|
Post by aubrey on Oct 9, 2017 13:12:06 GMT
In these cases the accused gets named but the accuser remains anonymous. Look at the cases that Arena illustrated in his link up thread, all those accused men would have had their name and reputation ruined in the court of public opinion, the women who made the complaint remain anonymos I suppose all those women should just get on with it and stop moaning then.
|
|
|
Post by goldelox on Oct 9, 2017 13:15:03 GMT
In these cases the accused gets named but the accuser remains anonymous. Look at the cases that Arena illustrated in his link up thread, all those accused men would have had their name and reputation ruined in the court of public opinion, the women who made the complaint remain anonymos Yes, they should be severely dealt with but reporting rape should be as untraumatic (is that a word?) as possible.
|
|
|
Post by rondetto on Oct 9, 2017 15:23:00 GMT
I bet Wayne Rooney has.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2017 17:08:22 GMT
In these cases the accused gets named but the accuser remains anonymous. Look at the cases that Arena illustrated in his link up thread, all those accused men would have had their name and reputation ruined in the court of public opinion, the women who made the complaint remain anonymos I suppose all those women should just get on with it and stop moaning then. What do you suggest then? Let the present system continue and innocent men be named and shamed. That's not my idea of justice
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Oct 9, 2017 17:26:55 GMT
I don't know. But there has been child abuse and rape, committed by the powerful against the powerless, for years - centuries - and the perpetrators have only rarely been caught.
So we go from, Savile should have been stopped, everyone knew what he was doing (even though there was no evidence that would stand up) to These men are obviously innocent, whatever anyone says, and nothing in between.
It isn't helped by the motives of people who want to use stories like Savile's and Richard's to get at the BBC - They should have stopped Savile, they should have left Cliff alone: even though all there was to go on in both cases was unsubstantiated rumour: in Savile's it was all that was needed and in Richard's it was obviously just gossip.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Oct 9, 2017 19:00:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hild1066 on Oct 10, 2017 11:01:43 GMT
We have to acknowledge that there is no smoke without fire. In a number of these cases the people (victims) were very young at the time the abuse took place. What appears to be the handicap in each of these situations is that the police have to try and put the people together at the scene of the abuse. Prominent people, powerful people have staff who keep diaries, have staff who support them, are able to track their location and whereabouts even going back years. Therefore it is much easier for the police to pass a case to the CPS when the young person was in a traceable location e.g. a children's home, a school or detention centre. Records will show when they were there and which staff were working there. That makes the job for the police so much easier. The alleged victim is in place at the same time as the alleged perpetrator, it also means the police have many more witnesses they can speak too, such as other staff and other young people and also social workers, teachers and families etc. There may also be evidence that the young person complained at the time (as in Savile's case), that their family raised concerns, that other staff did etc. All of this goes towards evidence.
However when you have a person in a private resident e.g. his own home, a friend's home and the alleged victim is brought to that home in a private car it is so much harder to prove that everyone was in the same place at the same time. A young person may only recall that it was over the winter, near their birthday, summer etc. because we are talking about events that happened over a generation ago. They may recall being in summer clothes, it being very hot and the police will ask them about other events e.g. a trip to the beach from the care home - was it before or after. But you can see how difficult this is to pin down. A person in authority will potentially have a diary but how reliable is it, is a work diary going to say what they did at 8pm that evening. Then the police have to look at other witnesses who may have at the time turned a blind eye. Witnesses such as security guards, housekeeping staff, receptionists etc. It takes a long time to pull all of this together and in the end a lot of this can be changed. Just like victims don't want to report to the police; security guards and ex policeman on guard duty etc. do not want to be dragged into it all, therefore it is much easier to say "I don't recall anything like that happening" when asked if they can remember X arriving in a car regularly over the summer of 1978. They should have known who was coming and going, they should have reported anything suspicious, in relation to an ex Prime Minister and similar, they should have had a log of visitors.
So what we have is a situation where the police are not denying that crimes may have taken place and they are not saying that all of the witnesses are unreliable, what they are saying is that piecing together the rest of the information has been made much harder by the others involved not assisting in enquiries to the best of their ability, the inference being that those in power have held back information that is relevant or have been unwilling to disclose anything in interviews. The police have made it clear that if Heath were still alive he would have been questioned, and only that, simply because they cannot say more.
We have to continue to investigate these allegations because as the police have said there are believable witnesses that have come forward with credible evidence of abuse. We should not dismiss that simply because someone was well known. The majority of cases brought to court are about people who are not famous but were in a position of power at that time, like prison officers, teachers, priests etc.
The answer to all of this is that we do not know if abuse at a level prosecutable by the courts took place but that is not the same as suggesting that the alleged witnesses are not creditable and have been telling lies. The police do not feel this is the case but they cannot take it any further unless someone comes forward with more evidence.
So please don't keep suggesting that these people are only out for what they can get, some of these young people may have had their lives destroyed by what happened to them when they were children and may have taken a very long time to be in a position to talk to someone about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2017 14:11:40 GMT
Sorry, I cannot agree The particular case I know about was motivated by money and imagined revenge. I suspect there are many more. The police will happily go fishing looking for more prosecutions, an easy nick fore them if they can find any We have arrived at the situation where anyone dealing with children or adults will probably only see them in private if accompanied by a witness - up go the costs With regard to children taking a long time to talk to someone, Childline was founded in the 80s and very well publicised. Any child that needed to talk had plenty of opportunities to talk Any of these cases IMO should only be prosecuted where there is evidence other than just a number of accusers. Money is a great incentive
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Oct 10, 2017 15:51:04 GMT
Sorry, I cannot agree The particular case I know about was motivated by money and imagined revenge. I suspect there are many more. The police will happily go fishing looking for more prosecutions, an easy nick fore them if they can find any We have arrived at the situation where anyone dealing with children or adults will probably only see them in private if accompanied by a witness - up go the costs With regard to children taking a long time to talk to someone, Childline was founded in the 80s and very well publicised. Any child that needed to talk had plenty of opportunities to talk Any of these cases IMO should only be prosecuted where there is evidence other than just a number of accusers. Money is a great incentive It's the kind of thing that people live with for years and are genuinely unable to talk about it, even to something like Childline.
|
|
|
Post by norty on Oct 10, 2017 15:53:07 GMT
Children are often too frightened to make the call at first, yes the number is there but have they the opertunity to call? What happens after they call? Will they be believed, will they get not trouble? All these things go through a young persons mind before they ever mention/ report they've been abused.
Yes Bryon you know of one case where the victim was out to get as much money as they can, please please don't tar all cases with the same brush. One swallow a summer does not make!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2017 19:08:23 GMT
Children are often too frightened to make the call at first, yes the number is there but have they the opertunity to call? What happens after they call? Will they be believed, will they get not trouble? All these things go through a young persons mind before they ever mention/ report they've been abused. Yes Bryon you know of one case where the victim was out to get as much money as they can, please please don't tar all cases with the same brush. One swallow a summer does not make! "As many as 4,500 children phone Childline every day, though only 2,500 of these callers can be answered due to lack of resources. Since the merger with the NSPCC the service has expanded, and depends on public generosity to pay for the children's phone calls." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChildlineThey don't appear too frightened to call
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2017 19:10:22 GMT
Sorry, I cannot agree The particular case I know about was motivated by money and imagined revenge. I suspect there are many more. The police will happily go fishing looking for more prosecutions, an easy nick fore them if they can find any We have arrived at the situation where anyone dealing with children or adults will probably only see them in private if accompanied by a witness - up go the costs With regard to children taking a long time to talk to someone, Childline was founded in the 80s and very well publicised. Any child that needed to talk had plenty of opportunities to talk Any of these cases IMO should only be prosecuted where there is evidence other than just a number of accusers. Money is a great incentive It's the kind of thing that people live with for years and are genuinely unable to talk about it, even to something like Childline. So what do you think is the inducement to suddenly want to talk?
|
|
|
Post by norty on Oct 10, 2017 19:55:33 GMT
It's the kind of thing that people live with for years and are genuinely unable to talk about it, even to something like Childline. So what do you think is the inducement to suddenly want to talk? -Courage -A point in their lives when they are ready to talk and deal with it -Because they feel safe -When they realise they have nothing to feel guilty about, it wasn't their fault it happened.
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Oct 10, 2017 20:06:40 GMT
Children are often too frightened to make the call at first, yes the number is there but have they the opportunity to call? What happens after they call? Will they be believed, will they get not trouble? All these things go through a young persons mind before they ever mention/ report they've been abused. Yes Bryon you know of one case where the victim was out to get as much money as they can, please please don't tar all cases with the same brush. One swallow a summer does not make! "As many as 4,500 children phone Childline every day, though only 2,500 of these callers can be answered due to lack of resources. Since the merger with the NSPCC the service has expanded, and depends on public generosity to pay for the children's phone calls." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChildlineThey don't appear too frightened to call The ones who call aren't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2017 21:15:14 GMT
What bothers me in all of this is the risk of false accusations ruining people's lives. No doubt there are genuine cases that quite properly should be prosecuted but in the case of Ted Heath where is the proof other than accusations, and he is not able to defend himself Arena posted a list of men who were named and falsely accused of rape. Guilty in the court of public opinion. Similarly Cliff Richard was named in a case that went nowhere Many years ago a man who worked for Barnardos was driving towards Nottingham and stopped to give a young girl who was hitch hiking, a lift. She asked him to drop her off close to the city centre, got out of the car into the arms of a policeman, and claimed that the driver had raped her. He spent three days in custody before the police finally proved that the girl was lying. His wife had quite properly told him employer, and the local vicar because they needed his help The man ran the church youth group, and was asked to stand down for a while whist the situation clarified. Similarly Barnardos put him on "gardening leave" Six months later he was found hanged in his garage, the court of public opinion and whispers of "no smoke without fire" had got to him. It is all too easy for complaints to be made, and believed, regardless of the consequences
|
|