***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 30 *****
==============================================================
Continuing Discussion
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post and remember to change the default subject header.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 17 Nov 17 at 03:29
|
You can't slander the dead, however you can say whatever you like about them!
Let's see what proof comes up.
|
|
Wife's already apologised to the complainants.
|
|
So did she know? Is the proof beyond reasonable doubt? Or has she just accepted the allegations?
Last edited by: Harleyman on Wed 15 Jun 16 at 00:14
|
Goodness knows, but its sad.
The victims deserve justice, assuming that their allegations are genuine. And the perpetrators need at least outing, and punishing where possible. There's no denying or avoiding that.
But the witch hunt annoys me, and the amount of people that I've enjoyed watching/listening to over the years who keep turning out to be bad makes me sad.
|
>> and the amount of people that I've enjoyed watching/listening
>> to over the years who keep turning out to be bad makes me sad.
>>
>>
It's getting hard now to have analloyed enjoyment one's recollections of entertainment by people of a certain age, for fear that they might shortly be unmasked.
Who's next? One starts to muse on the possibility of the sword swinging over any one of the current great names - is anyone safe?
The whole business is very disturbing, and ends really the era of simple pure innocent enjoyment of people's talents. Yet it has to be so, in the interests of justice and to to offer some recompense to the victims.
It seems a major flaw in human make-up, this in-built two-sidedness that everyone has to some extent.
|
*Bzzzzt*
Nicholas Parsons: "yes?"
Contestant: "Deviation?"
Parsons: "Yes, definitely deviation there..."
|
Breaking news ticker on Guardian's website says Cliff will not be charged over allegations covering 1958 - 1983:
www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jun/16/cliff-richard-will-not-face-charges-over-sexual-abuse-claims
|
|
I hope Sir Cliff sues South Yorkshire police..
|
>> I hope Sir Cliff sues South Yorkshire police..
>>
can they wait 28 years for the enquiry?
|
>> I hope Sir Cliff sues South Yorkshire police..
On what grounds? Possible offences were reported. SYP investigated?
Perhaps the raid on his home, or more particularly the tip off to media and consequent circus was egregious but not whole investigation.
Risk for Cliff though is that action against Police will but every detail of the allegations in the public domain; more grist to mill of the 'no smoke' school of thought.
|
>> Risk for Cliff though is that action against Police will but every detail of the
>> allegations in the public domain; more grist to mill of the 'no smoke' school of
>> thought.
>>
Well, that was the problem with Dolphin Square, wasn't it?
A witch-hunt, and Harvey Proctor - who'd never denied his proclivities - was dragged through the mud on the word of some riff-raff rentboy.
In fact, wasn't a certain Elton John slammed by the Sun a few years back in similar circumstances, and they had to apologise grovellingly, and pay him a large amount of money?
|
Poor old Cliff (he's getting on a bit).
It must all have seemed so easy and sort of harmless, in his terms anyway, at the time. Now it's all coming back to torture him in his near-dotage.
One doesn't know if his attentions 'harmed' any of these one-time boys, but they seem to be claiming that they were harmed. Sounds opportunist and dodgy to me but it's hard to tell for sure, from here.
|
Spose I was lucky as a young (13/14) goat back in the mid sixties - 2 approved schools, 2 remand centres, and 1 detention centre.
Sure, 'stuff' like that went on in the dorms - even in the bed right next to mine :(
WTF goes on 'ere, says I. Don't worry mate, says they, you'll be like it after 6 months.
Eh, not actually - 2 sheets knotted together and an open window put paid to that.
I dare say 'stuff' happening is quite, um, normal, in these 'ere public single sex schools.
|
>> I dare say 'stuff' happening is quite, um, normal, in these 'ere public single sex schools.
Some schools are well known for it. There wasn't much at my last school. Just one or two notorious individuals. There was a lot of vulgar talk as in all schools.
|
I remember at Tech School.Teacher started to massage my shoulders.Must have been my female looks..:) Told him to knock it off quick.
At the schippersschool in Dordrecht you had to watch it.Protect your bum.
|
>>Told him to knock it off quick.
Not the best choice of words Ducky.
;-)
|
>>It must all have seemed so easy and sort of harmless, in his terms anyway, at the time. Now it's all coming back to torture him in his near-dotage
So you believe it to be true? Because certainly your writings seem to treat it as known/proven/assumed fact.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 17 Jun 16 at 17:50
|
>> So you believe it to be true? Because certainly your writings seem to treat it as known/proven/assumed fact
Yes, I think it can be assumed to be true in some ways.
These geezers who were once boys are an unpleasant lot aren't they? Not truthful chaps really.
But one wonders, why have they ganged up on Cliff Richard instead of some other old nonce? No smoke without fire so to speak. No doubt they are all practised liars but it looks bad for poor Cliff.
|
>>
>> But one wonders, why have they ganged up on Cliff Richard instead of some other
>> old nonce? No smoke without fire so to speak.
>>
Almost certainly libellous I would think. Expect to hear from Mr Richards' lawyers.
|
>>No smoke without fire so to speak.
And that is why names should not be released.
|
And that is why names should not be released.
I agree. If a group of people make allegations of an unlawful activity by someone in the distant past, and the allegations are investigated, and eventually shown to be false or not provable there will always a train of thought that says, it's true, we just can't prove it.
Such thoughts will occur, whether the someone has been a bit naughty to the someone is utterly squeaky clean. Added to that although victims of genuine assault will remember, will the perpetrator? The fact a defendant will have a hard time remembering events of 40 years ago must be a temptation to embellish an accusation too.
It is hard to argue for the statute of limitations to be extended in scope but suppose I said, what were you doing on the night of 4 June 1969? (It was a Wednesday if it helps!) I suspect not many of us could say.
|
>>what were you doing on the night of 4 June 1969?
I could not tell you with any certainty what I was doing on the 4 June 2015!
|
|
I'd like to see a statute of limitations, the offence must be reported within ten years of the alleged event or ten years after you reach the age of sixteen in cases where children are involved. Going back thirty, forty or fifty years is plainly ridiculous. If I went to the police and said that X mugged me in 1972 they would tell me to take a running jump.
|
>> I'd like to see a statute of limitations, the offence must be reported within ten
>> years of the alleged event or ten years after you reach the age of sixteen
>> in cases where children are involved. Going back thirty, forty or fifty years is plainly
>> ridiculous.
Unfortunately a common 'thread' in the complaints against Smith, Savile, Glitter and a fair few others is that the victims DID complain, and were either old to just forget about it/stop telling fibs, or there was a gallon of whitewash from the establishment.
|
>>>>
>> Unfortunately a common 'thread' in the complaints against Smith, Savile, Glitter and a fair few
>> others is that the victims DID complain, and were either old to just forget about
>> it/stop telling fibs, or there was a gallon of whitewash from the establishment.
>>
>>
That's true enough, but that was a failing of the system which has now been addressed.
|
>>I'd like to see a statute of limitations...
I can never completely make up my mind about this one. If there has been a victim, should the offence ever go away? (I mean, there's always a victim, but in the cases of personal harm; rape, murder, assault, etc. etc.)
If someone has raped, should the fact that they've then lived a blameless existence for 20 years, or whatever, be relevant? I imagine the victim still has to deal with it.
On the other hand should time being good be some protection? If you did something nasty when you were 16 and then got arrested when you were 66, is that fair?
I am not comfortable with old offences being dragged up, but in the end if a fair trial and reasonable evidence is possible, I think it is better than letting it go unpunished.
That said, I think we need to do a much better job of handling these instances.
|
I think there needs to be a two-part process for alleged offences that are more than perhaps 10 years old:
1) A judicial investigation, with total anonymity, to establish whether there is any possibility that the accusation could be true. All aspects of the case to be questioned, especially the diligence of the police, the use of correct procedures, the reliability or existence of witnesses, anything else that supports or casts doubt on the plausibility of the allegations.
2) Only if Stage 1 gets clearance would it proceed to the normal trial, release of names, etc.
|
|
Isn't stage 1 similar to what the CPS do anyway?
|
|
Apart from the suspect being allowed to remain anonymous. I think that is a good idea.
|
|
I'd go for a presumption for anonymity but with power to name on a judge s authority. Power to be used when there is suspected pattern of behaviour (Savile, Harris and probably Freud) or witnesses are sought. Naming without authority to be an offence.
|
It's similar with those "Ancient" War crimes. That chap 90 odd years old convicted for the terrible things he was ordered to do by his superiors 70 odd years ago (he was only a guard) will now die in prison. He could well have done his utmost to make amends for his actions or suffered immeasurable guilt ever since - but we aren't told about that side of things.
Does that mean that at some time in the future, ANY of our Service-men in the Forces could be put on trial for the things they have been ordered to do in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Falklands.?
|
Does that mean that at some time in the future, ANY of our Service-men in
>> the Forces could be put on trial for the things they have been ordered to
>> do in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Falklands.?
>>
In theory yes. A small number have already been court martialed already for offences in iraq/afghan.
|
>> In theory yes. A small number have already been court martialed already for offences in
>> iraq/afghan.
But for offences involving going beyond orders, conventions etc.
Don't think there are (yet) examples of foot sloggers being held to account for failing to refuse an illegitimate order.
|
But for offences involving going beyond orders, conventions etc.
>>
>> Don't think there are (yet) examples of foot sloggers being held to account for failing to refuse an illegitimate order.
.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 19 Jun 16 at 22:19
|
>> being held to account for failing to refuse an illegitimate order.
I think I read somewhere that there was *no* recorded instance of any German soldier ever being punished for refusing to obey an order in a concentration camp.
|
>> I think I read somewhere that there was *no* recorded instance of any German soldier
>> ever being punished for refusing to obey an order in a concentration camp.
>>
I'm not here to apologise for Nazism.. however, it would have been a brave man who stood up to that system.
|
|
If those things were war crimes, Yes.
|
>> I'd go for a presumption for anonymity but with power to name on a judge
>> s authority. Power to be used when there is suspected pattern of behaviour (Savile, Harris
>> and probably Freud) or witnesses are sought. Naming without authority to be an offence.
>>
Our local Nonce, Bob Hewitt, ex tennis champion, was nicked this way - initial case in the USA, locals all come out and say 'me as well.'.
There was some pretty damning evidence against him as well. Risque letters etc.
And, again, the 'We told people, but they didn't listen...' scenario happened. Mums and dads were so happy to have their kids coached by the great, that they assumed the kids were lying.
And Hewitt blamed the kids, saying they were making things up because they were being trained to hard/were not good enough, and did it out of spite.
|
>> Isn't stage 1 similar to what the CPS do anyway?
>>
Not really. That's not carried out by a judge. but by professional bureaucrats who appear to be too subject to political pressure. It needs to be reviewed by someone completely independent with the power to knock sense into the prosecutors, stoutly rebuff any interference, but whose decisions can be legally challenged.
Leaking of the information, such as the person's name or the operational details to the BBC, should be contempt of court.
|
> Not really. That's not carried out by a judge. but by professional bureaucrats who appear
>> to be too subject to political pressure. It needs to be reviewed by someone completely
>> independent with the power to knock sense into the prosecutors, stoutly rebuff any interference, but
>> whose decisions can be legally challenged.
so same process but carried out by someone else?
|
>>
>> so same process but carried out by someone else?
>>
Yes, precisely, but with the advantages I have outlined.
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> so same process but carried out by someone else?
>> >>
>>
>> Yes, precisely, but with the advantages I have outlined.
>>
So some might say *similar* to what the cps do now?
;)
|
>> >> Leaking of the information, such as the person's name or the operational details to the
>> BBC, should be contempt of court.
>>
Precisely.
An accompanied 'raid' on a suspect's home - whatever he is charged with - should be done on the proviso that said suspect may not be named until charges are brought and suspect has appeared in court. Especially after a tip-off from the rozzers to the media to come along.
Yes, it is nice to have an independent witness, but to have some chap's details dragged through the mud is a bit much.
Ok, even "'Sir Cliff's house was raided today by coppers investigating a complaint" will get the newshounds speculating and dragging up all kinds of nonsense.
Not Cliff fan, to be honest. But he is now splattered by the brown-and-smelly stuff.
|
I seem to be coming under criticism for making assumptions about Cliff Richard.
My strong impression is that this is all rather stale public-domain stuff. I don't feel at all censorious about Sir Cliff. He just always came on like a bachelor boy. I don't see him as a ruthless rapist and exploiter. He seems a nice enough chap.
He has however laid himself open to vexatious allegations by former squeezes or orgy partners or whatever. There but for the grace of God goes practically everyone. Don't fall in love with cads of either sex.
|
I don't see how he's "laid himself open to vexatious allegations by former squeezes or orgy partners or whatever". Someone has decided (twice) that there is no case to answer.
You must know something they don't...
|
>> You must know something they don't...
I have no special knowledge. I think the courts decided there was no case to answer because of the extreme unreliability of the 'witnesses', who clearly had blackmail in mind.
Seems to me that people who invent or exaggerate stories of this kind should be treated as the criminals they are.
|
The Sun on Sunday claimed that the Top Gear presenter will be quizzed by Metropolitan Police detectives “in the coming days†over claims that he had repeatedly exposed himself to a former work colleague, and grabbed her breasts.
Evans denies the claims, and said in May, when the allegations first surfaced, that they amounted to a “witch huntâ€. He added: “All these bullying claims and other allegations are just ridiculous.â€
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/03/bbc-stands-by-chris-evans-as-presenter-faces-police-questioning/
|
>>Women HATE gingers.
Where is Vić lately.
|
>> >>Women HATE gingers.
Surely if they all did, 'gingers' would have disappeared from the gene pool by now? Actually there seem to be more than ever.
Everyone will end up with red hair if this goes on.
|
He's staying away because of the tone of some post on here I think. He's also a bit worried about the xenophobic outbursts in the UK and the impact on his family. WdB mentioned this last week. You must have missed it in the MANY posts we've had in these threads.
Thanks for showing an interest in him. When I next email him I'll let him know.
|
>> Thanks for showing an interest in him. When I next email him I'll let him
>> know.
>>
Pass on my compliments.
Our beloved site turned into a playground.
|
Has Alanovic got red hair?
He's vastly preferable to Chris Evans. Probably a better driver too. One can get very bored with clouds of tyre smoke.
|
>>WdB mentioned this last week
I remember, I was just being funny (you know me!) - His wife is Eastern European I believe.
|
BBC says Evans is stepping down from Top Gear.
I wonder if that's related to these allegations, or the general poor ratings it'd had. Probably the latter.
|
Link about him leaving:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36707266
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 4 Jul 16 at 16:09
|
|
I see you posted in the other TG thread too.
|
|
Yeah, picked it up on my steam-driven internets here. Initial search crashed.
|
Chris Evans to face no charges over sexual assault claims
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36919219
|
>> Chris Evans to face no charges
Wasn't it just ordinary coarse male chauvinist behaviour? I've seen a lot worse in my time.
Women can usually defend themselves quite effectively against that sort of thing. The danger to them is that many will give their eye teeth - or anyway a measure of their virtue - to 'get on telly'.
If they knew in advance what it was going to be like only the very tough 'ambitious' ones would stay the course.
Girls are there to be ripped off and exploited. Every proper bloke knows that. It's a significant aspect of the human tragicomedy. Glad I'm not a girl.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 29 Jul 16 at 14:13
|
>>Girls are there to be ripped off and exploited<<
Not this one AC, not now or ever has been!
Pat
|
Perhaps you didn't notice Pat. Some men are very slimy in case you hadn't twigged.
It would take a brave man to face you brandishing your rope-tightening baton, I must admit. Discretion would be the better part of valour to those who knew what was good for them.
:o}
|
I've been watching a programme about the 70s, I think called It Was All Right in the 70s.
The other night people were watching with what was, I think, genuine disbelief (but with elements of mock shock) at clips from some shows.
One was Sid James leering over a schoolgirl dressed Barbara Windsor - even in the 70s very hard to mistake for a schoolgirl. Then there were Pans People from Top of the Pops. Some blacked up comedians like Stanley Baxter and a bit of casual racism thrown in with the likes of Alf Garnett.
OK with today's values it does make you stop and think, and there was some very gratuitous innuendo and saucy behaviour on display. But I don't quite get quite why people from the era of stuff like Game of Thrones, some of the violent dramas and some of the rather sweary shows that are on now should be quite so po-faced at a bit of humorous and fairly harmless titillation
While some might privately agree with you AC I don't think many would say so out loud!! I do hope you simply forgot to put the smiley on your last comment!!! :-)
Last edited by: smokie on Fri 29 Jul 16 at 15:06
|
|
I figured mentioning the 'human tragicomedy' embodied an implicit smiley.
|
>> I've been watching a programme about the 70s, I think called It Was All Right
>> in the 70s.
This came into the conversation at work yesterday. Netflix have just put all the Star Treks online, right from the first original series onwards.
A younger colleague (mid-30s) had never seen the originals, and he said they watched the very first ever episode at the weekend. I know that's not a very good one (it's the one with the woman that's really a salt eating monster if anyone cares), so I was expecting him to say it was a bit dull and predictable, but quite fun in a way.
Not a bit of it. Apparently he and his girlfriend "found it so offensive and sexist we turned it off halfway through".
I couldn't get to the root of that - he was amazed I couldn't see it was offensive. I still can't. A short skirt here and there, women don't have much to do except look pretty - hey, it's the sixties on American TV, it's not offensive. It was what it was.
Seems odd to me to post-judge history by today's standards - although of course I appreciate that you get into tricky areas with that line of thought if you look at slavery or something, which many at the time didn't think was wrong at all.
|
|
A salt eating monster? Surely that should be ruled out on health grounds alone. Her blood pressure must be off the scale. Completely irresponsible to show that sort of thing. Even a monster should be eating a balanced diet high in fruit and vegetables and low in saturated fats and salt.
|
>> A salt eating monster? Surely that should be ruled out on health grounds alone.
You've not been following the tabloids, CG.
EVERYONE knows that salt is a false BOGEYMAN and the FEEBLE studies suggesting otherwise have long since been shown to be FLAWED.
Along with eggs, dairy, fat, red meat, milk...
SUGAR is the NEW TOBACCO, but I give it FIVE YEARS before they change their minds on that too.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Fri 29 Jul 16 at 16:04
|
>> slavery or something, which many at the time didn't think was wrong at all.
Many still don't actually.
I've met a few slaves in my time. The most interesting one was the slave of a frightening old witch-doctor in Tanzania. The doctor was trying to cure the second wife of my (English, but 'gone native') old Notting Hill friend down there of some sort of schizoid or hysterical mental condition.
On the way to the witch-doctor's hut, I had to sit on the other side of her in the friend's 404 pickup to prevent her from jumping out at speed. She kept trying to escape across me anyway and it was a difficult journey on earth roads.
She had to be dragged into the witch-doctor's house. After a while she went quiet. My friend came out and said the witch-doctor was packing herbs and stuff up her nose. We left her there for the aftercare, whatever that was.
Thing was he hadn't wanted to marry her in the first place, but the senior wife - the real wife - thought my buddy's status demanded at least one junior wife for her to boss about, and she chose this nutter, a distant relation of hers needless to say.
Local customs... exotic and fascinating, often grim at close quarters.
|
>> Seems odd to me to post-judge history by today's standards - although of course I
>> appreciate that you get into tricky areas with that line of thought if you look
>> at slavery or something, which many at the time didn't think was wrong at all.
>>
As time recedes anything becomes acceptable, even commonplace.
No one gets offended about reading of famous Greeks or Romans who had slaves - we just think of them as sort of secretaries or au pairs.
Anyone refuse to watch historical dramas because they had capital punishment, or read Jane Austen because she presumably was happy with women not having the vote?
Are liberals pressing the government to apologise for having exterminated the Neanderthals?
In fact, I think it is ridiculous to feel shame for or be offended by anything that one has had no personal part in - we aren't responsible for our ancestors' behaviour or views.
|
>> Are liberals pressing the government to apologise for having exterminated the Neanderthals?
>>
Are you sure that is correct?
I thought the Neanderthals exterminated the Liberals
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36922820
30 million Images of abuse recovered
523 potential child victims
122 referred to child protection
83 suspects' homes searched
77 people arrested and charged
Source: Police Scotland
Horrific !!!
|
I doubt if many people go through childhood without at some point being groped or eyed by a potential molester. It isn't that rare.
A sensible child brought up by normal parents will avoid or evade anything that seems sinister.
There are however over-protective parents who fill a child's mind with threatening images.
That said, the squalor and depravity of some people's 'home life' leaves me open-mouthed with amazement. Polymorphous perversity, don'tcha just hate it? Yuck.
|
A guy was arrested this week here - was an ex teacher who'd done TWO terms inside for child molesting, and was advertising his tutoring services on the internet.
Today we found out he'd committed suicide in his cell.
|
>> Today we found out he'd committed suicide in his cell.
Or been helped on his way by the prison staff/fellow miscreants?
Black Africans don't take kindly to homosexual noncing, being sometimes its hapless targets, people who daren't complain because of the consequences to employment at the very least. Even privileged whites can be the objects of harsh summary justice, when the opportunity for vengeance arises.
Needless to say mistakes and injustices are the norm.
|
>> Or been helped on his way by the prison staff/fellow miscreants?
>>
>> Black Africans don't take kindly to homosexual noncing
Mixed race chap, Armel.
His case was in the sunday paper last week, and then taken up by the tabloids.
A lot of folk in the community came forward to dob him in.
Seems he topped himself with a strip toen from his mattress cover.
Police are investigating.
|
More trouble for official inquiry into this stuff. Dame Lowell Goddard, third judge to lead has resigned.
www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/04/dame-lowell-goddard-resigns-as-head-of-child-sexual-abuse-inquiry
Poisoned chalice?
|
>>
>> Poisoned chalice?
>>
They are running out of high-profile qualified women to take the job, and seem to have manouevred themselves until stuck between two equally unacceptable positions - either that this is women's work that men aren't suitable for, or alternatively that having tried the token women in the job, they now have to get a man in to do it properly.
There's a chap called Chilcot free at the moment. :)
|
|
You wouldn't be suggesting that by delaying a result by ten or fifteen years would mean that guilty parties would be dead and beyond prosecution would you?
|
>> You wouldn't be suggesting that by delaying a result by ten or fifteen years would
>> mean that guilty parties would be dead and beyond prosecution would you?
>>
The whole business has become a total embarrassment to all concerned. No one actually wants to do anything, but just want it to go away. The way to do that is to give the enquiry such a wide remit that it can never come to any definite positive conclusions.
It's a perfect opportunity for an end of career move for a token second division player seeking a nice pay-off before retirement.
The only problem is there aren't many left now.
|
>> More trouble for official inquiry into this stuff. Dame Lowell Goddard, third judge to lead
>> has resigned.
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/04/dame-lowell-goddard-resigns-as-head-of-child-sexual-abuse-inquiry
>>
>> Poisoned chalice?
>>
Only morons or someone wanting to kill an enquiry by making it last decades would give it so wide a remit as the abuse one has.
A sensible leader of such an enquiry would reduce teh span or not do the job.
In reality, for all the practical good it will do, it's a waste of £millions. Lots of them.
|
www.daventryexpress.co.uk/news/crime/former-teacher-from-weedon-jailed-for-sexual-offences-against-students-1-7684829
Not really Yewtree, just another teacher taking advantage of pupils.
But he taught both my son and daughter. Furthermore he was male half of the school staff who accompanied Miss B and team on World Challenge to Ecuador in 2010. Both thought highly of him as a teacher/form tutor and are stunned by revelation of his conviction.
Incidents were before he was at local school and might have been youthful indiscretions that bit his b*m years down the line.
No excuses though.
|
Ex-TV weatherman Fred Talbot found guilty of historical sex offences against boys he took on school trips to Scotland
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40047777
|
|
There must have been a very strong case IMO. I was with a school mate last night having a bit of a recollection and we had very different memories of one or two specific events (not, I hasten to add, of the gravity of these). It's one thing if there is independent witnesses or corraboration or even, I suppose, a pattern (which there seems to be in this case) but just relying on one person's memory would seem very dodgy to me. That's a generalised comment not specifically aimed at this one.
|
>>we had very different memories of one or two specific events
I've had every similar experiences of differing memories. Funny, I always come over much better the way I remember it.
Seriously though, it is quite surprising how we rewrite things over time.
|
|
I once met and spoke to Fred a few years ago when he traveled around in that little red Heineken, - seemed such a nice friendly sort of chap! - find this hard to believe, sad!
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 25 May 17 at 21:40
|
I see he got four years, presumably in a Scottish prison. He won't be feeling any warm fronts for a bit...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-40288601
|
|
So he's in a for a bit longer. The 4 years don't start until sometime in August since he's already in prison for other offences.
|
There needs to be a statute of limitations on these historical sexual allegations. Ten years to report it, or in the case of minors ten years from when they turned eighteen. It is virtually impossible for the likes of King to get a fair trial as all the jury will be well aware of his previous. Similar with Rolf, back in court on charges relating to ancient alleged incidents just as he is released. The people making those complaints had plenty of time to come forward after he had been charged and convicted originally.
Try going to plod and telling them X gave you a smack in the teeth in 1973 and you want him arrested, when they'd finished laughing they would show you the door. After the Savile and Rotherham debacle they are so afraid of being accused of indifference to sexual assaults they are willing to proceed on the flimsiest of evidence, as shown by the credence given to that nutter called Nick and his tales of Satanic orgies and murders involving half the House of Commons.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Thu 25 May 17 at 15:52
|
I mostly agree, but the statute of limitations is a difficult thing.
If you have done something awful to a child, when should you be free of prosecution? On the one hand I feel like "never" is a good reason.
But then you hear of someone who did something awful when they were young, has lived nan exemplary life since, and is not 80 years old. And then somehow it doesn't seem so reasonable.
Difficult.
However, whatever is the right answer to the Statute of Limitations, what is clearly wrong is this "band wagon" prosecuting, base don flimsy evidence for fear of media outcry.
There should be implications for bringing failed prosecutions. Not sufficient to prevent worthwhile ones, but certainly to discourage inappropriate ones.
Obviously there are measures in place supposed to prevent them, but i am not aware of any investigations with ramifications after the fact.
|
>> If you have done something awful to a child, when should you be free of
>> prosecution? On the one hand I feel like "never" is a good reason.
>>
>> But then you hear of someone who did something awful when they were young, has
>> lived nan exemplary life since, and is not 80 years old. And then somehow it
>> doesn't seem so reasonable.
Neither point is relevant. The point is the possibility of anything approaching a fair trial when memories can be so blurred after such a long period.
The accused has rights too.
(Harris's sentencing seems to me very light given what is described that he is being sentenced for; he deserves much worse. But then... is it actually even remotely believable that he did this in a room where his daughter was asleep? There's the thrill of potential discovery, and there's this which seems to me to take it to a ridiculous level.)
|
...and just for once, I agree with you.
Pat
|
>> (Harris's sentencing seems to me very light given what is described that he is being
>> sentenced for; he deserves much worse. But then... is it actually even remotely believable that
>> he did this in a room where his daughter was asleep? There's the thrill of
>> potential discovery, and there's this which seems to me to take it to a ridiculous
>> level.)
The jury saw and heard the witness and believed it.
There was corroborative evidence in fact that Harris had written to girl's Father in 1997 in the hope of avoiding or minimising the consequences.
|
>>
>> eighteen. It is virtually impossible for the likes of King to get a fair trial
>> as all the jury will be well aware of his previous. Similar with Rolf, back
>> in court on charges relating to ancient alleged incidents just as he is released. The
>> people making those complaints had plenty of time to come forward after he had been
>> charged and convicted originally.
>>
If it was "virtually impossible ... get a fair trial", how is it that Rolf was found not guilty three months ago?
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/08/rolf-harris-cleared-of-three-sexual-assault-offences
|
Reading the link, this was this line in it.
"He is also accused of making a sexual comment while stroking the bare skin of a 19-year-old’s lower back at a London music studio in 2002."
FFS, really? Surely this is just too trivial for words?
I'm not saying its right and I have no idea of whether or not it happened, but seriously, prosecuting that after 15 years? And what level of *proof* can exist?
|
|
You might as well cuff me now.
|
|
Do you like cuffs Dave?...
|
|
That's how they always nick my wallet.
|
>> Reading the link, this was this line in it.
>>
>> "He is also accused of making a sexual comment while stroking the bare skin of
>> a 19-year-old’s lower back at a London music studio in 2002."
>>
>> FFS, really? Surely this is just too trivial for words?
>>
>>
If that is the definition of sexual assault now then me and probably every other bloke on here are in line for a pull at some point over past "Misdeeds".
|
Anybody who thinks Rolf Harris was a bit of a lad/dirty old man who stroked lower backs needs to read the sentencing remarks from his trial in 2014:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sentencing-remarks-mr-j-sweeney-r-v-harris1.pdf
|
>>Anybody who thinks Rolf Harris was a bit of a lad/dirty old man who stroked lower backs needs to read the sentencing remarks from his trial in 2014:
Not my point at all. I was talking about that one offence. Why was that prosecuted after 15 years?
Fear of the media, I suspect.
|
>>>Anybody who thinks Rolf Harris....
And I have now read it. Shocking and appalling.
However, that still doesn't tell me why the trivial offence was being prosecuted; it almost devalues the other offences. My question is "why that offence" not "why that person".
It does also rather beg the question, why should he receive leniency for his ill health and how come he is soon to be released, on license or not. If he isn't a prime example or and justification for the use of imprisonment as a system of permanent removal, then no one is.
|
Maybe the answer for these historic cases is, when there is a conviction you then have a period for everyone else that has been affected to come forward. All cases including those not in the trial are then used for sentencing - with some checks to see if they are likely.
Then drawer a line under it and sentence them? Just an idea.
|
>Then drawer a line under it and sentence them? Just an idea.
But for some acceptable reason someone pops up after the deadline with a REALLY serious offence of the same kind??
|
>> If that is the definition of sexual assault now then me and probably every other
>> bloke on here are in line for a pull at some point over past "Misdeeds".
>>
Now you tell us why you wish for a statute of limitations! ;-)
Joking aside, what passed for acceptable and/or normal adult male behaviour towards minors of either sex in the "free love and sex" 60s & 70s is no longer acceptable and the law/morals applied retrospectively.
What Emmanuel Macron aged 15 and his teacher Brigitte aged 39/40 got up to in France in 1992 would be unacceptable(*) if it happened in UK.
(*) comments under this article claim that age of consent in France is 15, and teacher/pupil relationships are also apparently acceptable.
www.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/may/15/it-isnt-wrong-to-raise-an-eyebrow-at-how-the-macrons-got-together
|
>> "He is also accused of making a sexual comment while stroking the bare skin of
>> a 19-year-old’s lower back at a London music studio in 2002."
>>
>> FFS, really? Surely this is just too trivial for words?
>>
Rolf Harris' jury has been told to consider whether a young woman 'reluctantly consented' to an indecent assault by the Australian entertainer, in the same way a wife might reluctantly consent to marital sex on a Saturday night.
Harris, 86, has pleaded not guilty to groping four teenage girls and three adult women, including an 18 year-old who said he rubbed her bare back and made a sexually suggestive comment during a band rehearsal in 2002.
Towards the end of their fourth day of deliberations, the jury came back with a question for Judge Alistair McCreath, asking whether "reluctant acquiescence" was the same as consent.
A woman had given evidence that in 2002, when she was an 18-year-old backing singer in a band, Rolf Harris had unexpectedly arrived at a rehearsal.
He commented to the lead singer "I didn't know you had a beautiful girl in the room" and walked up to her, standing very close, she said.
He put his hand on her bare back, rubbing it in circular patterns from her crop top to just above her jeans, telling her she was "really gorgeous".
He then said to her "Do you know what I find really attractive in a woman? If you were to join up the two dimples on a woman's back to your bum crack it would make the shape of a diamond; I think it's really sexy."
On the witness stand the woman said she had "laughed it off" in a nervous way because she had felt uncomfortable. Asked by defence lawyer Stephen Vullo, QC, if she had "reluctantly accepted without any sort of protest" she had replied "yes".
In re-examination by prosecutor Jonathan Rees, QC, the woman said she had not been comfortable but it was an odd situation, he was a celebrity and she felt she didn't have much power in the situation.
Judge McCreath told the jury the ultimate question they had to decide was whether there had been consent.
Consent was "more than just putting up with it", he said
However, he added, "sometimes a person may acquiesce, albeit reluctantly, and thus consent".
To illustrate the point he said "without being overly crude this sort of thing happens in marriages or relationships".
"(A husband might say) 'We always have sex on a Saturday night… come on we always do it' (and the wife replies) 'All right let's get on with it'.
"That's consent – not enthusiastic, but consent it is."
Judge McCreath called this the "Saturday night example, as it were".
The jury then retired to continue its deliberations.
|
>> Try going to plod and telling them X gave you a smack in the teeth
>> in 1973 and you want him arrested, when they'd finished laughing they would show you
>> the door.
For a minor offence likely to end up as a fine or caution that's true, and probably rightly so. If, on the other hand, the assault was serious with life changing injuries and a long stretch possible for the putative defendant then I suspect plod would show more interest.
|
>>For a minor offence likely to end up as a fine or caution that's true, and probably rightly so. If, on the other hand, the assault was serious with life changing injuries and a long stretch possible for the putative defendant then I suspect plod would show more interest.
As you say, and probably rightly so.
And clearly some of what Harris got up to is right in the second category and he should be nailed to the wall for it. I have no idea why anybody would show leniency or accept any mitigation. I can think of no reason why he should receive any.
But some of it would seem to me to be clearly in the first category. Both in Harris's case and in others. Now I don't care one way or the other about Harris, he deserves all that he gets. But from the point of view of the justice system and process, that seems inappropriate to me; and surely can only have been motivated by fear of the media?
|
Not quite sure how it's a fail;
Everybody talking about Walkers crisps, the company being blamed for nothing, idiots getting the blame, and no particular additional costs.
|
It is funny though!
"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." - Oscar Wilde
|
|
Or, more precisely: "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." (Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray)
|
|
Cliff Richard didn't seem too struck on being talked about, and the police have apologised and paid damages for talking about him to the BBC.
|
>> Cliff Richard didn't seem too struck on being talked about, and the police have apologised
>> and paid damages for talking about him to the BBC.
>>
He wants to be talked about when it suits his ego to be talked about.
|
That Duncan, is grossly unfair....and before you say it, I'm not a Cliff Richard fan.
For anyone in the public eye being talked about is part and parcel of the job and is publicity which success relies upon.
What happened to Cliff Richard wasn't being 'talked about' it was a collusion between the BBC and the Police to publicise something which should never have been made public at that stage and as a result harmed his 'business' by way of adverse publicity with no foundation.
If you owned a business that thrived on good publicity would you be so approving of the actions of others who harmed that?
Pat
|
I find his statement offensive.
""Whilst I'm pleased that this is finally all over, I feel no sense of victory, only relief.
"I'm 87 years old, my wife is in ill health and we simply want to spend our remaining time together in peace.""
Why should he get peace or relief? Why should he not be made to have the opposite of peace every day ? Some of his 'victims' from the first set of prosecutions do not seem to be able to find peace, why should he?
And if 87 deserves some recognition, shouldn't 13?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 30 May 17 at 17:06
|
|
He's done his time, no need to make him suffer till he dies.
|
|
Or he's an unrepentant old kiddie fiddler who deserves what he gets?
|
>> He's done his time, no need to make him suffer till he dies.
Agreed​. But that wasn't his point or his request. If someone had said he should be tortured or sent back to jail I would have made the same point as you.
However, he thinks we should pay regard to his age where he paid no attention to the age of the children he molested; he asks for peace which i expect is all his young victims wanted from him, and feels relief, which I expect eludes his victims.
He shouldn't be treated as an unpunished criminal, which he is not, but he should be treated as a disgusting, unrepentant s umbag, whoch he is.
|
I would suspect his fall from grace is quite shocking to him. I would also suspect his wife will be consumed with shame, with which he will be wracked with guilt.
Nothing more needs to be foisted on him I think. Tho it might be fitting that upon the death of him and his wife, any financial legacy should be seized by the state and put into child welfare charities.
|
|
Why would you deprive his own kids of their inheritance???
|
>> Why would you deprive his own kids of their inheritance???
You serious? So someone who made his money during years whilst abusing kids/youngsters is okay?
He was talented and could have just gone with that. His daughter only sided with him I seem to recall when she thought about the inheritance. Her best friend was abused.
EDIT: If you'd abused children and also made a lot of money as a celeb at the same time..... it's okay that your kids benefit?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 31 May 17 at 01:35
|
A wind-up shorely Rob...
But just in case it's not, there's no reason to punish his family too - we don't do collective punishment here. It's not as though abusing kids was how he earnt his money, he did have a talent for other things too, which people appreciated.
And anyway, he has paid the price society has decided is appropriate for his crime. If the State wanted to deprive him of significant cash the way to do it would have been as part of his sentence, in the form of a fine, which may not even be an option for those particular offences. I can think of instances when people have profited from the crime when clearly the money should be forfeited, but not this one. Where would it end?
|
|
On the other hand the Goverment plan to deprive your family of their inheritance if you commit the crime of contracting Alzheimer's' disease and need long term care so confiscating other criminals money would seem OK too.
|
|
Ha, (nearly) a fair point... which only arises because we expect the State to take care of us, come what may.
|
>> On the other hand the Goverment plan to deprive your family of their inheritance if
>> you commit the crime of contracting Alzheimer's' disease and need long term care so confiscating other criminals money would seem OK too.
>>
Complete tosh, their proposals enable anyone needing care in their own home to retain £100k to pass on, when currently their estate would be diminished to around £23k.
It hits the rich property owners harder, though there is a promise of a cap, however it is a much more creative redistribution of wealth than Labour have come up with in 20 years or more.
|
>> It hits the rich property owners harder, though there is a promise of a cap,
Since we don't know how the cap will work and we won't be told until after she's won the truth is it's a complete mystery whether it will be truly redistributive or not.
|
>>
>> >> It hits the rich property owners harder, though there is a promise of a
>> cap,
>>
>> Since we don't know how the cap will work and we won't be told until
>> after she's won the truth is it's a complete mystery whether it will be truly
>> redistributive or not.
>>
The difference between £23k and £100k makes it redistributive, the question is how much it hits those better off. though the Tories are right, it will collapse unless reformed and I reckon most Tory supporters will understand that.
|
"Complete tosh, their proposals enable anyone needing care in their own home to retain £100k to pass on, when currently their estate would be diminished to around £23k."
The problem with the proposal and why it causes so many to see it as harsh is the arbitrariness of its application.
Diseases needing expensive long term carelike Alzheimers affect only hit a comparitively small precentage of the population. If you are affected your savings are potentially wiped out . If you aren't your savings survive in full to be passed on to your family.
In most similar circumstances we have insurance available to alleviated this type of problem. No insurance is available for long term care provision.
It seems to me a sensible idea to me to share the burden over the entire population. If say every estated payed an amount of £50,000 for social care provision I think most people would see that as much fairer rather than the "loser loses all "system currently proposed by Mrs May
|
>> the "loser loses all "system currently proposed >>
Haven't got time now for detail - though it simply isn't that, it much fairer and favours the less well off ...
|
If you are really wealthy - cash, shares, large home - say a few millon paying for residential care is not an issue.
If you have no real assets (50%+ of UK citizens who retire have the square root of next to nothing), rent your home, small company pension or none at all the State picks up the bill.
It's the folk in the middle - bought their house over 30 years, paid into a pension which funds their life in retirement, owned their own business that gave them substantial capital.........Dementia comes around & they are "penalised" for being careful/thrifty/ working hard as they are the only ones where the cost of care hits.
I was 64 & had cancer, big operation, chemotherapy........privately it would have been £100,000 BUT the NHS did the job - if it had been dementia I would be paying £3/4,000 per month - what is the difference between demantia & cancer - both are fatal.
|
I was 64 & had cancer, big operation, chemotherapy........privately it would have been £100,000 BUT the NHS did the job - if it had been dementia I would be paying £3/4,000 per month - what is the difference between demantia & cancer - both are fatal.
That is exactly the problem FB. As I said above it is the percevied arbitrariness of the system. Obviously the money has to come from somewhere. With diseases like cancer the cost is effectlively shared via taxation. With Alzheimers it falls squarely on the sufferers family. A levy on everybody's estate would be perceived as being fairer.
|
Diseases needing expensive long term carelike Alzheimers affect only hit a comparitively small precentage of the population. If you are affected your savings are potentially wiped out . If you aren't your savings survive in full to be passed on to your family.
Aren't long term care paid for by those needing it, with or without alzhemiers? Genuine question.
|
|
My next door neighbour is in long term care with what they initially thought was a brain tumour. I believe it is being paid for by the local authority (not health authority). I've no idea how it all works though, might be means tested in some way.
|
>> My next door neighbour is in long term care with what they initially thought was
>> a brain tumour. I believe it is being paid for by the local authority (not
>> health authority). I've no idea how it all works though, might be means tested in
>> some way.
It depends on severity and type of medical condition and if nursing care is required (as opposed to "care")
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 31 May 17 at 13:01
|
>> It seems to me a sensible idea to me to share the burden over the
>> entire population. If say every estated payed an amount of £50,000 for social care provision
>> I think most people would see that as much fairer rather than the "loser loses
>> all "system currently proposed by Mrs May
>>
So people who have nothing help pay those who do? Fairer? rigggggght
|
It seems to me a sensible idea to me to share the burden over the
>> entire population. If say every estated payed an amount of £50,000 for social care provision
>> I think most people would see that as much fairer rather than the "loser loses
>> all "system currently proposed by Mrs May
Doesn't sound fair, especially a flat fee. What if the estate was 60k? Surely increased tax is the fairest if we want the government to fund it.
|
Health care sounds to me like the perfect candidate for some kind of insurance.
That's exactly what insurance does - a small number of people face devastating costs, but you don't know which those people will be, so you pool the costs and everyone pays an insurance premium.
You'd have thought that was exactly what something called "national insurance" would cover.
OK, if it's not enough, put the premiums up.
But it ought to be loaded to take account of risks, just like any other insurance. If you do dangerous things like smoke or overeat then you'd expect to pay higher premiums.
I don't see what it's got to do with the size of someone's estate - no other insurance determines its premiums on the basis of ability to pay on death.
And ordinary NHS treatment isn't charged for on an ability to pay.
|
>> If you do dangerous things like smoke or overeat then you'd expect to pay
>> higher premiums.
>>
But if you smoke and overeat you are probably in he least likely section of society to end up with any form of long term care need as you will die earlier in general, so maybe your insurance, like your pension premiums should be cheaper.
|
Charging premiums related to risk in the NHS and care system would be virtually impossible. The cost of admin would be horrific. Some people would be excluded from cover since the cost of insuring them would be prohibitive The only viable system is for everyone to contribute on the same basis.
An argument can certainly be made that tax/national insurance syste should pick up large bills for social care but practically that would mean very significant rises in thoses taxes. A "death tax" in the form of some sort of levy on estates would be easier to implement and meet less resistance from those already struggling to make ends meet - Mrs Mays' JAMS
The levy could be a flat rate or a percentage and could have some sort of excess
|
>>
>> The levy could be a flat rate or a percentage and could have some sort
>> of excess
>>
I think that National Insurance in its current form should be revamped and clearly split into three components:
1) State pension contributions. Obviously only payable up to state pension age, and contribution records should be viewable online just like any other pension. Flat rate.
2) Insurance to cover unemployment and other state benefits - again only up to SPA. Percentage of employed income.
3) Health and care insurance - percentage of all income regardless of age, unless actually receiving care.
Elements 1 and 2 would be compulsory, 3 could perhaps be optional but would require someone opting out to demonstrate adequate private means, wealth, insurance, etc.
This, and defence, would be the only areas of government expenditure where I would simply charge whatever was needed to do the job, regardless of cost. All other areas would be subject to rigorous restraint and would be undertaken only to the extent that they were affordable.
So I suppose I'm extreme left wing on health, and extreme right wing on defence, and extremely pragmatic on everything else :)
|
|
Opting out of option 3 would cause problems. On a simple level, those who are fit and can earn will opt out and those who are not will not opt out. thereby causing a drain on a pot which isn't being adequately replenished.
|
>> Complete tosh, their proposals enable anyone needing care in their own home to retain £100k
>> to pass on, when currently their estate would be diminished to around £23k.
>>
At the moment, care in the home (as opposed to a home) is mostly state funded isn't it? I believe the proposal was to treat those costs like residential care.
At the moment, if one partner is living at home and one in residential care, the property is untouched. The proposal meant that equity could be used via some sort of compulsory equity release product (provided by the Tories' pals with interest accruing no doubt) in that situation.
I accept I might not have that right and that it is, thanks to May's ducking and diving, a moving target.
She has cocked this up badly, I'm pleased to say. Seeming o shaft the people most likely to vote for you does not show the mettle to negotiate anything with anybody either.
I share concerns regarding McDonnell and Abbot but Labour is still a better, or at least less bad, bet for the proles i.e. most of us than the Tories.
How can tax reductions for the wealthy and big business be justified when nurses have to use food banks, the NHS is falling apart, schools are asking parents to pay for books and equipment, the deficit is still there and public borrowing is greater than ever after seven years of Conservative government? It isn't enough just to say that Labour are "worse" on their record with the economy, neither is it necessarily true.
Such austerity as we have seen has mainly been visited on those least able to afford it. A remarkable feat.
Oh, I forgot. If we are nice to the rich people and big business then the economy will boom and we will all benefit from trickle down. Ha ha.
|
At the moment, care in the home (as opposed to a home) is mostly state funded isn't it? I believe the proposal was to treat those costs like residential care.
No, you pay for your own care if you have savings over £23,250
|
>> Oh, I forgot. If we are nice to the rich people and big business then
>> the economy will boom and we will all benefit from trickle down. Ha ha.
>>
Nothing to do with being nice to rich people, but
If business works, and makes money and provides jobs we all have a better life
If we nationalise things and let the big unions control things as the Labour manifesto points to, especially in todays global economy, then everyone ends up poorer and those that suffer worst will not be the wealthy but the poor, those on minimum wages and those without jobs.
That's the reality of what a Corbyn led government will lead to, poverty for the many not the few.
|
>> If business works, and makes money and provides jobs we all have a better life
>>
>> If we nationalise things and let the big unions control things as the Labour manifesto
>> points to, especially in todays global economy, then everyone ends up poorer and those that
>> suffer worst will not be the wealthy but the poor, those on minimum wages and
>> those without jobs.
Some people are happy to take this as a given, as if trotting it out repeatedly means it must be true. I'm not.
The NHS is nationalised and if we are to believe what we are told, is one of the most efficient systems of health provision in the world.
Network Rail is in effect now nationalised because private owners cocked it up.
Government borrowing for genuine investment should not be an issue when the alternative to servicing it is to pay private business to use more expensive capital and debt to do the same job and for the exchequer to forgo the future returns. It is simply idiotic unless you believe that the very fact of its being publicly owned automatically makes it much more badly run.
One can huff and puff about how bad the railways were before privatisation but they were starved of investment then; and since privatisation, far larger public subsidy has gone into rail than ever did before.
There was plenty of waste it is true. I once went to visit an electricity board to sell them something. I had an appointment with one of the board. All it needed was an hour's meeting, but I was invited to join the board for lunch in an oak-panelled dining room, with waiter service and even a barman on hand. Nevertheless, I would be prepared to bet that the equivalent board now costs a lot more than it did then. Many of the managers of nationalised businesses tripled and quadrupled their salaries when they became directors of the privatised entity and their successors have since done the same again.
Private enterprise will not always do the difficult stuff that we actually want done for reasons of fairness and social cohesion. Neither, when privatisation means creating powerful private monopolies, does it benefit from real competition. It has to be regulated and in some cases subsidised directly, which results in a system that can and is gamed, with operators putting resources into that rather than running a business, particularly as the regulated environment ends up being designed to guarantee a profit.
Margaret Thatcher had the nifty idea that the private owners could be the masses who could be persuaded to pay again for the assets they already owned, in exchange for future dividends which as taxpayers they would have owned anyway. I never really got that, although I filled my sadly small boots when there looked like being a profit on offer. But really she sold our birthright for a mess of potage.
I am convinced that major utilities, roads, and other transport assets among other things should be in public ownership. I am also convinced that government should be building houses.
|
>>I share concerns regarding McDonnell and Abbot but Labour is still a better, or at least less bad, bet for the proles i.e. most of us than the Tories>>
Manatee, the way you write is quite articulate, though what you say is utter tosh.
It's simple, whatever we spend money on, that money comes from the private sector, for the private sector to be able to fund our collective spending we need a healthy ecomony, will Corbyn, Mc Donnell et at sustain the economy. Not a hope in hell. Vote Labour and you vote for a 1970's re run and I don't mean Starsky & Hutch ...
|
>> Manatee, the way you write is quite articulate,
Too kind.
>>though what you say is utter tosh.
I wouldn't be so rude:) But I can't agree with you.
The wealth is generated by the application of capital, land, the resources on it, and people. As I think I said before, stick your wealth-creator in the middle of a desert on his own, with all his capital, and see how well he does.
Didn't you say we would collect more tax by reducing rates?
Well I suppose what you were thinking of was the Laffer curve, which is really no more than a statement of the bleeding obvious, which is that if you have tax rates of 100%, your tax receipts will be zero; with tax rates at 0%, tax receipts will also be zero; somewhere in between your tax receipts will be greater than zero and in between, there must be a point at which the tax receipts will be at a maximum.
So whether reducing tax rates increases receipts depends on where you start from. Unhelpfully, the aptly named Laffer who thought this up neither gave us the number or the formula for working it out, so it remains of almost no use except to remind us that if we put up taxes too much we risk collecting less money, and if we start from a high enough number we might actually get more by cutting the rates.
People have of course attempted to work the number out for various scenarios. I can't remember where the estimates clustered but I suspect it was a bit more that the current rates of either corporation tax or the maxim rate of income tax.
Of course it isn't simple. There are other taxes. NI, VAT, IPT, IhT, CGT. And there is globalism, and a degree of competition on tax rates.
The other implied magic of your posts is trickle down. Opinions differ, but it doesn't have the credibility it once did. I see more bubble up than trickle down going on.
The bit I might agree with is that if you let capitalists alone they will end up with a lot of money. Yes they might pay some wages, and they will be consumers - but don't forget people are not the only thing they can invest in. But if they only part with their surpluses by lending it to us and charging us interest, instead of paying taxes, or if they don't pay their taxes here, and they take their profits abroad, then frankly we are getting a bad deal.
There is another problem, which is that the system you favour is unsustainable, but that is probably another conversation. (It's to do with productivity and growth).
I hope you get the gist and can be more open minded. I don't claim to be right about everything and I have not been writing fully researched papers, just having a conversation as I might in the pub* and it's pretty obvious that neither untrammelled capitalism nor flat out communism is the answer; also that Labour and the Conservatives have far more in common than not. The system remains broadly the same For now, they are just different points on the same chart.
*my usual interlocutor is a good friend who calls himself a failed capitalist (because he has not made as much money as he would have liked to) and calls me a failed socialist (because he suspects I am better off than a socialist properly should be).
|
>> How can tax reductions for the wealthy and big business be justified when nurses have
>> to use food banks,
Until very recently Mrs Z was a nursing lecturer, and had many student nurses on secondment to her research role.
None of the student nurses were using food banks. You do have a remarkable propensity to use lurid and usually inaccurate sound bites.
|
>> You do have a remarkable propensity
>> to use lurid and usually inaccurate sound bites.
Thank you!
Actually I didn't invent that one, and it might be fake news -
fullfact.org/economy/how-many-nurses-are-using-foodbanks/
but the point stands with the other bits.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 31 May 17 at 21:45
|
|
Anyone on an average wage could could end up in a food bank, it only takes poor budgeting like prioritising a £500 phone over food. It is called living beyond your means, often credit card or payday loan assisted. It does not matter what their job is, if they have one.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 1 Jun 17 at 08:09
|
>> Anyone on an average wage could could end up in a food bank, it only
>> takes poor budgeting like prioritising a £500 phone over food.
I suspect the issue for nurses is frozen pay v ever rising rents.
|
>> None of the student nurses were using food banks.
How would she know if they were?
|
>> >> None of the student nurses were using food banks.
>>
>> How would she know if they were?
Because they talk. When you are with a student nurse for 8 hours it would crop up.
|
>>
>> But just in case it's not, there's no reason to punish his family too -
>> we don't do collective punishment here.
>>
>>
Yes we do. We fine breadwinners, we send them to prison, we cause them to lose their jobs, frequently this breaks up families, and the children suffer.
It's an ingrained principle of crime and punishment.
|
>> Why would you deprive his own kids of their inheritance???
Because they probably turned a blind eye to it.
|
I do not want to spend my last years in a care home . Been there, seen teh state of people in them.
Assisted suicide please.. (Not yet!)
|
|
Lots of people say that. A minute proportion actually do it. The urge to cling on to life is incredibly strong.
|
>> Lots of people say that. A minute proportion actually do it. The urge to cling
>> on to life is incredibly strong.
>>
It's a shame suicide bombers don't think like that.
|
>> It's a shame suicide bombers don't think like that.
>>
Fortunately those prepared to kill themselves fo ra cause are very much the exception. The urge for self preservation usually overcomes even the fanatical
|
Still the revelations come.........(after death). - Roger.
