But people are saying, as they did in the past including the judge of a later report, the police and other people to whom abuse was reported that children making accussations against "respectable" people is itself to explosive to be published because it is libellous and defamatory and even worse may lead to the victims claiming compensation!
It is only libellous and defamatory if like them you assume the victims are lying since the truth is a defense against defamation. Why can't papers publish that X has been accused by A and B and C of crimes of a sexual nature against children for example? That would be totally factual and how can it be libellous when it is clearly true? The fact that they clearly feel at risk in publishing that proves that our press is muzzled in certain circumstances. You can hardly claim revealing a serial child rapist isn't in the public interest too.
Those abused were believed as there were proscecutions leading to convictions.
My understanding of the Jilling's report is that it was not restricted to only looking at abuse within the home, it looked at any claimed abuse by any child who was in care.
The fact there were files on individuals who may never have been to the home/s indicates the claims about hotels etc were taken at face value and investigated, although the conclusions may have been wrong.
Re X and A,B & C If the claims of sexual abuse are false then they are not factual. It would be tabloid heaven the Daily Star would go into overdrive with fabricated stories.
The whole naming thing is difficult, for example people under the age of 17 who commit a crime are not normally named as it's regarded for most to be a phase they are going through.
In rape cases I believe woman used to be named but it was felt publicity and the way they were portrayed in court did not encourage woman who'd been raped to report the offence.
In this very thread people have argued the woman should be named or the accussed should not be named.
Cameron on ITV This Morning - speaking so rapidly - not letting Holly and Phil get a word in edgeways - personally - that looked to me like he's pretty desperate to get these enquiries underway and cover up AGAIN.
I don't think he handled that well at all IMO - looked like a man who knows what could potentially come out of all this and he was uncomfortable.
Anyone else see it?
That reads like old fashioned journalism...'he showed no mention, went sent down', '70 year old blue eyed buxom blonde...' etc
Yep, squirming like a worm on a hook but I wouldn't expect any different. He's walking a fine line. He did, at least say, that people should come forward if they knew a paedophile no matter how 'high up' these people were.
Just watching This Morning now. Philip Schofield just said he spent about 3 mins on internet and found same list of names over and over again, then said 'I've wrtten them on this piece of paper' and hands it toDavid Cameron on air. Nice one !
He then said 'Are you going to talk to these people?'
Cameron squirmd out ofit by saying it's a witchhunt against people that aregay' ffs
But nicely donePhilip, now we know he has the names at least
Fair play to Schofield. Everyone knows the names. It's a farce if Cameron were to pretend he didn't.
Just watching This Morning now. Philip Schofield just said he spent about 3 mins on internet and found same list of names over and over again, then said 'I've wrtten them on this piece of paper' and hands it toDavid Cameron on air. Nice one !
He then said 'Are you going to talk to these people?'
Cameron squirmd out ofit by saying it's a witchhunt against people that aregay' ffs
But nicely donePhilip, now we know he has the names at least
Thanks for the report, nice work there Philip (although to be fair Cameron has known those names for years)
Cameron on ITV This Morning - speaking so rapidly - not letting Holly and Phil get a word in edgeways - personally - that looked to me like he's pretty desperate to get these enquiries underway and cover up AGAIN.
I don't think he handled that well at all IMO - looked like a man who knows what could potentially come out of all this and he was uncomfortable.
Anyone else see it?
He made sure he said what he wanted to say quite forcefully I thought but I suppose it's understandable that he wants to keep a lid on it all.
Sutcliffes brother didn't shed any light really other than he doesn't think his brother and JS knew each other before Broadmoor but JS saw Sutcliffe quite a lot inside. I wonder if there's any evidence that they did know each other previously. Shall have a dig.
Don't you think the Independent aren't intelligent and experienced enough to get round any restrictions and in 1996 the Sun would have loved to kick grey pants Major where it hurts.
Cameron can go on about the rule of law and the police, but tell that to the victims of Savile. Or, if true, the victims of the high ranking Tories. Even one Tory himself has more or less agreed on Sir Peter Morrison as being involved.
It's the cover ups that have led to the unsavoury naming of names. Not a public appetite for a witch-hunt.
Interesting profile of Lord Mcalpine here from 1993. It should be noted that contrary to a lot of reports he is the GREAT grandson, not grandson, of 'Concrete Bob' aka Sir Robert Mcalpine, founder of the construction dynasty.
Cameron on ITV This Morning - speaking so rapidly - not letting Holly and Phil get a word in edgeways - personally - that looked to me like he's pretty desperate to get these enquiries underway and cover up AGAIN.
I don't think he handled that well at all IMO - looked like a man who knows what could potentially come out of all this and he was uncomfortable.
He was my family doctor when I was little. I'm almost certain he was struck off for something, but I'm not entirely sure what. I'll have to ask my mum about that.
"... there is a danger that if we are not careful this could turn into a sort of witch-hunt particularly against people who are gay"
And he's right.
.
I completely agree with this. There's been a lot of language on blogs such as ''predatory homosexual'' which has made me uncomfortable. If there was a paedophile ring in operation the main focus should be on the fact that people are paedophiles, not whether they are gay or straight. There's an inference on the web that gay men are going after young boys which is not the case.
Comments
Those abused were believed as there were proscecutions leading to convictions.
My understanding of the Jilling's report is that it was not restricted to only looking at abuse within the home, it looked at any claimed abuse by any child who was in care.
The fact there were files on individuals who may never have been to the home/s indicates the claims about hotels etc were taken at face value and investigated, although the conclusions may have been wrong.
Re X and A,B & C If the claims of sexual abuse are false then they are not factual. It would be tabloid heaven the Daily Star would go into overdrive with fabricated stories.
The whole naming thing is difficult, for example people under the age of 17 who commit a crime are not normally named as it's regarded for most to be a phase they are going through.
In rape cases I believe woman used to be named but it was felt publicity and the way they were portrayed in court did not encourage woman who'd been raped to report the offence.
In this very thread people have argued the woman should be named or the accussed should not be named.
That reads like old fashioned journalism...'he showed no mention, went sent down', '70 year old blue eyed buxom blonde...' etc
So as a Cameron voter you now don't trust him?
I never voted for Cameron
I've never voted Tory in my life. Don't understand your post at all TBH.
http://order-order.com/2012/11/08/breaking-schofield-accidentatlly-revealed-tory-paedo-list-on-screen/
Fair play to Schofield. Everyone knows the names. It's a farce if Cameron were to pretend he didn't.
BBC report here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20251939#TWEET344598
Thanks for the report, nice work there Philip (although to be fair Cameron has known those names for years)
He made sure he said what he wanted to say quite forcefully I thought but I suppose it's understandable that he wants to keep a lid on it all.
Sutcliffes brother didn't shed any light really other than he doesn't think his brother and JS knew each other before Broadmoor but JS saw Sutcliffe quite a lot inside. I wonder if there's any evidence that they did know each other previously. Shall have a dig.
Dreadful deflection. It's nothing to do with gay people. Oooh this will open debate (I hope it doesn't deflect from the issue though)
I couldn't see them - anyone got a clear shot?
Libelous doesn't mean not true.
wow, talk about trapped in the head-lights.
It's the cover ups that have led to the unsavoury naming of names. Not a public appetite for a witch-hunt.
Well he's not going to blurt them out on TV is he :rolleyes:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/profile-lord-midas-his-zenith-and-nadir-lord-mcalpine-party-treasurer-for-mrs-thatcher-1492580.html
I wonder if that counts as being in the public domain now?
(For people with good eyesight at least.)
it's been reproduced by most of the newspapers but they're blanking it out. chickens.
I just watched it.
Cameron said
"... there is a danger that if we are not careful this could turn into a sort of witch-hunt particularly against people who are gay"
And he's right.
.
Appears he was ambushed ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9663927/David-Cameron-ambushed-with-paedophile-list-by-Phillip-Schofield-on-This-Morning.html
Would be very interested to hear what she says...
I completely agree with this. There's been a lot of language on blogs such as ''predatory homosexual'' which has made me uncomfortable. If there was a paedophile ring in operation the main focus should be on the fact that people are paedophiles, not whether they are gay or straight. There's an inference on the web that gay men are going after young boys which is not the case.
At least I hope not.