***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 28 *****
==========================================================
More debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 10 Sep 15 at 10:13
|
>>I've never been able to work out why that would be a problem.
Do we not want the best people at the helm, and if their families were rich enough to give them the best education... so what, we'll take it.... won't we?
....and if people from other less privileged backgrounds are good enough, they'll make it.. and we'll have them in charge....i.e. Maggie.
What is there to moan about?
Westpig, I need to respectfully disagree with this viewpoint and would suggest that this sort of thinking is contributing towards the divide we have in our society.
I do not feel that someone who has came from a privileged, money background is necessarily the right person to run the country. What experience do they have of poverty, fighting poverty, making ends meet? Maybe living on a "council estate", trying to get a job of their own back etc etc? What about running a household on a budget or running the risk of being unemployed with no family to fall back on?
Lets not kid ourselves on that Prime Ministers make decisions - they are surrounded by advisers of all sorts and these are the people who should have the expertise. So yes, Economics degrees for that dept, maybe social work or similar for the welfare depts.?
The PM should be someone of strong moral beliefs and values who is prepared to guide the country in the right direction for the whole country and not just a select few. He or she needs to take the whole countries needs into account when making decisions.
Have a look at Cameron's history form birth upwards - it has been one of a privileged upbringing the whole way to where he is now. He has never faced poverty, he has never had to make budget household decisions or go without. And this isn't a dig at him, this is me arguing against the principle that we should be grateful that we have an Eton establishment PM.
|
You almost seem to be saying that the selection process should work in reverse - that having a difficult or deprived background is a necessary qualification for leadership, and that having an easier upbringing is a disqualification?
I don't think that actually fits with the record of our prime ministers, does it?
There were one or two nineteenth PMs who were not from the usual establishment, and the fact that I can't remember them perhaps is indicative.
Ramsey McDonald was illegitimate from a poor family - was he a good PM?
Lloyd George was possibly our second greatest PM ever - definitely not Westminster establishment, although not I think poor.
Churchill - privileged background although not rich.
Attlee - well off, and educated, I think, but not establishment.
Macmillan - well off from a self-made family.
Heath (say no more :) ) lower middle class background, grammar/scholarship boy.
Wison ?
Callaghan - naval stoker, not an outstanding PM
Major - ran away from a bank to work in a circus.
Thatcher - ???
Is there a pattern here? Can you say who was good, who was bad, who was in touch, who remote?
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Thu 6 Aug 15 at 09:36
|
>> Lloyd George was possibly our second greatest PM ever -
>>
One or two people might possibly disagree with you there.
|
>>
>> >> Lloyd George was possibly our second greatest PM ever -
>> >>
>>
>> One or two people might possibly disagree with you there.
>>
You some people think he was the greatest? :)
It's impossible to judge objectively of course, but arguably he did win the First WW, as Churchill did the Second. Certainly he displayed greatness, I think, although a devious scoundrel as well.
But William Pitt has claims to greatness too.
|
>> But William Pitt has claims to greatness too.
>>
Pitt the Elder?
Pitt the Younger?
Pitt the Embryo?
Pitt the Glint in the Milkman's Eye?
;-)
(Name that cultural reference)
|
|
In one. Virtual kebab awarded. Shish or doner?
|
>> You some people think he was the greatest? :)
>>
>> It's impossible to judge objectively of course, but arguably he did win the First WW,
>> as Churchill did the Second. Certainly he displayed greatness, I think, although a devious scoundrel as well.
>>
He failed to solve 'The Irish Problem', when he had the chance.
|
>>You almost seem to be saying that the selection process should work in reverse - that having a difficult or deprived background is a necessary qualification for leadership, and that having an easier upbringing is a disqualification?
No definitely didn't mean to imply that, I was in this instance disagreeing with WP that this made for an ideal PM.
To me, it definitely needs to be a bit of a "mixed" bag, probably ideally someone who has came through some tough times to make good.
But also agree with the comment made thereafter - one of the issues is when that person surrounds themselves with like minded, with like minded backgrounds that it all gets a bit cosy and one directional.
|
|
It's desirable to have a range of backgrounds, experience, skills and temperament in a team. The most important thing to avoid is having a group of people who all think the same way. Unfortunately that is what tends,to happen, and in politics original thinkers are often seen as misfits.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 6 Aug 15 at 09:40
|
>> Westpig, I need to respectfully disagree with this viewpoint and would suggest that this sort
>> of thinking is contributing towards the divide we have in our society.
Rubbish.
The only divide comes from the difference between those that do things for themselves and those that think everyone else owes them something.
Now fair enough there is an exceedingly small percentage of very privileged people who by luck of birth have a great deal... and likewise at the other end of the spectrum there are those that through no fault of their own find themselves in the mire... but in reality the vast majority of people are in the middle i.e. capable of working and if they work hard, save a bit, challenge themselves a bit, they can better themselves and have something worthwhile in their lives.
If you want to sit on your butt doing nowt, or smoking it, drinking it or wasting it on frivolity.........then nothing changes.
Look at the example of the people Idi Amin chucked out... and look where many/most of those families are now.
I'm perfectly happy with David Cameron and George Osborne... and glad that two people so influential in our country's leadership had a top notch education. I wish there were more.
Oh and I come from a single parent, comprehensive, housing association (at one point) background. Luckily though I've never coveted what someone else has.
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 6 Aug 15 at 18:26
|
|
You only need look at Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown to see the kind of people you do not want as PM...One an incompetent out of touch and the other a paranoid bully.
|
|
I would abolish all private schools. That would sort out the issue once and for all.
|
bless you
< hands him a hanky >
|
|
The dominance of Etonians in Govt. and in other top positions in wider society, such as FTSE 100 Board rooms.
|
If it were true, what would be the issue?
Do you think closing schools will change their. Competence levels? Or is it the accents that offend you?
|
If there is an "issue" maybe it is this
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33655791
"The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission said better-off families managed to provide educational and social advantages to stop their slide.
It found less able, richer children were 35% more likely to become high earners than brighter, poorer peers."
In a way it's yet another survey confirming the bleeding obvious. The whole point of giving children training in good manners, speaking well and being confident is that they will "get on". It certainly works, I have come across several public schoolboys and girls who were really very dim people in high profile or very well paid jobs. And yet in some cases they survive quite well; presumably because a large part of what is required in these roles is self confidence, good communication skills, and being at home with establishment types who tend to favour people like themselves. The presumption that fairness is some sort of normal is sadly mistaken.
WP is right to point out that is is open to anybody to apply themselves and attain money and position. But that doesn't mean the odds are the same for everybody.
|
>>In a way it's yet another survey confirming the bleeding obvious.
>> The whole point of giving children training in good manners, speaking well and being confident is that they will "get on". It certainly works,
>>....good communication skills,
It certainly was to us " the blleeding obvious"
SWMBO and I were from fairly poor backgrounds but both of us went to grammar schools.
Both our children entered local out of borough Grammar schools etc etc.
We did not consciously train them but gave then lots of opportunities to gain confidence and communications skills even before junior school. We did not throw money at the task so no big rewards along the way.
What we certainly did do was give them lots of our time. I really enjoyed being involved with their progress.
Both are highly respected in their professions and are in demand as they have both been headhunted several times..
IMO giving quite a lot of your time and ensuring learning is fun are the key factors.
|
Not Etonians specifically, but the private education system. In 2013 45% of FTSE 100 senior executives went to private school.
Now some may believe that the private system is so fantastic that this dominance is justified but I do not. I think it's more to do with who you know, the old school tie and all that stuff.
|
>> Now some may believe that the private system is so fantastic that this dominance is
>> justified but I do not. I think it's more to do with who you know,
>> the old school tie and all that stuff.
>>
>>
Even if you could/did ban Eton, it wouldn't make any difference. People still have ways to meet and move in the correct social circles. Anyway it happens at all levels, I think it's a human thing, we feel more comfortable around those similar to us.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 8 Aug 15 at 21:44
|
What rot.
Provided they are competent who cares whether they were privately educated or not.
Or if they are incompetent for that matter, fired whichever school they came from.
And I have been a FTSE 25 Executive and I think your statistic is wrong.
|
Not my experience.
But even if it were true, why does it bother you?
Surely it should be about competence?
|
So ban private schools?
LCD policies are often driven by fear and envy.
|
>> So ban private schools?
>>
>> LCD policies are often driven by fear and envy.
You say that as if it were unreasonable!
LCD a far from ideal solution however.
|
>> Equal opportunities. >>
Equally lower?
Last edited by: Roger. on Mon 10 Aug 15 at 21:17
|
"I would abolish all private schools."
But then you would find that some parents place great importance on their children's education and rather than waste their money on frivolities, they might pay for e.g. additional music tuition. Would you ban that as well? Maybe children should be banned from 'trying too hard'. Maybe parents should be banned from 'providing encouragement'.
My wife has taught in the state system for most of her life, the local jail and now in a private school; her attitude is that if people can afford it and want it, then private education is fine.
|
|
I don't see how you can have real equality unless you remove all children after weaning and bring them up anonymously in state institutions with no contact with their parents.
|
If you believed in equality, then stop all druggies and alcoholics having children as odds on they may be mentally and/or physically damaged when born.
For some strange reason, never mentioned.. by the "equal opportunities " zealots...
|
Times change. Such views, and more extreme ones, were held by many respected people in the not very distant past.
There is a film clip somewhere with GBS talking about people who are "of no use" IIRC. The now so liberal Swedes went in for eugenics relatively recently too I think.
|
>> The now so liberal Swedes went in for eugenics relatively recently too I think.
The Swedes have hidden depths. Not only is the Oerlikon machine cannon a Swedish design, but they had Anders Breivik too. And quite a decent sized nazi party in the late thirties. 'Strength through joy' and lots of communal exercise fit beautifully into fascist ideologies.
We were a bit like that ourselves in the forties, or dumb schoolteachers were anyway. I had a persistent feeling that I was being coerced in a distasteful, unhealthy direction. You didn't argue too much because that could lead to serious gyp. One kept one's head down.
|
>> The Swedes have hidden depths. ... they had Anders Breivik too.
Nope - Norwegian. But it is cold there too.
|
>> Nope - Norwegian. But it is cold there too.
Guh... damn! Very annoying. Careless. Elderly.
|
> The now so liberal Swedes went in for eugenics relatively recently too I
>> think.
>>
www.economist.com/node/155244
"Between 1935 and 1976, the newspaper says, no fewer than 60,000 young Swedish women deemed mentally defective or otherwise handicapped to a degree “which makes them incapable of looking after their children†were sterilised."
|
>> stop all druggies and alcoholics having children as odds on they may be mentally and/or physically damaged when born.
One can't help agreeing, but there are problems here quite apart from the fascizing terms in which the suggestion is posed.
For one thing the children of addicts are not always or necessarily disadvantaged compared to other children. Another difficulty is that of defining a 'druggie' or 'alcoholic' in a reasonable, infallible way: it simply can't be done. There are numerous levels and categories of addiction some of which are well inside normal social behaviour.
I used to take pep pills and smoke a bit of dope, and I like a drink more and more as I get older. I can call myself a druggie and alcoholic if I want. But if anyone else does they had better be able to explain what they mean, all right? Superstitious faff won't cut the mustard round here.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 11 Aug 15 at 15:28
|
>> For one thing the children of addicts are not always or necessarily disadvantaged compared to
>> other children. Another difficulty is that of defining a 'druggie' or 'alcoholic' in a reasonable,
>> infallible way: it simply can't be done. There are numerous levels and categories of addiction
>> some of which are well inside normal social behaviour.
>>
>> I used to take pep pills and smoke a bit of dope, and I like
>> a drink more and more as I get older. I can call myself a druggie
>> and alcoholic if I want. But if anyone else does they had better be able
>> to explain what they mean, all right? Superstitious faff won't cut the mustard round here.
Top post AC
|
>> the children of addicts are not always or necessarily disadvantaged compared to
>> other children.
On reflection, I have to admit that they are sometimes adversely affected by having addict parents. I've met one or two slightly sad neglected nippers around junkies and serious speedheads. And my old drug guru and literary hero William Burroughs, who was homosexual really, was briefly married in youth and had a son, Billy, whose mother was addicted to amphetamine while carrying him, so that he was born addicted and a bit foxed. Had an unhappy life and I think died young.
Bill Burroughs by most accounts tried to help him, and always felt helplessly guilty about him.
|
>> Bill Burroughs by most accounts tried to help him, and always felt helplessly guilty about him.
Not just about Billy now I come to think of it. They were a tragic lot. I'd forgotten (who would want to remember it) that Burroughs, a gun freak, kept a .45 automatic and a submachine gun or two when he was young and living, part time at least, with Billy's mother Joan. One evening as they sat around drinking and taking drugs Joan placed a whisky glass on her head and said: 'Isn't it about time to do our William Tell act, Bill?' Burroughs took careful aim and fired a bit too low, shooting Joan through the head. This happened in Mexico and Burroughs was able to bribe his way out of jail and flee the country never to return.
The incident is well attested in several overlapping accounts. The poet Allen Ginsberg was present in the room, perhaps Gregory Corso was too.
In the Kronenburg movie 'The Naked Lunch' (mainly a distasteful Kronenburgish pastiche of Burroughs's more repulsive flights of fancy), the only factual episode is a scene reproducing that moment. Burroughs said he was 'dismayed, naturally' by that portrayal, but was consoled by all the money the movie people paid him.
Burroughs also said that the Joan killing brought him to shape up and become a writer. It lies at the root of the loathing a lot of commentators seem to feel for Burroughs. 'He was a bad man,' a literary friend of mine told me earnestly. Didn't seem bad to me at all, and I knew him for a while... but not of course when he and others were young and a bit crazy.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 19 Aug 15 at 15:54
|
Firstly, AC, you've reminded me of this ten second Simpsons joke, which I like a lot.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sL102pyaLg
And secondly, funny you should mention Ginsberg - I saw him today. Well, not in actuality you understand, but in Ken Kesey's "Magic Trip" which is now available on Amazon to stream. Weird lot they were, but it's all good fun.
|
>> in Ken Kesey's "Magic Trip" which is now available on Amazon to stream. Weird lot they were, but it's all good fun.
With the crazed speedhead Neal Cassady at the wheel most of the time, 'Doubledy-clutch! Doubledy-clutch!' (sic).
I don't have the impression it was always 'good fun' for everyone though. There were casualties. Polymorphous sex and incautious drug consumption produce a few of those.
All I can say is that Ginsberg and Burroughs, both of whom I am honoured to have frequented, always treated me with tolerance and consideration. It didn't bother them that I wasn't gay. Corso too although he was a tough street kid character.
|
It seems the allegations around some sort of establishment paedos club where children were abused and murdered are beginning to be undermined. Serious doubts emerging about credibility of leading witness 'Nick'.
tinyurl.com/nd6tllw (link to Mail which was where I found report).
Have to say I'd not head of him until Harvey Proctor's press conference last week.
While I despised Proctor as an MP for the sort of Powellite/Monday Club more or less openly racist stuff he advocated I've some sympathy for his present predicament. Amongst the accusations made by Nick are that Proctor and Heath were together at a session where he was abused. It's well recorded that Heath and Proctor couldn't stand the sight of each other. Also seen it reported that Heath blocked him from the 'approved candidates' list or otherwise arranged his being blackballed at constituency selection meetings, at least in winnable places.
The veto was removed by Margaret Thatcher who found his views less appalling leading to his elction to Parliament in 1979.
|
|
Maybe he's acting... but Lord Janner doesn't look fit to stand trial.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 14 Aug 15 at 16:48
|
"Maybe he's acting... but Lord Janner doesn't look fit to stand trial."
The first requirement for being an MP is to be something of an actor.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 14 Aug 15 at 16:48
|
Is that Zero off to spot a train or three who's walking past the presenter (Tom Symonds) at 00:25 of the embedded footage? :-)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33931860
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 14 Aug 15 at 16:48
|
|
nah - not fat enough
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 14 Aug 15 at 16:48
|
Dress down Friday?
Or just your average Morris dancer on their day off...
|
|
Merrill Lynch hops and fuggles futures trader.
|
|
Any 89 year old bloke who turns up in a baseball cap is clearly gah gah.
|
"Any 89 year old bloke who turns up in a baseball cap is clearly gah gah."
Huh - that doesn't fool me, Zedd!
Admittedly, it's not a good look, but my old man wears a baseball cap; he can be a curmudgeonly old git, but he certainly ain't gah gah. He was 90 in June.
|
|
The question is, is he doing an Ernest Saunders and has the rare type of dementia one recovers from? (Clue, works a treat in Guinness trials, but so far, only one known case).
|
|
I know a couple of people who have made a miraculous recovery after a compensation settlement.
|
>> I know a couple of people who have made a miraculous recovery after a compensation
>> settlement.
People who've suffered life changing injury with loss of income and consequent insecurity get better when a payout removes the insecurity.
oodathortit.
|
>> The question is, is he doing an Ernest Saunders and has the rare type of
>> dementia one recovers from? (Clue, works a treat in Guinness trials, but so far, only
>> one known case).
Janner was diagnosed with alzheimer's long before he was accused of any wrong doing.
Unlike Saunders.
|
I still don't know if he was frogmarched tottering into court this morning. No doubt the news will tell me.
Hard to really sympathize with the cat but one does, just a bit.
|
>> I still don't know if he was frogmarched tottering into court this morning. No doubt the news will tell me.
I thought he didn't turn up this morning. With threats of arrest he turned up this afternoon.
|
"Janner was diagnosed with alzheimer's long before he was accused of any wrong doing."
Not completely stupid, then. He sensed which way the wind was blowing.
|
>> "Janner was diagnosed with alzheimer's long before he was accused of any wrong doing."
>>
>> Not completely stupid, then. He sensed which way the wind was blowing.
i may be being over sensitive here, call me foolish if you like, but i suspect that Janner may be advised to challenge you for Jury selection?
|
" but i suspect that Janner may be advised to challenge you for Jury selection?"
Quite - I'd find it hard to ignore the fact that he used to be a member of 'The Magic Circle' and 'The International Brotherhood of Magicians'. As a barrister and a magician, he won't be short on trickery and illusion.
|
There is always the possibility that he might be actually gaga, and this could be a complete mockery of the justice system.
I expect a law passed shortly enabling us to dig up the remains of Heath and Saville and try them in court. A glass screen will be required to tie the mouldering corpses to, so justice can be seen to be done. A joint trial required I think, a thousand cases tried at once will convince the jury of their guilt.
Its wierd, we celebrate 800 years of the magna carta this year, and never has the court system been so roundly abused and manipulated as it is now. I fully expect it to get worse.
|
|
Who is manipulating the system and to what end?
|
>> Who is manipulating the system and to what end?
Politicians, for their own ends.
|
>> Politicians, for their own ends.
>>
I'm not sure they getting much of a boost out of it. If i assume that end is what you mean?
|
>> Who is manipulating the system and to what end?
>>
A bus driver kills a number of people through fainting, an aliment which he deliberately concealed from his employers. The CPS virtually immediately rule out prosecuting him - before any inquests.
But the police get warrants to investigate Cliff Richard and search his house. and tell the press in advance. no charges a year later..
So murder is less important than an alleged offence 30 years ago of abuse of a teenager.
|
>> So murder is less important than an alleged offence 30 years ago of abuse of
>> a teenager.
>>
I'm not sure that is murder. But the point about comparing them is wrong, i don't think you can compare them. They are two separate issues as i see it.
|
>> Who is manipulating the system and to what end?
I had that response too. What I am seeing is people who potentially escaped justice (Harris, Clifford, Hall) because for many years their accusers were not believed. I'm not convinced dragging Janner, where the evidence of his dementia is not disputed by experts, in front of a court was right. It seems however that the need to appear personally is a safeguard which occasionally might have adverse consequences.
The inquiry being held by the NZ justice is another matter but as long as the proper safeguards initiated by Lord Salmon in light of the Profumo inquiry and later refined by 'Maxwellisation' are in place there's nothing insurmountable.
|
That's what i thought as well, perhaps it's a bit keen. But then if it hadn't been ignored for so long...
>> The inquiry being held by the NZ justice is another matter but as long as the proper safeguards initiated by Lord Salmon in light of the Profumo inquiry and later refined by 'Maxwellisation' are in place there's nothing insurmountable.
Not being a legal eagle I'm not sure i quite understand that.
|
>> Not being a legal eagle I'm not sure i quite understand that.
There is a history, particularly evident in Lord Denning's inquiry into the Profumo affair, of people being damned by inquiries without them having any input. After Profumo there was commission under an Appeal Court judge, Lord Salmon, which set out safeguards in these circumstances such as people having allegations put to them clearly, a right to legal representation and opportunity to cross examine witnesses.
These are known as the 'Salmon Principles'.
A later refinement, following the inquiry into Robert Maxwell/Pergamon Press, was to allow those criticised sight of the draft report and the chance to comment. It's this 'Mawellisation' that is said to be holding up the Iraq Inquiry report.
Nowadays most of this is codified in the Inquiries Act 2005 and will govern how the Goddard inquiry into historic child abuse is run. She's going to need a rod of iron though given the conduct to date of some members of the panel.
|
The biggest change in the approach to justice seems to be the departure from the necessity for proof of guilt in the case of each individual alleged offence.
Juries are now invited to consider whether the similarity between the evidence from different potential victims amounts to proof of the accused's behaviour and actions. The conclusion can be drawn from the similarity the descriptions of the abusive experiences that the accounts must be true.
The sense behind this is obvious, provided that the police give credible evidence that the statements were collected independently of each other and without any leading questions being put, and importantly that there has been no collusion between different complainants.
Whilst it seems very likely that Savile for instance was in fact a predatory abuser, there were certainly stories about victims having compared notes via social media before making their complaints.
|
>>The sense behind this is obvious, provided that the police give credible evidence that the statements were collected independently of each other and without any leading questions being put, and importantly that there has been no collusion between different complainants.
And one can see the logic of it, and the value in it.
But how on earth do you prove no collusion? Essentially 4 people, seemingly unconnected, could frame a person with no need for any evidence other than independent and convincing stories and the ability to show that there was some opportunity.
The bar should be very high, but seemingly it is not.
"Strangers on a Train" seems relevant.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 15 Aug 15 at 14:17
|
>> But how on earth do you prove no collusion? Essentially 4 people, seemingly unconnected, could
>> frame a person with no need for any evidence other than independent and convincing stories
>> and the ability to show that there was some opportunity.
>>
>> The bar should be very high, but seemingly it is not.
>>
>> "Strangers on a Train" seems relevant.
There were certainly stories that some of the Savile accusers linked by Duncroft school had colluded. I think Anna Racoon's blog has focussed repeatedly on the point and the credibility o the witnesses concerned.
Proving the negative of 'no collusion' may well be impossible. OTOH if there is collusion then it's almost certain to be traceable if carried out via social networks. The Police and prosecutors will be alive to possibility and given the consequences for them of a case being thrown out for such a reason and will test allegations very firmly indeed. If the defence thought there was a whiff they'd go in hard too.
In other words, while you cannot absolutely remove the possibility of collusion it can be tested for in a way that would defeat all but the most professional of attempts.
|
>> it can be tested for in a way that would defeat all but the most professional of attempts.
But seemingly it wasn't.
>>There were certainly stories that some of the Savile accusers linked by Duncroft school had colluded.
Something is going wrong with this stuff. Whether its the desperation of the DPP/CPS to prosecute, the police desire to be heroes in the media, the media itself or these changes to the approach to proof.
This whole process makes me uncomfortable.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 15 Aug 15 at 15:38
|
>> >> it can be tested for in a way that would defeat all but the
>> most professional of attempts.
>>
>> But seemingly it wasn't.
Do you have a specific case in mind which has actually gone to court? The Duncroft/Savile collusion got no further than (possibly) a TV programme.
|
>>Do you have a specific case in mind which has actually gone to court?
No, that is why I am merely uncomfortable rather than actively up in arms. I still don't like the way its going.
|
What I don't lie is the modern approach of "You will be believed" to complainants in abuse cases. It automatically assumes the guilt of the accused.
A properly just response would be "it will be investigated." The job of the police is to uncover the truth, not to start with an already biased attitude.
|
>> What I don't lie is the modern approach of "You will be believed" to complainants
>> in abuse cases. It automatically assumes the guilt of the accused.
>>
Which complainants are you thinking of?
|
>> >>
>> Which complainants are you thinking of?
>>
It is the message given out by police and various other agencies when they are looking for abuse "victims".
Surely you've come across it on countless occasions?
|
It is the message given out by police and various other agencies when they are
>> looking for abuse "victims".
>>
>> Surely you've come across it on countless occasions?
>>
No i can't say i have. Where specifically have you seen it?
|
>>>>
>> No i can't say i have. Where specifically have you seen it?
>>
Everywhere.
For instance www.newspostleader.co.uk/news/local/rape-victims-you-will-be-believed-says-pcc-1-7328829
|
Thanks for the link. For rape and abuse victims seems a reasonable message to send out.
|
>> Thanks for the link. For rape and abuse victims seems a reasonable message to send
>> out.
>>
>>
What about someone who is accused and denies the allegation - is he told, "You will be believed"?
Unbiased investigation in these cases seems to have become the victim of PC claptrap.
|
|
Not really, two separate issues. One being being understanding victims that in crimes they have been ignored historically.The other a correctly run investigation. The former doesn't stop the latter from happening.
|
>> Not really, two separate issues. One being being understanding victims that in crimes they have
>> been ignored historically.The other a correctly run investigation. The former doesn't stop the latter from
>> happening.
The latter in this case, is impossible.
|
>> The latter in this case, is impossible.
>>
In which cases?
|
>> this case.
>>
>>
Because of his illness (real or otherwise)?
|
>> >> this case.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> Because of his illness (real or otherwise)?
Yes.
|
|
They might not be able to answer every question, but that's not to say there isn't enough evidence. It's thought by those with the information and responsibilty to decide that he's fit to stand trial.
|
>> They might not be able to answer every question, but that's not to say there
>> isn't enough evidence. It's thought by those with the information and responsibilty to decide that
>> he's fit to stand trial.
No they have not decided that.
|
>> No they have not decided that.
>>
What have they decided?
|
T>> >> No they have not decided that.
>> >>
>>
>> What have they decided?
Nothing yet.
|
|
Getting ahead of myself, it's a hearing not a trial. Although how much the CPS have their ducks in a row I suppose is open to question. didn't they try and bin it all off because of his health? Still i suppose the weight of evidence, per se, doesn't matter on his illness. I suppose that's a seperate question.
|
Re Bromps post about proving collusion or otherwise, I listened yesterday to all three parts of this programme, which discussed with real examples the state of today's forensic service, which is now privatised.
A key point which came across clearly in the final programme was that there is no particular forensic skill set in the police, but it is senior police office on the case who decide what should be tested and what tests should be carried out (i.e. no longer a forensics person except in special cases)- and these are always challenged by the budget holder, so it is highly likely that whatever goes forward for test can be inadequate or have the wrong tests. So as far as forensically linking social media activity to prove collusion, while it may be technically relatively simple it seems to me that it is unlikely to happen.
The programmes were here in case anyone is interested. There was an interesting piece on the Amanda Knox case, and how DNA can appear reliable but be extremely unreliable.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05sv09g/broadcasts/2015/05
|
>> Re Bromps post about proving collusion or otherwise, I listened yesterday to all three parts
>> of this programme, which discussed with real examples the state of today's forensic service, which
>> is now privatised.
When DNA first started to be used universally, it was naturally used to see who'd been in or driving stolen vehicles.
One the oiks got used to the system, they started raiding bins for cigarette butts, then left them in the stolen car they'd just dumped.... a number of people got lifted for it when they'd been nowhere near the thing.
When you think DNA testing is so sensitive now you can test the last 10 people who've been driving a car by swabbing the steering wheel... there's bound to be areas where DNA testing only has so much usefulness. How far could a human hair or a piece of dandruff blow in the wind?...through a window into a crime scene?...unlikely perhaps, but possible surely.
|
>> Old Two Jags is in the news -
for an alleged fumble 37 years ago. Big deal.
Westminster life has a feverish, desperate side. Young politicos are a randy bunch with few exceptions.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 15 Aug 15 at 21:07
|
Maybe old Grev's taken a leaf out of this book:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Moran#Prosecution
|
Operation Yewtree - Edward Heath in the frame? - Bobby
