Is it just me or is it wrong that they refuse to prosecute someone who has dementia,

He wasn’t was he? Like anyone else, he was expressing his opinion of his personal experience, to which he is entitled, whether you agree with him, or not, as would seem to be the case.

Richard Dawkins is entirely entitled to have an opinion. However, comparing a relatively strict Christian upbringing to child sexual abuse, and then suggesting the former is more serious than the latter, is disgusting. It trivialises child sexual abuse, and if you think that having to learn the names of minor prophets is worse than being groped, prodded or otherwise violated by an individual under whose pastoral care you resided as a child, then you have a very odd outlook on life. Dawins used his experience to suggest that childhood religious indoctrination is somehow the far worse of the two offences, and therefore the real crime is trying to raise your children with your own religious beliefs. Therefore we are focusing on the wrong area, apparently. He could have steered well clear of that subject, or framed it in a far less antagonistic manner.

🙂

No need Charlie.

Thank you! Humble pie duly eaten!:apologetic:

Guilty
Count one:
A woman said Harris touched her inappropriately when she was just seven or eight while he was signing autographs in Hampshire in the late 1960s

TA – I think you misunderstood my question. I asked you to show me the source for your statement that this charge, to which you have referred in such detail, was one of the 12 on which he was found guilty. I don’t think he was and so your arguments are irrelevant. But please prove me wrong.

Charlie, on that one count he was challenged on, he was cross examined and denied ever being at Leigh Park, not one shred of evidence other than the accuser say so can confirm yes or no. no other person, no local newspaper article, no staff member of the center have any knowledge of Harris ever attending it, remember he was a big star at that time and no other child has come forward to say they remember him turning up.

The only reason I state this is because I hate the fact that you can be found guilty on a charge without anything to back it up, he said no, she said yes.

The accuser in the ‘its a knockout’ TV thing said it was in Cambridge in 1975, infact it was filmed in 1978, that’s a big difference in the age of the person who said she was 13 and infact being 16, not to say it did not happen of course.
I have a close friend who attended court on the Harris trial, along with other trials at Southwark Crown too.

Charlie, I am defending no one here and I guess my point is that Jannar has these accusations thrown at him and with sound mind or not I do feel they should be put before a judge/s to balance the evidence fore and against. If he cannot stand trial then so beit. but lets have a good look at the evidence and not what we read in the media social or otherwise.

This reminds me of the time Richard Dawkins suggested that his own sexual abuse at the hands of a priest was nothing to get upset about, and that, if anything, being forced to study christian doctrine was the real abuse. When was Dawkins elected as the single spokesperson for child sexual abuse,

He wasn’t was he? Like anyone else, he was expressing his opinion of his personal experience, to which he is entitled, whether you agree with him, or not, as would seem to be the case.

he was convicted on that count. no corroborative evidence.

I was saying just because your caught speeding o one road then someone reports you speeding on another does not constitute you were actually speeding.
Just because you did speed once does not make you a speeder o all roads because someone said so. now im confused !

TA – I would like you to point me to the source for your statement, if you would.

Ah! I am no longer confused and of course you are indeed stating the obvious. It doesn’t seem relevant to the cases we are discussing or to which you have drawn attention because individuals have been charged with a number of offences but not necessarily been found guilty of all. From memory that applied to Stuart Hall, Max Clifford and Dave Lee Travis.

I am not supporting any of the above but I do like justice to be served and base its findings on real evidence and not just hearsay, make sure the evidence can be backed up and make sure there is no link between accusers and corroboration happening

To quote the CPS;

“Having completed our review, we have concluded there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Harris to be charged … The decision has been taken in accordance with the code for crown prosecutors and the DPP’s interim guidelines on prosecuting cases of child sexual abuse. We have determined that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest”

I dare say that you need more than hearsay to get that sort of response out of CPS. I thought the prosecution services were always reluctant to investigate crimes anyway? I find it hard work to keep up with the conflicting tropes spewed across the bottom of the right wing spectrum. The Police took a while to show up to my house after I was burgled, so therefore the Police don’t investigate crimes to keep the crime stats looking low, but they spent all their resources trying to pin noncing charges on dead radio DJs because the victims all want to earn a quick buck because of the PC Brigade… …the real paedos are in Rotherham… do I have it right yet?

I hope these high profile cases do not detract away from abuse happening today

If anything they have the reverse effect as they serve to encourage victims to come forward, be the assaults the work of shamed BBC radio presenters or the man down the street. To go off on a slight tangent, I’m always amazed how posters online feel the justice system works. Firstly that all police resources are diverted into prosecuting old white men on noncing charges, using the least possible evidence, and secondly that victims of said abuse are in it for the money and (usually) making it up. Your first, attrociously written, paragraph suggests as much. You go so far as to try and discredit the neice of Jimmy Savile, as though all accusations lined up against Savile will fall like a house of cards if this one testament happens to be bogus. And, how do you reckon your (oft repeated) opinion that child sexual abuse victims are in it for the money does not detract away from abuse happening today? Beats me!

And again;

I feel the evidence should all be placed under a court and looked into deeply because as with Savile where they put adverts in the press to aledged victims to come forward its very easy to get people just weighing in with a slight bending of truths if there is a cash bid in it

Again, why do people insist on pointing out the obvious; as though none of this evidence would have ended up ‘under a court’ unless you pointed it out on an Internet forum? Do you reckon the justice system needs a gentle nudge from ‘Angry of Clacton-on-Sea’ because they don’t have any sort of system in place? How would you know when evidence has or has not been placed ‘under a court’ in the first place? Because you read about it in some crap newspaper somewhere? Perhaps you would try and exploit a historic case for personal financial gain, but you shouldn’t try and pin your own sloppy set of morals onto others, especially those that have been living with the aftermath of sexual abuse for decades. If nothing else it shows how you personally trivialise child sex abuse in your own head, which is perhaps part of the problem with getting victims today to talk about current abuse. You do know the emotional black mail involved here right? You wouldn’t happen to be talking out your **** would you?

This reminds me of the time Richard Dawkins suggested that his own sexual abuse at the hands of a priest was nothing to get upset about, and that, if anything, being forced to study christian doctrine was the real abuse. When was Dawkins elected as the single spokesperson for child sexual abuse, and when did a evolutionary biologist (and general sh!t-stirrer) become the arbiter for abuse in general? News to me.

Troubling.

he was convicted on that count. no corroborative evidence.

I was saying just because your caught speeding o one road then someone reports you speeding on another does not constitute you were actually speeding.
Just because you did speed once does not make you a speeder o all roads because someone said so. now im confused !

But is that true? Was one of the counts on which he was convicted actually the one you referred to?

Sorry, don’t follow your second para…..:)

Correct, I was just pointing out how non evidence can convict.

you sped along the A45 so you must of sped along the M5 type thinking

Without entering into a detailed discussion which will achieve nothing, but on a point of fact, Harris was convicted on 12 different counts over a period of 20 years, as far as I recall, not just one as you claim.

My bit.

Was Jimmy Savile guilty? I have no clue, yes he was a bit strange but all the accusations should be alleged as they have nevr bee tried in a court of law only by the media coverage and a program made about the alleged abuse. Saviles neice is under investigation regarding her accusations against her uncle which only seem to surface after realising monies were to be had

In the Rolf Harris case, Harris was found guilty of a sexual assault in a community centre LEIGH PARK in Havent Hampshire where harris allegedly turned up to give an impromptu show. Not one person and even members of that centre can confirm Rolf harris ever attended the centre, he denied ever being there and on said date was confirmed he was in Australia at that time. This is the problem with historic cases, the jury found him guilty on no more than one persons hearsay and no corroborating evidence, I find this very worrying and strange that you have a date and time but the accused was the other side of the world at that time!!

Jim Davidson, accused not evidence to support and a year of hell and the media basically supporting it.
Paul Gambacchini another dragged through the media social and otherwise.

Jannar, did he do it? who knows I have no clue but I feel the evidence should all be placed under a court and looked into deeply because as with Savile where they put adverts in the press to aledged victims to come forward its very easy to get people just weighing in with a slight bending of truths if there is a cash bid in it.
Savils 4m estate is basically soaked up in legal fees so ‘alleged victims’ will actually get nothing.

Cyril Smith, is he guilty? Again I know not and again he is dead.

I am not supporting any of the above but I do like justice to be served and base its findings on real evidence and not just hearsay, make sure the evidence can be backed up and make sure there is no link between accusers and corroboration happening

I hope these high profile cases do not detract away from abuse happening today

It’s a funny old world !

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lord-janner-criticised-justice-system-for-excusing-alleged-nazi-war-criminal-who-had-dementia–but-now-hes-in-the-same-position-10183717.html

I look at is as when you are alive, even when suffering from dementia you or your family have a chance to defend your position, Saville didn’t, though that’s not condoning his actions, I just feel if you have no protection to defend yourself via libel or in court, then you are open season, you also have to look at when do you cut off the period they can be prosecuted, otherwise you could have people suing people from the last century etc

The tide has turned – people are unafraid of talking, witchhunts are rife and both living and the dead are good meat. In some cases sucessful prosecutions have been brought, others have have failed. It is unsurprising.

And bear in mind that the tabloid perception of underage sex is that it is worse than murder.

How else to you explain why we only hear about the exploits of these individuals, once they have died ?

Because you can’t (in the legal sense) slander or libel the dead, and those with money can afford the most expensive legal teams, then tie up the opposition for so long that they go bankrupt. Maxwell ruled by fear of legal action (and its cost,) and his behaviour only came to light after his “accidental” suicide.

In comparison with the strength of the multiplicity of allegations against Savile none of the other individuals alleged to have committed offences come close. And fatuous comments about individuals having “got away with it” are wholly irresponsible.

How else to you explain why we only hear about the exploits of these individuals, once they have died ?

It’s irresponsible that Margaret Thatcher hushed up the exploits of Cyril Smith amongst many others.

Irresponsible that the police took no action against Savile, having known what he was up to, for over 20years.