Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Forgive and forget ?

Recommended Posts

observer    552

If some allegedly commited a crime 40 years ago, and has now been diagnosed with dementia;  would this be sufficient grounds for not proceeding with a prosecution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bazj    498

I guess you are on about the Labour Peer who is accused of 25 counts of paedophilia.... difficult one especially as he was accused loads of times over the past 25 years but no action was brought... just when the CPS decide to prosecute; the dementia defence kicks in...

 

Personally I'd just lock him up just in case....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bazj    498

Well they have managed to stall for the past 25 years according to some stories I read today.... and he is by the sounds of it, no more a gentleman than Gary Glitter or Jimmy Savile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P J    159

That is why a time limit on bringing these fiends to justice is wrong.  Imagine some paedophile giving the v's to the victims 1 day after the deadline passed, laughing in their faces and making a mockery of justice.  Baz is right,  the abuse claims were made several times over the years but nothing was done as in the good old days victims were ignored and worse.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davy51    236

But why are there double standards where health issues are concerned ? I know people who have been told by GPs & specialists that they are not fit to work & a government agency has overruled the opinion of health professionals in order to stop benefits to these people.

How can health issues be a bar to the justice system if another government agency can ride rough shod over health matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    552

Think we've created a minefield in the justice system on a whole range of "modern" issues; which makes transforming allegations into convictions extremely complex, expensive and difficult.  Many can revolve around one person's word against another, without clear corroborating evidence; leaving juries to decide on the basis of who they believe.  The latest withdrawal of the DPP from prosecuting journalists for bribing public officials is an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P J    159

Covering up child abuse by highly placed paedophiles is the very reason that your desire for a time limitation is completely wrong.  These crimes were reported but ignored, covered up and dismissed by every single agency that is supposed to uphold our laws and protect our children.  You cannot suggest that its a good thing to reward corruption and the dereliction of duty and child abuse with a get out of jail free card if you can carry it off for a predetermined amount of time.  That suggestion is abhorrent.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    552

 Not what I'm saying, before you go off on another tangent.  I'm merely reflecting on the difficulties involved in "proving" a case, especially those of an historic nature, when hard evidence maybe absent. Fortunately, due process doesn't allow an accusation alone to constitute guilt. We could of course throw these people, tied up, into a river to see if they float !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P J    159

Or we could try them in a court of law.  You have expressed a desire for an American style time limit in the past for these historical abuse cases.  It cannot work as we are seeing how deeply the cover ups from the past have gone.  It isn't right to not bother trying to get justice for the victims simply because its difficult or awkward.    Have you changed your mind then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    552

Nope - a statute of limitations may prompt  victims and their lawyers to make their complaint at the time of the alleged offence, rather than 40 years later. Now, in cases where folk did complain to the authorities, but were ignored or an establishment cover up has been identified, they clearly have a case against the authorities imo. The phrase that's being banded about in these cases is "in the public interest";  as these cases are not only "difficult and awkward" but extremely complex and expensive; perhaps we need to consider what is "in the public interest".  Now while I've absolutely no sympathy with these perpetrators, if proven guilty; but the current process appears unjust to those who are proven not guilty, as with publicity, the mud sticks. So any system that provides the protection of anonymity to the accuser, should imo, provide anonymity to the accused, until a case is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P J    159

Are the victims and their right to justice not important then?  The cost of justice is never too high a price to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    552

Of course; but on the basis of due process of law; with it's attendant requirement for evidence, as against hearsay. The DPP are there to make judgement calls on the likely outcomes of prosecutions, given that they are consuming public money - £ millions in some cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just about a few horrible old nonces who'll soon be dead anyway, it's about the people in high places who have shielded them all these years.

If it costs millions to give one of these historic sex offenders a good grilling in the dock after a proper criminal investigation, it's money well spent.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bazj    498
Nope - a statute of limitations may prompt  victims and their lawyers to make their complaint at the time of the alleged offence, rather than 40 years later. 

 

But many of these cases were reported decades ago but the corrupt police, councils, MP's and every other branch of paedo inc. suppressed them.

 

It shouldn't be just about getting someone into court either to prove their guilt. Jimmy Savile is guilty and he's dead and never been tried and people will get compensation from his estate. That should happen with this Labour Peer... if there is enough compelling evidence to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, even if he is dead, the 25 victims should be able to sue his estate and take what is theirs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    552

Think I made that point Baz, the authorities should be held accountable in those cases where they either failed to investigate a complaint or worse, actively covered up for establishment figures.  One might ask, what were the Press doing at the time; as in the Rotheram case, they knew about the allegations but failed to go to print on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asperity    271
 Jimmy Savile is guilty and he's dead and never been tried and people will get compensation from his estate.

 

How can you say that "JS is guilty" and "never been tried" in the same sentence Baz? If you look into the case of JS there isn't one accusation found yet that would stand up in a court of law, however the legal profession are helping themselves to the charitable trusts he set up when he was alive. By the time they have finished there won't be anything left for any of the supposed victims, if any of them can actually prove he was guilty of being anything but a bit peculiar. There's a lot more to some of these cases than meets the eye, and you shouldn't believe everything you read in the press.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    552

PJ: because the journalist who reported the matter, told us his Editor wouldn't allow it, for PC reasons. He appeared on a prog presented by Trevor Phillips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asperity    271

I notice a couple of people have indicated they don't like me saying that JS hasn't been tried and found guilty of anything, but aren't prepared to say why they don't like it. Strange.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P J    159

Well I suppose if you are going to defend a scumbag like Savile you should really expect a damned site more than a couple of unlikes.  People don't like abuse deniers and thats how you sound.  A paedo's pal.  Of course , had Savile been alive he would have been tried and like his driver who was with him for some of the abuse, found guilty and jailed.  Don't worry about the red boxes though Asp, its merely confirmation that people think what you are saying is utter bilge.

 

Don't tell me you were expecting a flood of likes for your offensive trash???????

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asperity    271

PJ I am no apologist for sex abusers, however I would  like to see some actual proof before I join the hanging mob. As it is the "cash strapped" NHS has spent a small fortune investigating various accusations of JS abuse on their property and, so far, have come up with nothing but innuendo and rumour. No evidence that would stand up to close scrutiny. If you have any proof I would love to hear it but don't go bad mouthing me just because I don't believe everything the media throw at me, unlike the majority, and you apparently.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davy51    236

I think it is alarming that so many guardians of our society are involved in these disgusting outrages against the vulnerable in our youth.To a certain extent ,i can understand that maybe among the asians in Rochdale etc, that it could be part of their accepted culture,but it must be accepted that it cannot be part of their culture if they want to live in Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P J    159

There would be more than enough to convict Savile if he was alive and you know it. His driver is now banged up for his part in Saviles disgusting child abuse and he was the less active partner in filth. The trial would and should have given the victims their day in court and a voice, a voice that was ignored and covered up for too long .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×