And this weeks allegations of child abuse are aimed at:

[carinaman]

Lord Janner is due in Court on Friday. He may be incapacitated due to Dementia, but if the allegations against him are valid I'm tempted to think of the greater good. It may help sort out the cover up of historic child abuse against kids and corrupt policing.

[snuffy]

The police should not be wasting time and money on investigating the dead. They complain about having to deal with cuts all the time and how they are being squeezed, but they still find plenty of money to piss away like this.

They are now taking the attitude that they will investigative anyone in a vain attempt to cover up for their previous failings, even if that person is 6 feet under.

[Vaud]

snuffy said:

The police should not be wasting time and money on investigating the dead. They complain about having to deal with cuts all the time and how they are being squeezed, but they still find plenty of money to piss away like this.

They are now taking the attitude that they will investigative anyone in a vain attempt to cover up for their previous failings, even if that person is 6 feet under.

What about the victims?

[snuffy]

Vaud said:

What about the victims?

So you have decided he's guilty then.

[Vaud]

snuffy said:

So you have decided he's guilty then.

Don't know where you get that from.

I think there are victims of abuse with credible descriptions of what happened to them, that warrant investigation.

[TTwiggy]

snuffy said:

Vaud said:

What about the victims?

So you have decided he's guilty then.

If there are allegations that a Prime Minister of this country was abusing children then there needs to be an thorough investigation. You must surely understand that the ramifications of this (particularly following other allegations of abuse and cover-ups) go rather further than what a group of radio DJs got up to?

[snuffy]

Vaud said:

snuffy said:

So you have decided he's guilty then.

Don't know where you get that from.

I think there are victims of abuse with credible descriptions of what happened to them, that warrant investigation.

Where do I get that from ? Because you said "what about the victims ?" If you refer to them as victims then you must think there has been a crime and therefore it follows that he's guilt for a crime, i.e. you have decided he's guilty.

[MarshPhantom]

snuffy said:

Vaud said:

snuffy said:

So you have decided he's guilty then.

Don't know where you get that from.

I think there are victims of abuse with credible descriptions of what happened to them, that warrant investigation.

Where do I get that from ? Because you said "what about the victims ?" If you refer to them as victims then you must think there has been a crime and therefore it follows that he's guilt for a crime, i.e. you have decided he's guilty.

Whereas you don't feel it's worthy of investigation. Why?

[Vaud]

snuffy said:

Where do I get that from ? Because you said "what about the victims ?" If you refer to them as victims then you must think there has been a crime and therefore it follows that he's guilt for a crime, i.e. you have decided he's guilty.

False correlation.

I said that I thought there were victims of abuse.

That is not an automatic "and instantly I believe that they were definitely abused by the parties named"

Again, stop adding words that I did not write.

I think people were victims. And it is worthy of investigation based on whatever evidence may or may not remain.

I'll happily change my phrase to "alleged victim" if it helps with your summer homework.

[TTwiggy]

snuffy said:

Vaud said:

snuffy said:

So you have decided he's guilty then.

Don't know where you get that from.

I think there are victims of abuse with credible descriptions of what happened to them, that warrant investigation.

Where do I get that from ? Because you said "what about the victims ?" If you refer to them as victims then you must think there has been a crime and therefore it follows that he's guilt for a crime, i.e. you have decided he's guilty.

Not neccessarily. There could be people who are genuine victims of abuse by members of the ruling elite, but it may still require an investigation to ascertain who the guilty parties are. This could include or preclude Ted Heath (and whatever it was he got up to on those sailing trips).

[Vaud]

TTwiggy said:

Not neccessarily. There could be people who are genuine victims of abuse by members of the ruling elite, but it may still require an investigation to ascertain who the guilty parties are. This could include or preclude Ted Heath (and whatever it was he got up to on those sailing trips).

Precisely.

[snuffy]

Vaud said:

What about the victims?

I'm not putting words into your mouth. That's what you wrote.

[snuffy]

So if the police prove Ted Heath's guilt, then what ? What is going to happen to him ? He's dead.

[HoHoHo]

snuffy said:

Vaud said:

What about the victims?

I'm not putting words into your mouth. That's what you wrote.

To be fair, I think it's assumed and a given he was referring to those who are suggesting they were abused.

[TTwiggy]

snuffy said:

Vaud said:

What about the victims?

I'm not putting words into your mouth. That's what you wrote.

You've quoted that twice now. And there's still no mention of 'Ted Heath' in his post. You could do the graceful thing and just admit that you made a rather huge leap from what he actually said to what you think he said.

[MarshPhantom]

snuffy said:

So if the police prove Ted Heath's guilt, then what ? What is going to happen to him ? He's dead.

As is Jimmy Savile, would you prefer it if Savile's reputation was still intact?

[HoHoHo]

MarshPhantom said:

snuffy said:

So if the police prove Ted Heath's guilt, then what ? What is going to happen to him ? He's dead.

As is Jimmy Savile, would you prefer it if Savile's reputation was still intact?

This

[Vaud]

HoHoHo said:

snuffy said:

Vaud said:

What about the victims?

I'm not putting words into your mouth. That's what you wrote.

To be fair, I think it's assumed and a given he was referring to those who are suggesting they were abused.

Correct. I did not name anyone.

I do think there is an increasing amount of evidence that points to widespread abuse that warrants full investigation, even if, given the historical nature, that there is a high probability that some of the accused my turn out to be dead.

Snuffy, I'm happy to discuss but please base it on a mature debate based on what I actually wrote, rather than what you think I wrote. PH debate can be very good so let's raise the dialogue?

[PurpleMoonlight]

MarshPhantom said:

As is Jimmy Savile, would you prefer it if Savile's reputation was still intact?

I would have preferred the public money spent on investigating a dead person and prosecuting the innocent for show was better spent elsewhere, or not at all.

[snuffy]

TTwiggy said:

You've quoted that twice now. And there's still no mention of 'Ted Heath' in his post. You could do the graceful thing and just admit that you made a rather huge leap from what he actually said to what you think he said.

A) The thread is about Ted Heath.
B) I said the person was dead.

Who on god's earth is the person in question then ? Ted Heath per chance ?