims tend to be unreliable witness, simply because they're so damaged emotionally and mentally and, when faced with rather good QCs, are unlikely to be able to 'compete'. The Regan report is shocking, but this http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/carers2.html also shows what can happen when the pendulum swings too far the other way. In the wake of the Savile disclosures there appears to be a collective feeling of guilt that accusations by abused children have not been taken seriously. Its quite right that cases should be re-opened where the evidence justifies it. But there does seem to be a risk that innocent people will be villified simply because in the current climate its not the done thing to doubt the accusers.

Mintball wrote:I completely agree about not just naming people casually. The Waterhouse Inquiry reached a conclusion that abuse had occurred, but (IIRC) it was decided that names would not be published or prosecutions made in order that people would be more ready to give evidence. There are some interesting things here, in a letter from 2000, by Simon Regan, the (now deceased) co-founder of Scallywag, which did it's own investigation into the issues. One of the points he made is that prosecutions are difficult, not least because victims tend to be unreliable witness, simply because they're so damaged emotionally and mentally and, when faced with rather good QCs, are unlikely to be able to 'compete'. The Regan report is shocking, but this http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/carers2.html also shows what can happen when the pendulum swings too far the other way. In the wake of the Savile disclosures there appears to be a collective feeling of guilt that accusations by abused children have not been taken seriously. Its quite right that cases should be re-opened where the evidence justifies it. But there does seem to be a risk that innocent people will be villified simply because in the current climate its not the done thing to doubt the accusers.

Conspiracy 'nutter' David Icke was quite openly stating that Jimmy Saville was a paedophile and necrophiliac over five years ago.

Oh how I laughed at Icke's claims of a countrywide paedophile ring consisting of high ranking members of our society, all protected from any prosecution by their masonic connections. Now I'm thinking WTF he might have been right all along!

Not sure about KF's and HWS's comments on gay MPs. At the end of the day, being gay and a paedophile are not mutually exclusive. If people are being rumoured as paedophiles they should still be investigated with rigour and not exempted because they are gay. Indeed, in the North Wales case the victims were boys, arguably making it more likely that the perpetrators were gay?

Cibaman wrote:The Regan report is shocking, but this http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/carers2.html also shows what can happen when the pendulum swings too far the other way. In the wake of the Savile disclosures there appears to be a collective feeling of guilt that accusations by abused children have not been taken seriously. Its quite right that cases should be re-opened where the evidence justifies it. But there does seem to be a risk that innocent people will be villified simply because in the current climate its not the done thing to doubt the accusers. A lot of the allegations relate to events some years ago, and it's probably fair to say that things have changed a lot since – from the founding of Childline in 1986, for instance. Some of the stuff flying around on the internet at present may have roots in homophobia or simply in 'I dislike X and will try to tar them with the abuse brush'.

Cibaman wrote:The Regan report is shocking, but this http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/carers2.html also shows what can happen when the pendulum swings too far the other way. In the wake of the Savile disclosures there appears to be a collective feeling of guilt that accusations by abused children have not been taken seriously. Its quite right that cases should be re-opened where the evidence justifies it. But there does seem to be a risk that innocent people will be villified simply because in the current climate its not the done thing to doubt the accusers. A lot of the allegations relate to events some years ago, and it's probably fair to say that things have changed a lot since – from the founding of Childline in 1986, for instance. Some of the stuff flying around on the internet at present may have roots in homophobia or simply in 'I dislike X and will try to tar them with the abuse brush'.

Oh how the rest of us laugh at someone pretending that a man who believes that the world is ruled by a secret group of giant lizards has a shred of credibility.



Unfortunately, some bigots will try to use the abuse of children and young people to suit their bigoted agenda.

Oh, how ridiculous.

Here ...