re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
bear in mind that "insufficient evidence to take any further action" does not mean he didn't do it, just that there was not enough evidence at the time of questioning to actually charge. now I'm not saying he did or didn't do it, but rumours of Savile and children have been circulating for many years, even before the 2007 questioning. |
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
My sister, for instance, used to volunteer for our local council, supervising kids (who had problems at home and were often victims of various kinds of abuse). She would spend a week or two away at a local camp, just supervising these kids, and was frequently able to get them to open up about the problems they had. She had no kids, and didn't want any at the time. It does not automatically follow that she had sexual feelings for them. Now, I am not saying that there aren't paedophiles. There are. I am saying that the Media (and in particular the Press) have made us as a society think there are more paedophiles than there are. |
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
The carers that look after my father ( along with family, I have to add) are paid well over the going rate. So to hopefully ensure that they want to keep the job. However we have cameras ( with his full knowledge & permission) all over the house. Some in clear site others hidden . Just in case. Also a agency was/is employed to run full checks on anyone new entering his home. ---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:39 ---------- Quote:
|
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I think you need to lift your eyes a little and recognise that not everybody operates according to the sort of naked self-interest you have described. Some people volunteer for things simply because they believe the interests of the community are served by it, though it may be of significant cost to them in terms of time and money. |
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
perhaps there seems more of them because they are easier to track and find. maybe there are more of them because the information is easier to come by than it was 15 years ago. either way, we have a duty to protect children, regardless of whether the perpetrator is alive or dead. as was mentioned before, 'just viewing' an image is not 'just viewing' - a child was abused to gain that image. someone abused that child. others know about that person and the ring expands with other people possibly abusing other children. child abuse is child abuse, be it taking a photo, making a video or doing it behind closed doors with no recording or the event at all. no one on this forum can know without any reasonable doubt one way of the other if Savile did or didn't abuse any children unless they were in the room when the alleged events took place. the point is, there is no harm in pursuing allegations to find evidence either way. it's better to spend time looking into this to find no one was abused, rather than ignore it and be ignorant to those who suffered. to ignore it would only send a message to abusers that could harden their belief that they can get away with it. to believe we know how many paedophiles are out there is silly - if we knew that, we would have to have caught them all. |
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
why dig up all wat he did in his past? he gone now.. |
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
|
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
|
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
|
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
|
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
A lot of these cases the then children ran away and were taken back to the abuser by the Police, so in the child's mind it was ok and the adults were allowed to abuse them. I'm lucky as I was never abused as a child in care so I can't know what these people feel or what these girls are going through. I hope the programme will go some way for these ladies to close the door on the days they were abused by this sick man. If it comes out that people in the BBC were aware of what their golden star was doing heads should roll in a big way. ---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ---------- Quote:
|
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
According to the lunchtime radio news, 2 of the women making these allegations have given their permission to be fully identified (I think they may even be appearing in the programme). I may be cynical, but I feel this is a case of someone doing ANYTHING just to get their 15 minutes of fame. If they were relatives/friends of mine, I would have strongly advised them NOT to bring this out into the public domain. Maybe the documentary makers have paid them well, or suggested they'll get good money from the press ... |
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003...ion.television |
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
Mind you, the principal protection in such circumstances are the laws of defamation, but they don't apply once you're dead. |
re: Operation Yewtree
Quote:
I believe that there are no more, or less, paedophiles today than there were years ago. Are there more paedophiles around than you think?- yes. Are most people paedophiles?- no. I was chatting to some friends recently, regarding what we would do if we found a little girl found wandering the streets alone in tears. Some people, mostly women, said that they would comfort her or take her in whilst things were sorted out. I and others said that they wouldn't go near the child, we would keep an eye on her to ensure she didn't go near a busy road etc and call the police. I think it's very sad that the tabloid hysteria obout paedophilia has resulted in this, but there's no way I would want to be accused of touching the girl inappropriately. Do you remember when they were behind with CRB checks for teachers a few years ago? Some teachers (who, on the balance of probabilities, weren't child abusers) could not teach until their check came through. Many older children couldn't go to school and were wandering the streets whilst their parents were at work- much more dangerous in my opinion. Of course, clearing a CRB check doesn't mean that one isn't a child abuser, it could merely mean that one hasn't been caught/convicted of doing it thus far... Quote:
Paul Gambaccini is the latest person to add to the allegations: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-schoolchildre ---------- Post added at 19:42 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ---------- Quote:
They are encrypted, so a google search won't produce anything. That would be too easy for the police to find. http://ceop.police.uk/ will often look for key words to alert them to inappropriate internet usage. All these Jimmy Saville threads will most likely be flagged up! Child sex rings will, therefore, talk in code in their forums/chatrooms. Another way is to, say, create a site dedicated to flowers. On a page showing us what looks like a picture of a hyacinth, the paedophiles will have software that changes it to show a picture of child sex abuse instead. Operation Ore arrests were mainly from credit card useage on such an illegal site. But, whose to say that someone else wasn't using the credit card, or that it's details hadn't been cloned? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore Interestingly, as I understand it, it's not illegal to look at child porn, it's the downloading of it that's the offence as then a person is then "in possession of it". I guess this is to protect people who innocently stumble across it in all innocence. Otherwise, if someone posted such an image on here, people seeing it before it was deleted would have committed a serious offence! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:16. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.