Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cameron says people could start a witch hunt for homosexuals.

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

I agree to a point, but I also agree that journalists need to be pushing this, and they can keep investigating and opening a route for whistle-blowers who might feel that this is becoming another whitewash.

Of course, the journalists job is to present information for the public to assess, and they have been doing that job in this respect. But they should also keep the pressure on and provide information as the investigation continues. That is the best way, IMO, to better ensure that justice is actually being done.

On the subject of the media and tabloids etc, it all comes down to one thing for me when it comes to the legalities of their information gathering (the whole phone hacking scandal etc.)

The notion of "in the public interest" has been warped and redefined. The trashy tabloids like to pretend that "in the public interest" means anything they think anyone would have the slightest interest in, from the size of Jordan's boobs to the weight of a Hollywood star.

In reality, "in the public interest" means stories that the public has a RIGHT to know about, such as police and government corruption or instances where a cover-up has taken place.

The media should get back to actually reporting based on the idea of what is in the public interest, and that doesn't mean they have the right to hack phones to find out which celeb might be sleeping with another.

This case would be one of those that is most definitely in the public interest, as it involves the potential criminal activity of politicians and BBC staff (who are all paid to provide services to the public), and it involves criminal acts against children.

This is completely different to gossip, and true investigative journalism should continue unabated in this case. I would expect the press to use whatever legal methods they can to uncover the story, while doing so in a way that will not jeopardise the case or accuse innocent people.


But the press are pushing it. As has been pointed out by myself and others, journalists did the leg work decades ago only for it to hit a brick wall with the police and, since the Savile story actually made it to the papers, it's been pretty much front page news ever since. I'm really struggling to understand what people expect of journalists here at a time when there's only about 60% of paid journalists in work compared to about a decade ago.

The public interest point is a little fuzzy as how do you define 'public interest'? It's too easy a manipulated concept to be of any real worth. It wasn't that long ago that the press thought tapping into Milly Dowler was in the public's interest. The Sun and the Daily Mail created a paedophile scare out of public interest that saw a paediatrician attacked. The press was fairly complicit in a Satanic Ritual Abuse in the early 1990s with disastrous results. Rupert Murdoch increasing his influence over the media could easily be presented as being in the 'public's interest' too by Sky journalists and executives: print a few BBC 'waste' stories and people




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
"Originally posted by Merriman Weir

But the press are pushing it. As has been pointed out by myself and others, journalists did the leg work decades ago only for it to hit a brick wall with the police and, since the Savile story actually made it to the papers, it's been pretty much front page news ever since. "

What has been front page news is 'Jimmy Savile' as a peado poster boy for all to focus on whilst those in government can (allegedly) continue their activities.

Journalists have stopped at certain points in the past but they should push on. The public interest is that this may go all the way to the top and Savile was only a 'fixer' for those involved. The journalists can go back and re-investigate every link and name involved in past abuse cases if they wish.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Which was kind of my point about unsubstantiated claims being made against innocent people tarnishing people's reputations etc - innocent until proven guilty.

The author seems to rely on rumour and innuendo and makes some massive assumptions based on them.

But, and it's a massive but, one suspect's there is more than just an element of truth contained in the article - some of the rumours have been around for quite some time and have never been completely disproven.

And do we the public have a right to know when serious questions are being asked about our elected officials, their aides and advisors and other's in senior positions of authority etc?

And be honest, do you trust the police and / or the judiciary to investigate these allegations and to report openly and honestly bearing in mind persistent rumours of their active involvement in both the practices and the cover-up and the history of deflection tactics, misleading and suppressing information, corruption etc?


I certainly don't trust these people to do their jobs. Too many instances of police corruption, government cover up and collusion tell me not to trust them at all. But that's why I hope that some journalists, and some moral MP's like Tom Watson will not let it go and will continue to push for answers.

That's why I think investigative journalism should be playing a large role in this case. They don't need to be naming names, or using the lists that are out there, they just need to be effective at pushing the cause and keep hammering away at any instances they find of potential corruption or avoidance of investigation.

As for your mention of one of those on the list never being disproved, it is the process of justice that guilt be proven, not that innocence be proven. You cannot go on the basis that accusation is correct, and then demand that someone prove that the allegation is false. Innocent until proven guilty is the key here.

Anyone can make any claim about any other person, but there needs to be some form of evidence of the crime, and an investigation. The accused then has to counter those accusations and evidence in their defence. It seems to me that many on the list have simply been accused. I have not seen any of the lists actually detailing witnesses or victims, there are no statements by victims, there are seemingly few mentions of when or where these crimes were supposed to have taken place...

People cannot expect those listed to have an adequate defence when only the accusations are published.

And, as I have mentioned in another thread, I think I have changed my opinion on what Cameron said after clicking a link and reading through a page of accused.

The list I read through also details men engaged in sexual acts with other consenting men, not kids. Yet the author of that list seems to equate boyfriends getting it on as evidence of the abuse of children. If Cameron has read that list then I can fully understand why he felt the need to make the statement that he made.

This is what I fear, there are a lot of complete retards in the UK who will read that list and believe every word of it. They won't read it and think "hang on, they're both consenting adults", they'll just copy that list off and suddenly all of those on it are again accused.

This is a mess, and I hope that those making unfounded accusations are treated harshly.

There needs to be a full investigation, and it needs to be credible. I would invite law students (they have something to prove and are less likely to be biased and concerned about their position) to be witnesses to the investigatory process. They would help to ensure that those investigating these allegations are not being controlled or limited, or simply ignoring avenues of investigation to protect others.

I would also hope that the press will keep on at this, with the help of MP's like Tom Watson. That can all be done without naming names and suggesting that people should prove their innocence.

Ultimately, these men are innocent until proven guilty, and this trial by uninformed public opinion is not helping matters at all.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHammondStoat

So in this rather clever article they are ridiculing the claims of the victims and making them out to be confused and stupid. Lord McAlpine's name was hushed up, hardly exonerated!

Any decent person would be trying to find out WHO EXACTLY raped and tortured these victims instead of making them look stupid


Actually, no. Even the person who originally made the allegations said he thought it wasn't McAlpine. Some of the other "victims" have also been shown to be false in their allegations - caught out on interviews on tv.

Does this water down the allegations against this ring? Of course not, no. However, what it does demonstrate beyond any doubt is that people should be sure of their facts before making any allegations publicly. Frankly, if i was McAlpine, my only interest now would be in clearing my name. Sod the investigation, i would be too angry at the false charges smeared against me.

These days we have places in check to stop people dangerous individuals working in environments like Care Homes, as anyone who has been CRB checked will be able to testify. Obviously, there are still errors and some slip though the net. Whilst this is far from acceptable, at the same time it must be accepted that it is a far improved situation to what we have had in the past. That is how the real world works, errors are identified and then corrected. Thankfully we are not in a Minority Report type world yet where things are anticipated and rectified before they have even occurred. Who would want to live in a world like that?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
The only thing I believe is the same when it concerns pedophiles and homosexuals is this...their brains are wired wrong.

Other than that there is nothing that is the same. Real homosexuals are in consensual relationships with other homosexuals...pedophiles rape and torture children for their own sick pleasures.

I find homosexuality to be a mistake in nature...but I could really care less about them...marry, equal rights as married couples...etc...what ever happens with them does not affect me personally. I have gay friends and they know my stance but do not care....because I never preach to them...their lives are their own and so is my own.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I think 'The List' that Schofield showed Cameron has wrongly become a subject of focus. It was not a definitive list.

Accusing people just because they are gay is wrong but Cameron was weak to use that as an excuse. There are all sorts of 'lists' on the web that name various people.

It's the people that have already been the focus of official investigation, published authors and witness testimony (which is out there!) that are the ones that need further investigation. If they are investigated and it leads to other names then so be it.

These names shouldn't be ignored in fear of some dumb vigilantes.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian

Originally posted by DrHammondStoat

So in this rather clever article they are ridiculing the claims of the victims and making them out to be confused and stupid. Lord McAlpine's name was hushed up, hardly exonerated!

Any decent person would be trying to find out WHO EXACTLY raped and tortured these victims instead of making them look stupid


Actually, no. Even the person who originally made the allegations said he thought it wasn't McAlpine. Some of the other "victims" have also been shown to be false in their allegations - caught out on interviews on tv.

Does this water down the allegations against this ring? Of course not, no. However, what it does demonstrate beyond any doubt is that people should be sure of their facts before making any allegations publicly. Frankly, if i was McAlpine, my only interest now would be in clearing my name. Sod the investigation, i would be too angry at the false charges smeared against me.

These days we have places in check to stop people dangerous individuals working in environments like Care Homes, as anyone who has been CRB checked will be able to testify. Obviously, there are still errors and some slip though the net. Whilst this is far from acceptable, at the same time it must be accepted that it is a far improved situation to what we have had in the past. That is how the real world works, errors are identified and then corrected. Thankfully we are not in a Minority Report type world yet where things are anticipated and rectified before they have even occurred. Who would want to live in a world like that?


Well no again


Steven Messham was the original witness and hasn't named Lord McAlpine, another witness (Keith Gregory) has come forward and said Meesham must have been mistaken and it was maybe a relative of McAlpine. So you've got one witness telling another witness what he saw.

The Waterhouse investigation into this made sure McAlpine was protected and the victims were quiet. It's not quite the same as him being 'exonerated'.

Part of the reason in why witnesses may not have their facts so clear is because they were repeatedly raped and abused, went through a trial already and have ended up with many social and mental problems through the abuse. Obvioulsy this is were defence lawyers and journalists (or even other witnesses) can discredit them.
edit on 9-11-2012 by DrHammondStoat because: spelling



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
 


So, despite showing inconsistencies, we are simply supposed to take them at their word? Of course not. Equally, they shouldn't be discredited. Instead, they should be investigated thoroughly before naming on national media (if allegations are true). McAlpine should sue the arse off the lot of them.

Aside from anything else, it makes a mockery of true victims. The way it is being handled by the media and online at the moment smacks of mob rule and mob justice, things which are anathema to a civilised society.

ETA:

Nothing personal, think we are just at opposite sides of how this should be and is being handled.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Flavian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
 


So, despite showing inconsistencies, we are simply supposed to take them at their word? Of course not. Equally, they shouldn't be discredited. Instead, they should be investigated thoroughly before naming on national media (if allegations are true). McAlpine should sue the arse off the lot of them.

Aside from anything else, it makes a mockery of true victims. The way it is being handled by the media and online at the moment smacks of mob rule and mob justice, things which are anathema to a civilised society.

ETA:

Nothing personal, think we are just at opposite sides of how this should be and is being handled.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Flavian because: (no reason given)


The inconsistenies come from the media! They have named McAlpine when the witness Steve Messham did not. McAlpine was investigated in the original Waterhouse inquiry into the Bryn Estyn care homes so why shoudn't he be named now in national media?

The Waterhouse enquiry found widespread abuse in the homes but did not publish names! It's thiose names that shoud be looked at again and not random gay politicians. I agree McAlpine should sue, let him. My prediction (based on his carefully worded legal statement) is that he won't.

ETA - don't worry, I never take others opinions personally
edit on 9-11-2012 by DrHammondStoat because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-11-2012 by DrHammondStoat because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHammondStoat
What has been front page news is 'Jimmy Savile' as a peado poster boy for all to focus on whilst those in government can (allegedly) continue their activities.


That's not quite true, the story has changed over time as different people have come forward and different people have been implicated. Savile was the primary focus for good reason. People are suspicious of politician's motives at the best of times but, weirdly, Savile was genuine 'news' to a lot of people. For good or bad, Savile was a household name and a far more readily identifiable figure than any of the other names in the frame at the moment.

Very few people could honestly put names to these faces: there's no emotional relationship between the public and the politicians in this story and very little drama or shock to revelations because there's no emotional involvement. I'm not saying there shouldn't be, but this is a reflection of the public more than the press because they, generally, have very little interest in political figures. How many of the public could name 10 ministers in the current government, for example, never mind political figures from the 1970s and 1980s?


Journalists have stopped at certain points in the past but they should push on.


They've stopped at libel laws and stopped at prejudicing future trials. Again, I'm really not sure what you think journalists should be doing.


The public interest is that this may go all the way to the top and Savile was only a 'fixer' for those involved. The journalists can go back and re-investigate every link and name involved in past abuse cases if they wish.


The crucial word is 'may', here. Unfortunately, 'may' doesn't really sell many papers. They need to sell the story as 'truth' but aren't able to because, unlike Savile, Peter Morrison, Heath &c., all the rest are very much alive and, like Lord MacAlpine, prone to litigation. A litigation trial would make a real police investigation at a later date more difficult. You do want these people convicted (if guilty) don't you?

Also, again, it's actually the police who should be going back and reinvestigating the links you mention. Journalists did it the first time and presented it all to the police. It's the police that need to do things differently a second time not the journalists: after all, they got it right the first time. Without wanting to cause offence, you seem to have blurred the line between the domains of both journalists and police and are expecting journalists to do the job of police and if that really did happen, then God help us as look where 'trial by Murdoch' gets us.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


Well as I said, I don't think McAlpine will sue. Yes the difference here is that the other people named are still alive and yes the police should really do their job - but they probably won't. i honestly don't know the answer to this conundrum.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHammondStoat
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


Well as I said, I don't think McAlpine will sue. Yes the difference here is that the other people named are still alive and yes the police should really do their job - but they probably won't. i honestly don't know the answer to this conundrum.


Fair enough, but the answer isn't 'journalists should do more!'


Also, not sure if you're aware, but this is from MacAlpine's official statement:


In doing so I am by no means giving up my right to sue those who have defamed me in the recent past or who may do so in the future and I expressly reserve my rights to take all such steps as I and my solicitors consider necessary to protect my interests.


If he makes a big enough show of a warning, he won't feel the need to sue. However, if you had journalists keeping up the pressure as you've wanted in this thread, even the idea of a hack sniffing round might bring the solicitors on. At the moment, journalists are in a difficult place with Leveson, and the ongoing massive cull in jobs (both online and in print).



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


It's complex and well i'll agree to disagree !



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
 

No! Submit, damn you!




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
 

No! Submit, damn you!



No, i won't fight, you've got two bloody great dogs wi yer!



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
From the link in the OP


Mr Cameron did not look at the list of names and urged anyone who has been abused to contact police.


He didn't look for good reason.

It's like when a kidnapper or bankrobber accidently shows their face/removes their mask... you don't want to look at it, you don't want to be able to verify (at that moment) because it may save your life. But if you can give a description and know who did the crime, theres a better chance the kidnapper/robber will kill you to eliminate a witness.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I think the people of Brittan know the difference between a gay and a pedophile,this is clearly a distraction,he is trying to direct the debate away from the filthy nonces who have been running our country.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
David CaMORON makes me laugh. He's a public schoolboy right?, and we we all know that public schoolboys experiment with Homosexuality right?, he's one of the Old boys network.
Maybe he carried it on, and he's afraid of what's going to happen to him?.
As a previous poster observed "The Brains are not wired up right".
I think David CaMORON is bricking it, and you could tell that by the look on his face during the interview, he went a whiter shade of pale.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Ferryman because: Addition



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by thebabyseagull
I think the people of Brittan know the difference between a gay and a pedophile,this is clearly a distraction,he is trying to direct the debate away from the filthy nonces who have been running our country.


Unfortunately, there are those that see homosexuality as a gateway for all kinds of things and equate being gay with all manner of nonsense. Only a few months ago, a Tory Councillor, James Malliff, was suspended because he said if gay marriage is permitted then people might as well be allowed to marry animals. Still far too many people believe that homosexuality is actually a perversion (and if who knows where it all stops, eh? I had a bloke in my cab a few weeks ago...) rather than a sexual preference. It's 'all the same' to many brain dead people.

See also: bigots who thing because someone is gay, they're automatically going fancy them and try and bum them or something

Not dismissing what you say outright, but there's still a lot of narrow-minded bigots out there.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions






top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join