" WITCH .............she is a witch " ooops , appologies - wrong century " "PEADOPHILE .....he i

Originally posted by Grifter81
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

Whatever happened to evidence and the idea of innocent until proven guilty?

Um, it got destroyed by the police or social care officials so that the case never got to court. That's why the accusations remained anecdotal.
Geddit?

reply to post by micpsi


Well then a lot of people have a lot to answer for then don't they. It's still a witch hunt in the making.

Means that in the past the witches hada the name of witches ,because didnt exist the term peadophile....

Originally posted by Grifter81

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by Grifter81
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

I see your point. At the moment here accusations are being banded about recklessly and innocent people are getting smeared in the process.

Those who have committed these awful crimes should be brought to justice but in the courts. At the moment any tom dick or harry can stand up and say "I was abused by such and such in the 70s" and be believed by the masses.

Whatever happened to evidence and the idea of innocent until proven guilty?

They are innocent until proven guilty.

I don't see the problem.
Nobody goes to jail without a chance to prove they are innocent of the crime they are charged with. If other peoples crimes can be released, as in a Police blotter - what is the difference here? Thieves have their reputations to uphold too.

The problem is that s@#t sticks and innocent people are getting covered in it in a media frenzy. Allegations should be taken to the police, not the papers, not the media, not fired out on twitter and TV personalities shouldn't be handing the prime minister lists of suspected peadophiles they downloaded from the internet live on air when there's little proof of anything.

I'm all for naming and shaming the bastards once caught but let's investigate into these claims first.

Some would say there's no smoke without fire and in some cases that's true but you can't deny this is fast becoming a 'witch hunt'.

But other criminals or criminally accused have no such rights to privacy.

I know it bothers you. That is perfectly clear, but why aren't you also asking that police blotters stop naming names involving other crimes...until after those alleged or suspected criminals are found guilty?

Why do you believe child molesters, alleged or accused have special rights and protections an accused thief does not have. They are both maligned in the public and the thieves life is also ruined if people make him guilty before he is found guilty at his trial.

The word about Jimmy Saville was out there as my mum remembers hearing rumours about him from the 1960's-1970's and she had nothing to do with Top of the pops etc being a poor girl hundreds of miles away from the BBC studios and a father who was rather protective, so i can imagine that really the press/tv/legal system just ignored it so as not to cause a raucous

reply to post by ignorant_ape


I think you are right (regardless of the truth about Savile, if that's who prompted this, or any other specific case).
Nothing in human nature has changed, nothing ever does; and this thread demonstrates it very well.

If it weren't for now barely-there laws of "civilized" behavior, or what remains of them, we would still have gladiator games and similar forms of entertainment.

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by Grifter81

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by Grifter81
reply to post by ignorant_ape

 

I see your point. At the moment here accusations are being banded about recklessly and innocent people are getting smeared in the process.

Those who have committed these awful crimes should be brought to justice but in the courts. At the moment any tom dick or harry can stand up and say "I was abused by such and such in the 70s" and be believed by the masses.

Whatever happened to evidence and the idea of innocent until proven guilty?

They are innocent until proven guilty.

I don't see the problem.
Nobody goes to jail without a chance to prove they are innocent of the crime they are charged with. If other peoples crimes can be released, as in a Police blotter - what is the difference here? Thieves have their reputations to uphold too.

The problem is that s@#t sticks and innocent people are getting covered in it in a media frenzy. Allegations should be taken to the police, not the papers, not the media, not fired out on twitter and TV personalities shouldn't be handing the prime minister lists of suspected peadophiles they downloaded from the internet live on air when there's little proof of anything.

I'm all for naming and shaming the bastards once caught but let's investigate into these claims first.

Some would say there's no smoke without fire and in some cases that's true but you can't deny this is fast becoming a 'witch hunt'.

But other criminals or criminally accused have no such rights to privacy.

I know it bothers you. That is perfectly clear, but why aren't you also asking that police blotters stop naming names involving other crimes...until after those alleged or suspected criminals are found guilty?

Why do you believe child molesters, alleged or accused have special rights and protections an accused thief does not have. They are both maligned in the public and the thieves life is also ruined if people make him guilty before he is found guilty at his trial.

I don't believe child molesters have special rights and protections. Nor should they, get them named and shamed. What I'm saying is people, especially the media should get their facts right before they accuse anyone of anything.

reply to post by newcovenant


I would have to say there is nothing as damaging as an accusation of child molestation. Even being proven innocent, being accused will follow you around the rest of your life. "Wasn't he accused of being a pedophile?"
All crimes should be private untill guilt or innocence is determined, but especially something as sensitive as the topic of child molestation.

Originally posted by optimus primal
reply to post by newcovenant

 

I would have to say there is nothing as damaging as an accusation of child molestation. Even being proven innocent, being accused will follow you around the rest of your life. "Wasn't he accused of being a pedophile?"
All crimes should be private untill guilt or innocence is determined, but especially something as sensitive as the topic of child molestation.

I agree it is true, more embarrassing than other crimes and you will never get to babysit again but if people think you are a thief, neither will you be looked at the same again. You will not get a job in your area and you will have to move. Same probably with the accused molester. If he is exonerated and cleared there are ways to get that word out and live reasonably in your own hometown unless the people are the type that DO ACCUSE others of being guilty when the court says they are not - do you really want to live there?

Is any impediment into these investigations worth that?


Chances are the accused will have to move anyway. As people come forward with false accusations people will learn not to pass judgement until the courts do. Nature should be allowed to take course in the light of day. Hiding this crap (until there is not a shadow of a doubt - which means you have to get caught red handed before anyone in your "prejudiced" sphere of contact even IMAGINES you are guilty) is what the Catholic Church did and we see how that worked out for them.

So your saying that in 150 years we will look back and say how silly it was to go after pedos?
Or are you saying these people being called pedos aren't really?

I'm confused to me a witch might have been feared back in the day but there ok now. I think pedophiles will always be bad or at least I hope they will.

reply to post by optimus primal


I agree 100%. Also for reasons of jury tainting. How can you have a fair trial like that? You can't.

Originally posted by CX

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

and dont get me started on all the idiots now coming forward with " proof " that they knew of peadohile activity dating back betweeen 45 and 10 years ago

I think there is a difference.

I would just thank your lucky stars that you weren't one of the kids abused by *insert sick persons name here*.

Imagine if you had been raped, but you were labelled as an idiot if you came forward with info?

CX.

I remember when i was a kid, i was fantazising of having sex with older women many times, and would it actually happen, that the opportunity presented itself, i would surely feel like i was in heaven, at the time. I certainly would not be "damaged for the rest of my life" or such things that many mainstreamers and media outlets and even the law in many countries tries to make it sound like. It would certainly be with my consent, when i was 14, even if the older woman was 30, and i know many likeminded people.

According to the mainstream "paedophile-haters", that woman would be a horrible paedophile, that damaged me for life, and i do not agree with such notions at all.

Now if the sexes was reversed, i don´t see any big difference, really. It is not societies role to try to "protect" other human being from having their own inner desires satisfied.

What i really suspect about this whole "anti-paedophile" hype, is that it is just a part of the population control scheme by the elites, causing less people to have sex and less children to be made. A way to infringe on peoples free will to have sex with anyone they choose, in order to have less children produced.

I feel the term is thrown about far too lightly, it should be reserved for the really bad cases, like the 60 year old actually forcing a 6 year old into doing something, now THAT is something i believe everyone is against, but the term is used on milder and milder cases each year, and right now it is used even if both parties are concenting and even with relatively small age difference, which is sad.

Witches aren't a real life threat, pedos are.

ETA: This strikes me as a troll thread. No body defends pedophiles without actively trying to ruffle feathers.

reply to post by detachedindividual


But what about the lives of the people that were falsely accused that were ruined? As someone else pointed out, in the 1990s, people were throwing accusations around that were years later found to be false. I remember a few cases where the people falsely accused even committed suicide.

One of the big cases was a day care center worker, where the children were questioned, and basically led to say that they were molested through leading questions, and being flat out told what to say. This person's career was destroyed, and she had to leave town. How was that right?

I'm with the others in this thread. Instead of crucifying someone from the start, let the real facts come out, instead of jumping to conclusions. It's kind of hard to say "whoops, my bad" if it turns out to be fake, and you've destroyed their life already.

I think you guys are being trolled by the OP. Not one post beyond the opening one and no responses to people on the thread.

Shame on you OP especially with a subject such as this.

Originally posted by PutAQuarterIn
Witches aren't a real life threat, pedos are.

ETA: This strikes me as a troll thread. No body defends pedophiles without actively trying to ruffle feathers.

edit on 11-11-2012 by PutAQuarterIn because: (no reason given)

No one is defending pedophiles are they? I think the consensus is that they need to be behind bars, or (preferably) strung up.

Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
I think you guys are being trolled by the OP. Not one post beyond the opening one and no responses to people on the thread.

Shame on you OP especially with a subject such as this.

Define why you call it "being trolled by the OP" please. Why is the OP required to make further posts? He started an interesting topic which i and many others in the thread agree with. Other members can continue to discuss threads that someone else started you know, it´s called a forum.

reply to post by NeoVain


They are troll threads because they purposefully use a sensitive subject or topic to provoke replies from the membership for the purpose of collecting ATS points.

What makes a forum work is interaction between thread authors and those who reply. Without response or clarification from the author then you don't really have a forum you have something more along the lines of a comment section of a news article or online editorial.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
Point to make here, at the turn of the last century, teenage girls (no matter how old or young), were routinely marrying at that age. Even in in the 50s-60s, 13/14/15 year olds etc. could be seen with older guys and it was no big deal. Society today is changing and the line is becoming more blurred.

Paedophiles who rape babies and toddlers etc. are sick, twisted people (but I doubt there are many of those kinds of paedophiles), but there is a line and yes there is paranoia on this whole subject

edit on 11-11-2012 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

As a society, we are more enlightened today and know the harm that such relations and child-bearing do to 13/14/15, let alone the fact that they are not emotionally mature enough to make such decisions.
Are you saying that it is ok for adults to have relations with 13/14/15 year olds?