Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
* puts a tub of Celebrations and some packets of Kettle Chips and Dorritos on the table…
Wow didn’t realise how long that was going to end up :shock:
Well done if you read it to the end!
Having read some of the comments made as a result of my earlier post, I’d just like to clarify a few things.
When my friend’s son made the initial complaint, it was 13 years after the last incident of abuse against him had taken place. One of the difficulties I believe stops many historical child abuse complaints being progressed is a lack of physical evidence or witnesses, resulting in an accuser’s word against the accused’s word. He was one person making an accusation against a man who had worked with hundreds, maybe thousands, of young boys for over 30 years with a spotless record, no suspicions and no complaints against him. When the accused was presented with the accusation he denied it, pointing to the accuser’s “troubled teenage behaviour”, and yes his behaviour as a teen was bad but it was behaviour resulting in his feelings about realising he had been abused – as he said, when it first started he didn’t like it but he didn’t realise it was wrong until he was older; his feelings of helplessness at the situation and the anger; his feelings of being let down by the people who should have protected him – the abuser who was in a position of power and his parents who, being oblivious to the abuse, invited his abuser into the family home as a family friend.
The police, presented with an accusation dating back several years from a man who had been a troubled teen, a denial from a well respected pillar of the community, and no evidence or witnesses, had nothing of substance to proceed with so the complaint was closed but held on file. It’s easy to see why they felt there was little justification to dedicate manpower to an isolated complaint that looked so tenuous.
Somehow, we don’t know how, a local journalist became aware of the complaint and it was reported in the local town newspaper. No big article, just 2 small paragraphs in a local news column. This was then picked up and repeated in one of the bigger local newspapers, then picked up by a national paper. There was no big media splash, no witch hunt, just 2 or 3 pararaphs, but those paragraphs were enough to prompt other victims to come forward.
There would have been no investigation on his accusation alone, how could there be? The case would have been thrown out of court. One man says you did this to me, the other man says I didn’t…if that was enough to bring people to court then the courts would be full and we’d have miscarriages of justiice every day. I don’t think there’s any blame to be laid at the door of the police in such a situation.
Now the police were presented not with one previously troubled teenager possibly making a vindictive accusation against a respected man but with 15+ men making accusations of abuse that had taken place over a number of years and in different locations as he moved around the county. They now had sufficient cause to dedicate the manpower necessary to investigate further which enabled them, after several years of painstaking investigation, to bring a case to court and to a successful conviction.
If details of the abuser’s name and the purpose of him being questioned had not been published then the other victims would not have come forward. This man would not only have got away with the abuse he had already inflicted, he would still potentially be abusing children today as he still had the same involvement with and access to children at the time he was arrested.
That is why I don’t agree that the law should be changed so that the accused are not named until found guilty, which was the question Kenty asked in her original post. The police can gather evidence so much quicker with the help of the media and the general public than they could ever do working in secrecy. That’s why programmes like CrimeWatch are strongly supported by the police and why so much information is made public in missing children/vulnerable people cases and serious crime cases. If we restricted the police and the media in that way then there are a lot of cases that would never have come to court as the evidence needed wouldn’t have been uncovered and a lot of dangerous people would still be walking the streets.
Having said that, I do detest the media circus that is taking place at the moment and I sincerely hope that once all the dust has settled that those that have been exonerated by the police also have their names cleared by the media.
And finally, just one slightly pedantic point…it is not innocent until proven guilty, if you committed the crime you are guilty of it whether proven or not. However in the eyes of the law you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. A small point maybe but it is one that is important to me so I hope you’ll allow me to make it.
@rusty trawler wrote:
With the exception of very special cases and cases involving young people where reporting restrictions need to be applied, there are very good reasons why accused people are not afforded anonymity. The most obvious is naming the accused facilitates the evidential process. For example, people who may have been victims of the accused may be inspired to step forward, once they know there is a possibility of justice. Also it is important that we are able to see the judicial system at work for various reasons.
But you’re right: mud sticks. We can address this to a great degree, I think, by ensuring the media that readily reports when someone has been arrested etc just as zealously reports when they are vindicated.
Completely agree with this.
A lady that I know has, in the last 12 months or so, gone through the ordeal of supporting her son through a court case for historic sex abuse. The abuse occurred when her son was between 8 and 12 years old; he’s now in his thirties. From the point where he first decided to report it to the police (also the first time his family were aware that he had been abused) it has taken 9 years for the case to come to court and for the abuser to be convicted.
When he first reported it, no one believed him, he was accused of making it up…the man he was accusing was a family friend, prominent in his profession and well respected. Had it come down to his story alone, it would never have been taken further but somehow the local newspaper got wind of the story and published. This was then picked up by a national newspaper and that got things moving as at least 15 young men contacted the police to say that they too had been abused by the same man over a 20 year period. 7 of them were also prepared to follow the complaint through to conclusion – I now know from her experience just how tough that is. Without the publicity these men would not have come forward. If they had not come forward he would have been branded a liar and become a victim all over again and the abuser would have been free to continue what he was doing.
It has truly been an ordeal for the whole family, not just the son, and somehow they have to pick up the pieces. Having spoken to her only this week, I’m not sure if they can do it, too much damage has been done. :(
Yes, sometimes people will jump on the bandwagon but we rely on the police to investigate and to weed those people out. Yes, sometimes a witch-hunt will take place. But what is better, for some people to be wrongly accused then get an apology, or for the real abusers to slip through the net because every victim thinks that they are the only one and that no one will listen and/or believe them?
Deliveries :shock:
@rusty trawler wrote:
@tom wrote:
YOLO is some illiterate thing those black Americans pretending to be “gangsters” ‘say’…..(even though gangsters wore zoot suits, smoked cigars and lived by a certain code of honour? Sorry. I just looked up real gangers, yet none of them were running around with their Tommy Guns wearing ridiculous synthetic plastic PJ bottoms that only come up to their knees exposing their bum inviting everyone to anal intercourse by the people these days who ‘claim’ to be gansters lol?
Why people pretend to be people they’re obviously not as they look nothing like who they’re claiming to be with no evidence to back their claim up whatsoever absolutely boggles my mind.
Hi. I’m a one limbed Japanese Samurai with only one ogre squinting eye, in the middle of my chest! I cannot prove it, especially since everyone already knows what I look like, but I’m an illiterate modern person who claims to be someone I’m not like Americans and chavs, how sad am I?
lol.
What an idiotic thing to say on so many levels.
YOLO is not ‘some illiterate thing those black Americans’ say. It is more of a neologism associated with the internet age than black people or hip hop / gangster culture, rather like ‘lol’ and ‘rofl’.
The thing that ‘boggles’ my mind is how you appear to feel free to make badly observed assumptions about cultures without actually thinking about it.
When it comes to identity, we all play roles and emphasise certain sides of our character. Which begs the question, are we pretending to be something that we are not or perhaps more complexly are we shaped by our environment? It’s the same for many of those who are influenced by American hip hop culture. And kids from all races are increasingly influenced by hip hop culture. Those who aspire to live the ‘gangster/ thug life’ may do so because it’s one the codes of survival for the area in which they live or they may simple pretend to be Jay Z or Tupac because they think it might impress the girls. The reasons are complex and not necessarily because they are being foolish.
One of the beautiful things about the English language, enabling it to become the lingua franca that it has become, is its ability to be protean and flexible, bending to adapt to the unique needs of different cultures, younger generations etc. Words change their meaning over time. We all know this. If I was to call you gay, Tom, you wouldn’t think I was suggesting that you’re a happy chappy. The word ‘gangster’, like many others, is open to various interpretations. If I’m talking about gangsta rap I’m referring to a specific thing and if I use the gangster term in reference to the films of Humphrey Bogart then I’m surely talking about something else.
I can’t question your claim to be a one-limbed Japanese Samurai. I don’t know you, so who am I to hazard a guess? Likewise I can also use what you have said thus far to help me define how sad I think you are.
=D>
You can just see it…5th century BC, some poor bloke, let’s call him Dave, tasked with producing the calendars for future generations, slogs over the task for years and years then gets to 21-12-12 and thinks “sod it, that’s enough for now, some other poor sap can do the rest later” and goes off to the 5th century BC equivalent of the pub and never comes back to the job in hand. No one else wants the job, the post is in the Situations Vacant column for a few centuries but no takers. Then centuries later there are no Mayans and the so-called civilised people of the world decide that the end of the Mayan calenders means the end of the world…just cos no one can be arsed to pick up a pen (or write a fancy computer algorithm) to finish off what poor Dave started all those centuries ago…
@pepsi wrote:
ha ha ! indeed!
~Mayan End Age 12-21-2012 heralds a New Age of spiritual enlightenment ~
God….. its just the pessimists that are saying the world is going to end…..
‘Apocolypse’ is the Greek word for ‘lifting of the veil’ so hopefully we shall become more enlightened !
:lol:
Have you been in my shop? That sounds exactly like what I’ve been saying for the last couple of years! :lol:
Jimmy Mack – Martha Reeves and the Vandellas
ticket