It is no good talking about “footsoldiers” as if they carry no responsibility for the destructive actions they assist –and indeed carry out under the orders of the more evil above them. Many of the coppers involved in Yewtree will indeed know it is crap–but they are still going along with it. That is the point. All of those who, like Frankie, swallow the lies and all of those “footsoldiers” who do what they are told even when they know it is bogus and wrong carry some of the blame. Swallowing the lies is the first step. Once the mind has accepted the poison everything follows from that.

Do any of these police stop to think about the kind of world–now being set up by their actions–in which their sons and grandsons will have to live. A world in which any (non-connected to power) male can be arrested and jailed on the unsupported allegation of any female who cares to make such an accusation. Is it worthwhile to take pay today to feed male kids at the price of leaving them the life of a second class citizen 20 years down the road?. That is what the radfems want. That is what Yewtree is a part of, why it has come into being. That is the aim that lies (never a more appropriate word) behind Yewtree. The degradation and destruction of all men.

Ok–arranging it so that bogus charges ensure a few old men die in jail to help hate-filled radfem freaks try to peddle their message of man-hate to society in general is not a horror on the same scale as the state-created horrors the 2oth century witnessed. But it is the same principle at work. I’m just an ordinary person so it isn’t my fault if I stooge for evil. I was only obeying legitimate orders from my superiors.

* But it is the same principle at work. I’m just an ordinary person so it isn’t my fault if I stooge for evil. I was only obeying legitimate orders *

Imagine the effect of one Insider or one newspaper allowing a journalist to break ranks and have the guts to say – nay demonstrate with facts and evidence that, “This isn’t all quite what you think folks”. Yewtree has depended entirely upon silence and if you read Jim Davidson’s book about what happened to him when he dared break that silence, then it is very clear that there is a caucus centred around lawyers and ‘charity-with-a-cause’ that is prepared to lie and attempt the false conviction of innocent people not just for money, but also to prevent them having any voice at all. Davidson has proved to be a very brave man and have great integrity. Most everyone else cleared of false allegations has remained hidden in the shrubbery of self-preservation.

Perhaps the greatest trick the Conspiracists have pulled is convincing the UK that conspiracy doesn’t exist….

@ Frankie

I hope you’re not making the assumption that we would necessarily agree with your analysis either

While the major parts of our justice system are probably fairly intact, there is a worrying trend in its moving to a means of delivering something which smacks more of the form of administrative statutory, absolute liability, penalties, than performing any test of the accused’s guilt.

The occurrence of a set of exactly similar events doesn’t necessarily mean that they resulted from the same cause, or that the participants all had, or did not have, the same mens rea. But at the moment we are seeing signs of a determined push by certain groups to despatch mens rea to the rubbish tip in respect of their wish to control and impose their dogma and will on some aspects of behaviour of which they disapprove, including that in which all involved consented.

And in the Yewtree and related stuff, that means that. retrospectively, they are trying to impose on events of the past their own standards, and those of some others today, on those for whom, at that time, no mens rea necessarily attached to such behaviour. The might have been schmucks, but not criminals

It worries me when I see, more generally, the vapid public thrill that resonates when these cases now come to court, the witch hunters titivating their pin pricking followers, the latter day puritanism that is being lauded, and the somewhat facile assumptions being made that the convictions now being obtained in some of the cases are necessarily the ‘correct’ ones, and the acquittals are just plain ‘wrong’.

If you can live happily in the sort of pharisaical society that this is driving us to, one that will be ever so well ordered, with mandatory rules that are applied on a solely legalistic basis, and which completely discount the diversity of human behaviour, well, good for you. But I don’t see it as something that will be good for my kids, or theirs.

If you follow that train of thought progression to its logical conclusion, I trust that you would have no objections to any society which then insists on morality police strolling the streets with their birches to impose their so determined standards. Their end aim, which is of similar intent, can only but be only admirable, can’t it?

As far as Mr Ecks is concerned, he’s got cause and effect wrapped round his neck. He’s bordering on getting close to the effect, but he’s off his trolley in both how he expresses the outcomes, and to whom he ascribes the causes