What were you doing 45 years ago?

[numbnuts]

I was 16 so working as an apprentice Blacksmith,
now if it was on a Thursday I was at Tech collage,
if it was on the week end I would have been sailing.

 

[theclaud]

Someone could accuse me of doing something 20 years ago. Just because they accuse me doesn't mean I actually did it. And if I was famous, the media splattered it all over the front pages before it was proven, it destroyed my marriage, career and mentally scarred my kids for life - what justice would I/they get?
When did sex crime just become a "man" thing?

I'm sure the falsely accused (and there will be some just as I'm certain there will be some guilty too) will find great solace in your attitude.

As someone else has eluded to - we're judging actions from the 60's with this decades morals. While this doesn't mean it was right the it would still have had an affect on the accusseds moral compass. What was socially "acceptable" back then isn't now. With the way this whole "operation" is going loads of headmasters must be bricking themselves. I mean, caning an 11 year olds backside. That's some sort of sick sexual fantasy now isn't it??!?!

Has anyone falsely accused you of anything, or is this entirely hypothetical and irrelevant? We're talking about actions that were illegal when they took place, but were widely tolerated. I don't need to provide a whole lot of solace for the falsely accused, because a) there aren't many of them and b) they are not in any danger of being convicted for anything. It's the unpunished abusers and their victims that should be the focus of our attentions, and happily we are beginning to see a shift in that direction. And no, it's not exclusively a "man" thing, but it is mostly a matter of male perpetrators. If people are "bricking themselves" (I ignore your slight diversion about headmasters for the moment, although I don't see why teachers shouldn't be prosecuted for abuse under particular circumstances) it is because they know that they coerced or forced people into unwanted sexual activity. It happens a lot, you know.

 

[brodiej]

I'm sure the falsely accused (and there will be some just as I'm certain there will be some guilty too) will find great solace in your attitude.

By that logic you would not accuse anyone of anything in order to avoid false accusation.

All tests - be they medical / legal etc have false positives and false negatives.

It's easy to eliminate the false positives (ie avoid any false accusations) by increasing the false negatives (ie allowing abuse unless the level of proof is ridiculously high)

The "falsly accused" (who are they? - do you know the people arrested in these stories are innocent?) have a right to a trial and to be acquited unlike the abused who cannot change history.

 

[User169]

On the flip side - how do you prove he did the deed and get justice? It could just be someone jumping on the "lets give a try at an out of court settlement" band wagon, with a side of "trial by media".

Not sure settlements are a feature of UK law, are they? Thought it was an American thing. Once the police/judiciary get involved, I didn't think you could derail criminal precedings by way of settlement.

 

[compo]

45 years ago I was two years into a 5 year contract with the Foreign Legion which I had joined after shooting the dirty housemaster who abused me and others when kids in his "care". The authorities would do nothing, I was punished for complaining so a few years later I took the law into my own hands. My greatest regret is that I didn't shoot him after my military service when I knew how to shoot properly. I would have made a proper job of it.

In view of the relatively recent accusations I have no doubt some will be chancers jumping onto the band wagon hoping to get a few pounds but I sincerely believe that there will be many more real people who suffered at the hands of those who were supposed to be caring for them. Reading about others who have come forward can have given others the strength or will to do the same. It isn't easy. The police interrogation is long and detailed and even worse if you have to attend court as a witness. They do not pursue investigations lightly.

 

[SquareDaff]

do you know the people arrested in these stories are innocent?)

No more than you know they are guilty. I just believe that the accused should have the right to remain as anonymous as the accuser until proven guilty. If found guilty then they deserve what they get.

 

[compo]

No more than you know they are guilty. I just believe that the accused should have the right to remain as anonymous as the accuser until proven guilty. If found guilty then they deserve what they get.

Agree 100%

 

[SquareDaff]

Not sure settlements are a feature of UK law, are they? Thought it was an American thing. Once the police/judiciary get involved, I didn't think you could derail criminal precedings by way of settlement.

I would be stunned if there's not the odd payment made out of court to make a problem "go away". In cases like this then no accusation, pretty much no evidence.

 

[brodiej]

No more than you know they are guilty. I just believe that the accused should have the right to remain as anonymous as the accuser until proven guilty. If found guilty then they deserve what they get.

I didn't say they were guilty - just that they should be treated like any other accused person.

Your thread wasn't about anonymity - it was about trying people for offenses that happened 45 years ago (unless you got the thread title wrong).

The answer to that is - yes they should - regardless of whether it happened last week or 45 years ago

 

[SquareDaff]

Has anyone falsely accused you of anything, or is this entirely hypothetical and irrelevant? We're talking about actions that were illegal when they took place, but were widely tolerated. I don't need to provide a whole lot of solace for the falsely accused, because a) there aren't many of them and b) they are not in any danger of being convicted for anything. It's the unpunished abusers and their victims that should be the focus of our attentions, and happily we are beginning to see a shift in that direction. And no, it's not exclusively a "man" thing, but it is mostly a matter of male perpetrators. If people are "bricking themselves" (I ignore your slight diversion about headmasters for the moment, although I don't see why teachers shouldn't be prosecuted for abuse under particular circumstances) it is because they know that they coerced or forced people into unwanted sexual activity. It happens a lot, you know.

Nope - no accusations now or ever. But coming back to the original point of the thread - if someone did (hypothetically) - could I remember the specific circumstances of what had happened that long ago? Probably not. In Bill Roach's case, he's bee arrested on suspicion of raping a 15 year old. Until it's proven I just believe he and his family have the right to the same anonymity as the victim.

 

[Crackle]

....(I ignore your slight diversion about headmasters for the moment, although I don't see why teachers shouldn't be prosecuted for abuse under particular circumstances)...

Fred <cough> Talbot, though you may have been spared his farkwittery as a weatherman by dint of living in South Wales. And he was a teacher first, in case you are wondering what I'm going on about.

 

[theclaud]

Nope - no accusations now or ever. But coming back to the original point of the thread - if someone did (hypothetically) - could I remember the specific circumstances of what had happened that long ago? Probably not. In Bill Roach's case, he's bee arrested on suspicion of raping a 15 year old. Until it's proven I just believe he and his family have the right to the same anonymity as the victim.

No. Anonymity for rape victims is a hard-won recognition of the particular difficulties they face (as illustrated by dismissive attitudes such as those in your OP). Those accused of rape do not need any special concessions not available to those accused of other crimes. Rape is an everyday crime, and (as we are seeing in these high-profile cases) a habitual one - naming the accused is absolutely crucial in enabling other victims to come forward, exposing offending patterns, and prosecuting openly in the interests of the public at large.

 

[theclaud]

Fred <cough> Talbot, though you may have been spared his f***wittery as a weatherman by dint of living in South Wales. And he was a teacher first, in case you are wondering what I'm going on about.

The geezer in the stupid jumpers, who used to leap about on a floating map in the Albert Dock?

 

[Crackle]

The geezer in the stupid jumpers, who used to leap about on a floating map in the Albert Dock?

uh-huh.

There's a definite pattern to these names. All people in positions of trust or power. I doubt that's a co-incidence.

 

[SquareDaff]

No. Anonymity for rape victims is a hard-won recognition of the particular difficulties they face (as illustrated by dismissive attitudes such as those in your OP). Those accused of rape do not need any special concessions not available to those accused of other crimes. Rape is an everyday crime, and (as we are seeing in these high-profile cases) a habitual one - naming the accused is absolutely crucial in enabling other victims to come forward, exposing offending patterns, and prosecuting openly in the interests of the public at large.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I suspect the lives of those that are wrongly accused are just as scarred as those of the victims. That's not right either.