General Chat

Scandle wouldnt get spread if no one bought newspapers,,,,,,,,,,,rubbish,,,,,,,,we live in a hi tec society and if you want to block all released news media then you'd have to close down each and every electronic news station in the world to stop them reporting items released by the police which they feel is in the publics best interest,,,,,,,,,!! and the reasons behind that in cases like this is to bring forward any more allegations that are being kept in a dark place or proving information that can disprove allegations,,,,,,,,,..........news in news papers is old by the time of going to press,,,,,,,, :-D,,,,,,,

Well if the OP hadn't used his name on GR we wouldn't be spreading the subject would we?

You can't have it both ways.

Without the police releasing suspects' names how will victims be encouraged to come forward. The historic reports to the police and other authorities that appear to have been buried all add to the chain of events. Rarely do abusers act only once, the multiple reports, if proved, means there is a case to investigate.

Any how, I always though he was a bit funny, I mean, he parted his hair on the right, didn't he.......

Bob

The prerogative to entertain has superseded that to inform with comments indistinguishable from news & fact indistinguishable from conjecture simply to create blockbuster headlines.

Too many newspaper editors wriggle out of their responsibilities. But I still continue to read their publications.

The sad fact is that lots of people like scandals and scandals sell newspapers! So anything even faintly juicy will be seized on, blown up out of all proportion with initially and maybe subsequently, little evidence or truth with the sole aim of making money. If people didn't read /buy it, newspapers wouldn't print it, but sadly they do on both fronts! One for easy money, the other for the ooh ahh factor!

I think Sylvia's comment was ironic/sarcastic.

The story of Chris Jefferies, the landlord of Joanna Yeates, should be a warning of what can happen when the media get their teeth into someone who fits their bill of 'odd'.

The same rules apply in UK,,,,,,,,,,*who can not be named for legal reasons*,,,,this applies for the accused and protection of the accuser or minor.....

the police released the name of the person in the OP,,,,,,,the OP owner is responsible for displaying the name on the site.........most posts only refer that in such cases victims should be heard and a full investigation made into those allegations as tihere is not conclusion can be made for or against anyone.........

In general most are posting in a general way about long term effects on victims of people whos desire it is to commit horrible acts on them,,,,,,,,and that includes all abusers not just public figures,,,,,,if a public figure gets named then they should not be given any consessions for status and be treated in the same way as joe public,,,,,,,,,,status = nothing when accusations are made agaisnt them of a certain nature,,,,,,,,,,they need their innocence proved as well as a victim needs to be heard and taken seriously.

I think Sylvia was speaking ironically.

well said Dermot :-)

SylviaInCanada - 'Ted Heath was often suspected as being gay, after all, he never married, did he? That's always suspicious'.

By this comment, you seem to have fallen into the same mire as that which you moan about. But I apologise if I have misinterpreted your opinion.

The notion of what is natural or unnatural has dogged moral debate for centuries. Gays & lesbians have always been discriminated against. Who benefits anything from this discrediting? Gossip hurts & often obscures the truth.

We need to grow out of such an ill-considered cultural thinking. Gay, straight or bi? It shouldn’t matter in the workplace.

I agree, the names of suspects shouldn't be released until they are proven guilty, but we on this thread haven't 'released' Ted Heath's name, nor accused him. You can blame Rupert Murdoch's empire for that! We are merely discussing what has been all over the TV and newspapers.
As for Cliff Richard - how did the media know the police were visiting his house? There has been a serious breach of protocol, but, unfortunately, money means more than ethics amongst the hierarchy in this country now, and when you have one person with a media monopoly in this country, who pays no tax, but pays directly to the current government,(what else can you call 'funding') the chances of that snake being convicted of anything are very slim.

I agree with you 100% S.Canada and said as much in my post about being wary of turning unfounded accusations into a witch hunt, as has unfortunately already happened; A comment that provoked indignation at the thought that this could possibly be the case! As you say in the UK, it is sadly becoming more and more the norm that the media in all it's forms are Judge and Jury, particularly of these sort of accusations. I also agree that people should be very careful about discussing personal stuff, as all these are public threads that can be read by all and sundry and bandyed around for anyone and everyone, whether on here or elsewhere to see and comment about.

I am amazed about how the names of famous people suspected of committing sex crimes are immediately spread all over the newspapers, and how people jump on the bandwagon of agreeing with whatever the accusation was, and saying how terrible a person so-and-so was.

It seems for example that Cliff Richard was smeared a few months ago, and his life basically destroyed, when the police apparently have found no evidence in all the searches they have done.


A cornerstone of the English judicial system used to be that a person was innocent until proven guilty.

That no longer seems to be the case ................. issues are not dealt with in court, instead it is judgement by the masses who know nothing and hear no evidence. A man's name is smeared all over the papers, and all over the internet as he is judged guilty by those speculating on what they do not know.

So the system appears to have changed from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" .............. just like some of the worst dictatorships in this world.


Yes, of course someone who has committed the crimes should pay the penalty. I'm not denying that


........... but for heaven's sake, let's get the judgement made in a court of law not on the street by gossips.


Ted Heath was often suspected as being gay, after all, he never married, did he? That's always suspicious.

But there was never a whiff of any proof, and certainly no whisper of him being interested in children. In fact, the conclusion most often reached was that he was asexual ......... we have 2 friends who are the same.

Now you all know, or should know, that anything that you post on GR can be picked up by Google and spread around the internet ............... so literally everything you have said on this thread will be out there for ever and a day, including comments about AnnC's son. You didn't name him, but I bet it would be easy to identify him from comments on here that are no on the internet. Would he want that? Would any of you want that?


All you are doing is destroying a man's name.

Shame on you all, is all I can say.


Thank heavens that we still stick to the rule of law here, the name of a person suspected of paedophilia, especially ancient cases, is not released to the public until he has been charged ....... so there is no smearing of a man judged innocent before even getting into court. In fact, his name is not released at all if the child(ren) is related to him because there must be no way of identifying the child victim. In such cases, his name will be released only if the victim decides to go public, and asks the court to lift the gag order on their name being released.

You seem to no longer have that in the UK.

Disagree Uzzi, the historic victims need justice and closure as much as the current victims do.

I mentioned on this thread that some victims had committed suicide and their families want the abusers (dead or alive) to be recognised for what they were/are.

you were indeed Joy - even the law thinks it's above the law :-D

i was brought up to think nobody's was above the law

Sadly i was wrong :-D :-D

I have only read the 1st page but personally I would hope that if I was a victim I would rather money was spent on catching living people and saving others from abuse, than proving my dead abuser was at fault.
I also know that the nature of my personality would probably want closure and therefore the name of the abuser besmirched and known for what they did.

Easy to say get the living ones. But the abused of those long dead need their relief also.

Edit to say
I do think victims of long ago abuse need caring support

and the House of Commons seems to have cornered the market

I do think sometimes fame goes to the head of famous people
and they think they can get away with everything


Look how the big film companies used to cover up and pay off victims :-(

Yes as supercrutch says - let us support those who are victims including the wrongly accused, of course.