http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... errin.html

I'm not saying that is or isn't true, but I hate that The Scum etc can basically print whatever they like after 'Savilegate', knowing there's nobody who'll challenge it.

someone else who's dead and can't defend themselves. Can't libel a dead person either. Not defending anyone, just saying.

It's beginning to get a little out of hand. There's a story now some welsh politician wants a whole series of investigations of abuse at a care home back in the 70's redone. This is stuff that happened 40 years ago, of which there will almost certainly be no corroborating evidence left of any sort that wasn't available at the time. It's an utter waste of police resources and time.


Jon

I heard something about that this morning, as well as claims about a senior MP abusing children at the time.

A government minister no less. Though I do think that these cases should be investigated. There needs to be real fear for anyone involved that there is significant risk of exposure no matter whether they die before being caught. If they are still alive then prosecutions and stripping them of pensions etc to pay victims.

In the welsh example, the cases already have been investigated. The whole argument the welsh MP seems to be making is that there weren't enough people found guilty, so the investigations can't have been done properly. Again, it's basically the assumption of guilt. As if doing it all over again 40 years later is at all likely to convict anyone who wasn't able to be convicted the first time. It's just...stupid. And the worst sort of opportunistic profile raising by the MP in question.


Call me weird but I think it's going to be very hard to convince someone unbalanced enough to be a paedophile to be worried what's going to happen to them after they're dead.


1) there are already schemes where a victim can sue for compensation from a perpetrator.
2) I don't really see that making even a convicted child abuser penniless so the state then has to support them is a better deal for the rest of us than just locking them in jail.

The original enquiry had strict boundaries, including territory. That is why the victims were transported out of the area to be abused. That limitation meant that those cases were never heard. It is not a matter of if enough have been convicted. Some will be found guilty under a full criminal investigation.


For people like you or I that may be true, but that does not include political and entertainment narcissists who want to be remembered for their works for history. Remember Tony Blair's quote "I feel the hands of history on my shoulder" How narcissistic? Though I am not making any claims that he is or was ever a paedophile, but was clearly thinking of his place in history.


Putting them in some council flat (£5000pa) on the basic state pension (£5587.40) is a damn site cheaper than locking them up at more than £45000 a year.

40 years after the event? With no corroborating evidence? Want to take a bet they will?


Saville is a very very rare exception. The vast majority of child abusers don't court publicity.



Yes, but they're child abusers, so you're going to have to lock them up anyway.

We can only hope but I suspect that you are right.


No but since the suspects might be in the entertainment business they do court publicity.


Well they might end up with suspended sentences. Would you still want them living in huge mansions getting big pensions and the only suffering is that they go on the sex offenders register?