[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I suppose in a 'sick' way. What came out AFTER Jimmy Saville issue came out. There was so much 'cover up' from all quarters.

Actually, in a way, I think what happened after Jimmy Saville was good. It exposed various cover ups, and some of those involved are, I believe, now in jail.

Just remember, there was an item about Dolphin House. That has now gone quiet. We had MPs in the news - that's all gone quiet. All this is being covered up. And the authorities will try and say ' It must be in your mind' Is this what l was told.

Apparently the problem with the Operation Midland investigation was that at least one of the witnesses has since said he never met the people who he had claimed abused him. Other cases failed apparently due to lack of evidence.

I suspect you are now going to claim that the evidence was removed as part of a cover up and you may be right. However, the problem is that to persue a legal case, you *need* evidence. How does a jury know that a victim isn't just making up their stories of abuse just to get back at someone they don't like? Before you say that doesn't happen, I've actually met a woman who did. Our legal system assumes the accused is innocent and asks that the authorities (usually the Police) prove otherwise.

It's easier for Journos. They aren't really interested in evidence (unless they are likely to face legal action as a result of an article). They are interested in people reading or watching their report. They may get sued, but seemingly more often than not, all that happens is that the owner of the paper settles out of court, or loses, pays up and prints or broadcasts an almost insignificant apology.

The only good thing that will come out of it, is that Inmates of prisons deal out the punishments. Which l applaud.

The problem there is that if we give these criminals the death penalty, they won't get any punishments from other prisoners, as they won't be in prison (or, indeed, alive).

I also feel that without damn good evidence against the culprit. They will walk.

That's the problem the authorities have. They need evidence for a prosecution, and more often that not in any abuse case, there will be two people present. The accused and the victim. No witnesses, and any DNA based evidence really needs to be collected within a few hours. There may be other evidence (such as CCTV) but in the event of a cover up, this can vanish.


Put simply, it's one thing for a journalist to write an excited article that seems to almost drool over accusations than someone is a paedo, but when the person being accused may actually end up in prison as a result of the accusations, they need proof.