Paedophile ring - military, law enforcement, political fig
Discussion
Derek, just to clarify, as I think I may not have made abundantly clear, I don't need convincing these things went on! And still do go on!
The enormity and horror of the crimes speaks for itself to all other than paedophiles. I recoil at the developments and believe and support the prosecution of the unspeakable perpetrators is the only way of dealing with the perverts. If a Capital penalty were possible I would volunteer to use the needle, switch, or trap lever but only if the penalty was as a result of incontrovertible proof that the crime was committed and the accused did it. It's not a case of 'letting him off' but it is case of him getting away with it - and that's because the network in higher places colluded. Just how anyone could, in the knowledge of such events, actually work with the attackers to hide everything, beats me just as much as the criminal's activities. I'm talking about the way it is versus the way it ought to be and the idea that one crime should be considered proven on lesser evidence than another is somehow troubling. Of course there are opportunists in the list of accusers but very few as a result of, I assume, extremely close questioning by investigators. My faith in human nature is sadly falling away with each new revelation.
The enormity and horror of the crimes speaks for itself to all other than paedophiles. I recoil at the developments and believe and support the prosecution of the unspeakable perpetrators is the only way of dealing with the perverts. If a Capital penalty were possible I would volunteer to use the needle, switch, or trap lever but only if the penalty was as a result of incontrovertible proof that the crime was committed and the accused did it. It's not a case of 'letting him off' but it is case of him getting away with it - and that's because the network in higher places colluded. Just how anyone could, in the knowledge of such events, actually work with the attackers to hide everything, beats me just as much as the criminal's activities. I'm talking about the way it is versus the way it ought to be and the idea that one crime should be considered proven on lesser evidence than another is somehow troubling. Of course there are opportunists in the list of accusers but very few as a result of, I assume, extremely close questioning by investigators. My faith in human nature is sadly falling away with each new revelation.
Thorodin said:
Derek, just to clarify, as I think I may not have made abundantly clear, I don't need convincing these things went on! And still do go on!
The enormity and horror of the crimes speaks for itself to all other than paedophiles. I recoil at the developments and believe and support the prosecution of the unspeakable perpetrators is the only way of dealing with the perverts. If a Capital penalty were possible I would volunteer to use the needle, switch, or trap lever but only if the penalty was as a result of incontrovertible proof that the crime was committed and the accused did it. It's not a case of 'letting him off' but it is case of him getting away with it - and that's because the network in higher places colluded. Just how anyone could, in the knowledge of such events, actually work with the attackers to hide everything, beats me just as much as the criminal's activities. I'm talking about the way it is versus the way it ought to be and the idea that one crime should be considered proven on lesser evidence than another is somehow troubling. Of course there are opportunists in the list of accusers but very few as a result of, I assume, extremely close questioning by investigators. My faith in human nature is sadly falling away with each new revelation.
My apologies for misunderstanding your pov.The enormity and horror of the crimes speaks for itself to all other than paedophiles. I recoil at the developments and believe and support the prosecution of the unspeakable perpetrators is the only way of dealing with the perverts. If a Capital penalty were possible I would volunteer to use the needle, switch, or trap lever but only if the penalty was as a result of incontrovertible proof that the crime was committed and the accused did it. It's not a case of 'letting him off' but it is case of him getting away with it - and that's because the network in higher places colluded. Just how anyone could, in the knowledge of such events, actually work with the attackers to hide everything, beats me just as much as the criminal's activities. I'm talking about the way it is versus the way it ought to be and the idea that one crime should be considered proven on lesser evidence than another is somehow troubling. Of course there are opportunists in the list of accusers but very few as a result of, I assume, extremely close questioning by investigators. My faith in human nature is sadly falling away with each new revelation.
Thorodin said:
Derek, just to clarify, as I think I may not have made abundantly clear, I don't need convincing these things went on! And still do go on!
The enormity and horror of the crimes speaks for itself to all other than paedophiles. I recoil at the developments and believe and support the prosecution of the unspeakable perpetrators is the only way of dealing with the perverts. If a Capital penalty were possible I would volunteer to use the needle, switch, or trap lever but only if the penalty was as a result of incontrovertible proof that the crime was committed and the accused did it. It's not a case of 'letting him off' but it is case of him getting away with it - and that's because the network in higher places colluded. Just how anyone could, in the knowledge of such events, actually work with the attackers to hide everything, beats me just as much as the criminal's activities. I'm talking about the way it is versus the way it ought to be and the idea that one crime should be considered proven on lesser evidence than another is somehow troubling. Of course there are opportunists in the list of accusers but very few as a result of, I assume, extremely close questioning by investigators. My faith in human nature is sadly falling away with each new revelation.
Then your knowledge of human beings and the study of history is dismally lacking.The enormity and horror of the crimes speaks for itself to all other than paedophiles. I recoil at the developments and believe and support the prosecution of the unspeakable perpetrators is the only way of dealing with the perverts. If a Capital penalty were possible I would volunteer to use the needle, switch, or trap lever but only if the penalty was as a result of incontrovertible proof that the crime was committed and the accused did it. It's not a case of 'letting him off' but it is case of him getting away with it - and that's because the network in higher places colluded. Just how anyone could, in the knowledge of such events, actually work with the attackers to hide everything, beats me just as much as the criminal's activities. I'm talking about the way it is versus the way it ought to be and the idea that one crime should be considered proven on lesser evidence than another is somehow troubling. Of course there are opportunists in the list of accusers but very few as a result of, I assume, extremely close questioning by investigators. My faith in human nature is sadly falling away with each new revelation.
We are a monumentally brutal and sadistic species. Hell, for the majority of our history 12yo girls have been regarded as marriage material.
Any half hearted reading of our history should have your faith in human nature down the s
tter sometime before breakfast.Until a high level active or former police officer speaks out about what he knows as well as who exactly shut investigations down then I think the powers that be will let things drag on forever drip feeding us as they seems to have done until now.
On top of that the OSA curtain is still up!
Pitiful.
Phil
On top of that the OSA curtain is still up!
Pitiful.
Phil
DJRC said:
Thorodin said:
Derek, just to clarify, as I think I may not have made abundantly clear, I don't need convincing these things went on! And still do go on!
The enormity and horror of the crimes speaks for itself to all other than paedophiles. I recoil at the developments and believe and support the prosecution of the unspeakable perpetrators is the only way of dealing with the perverts. If a Capital penalty were possible I would volunteer to use the needle, switch, or trap lever but only if the penalty was as a result of incontrovertible proof that the crime was committed and the accused did it. It's not a case of 'letting him off' but it is case of him getting away with it - and that's because the network in higher places colluded. Just how anyone could, in the knowledge of such events, actually work with the attackers to hide everything, beats me just as much as the criminal's activities. I'm talking about the way it is versus the way it ought to be and the idea that one crime should be considered proven on lesser evidence than another is somehow troubling. Of course there are opportunists in the list of accusers but very few as a result of, I assume, extremely close questioning by investigators. My faith in human nature is sadly falling away with each new revelation.
Then your knowledge of human beings and the study of history is dismally lacking.The enormity and horror of the crimes speaks for itself to all other than paedophiles. I recoil at the developments and believe and support the prosecution of the unspeakable perpetrators is the only way of dealing with the perverts. If a Capital penalty were possible I would volunteer to use the needle, switch, or trap lever but only if the penalty was as a result of incontrovertible proof that the crime was committed and the accused did it. It's not a case of 'letting him off' but it is case of him getting away with it - and that's because the network in higher places colluded. Just how anyone could, in the knowledge of such events, actually work with the attackers to hide everything, beats me just as much as the criminal's activities. I'm talking about the way it is versus the way it ought to be and the idea that one crime should be considered proven on lesser evidence than another is somehow troubling. Of course there are opportunists in the list of accusers but very few as a result of, I assume, extremely close questioning by investigators. My faith in human nature is sadly falling away with each new revelation.
We are a monumentally brutal and sadistic species. Hell, for the majority of our history 12yo girls have been regarded as marriage material.
Any half hearted reading of our history should have your faith in human nature down the s
tter sometime before breakfast.I was in Neros in Haywards Heath today and outside there was a woman collecting for the Sally Ann, one of the charities I contribute to regularly. She was there from around 10.45 am to just before 12.30 when I left. She was collecting for others.
A considerable number of people went up to her, even in the light rain shower. So did I, my conscience money as my wife describes it. My point of view is that it is in recognition of the fantastic work they do with those who slip through the net. Life’s losers.
Charities in this and other countries are quite well supported. Médecins Sans Frontières has doctors, nurses and assistants who risk their health and their lives to help others for no return. I used to work with a woman who spent years with the VSO in West Africa in the main, once being raped. She didn’t talk about it and the only way we found out was when she showed us how to get a camping fridge to work when it had stopped. An essential skill where medicine storage was required.
In my old job I saw people who sacrificed hours of their own time to help others. This was hardly unusual. Indeed, they were far more numerous than the selfish who went into crime with the sole intent of getting everything they could out of it.
I’m a member of a rugby club and we have dozens of coaches who put up with the indignity of DBS checks just to help kids.
I remember a talk I went to of a lorry driver who just ‘wanted to do something’ for refugees in south Saharan Africa. He and his wife saved up so that he could take the months off work. He drove his lorry through dangerous areas merely to help the starving.
There are the aggressive, the selfish, the bullies, the criminals and those who seem to lack the ability to see the effect they have on others, but research tends to suggest these have an abnormality. They are, I think, a minority. It is this world’s tragedy that their influence is vastly out of proportion to their numbers. They can corrupt others.
I think you should look around you to see just how many pleasant people there are. If you can’t see any, you are with the wrong crowd.
DJRC said:
Thorodin said:
Derek, just to clarify, as I think I may not have made abundantly clear, I don't need convincing these things went on! And still do go on!
The enormity and horror of the crimes speaks for itself to all other than paedophiles. I recoil at the developments and believe and support the prosecution of the unspeakable perpetrators is the only way of dealing with the perverts. If a Capital penalty were possible I would volunteer to use the needle, switch, or trap lever but only if the penalty was as a result of incontrovertible proof that the crime was committed and the accused did it. It's not a case of 'letting him off' but it is case of him getting away with it - and that's because the network in higher places colluded. Just how anyone could, in the knowledge of such events, actually work with the attackers to hide everything, beats me just as much as the criminal's activities. I'm talking about the way it is versus the way it ought to be and the idea that one crime should be considered proven on lesser evidence than another is somehow troubling. Of course there are opportunists in the list of accusers but very few as a result of, I assume, extremely close questioning by investigators. My faith in human nature is sadly falling away with each new revelation.
Then your knowledge of human beings and the study of history is dismally lacking.The enormity and horror of the crimes speaks for itself to all other than paedophiles. I recoil at the developments and believe and support the prosecution of the unspeakable perpetrators is the only way of dealing with the perverts. If a Capital penalty were possible I would volunteer to use the needle, switch, or trap lever but only if the penalty was as a result of incontrovertible proof that the crime was committed and the accused did it. It's not a case of 'letting him off' but it is case of him getting away with it - and that's because the network in higher places colluded. Just how anyone could, in the knowledge of such events, actually work with the attackers to hide everything, beats me just as much as the criminal's activities. I'm talking about the way it is versus the way it ought to be and the idea that one crime should be considered proven on lesser evidence than another is somehow troubling. Of course there are opportunists in the list of accusers but very few as a result of, I assume, extremely close questioning by investigators. My faith in human nature is sadly falling away with each new revelation.
We are a monumentally brutal and sadistic species. Hell, for the majority of our history 12yo girls have been regarded as marriage material.
Any half hearted reading of our history should have your faith in human nature down the s
tter sometime before breakfast.Derek has helped me, and I found it difficult not be reminded of him when former policeman Clive Driscoll was pushing his book. It's saddening that he (Driscoll) was told to drop the Stephen Lawrence case having secured two convictions.
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 1st September 20:58
No Derek. No study of history teaches you about humans being nice. Why? Because it's dull. So instead we teach about wars and conflicts and the other vaguely interesting stuff. Even when history studies social progress, the language and context is always of the conflict through progress is made.
Worrying about faith in minkind in the 21st C because of some kids being banged up the arse is a little bit late to the party
Regard the issues as crimes by all means but it's the mewling over some kind of moral decline that grates. Such crimes and worse have always been performed by mankind from the yr dot. They still will be tomorrow. And next week.
Worrying about faith in minkind in the 21st C because of some kids being banged up the arse is a little bit late to the party
Regard the issues as crimes by all means but it's the mewling over some kind of moral decline that grates. Such crimes and worse have always been performed by mankind from the yr dot. They still will be tomorrow. And next week.
If I've understood your point, you are suggesting that history taught in schools, and up to A level, is just a list of wars, battles, kings and queens.
To an extent I agree. Students used to be taught for the sole purpose of testing them. Nowadays, children are taught with the purpose of testing the teachers and schools. However, that's not the total of history. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is the clinker of history, something to be discarded.
There has been a fair bit over the last few years on the emancipation of the slaves. Whilst the fixation on personalities is to be abhorred, it does at least show that some people are willing to more or less dedicate their lives, risk their employment, upset the establishment for something they believe is right.
What was more remarkable was that slavery was, for some, a nice little earner. Whilst 'towns built on slavery' is a bit hard to justify, there were men of influence and power who were against its abolition because it would hurt them. Yet it went through.
It wasn't just a one-off either. The whole process went on for more than 50 years, so the abolition was something that was progressive. Remember too that this was well before the UK was a democracy so those pushing for it were, to an extent, the main beneficiaries of the trade.
That's history.
There were those who pushed for democracy: we didn't get it until, arguably, 1918 and in reality 1928, and here again it was something that those who benefited from a restricted electorate supported it. Whilst much is made of the suffragettes, the movement went back for years and at the turn of the century there was a stand-off between the lords and the commons which threatened stability.
Can't get more historical than that.
On a smaller scale, I know of a senior officer in a police force who risked his career, his job, his income and his pension to help the nok of a murder victim. That is as much historical as the Tudor dynasty, but not so much sex. It is there if you look for it.
Another bit of history is two people risking their lives for esoteric reasons. Why try to diffuse a smallish bomb in a greasy cafe? Kenneth Howarth did so in 1981 and paid the ultimate price. A hero in anyone's eyes. Then there was the bomb squad chap who, knowing that a previous bomb had killed his experienced colleague, worked on a second identical one. Remarkable.
Those who used their power and authority not only to abuse children but to cover their actions, and those who assisted in protecting them, are not the majority. They are the ones who get written about most, but there are others, in history and currently, who will work for what they believe in, even if it costs them.
We shouldn't let the actions of the powerful corrupt our views of the world. Those who abuse children are the odd ones, those without something that the vast majority has. Those that helped cover their actions and allowed offences to continue are, if anything, harder to understand. But easy to condemn of course.
History, as taught in schools, tends to emphasise those in control as if they deserve more coverage. Whilst Harfleur was a victory with great quotable lines from Shakespeare, it was of little consequence in the medium term, let alone long term. Yet the Black Death had much greater influence on the majority of the population than any monarch. But the 'real' history is available if you look for it. Albert Schwietzer. of someone with a faintly similarly spelt first name, said something along the lines of: The division between the civilised and uncivilised in made by the classifier. Although he probably said it in French. What he meant was that the great and the good state they are so. We don't have to believe them.
These abusers, and their 'supporters' are abnormal in both the mental and statistical meanings. Their offences need exposing and we need to establish systems that will stop such things happening again. Delaying tactics from MPs is exactly what we don't need but we must not think that these people are in some ways the norm.
I used to be a police officer, dealing with offenders, but I've met more nice people than nasty. More contributors than takers. More dedicated than self indulgent.
To an extent I agree. Students used to be taught for the sole purpose of testing them. Nowadays, children are taught with the purpose of testing the teachers and schools. However, that's not the total of history. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is the clinker of history, something to be discarded.
There has been a fair bit over the last few years on the emancipation of the slaves. Whilst the fixation on personalities is to be abhorred, it does at least show that some people are willing to more or less dedicate their lives, risk their employment, upset the establishment for something they believe is right.
What was more remarkable was that slavery was, for some, a nice little earner. Whilst 'towns built on slavery' is a bit hard to justify, there were men of influence and power who were against its abolition because it would hurt them. Yet it went through.
It wasn't just a one-off either. The whole process went on for more than 50 years, so the abolition was something that was progressive. Remember too that this was well before the UK was a democracy so those pushing for it were, to an extent, the main beneficiaries of the trade.
That's history.
There were those who pushed for democracy: we didn't get it until, arguably, 1918 and in reality 1928, and here again it was something that those who benefited from a restricted electorate supported it. Whilst much is made of the suffragettes, the movement went back for years and at the turn of the century there was a stand-off between the lords and the commons which threatened stability.
Can't get more historical than that.
On a smaller scale, I know of a senior officer in a police force who risked his career, his job, his income and his pension to help the nok of a murder victim. That is as much historical as the Tudor dynasty, but not so much sex. It is there if you look for it.
Another bit of history is two people risking their lives for esoteric reasons. Why try to diffuse a smallish bomb in a greasy cafe? Kenneth Howarth did so in 1981 and paid the ultimate price. A hero in anyone's eyes. Then there was the bomb squad chap who, knowing that a previous bomb had killed his experienced colleague, worked on a second identical one. Remarkable.
Those who used their power and authority not only to abuse children but to cover their actions, and those who assisted in protecting them, are not the majority. They are the ones who get written about most, but there are others, in history and currently, who will work for what they believe in, even if it costs them.
We shouldn't let the actions of the powerful corrupt our views of the world. Those who abuse children are the odd ones, those without something that the vast majority has. Those that helped cover their actions and allowed offences to continue are, if anything, harder to understand. But easy to condemn of course.
History, as taught in schools, tends to emphasise those in control as if they deserve more coverage. Whilst Harfleur was a victory with great quotable lines from Shakespeare, it was of little consequence in the medium term, let alone long term. Yet the Black Death had much greater influence on the majority of the population than any monarch. But the 'real' history is available if you look for it. Albert Schwietzer. of someone with a faintly similarly spelt first name, said something along the lines of: The division between the civilised and uncivilised in made by the classifier. Although he probably said it in French. What he meant was that the great and the good state they are so. We don't have to believe them.
These abusers, and their 'supporters' are abnormal in both the mental and statistical meanings. Their offences need exposing and we need to establish systems that will stop such things happening again. Delaying tactics from MPs is exactly what we don't need but we must not think that these people are in some ways the norm.
I used to be a police officer, dealing with offenders, but I've met more nice people than nasty. More contributors than takers. More dedicated than self indulgent.
The thread has taken an interesting swerve. News of Scottish prisoners found at Durham Cathedral while groundworks is going on for a new University library.
One of my takes on it is that the police forces that protected paedophiles have also committed other offences and covered up other corruption and failings. I see it as part of a rotten, deceitful establishment not a million miles away from Cameron putting possible cronies in the House of Lords.
The values that the establishment espouse is not matched by their conduct.
One of my takes on it is that the police forces that protected paedophiles have also committed other offences and covered up other corruption and failings. I see it as part of a rotten, deceitful establishment not a million miles away from Cameron putting possible cronies in the House of Lords.
The values that the establishment espouse is not matched by their conduct.
Walter Mitty strikes again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222908/Gr...
Though, of course, this to some will all be part of the cover up. Pass the tin foil.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222908/Gr...
Though, of course, this to some will all be part of the cover up. Pass the tin foil.
Rover,
Cover-up or diversionary tactics: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/16/uk-...
Old news but relevant.
Your personal opinion on the above?
Phil
Cover-up or diversionary tactics: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/16/uk-...
Old news but relevant.
Your personal opinion on the above?
Phil
I have no idea of the truth and neither do you. But I have little doubt there are some nutty dreamers out there and some genuine cases too. How to tell them apart is the problem. It is wrong though that any wild allegation without any evidence is publicised and believed. In this case, the police said that 'Nick' was credible and his allegations were 'true'. It now possibly appears not. Lack of evidence doesn't mean it isn't true but evidence is what our justice system is built upon so without it all we have is allegations that the 'no smoke without fire' brigade can use to ruin the lives and reputations of public figures.
Just my take on it and that's all folks, I'm out.
Just my take on it and that's all folks, I'm out.
rovermorris999 said:
Walter Mitty strikes again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222908/Gr...
Though, of course, this to some will all be part of the cover up. Pass the tin foil.
What makes you think that article is any more credible that the 'witness' Nick?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3222908/Gr...
Though, of course, this to some will all be part of the cover up. Pass the tin foil.
That article is very short on facts, and just quotes 'sources'. There's nothing official in it.
Derek Smith said:
If I've understood your point, you are suggesting that history taught in schools, and up to A level, is just a list of wars, battles, kings and queens.
To an extent I agree. Students used to be taught for the sole purpose of testing them. Nowadays, children are taught with the purpose of testing the teachers and schools. However, that's not the total of history. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is the clinker of history, something to be discarded.
There has been a fair bit over the last few years on the emancipation of the slaves. Whilst the fixation on personalities is to be abhorred, it does at least show that some people are willing to more or less dedicate their lives, risk their employment, upset the establishment for something they believe is right.
What was more remarkable was that slavery was, for some, a nice little earner. Whilst 'towns built on slavery' is a bit hard to justify, there were men of influence and power who were against its abolition because it would hurt them. Yet it went through.
It wasn't just a one-off either. The whole process went on for more than 50 years, so the abolition was something that was progressive. Remember too that this was well before the UK was a democracy so those pushing for it were, to an extent, the main beneficiaries of the trade.
That's history.
There were those who pushed for democracy: we didn't get it until, arguably, 1918 and in reality 1928, and here again it was something that those who benefited from a restricted electorate supported it. Whilst much is made of the suffragettes, the movement went back for years and at the turn of the century there was a stand-off between the lords and the commons which threatened stability.
Can't get more historical than that.
On a smaller scale, I know of a senior officer in a police force who risked his career, his job, his income and his pension to help the nok of a murder victim. That is as much historical as the Tudor dynasty, but not so much sex. It is there if you look for it.
Another bit of history is two people risking their lives for esoteric reasons. Why try to diffuse a smallish bomb in a greasy cafe? Kenneth Howarth did so in 1981 and paid the ultimate price. A hero in anyone's eyes. Then there was the bomb squad chap who, knowing that a previous bomb had killed his experienced colleague, worked on a second identical one. Remarkable.
Those who used their power and authority not only to abuse children but to cover their actions, and those who assisted in protecting them, are not the majority. They are the ones who get written about most, but there are others, in history and currently, who will work for what they believe in, even if it costs them.
We shouldn't let the actions of the powerful corrupt our views of the world. Those who abuse children are the odd ones, those without something that the vast majority has. Those that helped cover their actions and allowed offences to continue are, if anything, harder to understand. But easy to condemn of course.
History, as taught in schools, tends to emphasise those in control as if they deserve more coverage. Whilst Harfleur was a victory with great quotable lines from Shakespeare, it was of little consequence in the medium term, let alone long term. Yet the Black Death had much greater influence on the majority of the population than any monarch. But the 'real' history is available if you look for it. Albert Schwietzer. of someone with a faintly similarly spelt first name, said something along the lines of: The division between the civilised and uncivilised in made by the classifier. Although he probably said it in French. What he meant was that the great and the good state they are so. We don't have to believe them.
These abusers, and their 'supporters' are abnormal in both the mental and statistical meanings. Their offences need exposing and we need to establish systems that will stop such things happening again. Delaying tactics from MPs is exactly what we don't need but we must not think that these people are in some ways the norm.
I used to be a police officer, dealing with offenders, but I've met more nice people than nasty. More contributors than takers. More dedicated than self indulgent.
No. You didn't understand my point correctly. But you did manage a good score on Derek Bingo though! You only missed out on Murdoch and your son playing for Quins.To an extent I agree. Students used to be taught for the sole purpose of testing them. Nowadays, children are taught with the purpose of testing the teachers and schools. However, that's not the total of history. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is the clinker of history, something to be discarded.
There has been a fair bit over the last few years on the emancipation of the slaves. Whilst the fixation on personalities is to be abhorred, it does at least show that some people are willing to more or less dedicate their lives, risk their employment, upset the establishment for something they believe is right.
What was more remarkable was that slavery was, for some, a nice little earner. Whilst 'towns built on slavery' is a bit hard to justify, there were men of influence and power who were against its abolition because it would hurt them. Yet it went through.
It wasn't just a one-off either. The whole process went on for more than 50 years, so the abolition was something that was progressive. Remember too that this was well before the UK was a democracy so those pushing for it were, to an extent, the main beneficiaries of the trade.
That's history.
There were those who pushed for democracy: we didn't get it until, arguably, 1918 and in reality 1928, and here again it was something that those who benefited from a restricted electorate supported it. Whilst much is made of the suffragettes, the movement went back for years and at the turn of the century there was a stand-off between the lords and the commons which threatened stability.
Can't get more historical than that.
On a smaller scale, I know of a senior officer in a police force who risked his career, his job, his income and his pension to help the nok of a murder victim. That is as much historical as the Tudor dynasty, but not so much sex. It is there if you look for it.
Another bit of history is two people risking their lives for esoteric reasons. Why try to diffuse a smallish bomb in a greasy cafe? Kenneth Howarth did so in 1981 and paid the ultimate price. A hero in anyone's eyes. Then there was the bomb squad chap who, knowing that a previous bomb had killed his experienced colleague, worked on a second identical one. Remarkable.
Those who used their power and authority not only to abuse children but to cover their actions, and those who assisted in protecting them, are not the majority. They are the ones who get written about most, but there are others, in history and currently, who will work for what they believe in, even if it costs them.
We shouldn't let the actions of the powerful corrupt our views of the world. Those who abuse children are the odd ones, those without something that the vast majority has. Those that helped cover their actions and allowed offences to continue are, if anything, harder to understand. But easy to condemn of course.
History, as taught in schools, tends to emphasise those in control as if they deserve more coverage. Whilst Harfleur was a victory with great quotable lines from Shakespeare, it was of little consequence in the medium term, let alone long term. Yet the Black Death had much greater influence on the majority of the population than any monarch. But the 'real' history is available if you look for it. Albert Schwietzer. of someone with a faintly similarly spelt first name, said something along the lines of: The division between the civilised and uncivilised in made by the classifier. Although he probably said it in French. What he meant was that the great and the good state they are so. We don't have to believe them.
These abusers, and their 'supporters' are abnormal in both the mental and statistical meanings. Their offences need exposing and we need to establish systems that will stop such things happening again. Delaying tactics from MPs is exactly what we don't need but we must not think that these people are in some ways the norm.
I used to be a police officer, dealing with offenders, but I've met more nice people than nasty. More contributors than takers. More dedicated than self indulgent.
DJRC said:
No Derek. No study of history teaches you about humans being nice. Why? Because it's dull. So instead we teach about wars and conflicts and the other vaguely interesting stuff. Even when history studies social progress, the language and context is always of the conflict through progress is made.
Worrying about faith in minkind in the 21st C because of some kids being banged up the arse is a little bit late to the party
Regard the issues as crimes by all means but it's the mewling over some kind of moral decline that grates. Such crimes and worse have always been performed by mankind from the yr dot. They still will be tomorrow. And next week.
Your point about the teaching of History is well made, although to assume teaching is the same as reading is perhaps over simplification. Teaching History in our schools does what you say it does, or at least used to. Wars and conflicts resulted in changes that caused major sociological changes in populations and governments which then gave rise to altered views on the world, useful to note the beginning of new eras. Since when has schools teaching any subject been the end of education? On the other hand, to read History gives a more complete understanding for those who want a truer picture than the superficial. History is bursting with examples of the self-sacrifice and magnificent achievements of Man than you suggest.Worrying about faith in minkind in the 21st C because of some kids being banged up the arse is a little bit late to the party
Regard the issues as crimes by all means but it's the mewling over some kind of moral decline that grates. Such crimes and worse have always been performed by mankind from the yr dot. They still will be tomorrow. And next week.
Edited by Thorodin on Saturday 5th September 12:10
rovermorris999 said:
I have no idea of the truth and neither do you. But I have little doubt there are some nutty dreamers out there and some genuine cases too. How to tell them apart is the problem. It is wrong though that any wild allegation without any evidence is publicised and believed. In this case, the police said that 'Nick' was credible and his allegations were 'true'. It now possibly appears not. Lack of evidence doesn't mean it isn't true but evidence is what our justice system is built upon so without it all we have is allegations that the 'no smoke without fire' brigade can use to ruin the lives and reputations of public figures.
Just my take on it and that's all folks, I'm out.
Rover,Just my take on it and that's all folks, I'm out.
OK, let me ask you a direct question.
Why was a senior detective asked to cease stop his investigation?
He was an experienced detective at the time of 30+ years service, somewhat more than the civil servant that gave him this order and you can read that as the DPP of the day.
Don't sidestep the question. Anyone would think you're my local MP.
Phil
Transmitter Man said:
rovermorris999 said:
I have no idea of the truth and neither do you. But I have little doubt there are some nutty dreamers out there and some genuine cases too. How to tell them apart is the problem. It is wrong though that any wild allegation without any evidence is publicised and believed. In this case, the police said that 'Nick' was credible and his allegations were 'true'. It now possibly appears not. Lack of evidence doesn't mean it isn't true but evidence is what our justice system is built upon so without it all we have is allegations that the 'no smoke without fire' brigade can use to ruin the lives and reputations of public figures.
Just my take on it and that's all folks, I'm out.
Rover,Just my take on it and that's all folks, I'm out.
OK, let me ask you a direct question.
Why was a senior detective asked to cease stop his investigation?
He was an experienced detective at the time of 30+ years service, somewhat more than the civil servant that gave him this order and you can read that as the DPP of the day.
Don't sidestep the question. Anyone would think you're my local MP.
Phil
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff