Be not afeard; the isle is full of noises.
Though in truth, you should be mighty afeard; Calibans’ ‘thousand twangling instruments’ are in full throttle and care not how they put at risk our hard won and historic rights to fair judgement by our peers.
In the light of Greater Manchester’s astounding statement last night concerning Cyril Smith:
The Force is now publicly acknowledging that young boys were victims of physical and sexual abuse committed by Smith.
I thought it might be helpful to set out the changes in British law which has led them to conclude that if:
…the same evidence was presented to the CPS today there would have been a very realistic prospect that Smith would have been charged with a number of indecent assaults, and that the case would have been brought to trial.
Those reading this with some legal training will have noticed immediately that the first quotation goes further than ‘the case would have been bought to trial’ – and assumes the role of the jury in deciding that ‘young boys were victims of physical and sexual abuse committed by Smith’. Does that matter, in the present climate of hysteria surrounding paedophilia? Good Lord Yes! The day we allow the Police to be both Judge and Jury is the day we turn our backs for ever on the Magna Carta. The righteous mob, however, is delighted; they have been handed an acknowledged paedophile, a dead and thus libel-free one, a politician no less, to kick around the Internet.
They are playing a dangerous game, a game with many different components.
Was Cyril Smith a paedophile, a sexual abuser? I have no idea, and it is right and proper that I have no idea, for he never was, and never can be, brought to trial. Nor can Jimmy Savile. I have no idea, yet, whether Madeleine McCann’s parents are ‘murdering scumbags’ or tragically bereft parents. I have no idea whether YOU are a dangerous rapist, nor your neighbour a serial thief. Why is that right and proper? Because 900 years ago, we wrested control from those who ruled us to denounce and punish us as they chose, and insisted that only a jury of our peers could decide our guilt or innocence, on the basis of the competing evidence laid before them by prosecution and defence. Only then, and only if found guilty, could the authorities punish us.
Slowly and surely, those who rule us have been trying to take back that right by degrees.
When we were horrified by the blood and carnage wreaked upon us by the IRA, they said it was impossible to bring those responsible to trial by their peers; juries were being intimidated and could be corrupted. We acquiesced when it was decided that a Judge, and a Judge alone, could decide guilt and pass sentence on those denounced as responsible.
When we were frustrated that the impatience of the mob led to a premature civil prosecution being made against the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, they said it was impossible to try them a second time because of the double jeopardy rule. We acquiesced when it was decided that you could be tried and retried on the same charge until found guilty.
When we were sickened by the sight of fellow citizens reeling in pain and injury from the explosions created by Al Qaeda terrorists, they said they could not successfully prosecute in open court, witnesses could be put in danger. We acquiesced when it was decided that a Judge, hearing unknown evidence in secret, could decide guilt and pass sentence on those denounced as responsible.
When we were appalled by the allegation that a Father had sexually abused his own two daughters, they said they could not bring other witnesses to court, there were none, the evidence of each daughter should be allowed to stand in each indictment, so long as there had been no evidence of collusion between the witnesses. We acquiesced when it was decided that evidence that was only corroborated between the actual complainants could prove guilt and allow the authorities to pass sentence on those denounced as responsible.
When we were shocked to find that Father’s were still sexually abusing their daughters, they said that not only did they not have witnesses other than the complainants, but that even when there was ‘strong evidence’ that there had been collusion between them and that their evidence had been fabricated, it was not the role of the Judge to decide whether evidence had been fabricated and should be put before the Jury. We acquiesced, even if we barely noticed, when fabricated evidence, drawn up in collusion, was put before a Jury, so emotive was the charge.
When we found that in some cases, the assailant was unknown, or the witness nor suitably credible for cross examination in a criminal court, they said that in order for justice to be done, it was necessary to have a separate court. One that would examine the evidence on the basis of ‘probability’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable’ doubt. There was no need for Judge or Jury, nor open court to hear the evidence, since no punishment would be handed out, rather the victim should be offered ‘justice’ in the form of a cash award contributed to by every taxpayer.
Each time there has been an erosion of the rights laid down in the Magna Carta, it has come at a time of high emotion. When there has been rightful indignation at the nature of the crime.
Cyril Smith has been both denounced and pronounced guilty. Jimmy Savile proclaimed the ‘most prolific sex offender’ ever. Now we do not know, nor will ever know, if the ‘evidence’ was the result of collusion, or fabricated in search of a cash award. It has been heard in a secret court, bereft of Jury, bereft of Judge. And we applaud?
Yes, we applaud. We do so because we have been manipulated by the media, with images of endearing five year old girls in slightly-too-long nightdresses clutching their teddy bear – and we cannot understand how any right minded person could possibly think that it was OK to vent their sexual urges on such a child; and we are told that such persons are paedophiliacs. We are then told that accepting oral sex from a 15 year old girl also makes you a paedophiliac – and the images of disgust in our minds that the term induces is such that reason leaves us, and nothing is too terrible to happen to such a person. Surely they cannot be entitled to the same rights as the rest of us – they are animals?
So far such denunciations from the media and the authorities have only been visited on the dead, the libel-free. But the erosions of our rights have been visited on all of us.
When you find yourself denounced by the authorities in a secret court – for theft perhaps, or homophobia – on the basis of colluded and fabricated evidence that has never been put before a Judge or Jury, will never be publicised, and sentence is pronounced by the Police – a body that is soon to be privatised and rated by results – will YOU be horrified, sickened, frustrated, shocked, appalled – or acquiesce?
Whilst the rest of us applaud…
You should be very afeard. That is how the law progresses in the UK, little incremental steps…
November 30, 2012 at 12:13
-
@Jim,
Have you got anything to say about the issue at hand? Or are you just here
to comment on who you do and don’t have respect for in terms of contributors?
I have not seen anyone chastised for having a different view here. I have seen
people correctly advised not to personally attack other posters. Do you see
the difference?
- November 30, 2012 at
13:37
- November 30, 2012 at 08:52
-
The only gratuitous insult was directed at ‘Amfortas’ and I will own up to
being harsh with Gildas, but never rude. I believe that Gildas is a highly
principled, obviously clever man. Amfortas is a man with a record, maybe not
on this blog, and I stupidly lashed out at him, in what appeared to be a
baseless insult fest. I should have done it on a different forum where there
was some context, because his madness has not been so evident on this blog. So
I looked like the fool.
I have never been personally rude to you. But, you know, this blog has the
feel of like-minded folk whispering in corners. No dissent allowed. I am proud
to be banned.
- December 1, 2012 at 23:49
-
@Jim: ‘… I stupidly lashed out… I looked like the fool’.
No mate, not just ‘looked like’! And, perhaps characteristically, given
her Quaker principles, Ms. Raccoon keeps letting you drop back in here with
little or no censure… What is there to complain about?
‘… I am proud to be banned’. I hope you will not mind the observation
that your continued posts here do appear speak of a mind that revels in
self-flagellation and a desire to bring opprobrium on yourself . If that’s
‘your bag’, the hair shirt, celice thing well, I am sure you have your
reasons, but it is a sad state of affairs.
Perhaps we can all help if you want to share your burden.
-
November 29, 2012 at 20:50
-
I can’t get my head around convoluted conspiracy theories like yours John.
And you know, if you need to end up believing fantastic things in order to
allow the theory to be true, then it isn’t a very good theory is it?
In any
case, they have got a real live celebrity to gibber over now and twitter and
Mark Williams Thomas have a lot to answer for.
- November 29, 2012 at 19:59
-
The more they can push accusations against dead people the more effectively
they can hide the paedophile peccadillos of their friends in public, legal
positions of authority by eventually exhausting the “outrage” of the masses,
after it has all “blown” over, they can continue as they ever did with the
smug satisfaction of having fooled the sheeple yet again.
- November 29, 2012 at 12:56
-
Here’s a suggestion for all of you who are scared of the power of the
media. Stop buying them.
- November 29, 2012 at 07:59
-
All this righteous talk, so diminished, by banning those who disagree.
Shame on you.
I hope you sleep well at night, knowing that reasonable
opinion is disallowed because your giant ego doesn’t allow criticism. However
polite.
- November 29, 2012 at
08:21
-
No Jim, I don’t ban those who disagree with me – I ban those who hurl
personal abuse in the guise of disagreeing. There is a difference.
If you wish to debate you may come back. If your ambition is merely to be
personally rude to me – then you must go elsewhere.
You are only the second person I have ever banned from the site in 4
years. I dislike intensely having to do so, but you seem to be under the
impression that I maintain this site merely so you can insult me and insult
other commentators from behind your wall of anonymity – merely because we
hold a different view to you.
-
November 29, 2012 at 11:45
-
*applause*
- December 1, 2012 at 23:33
-
@Jim: ‘…criticism. However polite.’
If this is you being polite I would really hate it if you tried being
rude!!
-
November 29, 2012 at 02:41
-
This is the best post I’ve read all year. Period.
You’re right, this is more than just about tabloid tittle-tattle or
dickless politicians… it’s the final hammer blows to 900 years of freedoms and
protections from the State. And it stinks most foul. What I do find remarkable
is that we’ve suffered war, political upheaval, famine and other darkened
times over the centuries, and yet these freedoms stood fast (mostly). But in a
little less than our own lifetimes we’ve allowed the State to dismantle them.
We should be ashamed of ourselves!
As for the other matter, I would raise issue with all those statements,
both official and commentary, that propagate the lie “young boys”. The
accusers, of which there were three principle ones in the early 1960s, were 15
and 17 years old when they first happened upon Cyril Smith. All of which were
of working age and hardly innocent babes. However for argument’s sake, lets
say there was some truth to the allegations, even though a senior police
officer cautioned not to trust the accusers. Would anyone care to guess what
penalty Smith (who was then a mere Councillor) would have received had he been
found guilty at the time? A fine of £10 perhaps. Maybe bound-over?
- November 29, 2012 at 09:34
-
Good comments John; the freedoms and protections have taken a huge hit,
more so over the last 15 years or so. And you’re right, at that age the boys
were old enough to be working (and at 17 could be on active military
service!) so the use of ‘children’ is intentional and to mislead: all media
do it, (not wanting to get off topic but especially in war zones ‘children
killed’ isn’t always what it seems).
- November
29, 2012 at 01:07
-
Anna, It’s nice to see someone agreeing with my point of view,. As I stated
in my comments on your “Past Lives and Present Misgivings – Part Six” and on
my own blog there seems to be a fantastic effort involved to push the
paedophile meme across several interlinked strands. One likely outcome is the
use of this emotive subject to push through some form of legislation.
The same happened with the Violent Porn Law; heinous, wide-reaching
legislation that is worded so its scope is far beyond its original remit, but
those few in Parliament with the spine to question it weren’t able to rail
against the emotive language used to promote it.
I’ve yet to put a finger on what that legislation would be: possibly the
weakening of the BBC might provide opportunities post-Leveson for further
control of not just the press but the media as a whole, or maybe as I’ve
speculated before control of families and especially children could be another
target.
Who knows, but I get the uneasy feeling nothing good will come out of
it.
-
November 28, 2012 at 21:20
-
Cyril Smith, guilty or innocent, cannot be harmed by this development.
However, imagine if you are an old man, or a man with terminal illness, who
had once faced accusations of sex crime that were totally unfounded and were
thrown out by the CPS or DPP. Would you not be feeling a degree of distress at
what you were witnessing right now? There is no fairness to any of this.
We are in the midst of a moral panic that must run it’s course. It will
only end when it becomes generally understood by the population at large that
the innocent are being chewed up in the cogs of justice as well as the
guilty.
- November 28, 2012 at 20:41
-
It helps if the accused is dead.
CICA still pays accusers ‘up to
£27,000′.
They all seem to be low-lifes.
I know, I know … don’t judge on
appearances … but still.
Ms Raccoon injects a note of sanity.
Helps.
- November 29, 2012 at 06:22
-
Indeed- a dissolute led life of drug taking, boozing and nicking cars is
seen as proof when in all other matters it would bring a stern rebuke form
the Magistrate.
- November 28, 2012 at 20:11
-
Well done, that lady.
Innocent until proven guilty? By a jury of
one’s peers? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
- November 28, 2012 at 19:58
-
Another brilliant read, Anna. I can’t express how strongly I feel about
these police statements but you’ve pretty much done it for me.
As to the
police resources that are being expended – a point alluded to in one or two
earlier posts; it almost makes me weep. £2 million already if the Mail is to
be believed. This at a time when police budgets are at their tightest ever;
thousands of staff and officers have been and still are facing redundancy; and
difficult juggling acts have been needed to try to still maintain effective
policing. Observers from other nations will surely look on and think Britain
has gone mad. Imagine the furore if Greece decided to fritter what money they
have away in this fashion.
- November 28, 2012 at 19:16
-
“You should be very afeard. That is how the law progresses in the UK,
little incremental steps…”
That’s the way it goes. Salami slice by salami
slice and hope nobody notices the cumulative effect.
Pretty effective
too…………
- November 28, 2012 at 16:47
-
And on (seemingly) another planet entirely, the Planet of Europe…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950
“…Animal welfare: Germany moves to ban bestiality.
Germany’s ruling coalition is calling for a ban on bestiality – or the
practice of having sex with animals.
The German parliament’s agriculture
committee is considering making it an offence not only to hurt an animal but
also to force it into unnatural sex. Offenders could face a hefty fine.
A
final vote will be held in the Bundestag (lower house) on 14 December.
Germany legalised bestiality (zoophilia) in 1969, except when the animal
suffered “significant harm”.”
Who said that we should have closer ties with our Germanic cousins and the
whole sorry European crew?
I told you they was a weird lot!!
- November 28, 2012 at 17:49
-
Auf wiedersehen pet.
- November 28, 2012 at 19:07
-
Drink>Nose>Keyboard
- November 28, 2012 at 19:33
-
- November 28, 2012 at 20:47
-
“You disgust me! How low will you stoop?”
“Dachshunds, milord”
- November 29, 2012 at 08:10
-
What astonishes me was that it was >legalised< in 1969. Did a
German politician seriously think that legalising bestiality would be a vote
winner?
- November 29, 2012 at 09:21
-
@ What astonishes me was that it was >legalised< in 1969 @
“in the permissive progressive 70’s. PIE (Paedophile Information
Exchange) was at the forefront of a campaign to lower and even abolish the
age of consent. From 1978, until eventually excluded in 1983, it was
affiliated to, and supported by, the National Council for Civil Liberties,
now known as Liberty. At the urging of MIND the mental health charity PIE
submitted a report to the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee on
the age of consent. Their 17-page report proposed that there should be no
age of consent, and that the criminal law should concern itself only with
sexual activities to which consent is not given, or which continue after
prohibition by a civil court.”
http://possil.wordpress.com/tag/national-council-for-civil-liberties/
The humane approach is to experiment on animals first…….
- November 29, 2012 at 15:25
-
I wonder if it was not so much “legaised” as de-statuted.
The Germans are really efficient (I know, I know, but its a reasonable
trueism), so the removal of legislation that was considered no longer
relevant in the sense it was unlikely to happen is quite a reasonable
thing to do as it keeps statute simple.
The UK version of law is such a jumble and much of it is no longer
relevant in todays society yet it lingers on in the depths of the
parliamentary scrolls, even new legislation that supersedes older, or is
in conflict of other unrelated legislation does not involve the removal of
the original (in most cases) or amendments of conflicts within the law
which can create all kinds of strange side affects.
Often these nuances can be used for good or nefarious uses by
application where it was not initially intended to be used.
Sadly with nulabors IR35 law they also broke the one of the greatest
tenets of law; that it cannot be applied retrospectively, so now its
possible to criminalise someone who committed an offense, in retrospect,
that at the time was not illegal.
I don;t know if CS was guilty of sexual abuse, however corporal
punishment was a legitimate for of chastisement back in CS day, it was not
until about 1986 and beyond that its use was removed from schools and
other institutes; so in this instance he would not have been guilty of
anything back then, but under todays standards would have been… so to use
the words “under todays laws/standards he would be guilty” is a very bad
precedent to set; without the fact that no legal case has been raised with
the relevant standards of proof under either the existing legislation or
current.
- November 29, 2012 at 17:41
-
XX Bundestag (lower house) XX
Since WHEN?
Bundestag = Oberstes bundesorgan. (Highest level of Government).
-
November 28, 2012 at 15:17
-
I posted this in the wrong set of comments, one of the Savile threads, this
morning but it seems germane here:
There was a report on the Smith thing on R4 “Today” this morning, two
talking heads interviewed. I was driving so I can’t say I concentrated on
every word, but a couple of things struck me. They discussed the allegations
in terms of them being ones the CPS would act on today, but the worrying trend
of the police seeming again to be pronouncing guilt in advance didn’t seem to
get an airing. Because this could be the thin end of the wedge across the
whole of criminal law, it’s actually more worrying for society as a whole (or
should be) than isolated offences against children 40 years ago about which
little can now be done. And beyond the generic idea that multiple complaints
can prompt claims of a conspiracy, it seemed to be taken as read that all the
complaints were valid
Personally I’m much more inclined to believe complaints made 40 years ago
than those made now about events 40 years ago. However, I can’t help thinking
it’s a coincidence that it centres round Rochdale. Is it intended to deflect
attention from more recent cases there – spread the load of guilt, so to
speak?
- November 28, 2012 at 17:37
-
@ However, I can’t help thinking it’s a coincidence that it centres round
Rochdale. @
It’s more of a consequence perhaps, than a coincidence:
“The way GMP
treated the 2008 allegations is at the centre of a managed investigation by
the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). It was only after a
second girl made similar claims in December 2009 that detectives began
Operation Span.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17853560
“GMP
is not commenting directly on the IPCC inquiry, but Assistant Chief
Constable Steven Heywood concedes the force has made mistakes. “We apologise
to anyone that has suffered due to any failing on our part, ” he said.
-
November 28, 2012 at 15:04
-
Excellent, clear, true. Thank you for writing it.
- November 28, 2012 at 14:57
-
I was concerned that the BBC didn’t have “LIBERAL MP abused boys” as a
screaming headline in all their news bulletins and radio programmes…, funny
that. They had NO mention at all of any political party online in marked
contrast to when the ‘perp’ is from certain other political parties.
-
November 28, 2012 at 17:09
-
The boys were subject to the liberal whip, but party leader Jeremy Thorpe
said he would make sure they toed the line, and that he personally would
visit Rochdale to get to the bottom of the matter.
- November 28, 2012 at 13:55
-
I too have suffered abuse at a young age. When I was a kid people used to
cover me in chocolate and cream
and put a cherry on my head…………………………… life
was tough in the gateau.
- November 28, 2012 at
14:23
-
November 28, 2012 at 14:34
-
Raised in the Black Forest, clearly.
- November 28, 2012 at 14:38
-
I was treated like a Pavlova’s dog!
- November 28, 2012 at
14:50
-
Unlike the Maid’s of Honour – that’s feminism for you….
- November 28, 2012 at
19:15
-
that’s tart…
-
November 28, 2012 at 14:54
-
Don’t suppose you were any relative of Frank Muir’s, were you?
Anyway, keep them coming…
Ignore those who become hot & cross over your current pun…
- November 28, 2012 at
19:15
-
A relative of Frank Muir’s what?
-
November 29, 2012 at 09:34
-
Not sure this is a trifling matter, Saul, nor that your pudding puns are
suetable here, considering the jam roly-poly Mr Smith’s reputation is
in….
- November 29, 2012 at 11:29
-
He escaped charges, Jammie dodger..
- November 29, 2012 at 12:01
-
That’s a cracker!
- November 29, 2012 at 12:06
-
In fact, award yourself a Blue Riband…
-
November 29, 2012 at 13:09
-
“We be of one blood, ye and I”
An exceedingly good quote!
- November 29, 2012 at
13:41
-
Well spotted, Dick!
- November 29, 2012 at
21:27
-
I know there’s a pun somewhere about Cadbury’s and chocolate but I
can’t seem to put my finger on it.
- November
28, 2012 at 13:54
-
“Those reading this with some legal training will have noticed
immediately that the first quotation goes further than ‘the case would have
been bought to trial’ – and assumes the role of the jury in deciding that
‘young boys were victims of physical and sexual abuse committed by Smith’.
Does that matter, in the present climate of hysteria surrounding paedophilia?
Good Lord Yes! The day we allow the Police to be both Judge and Jury is the
day we turn our backs for ever on the Magna Carta…”
Well said. Well said indeed. I no longer recognise the country I find
myself living in.
-
November 28, 2012 at 12:51
-
“Was Cyril Smith a paedophile, a sexual abuser? I have no idea, and it is
right and proper that I have no idea, for he never was, and never can be,
brought to trial.”
Let me disagree with you. The fact that Mr Smith was never brought to trial
(and can’t be) does not stop you (or anyone else) from forming an opinion,
based on evidence available, that he was, or was not, or might have been, a
sexual abuser. Of course, if you have no evidence to support your opinion,
whatever it be, then your opinion is worthless. On the other hand, the more
evidence you have to support your opinion, the more likely it is to be
correct. Juries, of course, have ultimate access to evidence, or are supposed
to, which is (part of) why we take their verdicts (or informed opinions, if
you like) seriously.
He either was, or wasn’t, a sexual abuser, regardless of any legal process
or lack of one, or indeed regardless of any jury’s verdict.
What changes with the outcome of a trial is your right (and, importantly,
the state’s right) to treat him as a sexual abuser, or not. (While he is
alive, that is.)
Great blog BTW, and thanks for the good work
- November 28, 2012 at 12:34
-
It has got to the point now that anything that appears in any of the MSM
about anything, I view from the position that it is wrong until proved
otherwise. Even such things a pictures of floods are suspect considering the
rampant use of PhotoShop in the press.
As for the strange utterances of the police farce, I can’t help wondering
how much of it is down to ACPO being an unaccountable private company and a
lot of top ranks having gone through a common purpose training session.
- November 28, 2012 at 13:42
-
“suspect considering the rampant use of PhotoShop in the press”
I recall a photograph of a city in some middle-eatern shit-storm a while
ago, offered by the Reuters agency, in which bombing and/or shelling had
sent up dense plumes of smoke. However the smoke had been ‘cloned’ (a form
of copying) to make a lot more dense, thus making the viewer think there was
hardly a building left that wasn’t on fire.
But Reuters (once a highly reputable agency, now less so according to
some) have some form here. They also ran a picture of defensive flares on an
Israeli fighter cloned and captioned as firing missiles, as well as
undamaged soft toys placed (allegedly) among ruins for greater dramatic
effect.
One of the lessons I learned about the media is, pre-photoshop, the skill
that was used in selective cropping of images, depending on the paper’s
preferred political view. A relatively famous photo from the middle-east
from years ago showed, cropped more on one side, an Israeli soldier
appearing to aim his gun at fleeing children. Cue outrage from anti-semitic
readers. The part that was cropped however showed an Israeli soldier on the
other side showing the children the way to safety. The man with the upraised
gun was therefore far less threatening (and more protecting) when seen with
his colleague helping the kids.
You pays your money and you clone (or crop) as you wish the public to
think.
-
November 29, 2012 at 06:16
-
I think Photoshop came to the fore in that Saddam Hussein statue pull
down where the crowd was cloned over and over.
- November 28, 2012 at 14:02
-
@ ivan
I wouldn’t disagree all that strongly, but at the end of the day all that
the papers are doing is reporting what information is coming from apparently
authoritative sources, like itv (ofcom regulated media), the police forces
and Members of Parliament, not to mention the BBC. What does seem missing is
any acute rebuttal from any section of the newspapers/media, or any
suggestion that the honourable member for Rochdale might be better spending
his parliamentary time looking at contemporary sexual abuse in his own
constituency, rather than from the last century. If Rotherham’s voters lack
the will to diasbuse themselves of this dreadful Labour witch-hunting
hegemony at least until the next general Election, then as always the
country will continue to get the politicians that it deserves, as well as
the Media it likes to read.
However, given that the Leveson report is due tomorrow, the newspaper’s
approach is not wholly surprising; which of them has anything to gain by
sticking it’s neck out? Even Private Eye’s editor jumped on the Savile
bandwagon as soon the ramshackle invention was seen to have the promise of a
wheel.
- November 28, 2012 at 14:49
-
“..I can’t help wondering how much of it is down to ACPO being an
unaccountable private company and a lot of top ranks having gone through a
common purpose training session…”
Ivan, I would say it has everything to do with it. Chief Constables these
days are politically motivated political appointees, usually fast-tracked on
the grounds they have a 2,2 in politics, creative dance or some such
nonsense. The days when a Chief Constable was a person who had risen through
the ranks by virtue of being a good copper in the sense of dealing with
villains, feeling collars etc., have long gone.
As the greatest villainy today is to be found in the ruling élite,
perhaps it’s no wonder they have subtly engineered their lapdogs into top
positions. These utterances are little more than pandering to the mob, to
fool (some of) us into thinking they’re on our side and share our
concerns.
- November 28, 2012 at
14:52
-
“These utterances are little more than pandering to the mob, to fool
(some of) us into thinking they’re on our side and share our
concerns”.
Precisely, throw them a dead politician to kick around in their forums,
that’ll keep them quiet.
-
November 29, 2012 at 12:22
-
Of course, Anna.
It serves as a distraction, too: When Argentina’s situation was going
(further) down the lavatory, Galtieri came up with the wheeze of
invading the Falklands to divert the mob’s attention from his complete
cock-up of virtually everything else.
Now Britain’s in a similar parlous state. our élite stage this little
diversion…
- November 28, 2012 at 15:03
-
It has a lot to do with the English class system (what remains of it).
The brightest university students are usually directed into medicine,
dentistry, engineering, architecture, banking, journalism, lawyering, the
civil service and the BBC–not into law enforcement. The last Old Etonian
who became a copper was probably George Orwell and he later switched to a
media career and even did time at the BBC.
-
November 28, 2012 at 12:30
-
Why are police spending their time investigating allegations made against a
dead man who cannot commit any (or, possibly, further) crime, nor be brought
to trial, rather than, say, allegations made against living people where the
same considerations do not apply?
-
November 28, 2012 at 16:05
-
Altogether now – “CLOSURE!”
- November 28, 2012 at 19:32
-
You might well be right, but I don’t think that’s the job of the
police
- November 29, 2012 at 08:31
-
Sorry, but I did not know the emoticon for sarcasm!
- December 1, 2012 at
07:11
-
Mark <—- A bit slow on the uptake sometimes
- November 28, 2012 at 12:29
-
Looks like there’s still hope for the living:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/28/louis-walsh-500000-libel-irish-sun
But it seems cruel that the “victim” who was brave enough to make the
allegation has now been sent to prison for six months….
-
November 28, 2012 at 12:04
-
Clearly, the police feel they have moved on from having to bother with the
inconvenience of the rest of the criminal justice system (CPS,trials, judges,
juries etc).
Shame, really that we have abolished capital punishment or else they could,
presumably, just hang alleged criminals in the cells.
And the most worrying aspect of all is the suspicion that they don’t come
out with such stuff with any malevolent intent but do so because they are too
stupid to understand the significance of what they are saying. The Met
spokesman who announced that Savile was “clearly a predatory sex offender” did
so with the relish of someone delivering a song on X factor.
- November 28, 2012 at
12:11
- November 28, 2012 at 10:59
-
Perusing this:
“Police are to re-open an investigation into the
Birmingham pub bombings that killed 21 people nearly 40 years ago, it has been
revealed.
Detectives will open a cold-case probe into who carried out the
suspected IRA attacks in November 1974, which also injured 182 people.
In
1991 six men, known as the Birmingham Six, were released from prison after
spending 17 years behind bars when their convictions for the bombings were
quashed by the Court of Appeal.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176341/Cold-case-cops-probe-Birmingham-pub-bombings-killed-21-revellers-nearly-40-years-ago.html#ixzz2DVu2eryi
leaves me wondering why the more police feel this need to “investigate”
things that happened last century, especially when all the dead people cannot
be prosecuted anyway. Couldn’t investigative journalists do a better job of
this sort of historical righting of wrongs? It would at least leave the police
able to help deal with crimes that are happening in this century, to people
who are alive.
-
November 28, 2012 at 11:41
-
I said this before over the Dave Lee Travis arrest. It is unthinkable
that the police in the 1970′s would have wasted time and money investigating
an allegation of breast jiggling in the 1930′s, which would be the
equivalent time frame. I suppose the answer in each case is that someone is
still seeking monetary compensation. It sounds like Smith probably had a
case to answer, but then as now prosecutors probably didn’t think the
credibility of the primary witnesses would stand up in court against an
influential man like Smith.
- November 29, 2012 at
02:01
-
“It is unthinkable that the police in the 1970′s would have wasted
time and money investigating an allegation of breast jiggling in the
1930′s…”
A very very good point actually.
- November 28, 2012 at 10:59
- November 28, 2012 at 10:57
-
I agree that we are manipulated by all forms of the media – who do not
usually see it as fundamental to speak the truth and publish only the proven
facts. Perhaps the solution is to make sure that we are well educated enough
on certain topics to see through the ‘media fog’. You help us to do that,
Anna. You are concise and detailed. However, you can only be a ‘help’. It is
our responsibility to be informed and not make too many knee jerk reactions to
media releases.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing – Edmund Burke.
Maybe we should show our disgust by lobbying those concerned and avoiding
their publications, programmes, etc and letting them know why. Ratings and
money matter to them, apparently more than the truth.
- November 28, 2012 at 10:37
-
Presumably you are so worried about the abolition of trial by jury that you
escaped to a country which has never used the system.
Last time I looked, Greater Manchester Police didn’t even have the power to
decide whether to charge someone or not except for relatively “minor” crimes.
I took this rather OTT statement from GMP to mean that they reckoned they
would have had enough evidence to present a good case for the CPS to charge
Smith under the current guidelines. I don’t think it was an attempt to grab
control of the entire criminal justice system.
But that doesn’t make for quite such an exciting blog post, does it?
- November 28, 2012 at 10:42
-
@ blue eyes
“The Force is now publicly acknowledging that young boys were victims of
physical and sexual abuse committed by Smith.”
http://www.gmp.police.uk/Content/WebsitePages/A22934C753EF3F0380257AC300607543?OpenDocument
Seems pretty conclusive evidence to me…..
- November 28, 2012 at
10:47
-
You may have taken the ‘OTT’ statement to mean that, as did I – but that
won’t stop it being used as ‘conclusive proof’ by large numbers of
citizens.
I shall ignore your prior ad hominem jibe as being beneath you.
- November 29, 2012 at 12:52
-
At worst, the GMP are committing libel/defamation on a dead person. Who
is being tried in secret here?
It wasn’t an ad hominem. If you think that juries are so important for
the protection of your liberties* are you not taking rather a huge risk by
living in a jurisdiction that doesn’t have them? Or are the judges in
France somehow cut from a better cloth than the ones you fear taking over
in England?
*which I would agree with
- November 28, 2012 at 16:25
-
@ Blue Eyes: You are correct that GMP, or any other UK force does not
have the power to decide whether a person should be charged with an offence,
except in very minor cases, or not, and I believe that you may be correct in
your interpretation of the statement by them, concerning Sir Cyril Smith,
but this is not the common interpretation placed upon this rather
astonishing statement by the media.
I am with Anna on this one. Where is the EVIDENCE that Sir Cyril Smith or
Sir Jimmy Savile committed any of the crimes they have now been accused of?
The tone of the presenter on the Jeremy Vine programme today was
unequivocal. Smith WAS GUILTY. No evidence. No Trial, except trial by public
opinion.
It is a lamentable state of affairs, driven, I think by the politically
correct waters that the various forces currently swim in. It is clear that
evidence WAS presented to the CPS but they did not believe there was a case
to answer in respect of either gentleman. Now they are deceased, it seems
like open season and the determination of the police force has been warped,
perhaps by political pressure, perhaps by the need to be all effacing and
determined to show that they will go to any lengths to make up for perceived
past wrongs.
I think that if there was insufficient evidence to charge Smith with an
offence thirty or forty years ago then that is that. And yet, one of the
politicians on the above mentioned programme, there as a guest, went so far
as to allege that it was ‘well known in Rochdale’ that Smith was a
paedophile, as well as within the Liberal Democrats – that he was ‘at it’
after the period under consideration by the police now.
This, is, respectfully, evidence of nothing.
I do not say that Smith was whiter than white in this regard. I do not
know the facts, as I do not know the facts with Savile, but I think it is a
sad day when both are convicted without the niceties of evidence, and we are
all the worse for this development.
- November 29, 2012 at 12:54
-
The point here is simple and I cannot seriously believe that you cannot
see it. If the media are reporting Smith as guilty then your complaint is
with the media and not with whatever statement GMP issued.
- November 29, 2012 at 06:12
-
I’m alarmed that you are not alarmed.
This is scary. It’s the first time in my 65 years I have heard the police
make such an announcement and it is so very dangerous ( and no- the
Gendarmes do not yet announce persons guilty before trial).
What I have noticed in my 65 years is that the police can never be
trusted and the law is sacrosanct. But no longer.
- November 28, 2012 at 10:23
-
Outstanding.
- November 28, 2012 at 09:56
-
Altogether now…
Springtime for Cyril and Manchester….
Savile and paedo’s in Leeds…
dum de dum de dum….
{ 81 comments }