Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rods2]

During the 1970's and 80's it went right to the top of the establishment what was going on, so you can see why many victims did not come forward at the time and why it was so well covered up and will continue to be covered up as much as possible.

http://www.mk.gowebs.co.uk/index.php/uk-history/99-sensational-expose-savile-ted-heath-pedophillia

http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/jummy-savile-edward-heath-and-kray-twins.html

Exploitation of children in homes has not gone away as we have seen in several trials and convictions in the last few years. Blind eyes were turned by those in charge, where they didn't want any racist allegations against their departments, so young vulnerable girls were abandoned to be groomed and sexually exploited by local gangs.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

So you think it all started in the 1970s?

I have news for you.  It has been going on throughout history, and only recently has it been exposed to the level it has with the establishment taking action Kings, Popes, top statesmen, Lords and Dukes, etc, etc, were at it!

[Lizzie_Zoom]

......................................in fact in Ancient Greece and Rome leading men often had a "young boy friend" and did what they liked!

It was almost a status symbol!

[TheBoy]

Indeed, its always happened, and will continue to happen, not much we can do about it 

Although, I think too many false victims are jumping on the current bandwagon 

[Bigron]

I quite agree, TB; do you think that if Savile and others had been penniless there would have been many "victims"?
Whilst I am whole-heartedly behind the prosecution of the guilty, current police actions seem more like persecutions than prosecutions and are in my view an attempt to improve the public's perception of them after all their recent bad press - Plebgate,  and others......

Ron.

[Rods2]

So you think it all started in the 1970s?

I have news for you.  It has been going on throughout history, and only recently has it been exposed to the level it has with the establishment taking action Kings, Popes, top statesmen, Lords and Dukes, etc, etc, were at it!

Of course, but I'm talking about the current investigation during the Jimmy Saville era.

[biggriffin]

I quite agree, TB; do you think that if Savile and others had been penniless there would have been many "victims"?
Whilst I am whole-heartedly behind the prosecution of the guilty, current police actions seem more like persecutions than prosecutions and are in my view an attempt to improve the public's perception of them after all their recent bad press - Plebgate,  and others......

Ron.

agreed with above, and add if, the persons who keep rushing to the police were told" there will be no compensation,or payout how many of these cases would be happening.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I quite agree, TB; do you think that if Savile and others had been penniless there would have been many "victims"?
Whilst I am whole-heartedly behind the prosecution of the guilty, current police actions seem more like persecutions than prosecutions and are in my view an attempt to improve the public's perception of them after all their recent bad press - Plebgate,  and others......

Ron.

I can see where you and TB are coming from, but this comment is an ironic contradiction in itself.  If we are not careful we could quickly be back to the rich and powerful being seen as untouchable with the police ignoring all witness claims.

These "celebrities" have brought it all on themselves and if some, and I expect there are indeed some, so called "victims" who aren't but are just making claims for money, then that is as a result of all that has been revealed in too many cases were the rich and powerful have been guilty of terrible offences.  In the end I have little sympathy with individuals who are happy to be built up to nonsensical adoration when in truth they are scum.   

[TheBoy]

LZ - if compensation was never given, do you think fewer (genuine) victims would come forward?

If so, they are in it for the money. Even taking away the fact that they may give evidence in such a way to maximise their chances of getting a payout, should we (effectively) be giving money to people giving evidence in a court of law? I think not, as that's open to corruption.


Obviously, none of this takes away from the fact that the likes of Mr Harris and Mr Hall need to be correctly punished for their actions.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

LZ - if compensation was never given, do you think fewer (genuine) victims would come forward?

If so, they are in it for the money. Even taking away the fact that they may give evidence in such a way to maximise their chances of getting a payout, should we (effectively) be giving money to people giving evidence in a court of law? I think not, as that's open to corruption.


Obviously, none of this takes away from the fact that the likes of Mr Harris and Mr Hall need to be correctly punished for their actions.

Yes I do as now the barriers on prosecuting these monsters is down all the pent up anger, bitterness and feelings of revulsion felt by those who suffered abuse can be released at last through the legal channels.  With most women who have suffered abuse the last thing on their mind is money. It is about bringing the guilty to justice and making them finally suffer for the horrors they underwent, with no one prepared to listen to their cries for help.

It is not a fair world, so nothing is perfect.  But to me the shift should now take place from doubting the victims claims, as the police once did but is currently being realigned, to bringing the accused to full justice. Be the accused a celebrity or not, that process must be uninhibited with at last the police and CPS taking action and not so readily doubting the victim, usually a women. Re-training within the police and CPS is now at last making this possible.  

[05omegav6]

Just to be Devils' Advocate for a second...

Whilst it is imperative that such acts are, rightly, prosecuted and punished within the full ability of the law, my concern lies with the media age in which we live. It seems to be far to easy to judge the defendants by todays standards, rather than by the standards at the time of the offences

Is the average age of the jury known in the case of Mssrs Hall and Harris? Given both men are around 80, a jury of their peers should be people in their late sixties and over

Equally, if historical prosecution is acceptable in its current form, why is Sinn Fein a player in politics Surely being a member of such an organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act, and why are the disappeared not being investigated for the actual crimes they are, with no fear of prosecution for anyone in the province in the context of the troubles

Makes no sense...

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Just to be Devils' Advocate for a second...

Whilst it is imperative that such acts are, rightly, prosecuted and punished within the full ability of the law, my concern lies with the media age in which we live. It seems to be far to easy to judge the defendants by todays standards, rather than by the standards at the time of the offences

Is the average age of the jury known in the case of Mssrs Hall and Harris? Given both men are around 80, a jury of their peers should be people in their late sixties and over

Equally, if historical prosecution is acceptable in its current form, why is Sinn Fein a player in politics Surely being a member of such an organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act, and why are the disappeared not being investigated for the actual crimes they are, with no fear of prosecution for anyone in the province in the context of the troubles

Makes no sense...

No, the IRA is an illegal organisation not Sinn Fein which is now a perfectly accepted and respected political party.  So membership is not illegal.

As for historical facts being taken into account, the Good Friday Agreement drew a line on what had transpired before in the Republicans struggle for a unified Ireland with all that entailed in the form of "illegal" acts. It also drew a line on what the British had undertaken, sometimes of very questionable legal standing. All parties had committed illegal acts in a war, so to achieve reconciliation all agreed to move forward.

This was a political, national, action which bears no relationship with individuals who have committed illegal acts with women and young children were there is no statute of limitations. Therefore legal action can still proceed over "historical" cases.

As for the jury question. I think it is rather ironic that these generally older men, who took advantage of the young, are now being judged by a younger element.  In any case, why should an older jury member reach a different decision on guilt than a younger individual. A disgusting, illegal and destructive act is going to be just that no matter who the jury is.

[05omegav6]

Not disputing any of that Lizzie, but I find it somewhat hypocritical that people are getting away with murder, literally, yet others are ending up in prison for crimes that may or may not have been ignored when they took place.

The jury should reach a verdict based on the evidence presented regardless, but a younger jury might decide on a guilty verdict before the end of the opening statements, whereas an older jury would be more likely to consider the evidence in the context of when the offences took place net result ought to be the same though, so I guess it's a moot point

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Not disputing any of that Lizzie, but I find it somewhat hypocritical that people are getting away with murder, literally, yet others are ending up in prison for crimes that may or may not have been ignored when they took place.

The jury should reach a verdict based on the evidence presented regardless, but a younger jury might decide on a guilty verdict before the end of the opening statements, whereas an older jury would be more likely to consider the evidence in the context of when the offences took place net result ought to be the same though, so I guess it's a moot point

As I always say, it is not a fair and perfect world. Murderous crimes have taken place throughout history, often committed on behalf of the state, often also during times of war. These will never be brought to justice.

Individuals however can still be brought to justice if the evidence stacks up, as witnessed when Nazi SS personnel have been brought to justice decades after their crimes. But they are an exception. It is really, realistically, only individuals acting away from any state action, such as war, that there is any appetite and legal resolve to bring about legal action against them.

As I say, it is not a perfect world.

[tigers_gonads]

Not disputing any of that Lizzie, but I find it somewhat hypocritical that people are getting away with murder, literally, yet others are ending up in prison for crimes that may or may not have been ignored when they took place.

The jury should reach a verdict based on the evidence presented regardless, but a younger jury might decide on a guilty verdict before the end of the opening statements, whereas an older jury would be more likely to consider the evidence in the context of when the offences took place net result ought to be the same though, so I guess it's a moot point

Tbh Al, the crime of paedophilia is the most sick hideous crime that I can think off and I honestly don't see what the age of the jury has to do with it or why they should look at it any different.
It was just as vile 30 or 40 years ago as it is today.
The only difference is it is talked about more due to the media and internet, and people being more aware of what is going on in the world.