reply to post by fastbob72
I suppose it depends entirely on how much traction this gets in the "public eye" and whether anyone cracks and grasses up his mates to save his own
Originally posted by fastbob72
Originally posted by detachedindividual
Originally posted by fastbob72
You can't blame the BBC for not naming the particular MP without solid concrete proof to back up the claim.
If the publicly name someone a paedophile on prime time TV they have to be entirely certain of their ground or they'll be sued to buggery (no pun intended.lol).
On the other hand if they have good evidence after investigation then they should be turning it over to the police.Mind you the met would probably put it in a locked filing cabinet in a disused toilet.lol.
It shouldn't just be about fearing they'll be sued. There has to be evidence of something for there to be charges brought, and if there is evidence then they have a duty to hand that over to the police, whose job it actually is to investigate whether a crime has been committed.
It seems that there are a lot of people immediately assuming that an accusation equals guilt, it doesn't. Guilt has to be proven with more than someone saying "he did it!" or a TV program reporting on that accusation.
Why are people so idiotic when it comes to law? It's pretty simple really. You don't name people as guilty of being this kind of disgusting criminal unless there is concrete evidence. To do so and then discover that it wasn't true would be almost as sickening as the crime itself!
Being named in this way could destroy a persons entire life, they had better make damned sure they are absolutely 100% accurate and have irrefutable evidence to back up their claims. That's why I think they haven't named names, they don't have that evidence.
It's time the journo's did their job of investigating and gathering stories and let the police deal with investigating the actual crimes and holding people to account.
Mm,I thought that was what i was saying.
First of all the BBC's legal advisors will have told them that A,to name someone to potentially millions of viewers without concrete evidence is suicidal and B,they have a moral and legal obligation to pass their findings if damning to the police to investigate.
I don't consider myself ignorant of the law.lol.
Sorry, yes, I should have made it clear I wasn't meaning you, I mean generally, with people screaming about him not being named.
I agree with your take on this, I was intending to point the finger at all the reactionaries who just seem to want a name to put to the accusation when it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference at this point. I mean, giving a name can only potentially harm an investigation or any court case and render justice unlikely.
Originally posted by stumason
Looks like he was named in 1997 during an inquiry into Child abuse at Welsh care homes:
Policemen, social workers and prominent public figures have been accused of belonging to a paedophile ring which indulged in a relentless campaign of physical and sexual abuse in children's homes in North Wales.
The names of the alleged members of the ring have been given by witnesses in public sessions of the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal, but they have been suppressed by the tribunal's chairman, Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, who has threatened the media with High Court proceedings if they print them.
How deep does the Rabbit hole go?
Originally posted by Britguy
What makes all this really sickening is that the "security" services, special branch etc, know who these pedos and abusers are in high places. What they know, and of course, very likely the security services of foreign nations too, is used politically as leverage when the time is right to bring it up.
That these people are protected to maintain the political status quo, and that it is allowed to continue is just despicable.
Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by detachedindividual
You know, one of the biggest arguments you hear about conspiracy theories, is "the amount of people that would have had to be involved, no way they could have all kept it quiet".......
Seems like a pretty dumb argument now eh? Especially if people know that top dogs from government and LEA are in on it, who would say anything? I bet there have been some, easy enough to silence a pop up here and there when you have all the right people on the inside. Someone opens their mouth, pay an addict to kill and rob them or whatnot.
Originally posted by illuminnaughty
I think G Brown was linked to Dunblane, if thats so then its no wonder he sold off our gold at a knock down price. Some one black mailed him into doing it? Same go with tony bliar is that why we invaded Iraq? Black mailed into it ? It wouldnt surprise me in the least. The whole govt is riddled with these paedos.
We pay the wages at the BBC, so they should not be covering up anything from us.edit on 3-11-2012 by illuminnaughty because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by CX
Always knew about Ted Heath, the rent boys and the boat of his that boys apparently were taken to......but he died a while back.
Wonder who the latest one is?
I swear you have to be corrupt or be some kind of deviant to run our country these days.