Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2017 17:14:08 GMT
No this story is about sexual predators and abusers, people who take advantage of the power they have over more vulnerable people and psychological affect that this can have leading to them saying nothing to anyone for many years over the guilt and anger that they feel. These people can be of any faith, culture or nationality and the story is also about the people around the predator who cover up, smudge, lie and threaten people who may take away their livelihood or standing. We are now clear that people knew about Savile, just as they knew about many others from the office groper to the serial rapist, we need to learn much more about why these people support this behaviour and fail to report it and why when it is reported those in authority react so slowly or not at all. This behaviour ruins peoples lives and the main concern many people have is that occasionally (not often) an accused person is found to have been the victim of a lie. It has been understood for many years that publically naming the accused allows others who may also have been victims to have the confidence to come forward, often these 'new' victims have corroborating evidence that further confirms the guilt of the accused. It also allows witnesses that know this could not have occurred to come forward and support the accused. If all of this was done in secret we could end up with more innocent people found guilty. It is often the case that once a case is made public, usually at the first hearing before a judge, a new witness comes forward, someone unconnected who can confirm that the accused was not at the scene of the crime or would have been unable to commit the offence. It is sometimes very hard otherwise for defence lawyers to find evidence that supports their client's whereabouts, especially if the accused says they were at home all evening. It takes someone coming forward to say that they came out of their house or parked to go to the takeaway or something and notice the accused car was there at 9pm etc. if that evidence is credible and relative then it can be very useful to the defence. If everything is secret then the neighbour might not know that the information they have is even useful. This topic is actually about Ted Heath. Have you joined the court of public opinion and convicted him of being also a "sexual predators and abusers" (We digressed to include Harvey Weinstein who you presumably would also include because of the volume of accusations) I prefer proper convictions based on actual evidence, not hearsay |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2017 17:17:42 GMT
He didn't say anything about a mafia. But this story has nothing to do with Jewishness, From the link "People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful -- very powerful.” " Seems to me to be all about "Jewishness" Have you never used the word "mafia" to refer to any grouping protecting their own particular interest? |
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Oct 12, 2017 17:25:59 GMT
Only organised criminal gangs.
I know Jewish people. They don't do that.
edit I might have done it as a joke (though I don't remember doing), but not otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Oct 12, 2017 17:28:25 GMT
On the subj:
Our lass's sister just told me about one her friends, exercising in Tooting (I think it was), today or yesterday, jumping on the spot, when some bloke came up and started wanking, right in front of her. She's a young woman. There was a playground nearby.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2017 7:53:33 GMT
On the subj: Our lass's sister just told me about one her friends, exercising in Tooting (I think it was), today or yesterday, jumping on the spot, when some bloke came up and started wanking, right in front of her. She's a young woman. There was a playground nearby. She should have used the classic "Put it behind my ear, I'll smoke it later"  |
|
|
|
Post by norty on Oct 13, 2017 10:57:56 GMT
Hmmm is not funny though is it?
Can I recommend the first 10 minutes of womans hour today as it deals with the reporting of sexual misconduct, abuse suffered and why it can take years to finally report it. It is worth listening to on iplayer radio.
|
|
|
|
Post by hild1066 on Oct 13, 2017 11:08:18 GMT
No this story is about sexual predators and abusers, people who take advantage of the power they have over more vulnerable people and psychological affect that this can have leading to them saying nothing to anyone for many years over the guilt and anger that they feel. These people can be of any faith, culture or nationality and the story is also about the people around the predator who cover up, smudge, lie and threaten people who may take away their livelihood or standing. We are now clear that people knew about Savile, just as they knew about many others from the office groper to the serial rapist, we need to learn much more about why these people support this behaviour and fail to report it and why when it is reported those in authority react so slowly or not at all. This behaviour ruins peoples lives and the main concern many people have is that occasionally (not often) an accused person is found to have been the victim of a lie. It has been understood for many years that publically naming the accused allows others who may also have been victims to have the confidence to come forward, often these 'new' victims have corroborating evidence that further confirms the guilt of the accused. It also allows witnesses that know this could not have occurred to come forward and support the accused. If all of this was done in secret we could end up with more innocent people found guilty. It is often the case that once a case is made public, usually at the first hearing before a judge, a new witness comes forward, someone unconnected who can confirm that the accused was not at the scene of the crime or would have been unable to commit the offence. It is sometimes very hard otherwise for defence lawyers to find evidence that supports their client's whereabouts, especially if the accused says they were at home all evening. It takes someone coming forward to say that they came out of their house or parked to go to the takeaway or something and notice the accused car was there at 9pm etc. if that evidence is credible and relative then it can be very useful to the defence. If everything is secret then the neighbour might not know that the information they have is even useful. This topic is actually about Ted Heath. Have you joined the court of public opinion and convicted him of being also a "sexual predators and abusers" (We digressed to include Harvey Weinstein who you presumably would also include because of the volume of accusations) I prefer proper convictions based on actual evidence, not hearsay It is actually permissible to speculate about the past and historical figures, Heath will never be convicted, he won't even be charged but it is permissible to consider things that might have happened. My point was also that by naming people others can come to their defence it is not a one sided argument. |
|
