'Wide ranging' abuse enquiry planned

How do you know it's not just better exposed than it used to be?

Modern communications certainly make it easier for allegations to be made and aired, however it also makes it easier for the idiots to make false allegations. However we are less inclined to blindly accept authority, especially from those who would abuse it.
 

S0I

LE
Don't you mean 'wide ranging shredding operation planned'?

Betcha the shredders are working overtime as we speak.
 
Keith Vaz was on R5 earlier, gobbing off about how urgent "an enquiry into the enquiry" (his words) is needed.

On the basis that Vaz thinks it's a good idea, I think it should be dropped immediately.
 
My personal view is child sex abuse has reached epidemic proportions world wide but lets see whether this new enquiry will reveal how deep the rot goes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28189072
I doubt its (statistically*) any worse now than it was years ago, However victims feel more able to come forward so more cases arrive at court. Also the media rather than reporting with discretion and allowing all involved privacy (at least until a conviction is secured) they now enjoy stoking up the outrage bus and mass hysteria** by repeatedly printing the lurid details of every insinuation (not just accusations).

Consequently we are all more aware and to a certain extent a climate of fear now exists where people are afraid to let their children out.

* I accept there will potentially be more cases based on population growth.

** I am surprised that you, who is apparently somebody so gifted at understanding the psychology of the individual has fallen for the " every man in the park is a paedophile hysteria incited by the media.
Actually no im not its just more of you're usual crap
 
It will good for all those law firms looking for customers - "Where there's blame, there's a claim!"

Any fearless and moral investigation will be watered down, and will become ineffectual like many of these inquiries when the realization of just how far up the 'food chain' of the Establishment things might go.....

"Not In the National Interest" and its all covered by the "Official Secrets Act!"
 

S0I

LE
My personal view is child sex abuse has reached epidemic proportions world wide but lets see whether this new enquiry will reveal how deep the rot goes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28189072

Has it? Kiddy fiddlers under every bed and behind every bush? Do they all wear Gannex flasher -macs?
Define 'child abuse', some of the claims of historical abuse are verging on the farcical. 'I was only 15 and he put his hand on my bum at the end of term party'
 
I suppose going after dead or soon to be dead old white men is better than victimising certain communities
To be fair plod has been active these last couple of years with the grooming gangs..... Pendulum is swinging both ways.
 
Define 'child abuse', some of the claims of historical abuse are verging on the farcical. 'I was only 15 and he put his hand on my bum at the end of term party'
In relation to the sentencing of Rolf Harris, the judge had to sentence him according to the sentences prescribed at the time of the offences. An argument that has been advanced as to why his sentence should not be increased is that it he may not have committed the offences if the punishment at the time had been much tougher. In other words, an offender may have considered either that the risk was worth taking, or that he perceived the light sentence available at the time to equate to the crime not being considered serious.

Personally I suspect that whatever drives paedophiles to do what they do is probably stronger than the threat of punishment, so they'll still commit offences.
 
Give it a rest. We should pursue any abuser, white or otherwise, to the fullest extent possible.
Indeed all law breaking should be pursued under the auspices of the law. Ethnicity, political allegiance or (former) positions of power included.

If people have broken the law for whatever reason they should be prosecuted. If people have participated in industrial scale cover ups to protect the powerful they should also be prosecuted.

There is a current wide ranging operation going on currently in the NE to do with gang grooming, gang culture abuse ect. It's name escapes me save to say there have been a number of arrests lately but with everything else going on Harris, Saville ect have not made the news.
 

S0I

LE
In relation to the sentencing of Rolf Harris, the judge had to sentence him according to the sentences prescribed at the time of the offences. An argument that has been advanced as to why his sentence should not be increased is that it he may not have committed the offences if the punishment at the time had been much tougher. In other words, an offender may have considered either that the risk was worth taking, or that he perceived the light sentence available at the time to equate to the crime not being considered serious.

Personally I suspect that whatever drives paedophiles to do what they do is probably stronger than the threat of punishment, so they'll still commit offences.

I don't think Rolf comes in the same class as Saville etc. he seems to have just been the stereotical 60's/70's groper-dirty old man. We had plenty of teachers in the 70's the girls were wary of, even in class they would try and cop a sly feel.
 

Yokel

LE
Personally I suspect that whatever drives paedophiles to do what they do is probably stronger than the threat of punishment, so they'll still commit offences.
Maybe, but catching them earlier reduces their opportunity to offend.
 
I don't think Rolf comes in the same class as Saville etc. he seems to have just been the stereotical 60's/70's groper-dirty old man. We had plenty of teachers in the 70's the girls were wary of, even in class they would try and cop a sly feel.

Indeed.

Some sort of deviant behaviour appeared to be a prerequisite to work in the PE department at my grammar school in the 70s. One used to watch us in the showers, and sometimes touch boys 'to make sure you're drying yourself properly', whilst another had a reputation for peering into the girls' cubicles at the swimming baths. The latter got himself into trouble when he was discovered to be running a 'sunbathing club' for girls in a secluded corner; not sacked, or reported to the police, just told that he shouldn't do it. The headmaster knew well what was going on; a friend of mine's father mentioned the first one to the head at a parents' evening, and was told that he was harmless, and he had an important role with county rugby (which the school considered on a par with academic achievent), as if that excused it.

The question is, if these creatures had known that what they were doing could get them 10 years inside, and that they would be likely to be reported, would they still have done it?
 
In relation to the sentencing of Rolf Harris, the judge had to sentence him according to the sentences prescribed at the time of the offences. An argument that has been advanced as to why his sentence should not be increased is that it he may not have committed the offences if the punishment at the time had been much tougher. In other words, an offender may have considered either that the risk was worth taking, or that he perceived the light sentence available at the time to equate to the crime not being considered serious.

Personally I suspect that whatever drives paedophiles to do what they do is probably stronger than the threat of punishment, so they'll still commit offences.
It seems logical to me that someone should be tried and sentenced under the prevailing, at the time, guidelines. Otherwise people could find themselves convicted of offences that may not even have been an offence at the time. It just seems a shame that Harris should gain from a measure that is there to protect all but rather that than the other way round.

I agree that, whatever drives them, the sentence on getting caught probably doesn't do much to deter, public abhorrence and reaction might though. When you consider it, Harris and Savile had far more to lose, to them, than their liberty, they had their whole careers in front of them and exposure would have brought about a swift end to those.

However, Harris' age and general health has to be taken into consideration so perhaps that should also be taken as that which he enjoyed at the time?
 
Indeed.

The question is, if these creatures had known that what they were doing could get them 10 years inside, and that they would be likely to be reported, would they still have done it?
Probably but if the sentences were harsher then arguably it may not have been so acceptable. So possibly those who turned a blind eye may not have.
 
Probably but if the sentences were harsher then arguably it may not have been so acceptable. So possibly those who turned a blind eye may not have.
No but it does bring up one interesting point. Would today's jury be reluctant to find guilt on , largely unsupported, testimony and circumstantial evidence if the penalties were at today's level? It may be they felt happier to convict exactly because he would face the prevailing, at the time, penalty?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
P Current Affairs, News and Analysis 7

Latest Threads

Top