Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Police reveal at least 178 UK celebrities are suspected child sex offenders

2

Comments

  • #32
    ElvisChrist6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 595 ✭✭✭ElvisChrist6


    Candie wrote: »
    The 'No smoke without fire' school of thought that's proved so reliable in the past.

    One example of this recently was poor aul Cliff. They showed police raiding his home on the news from a helicopter, due to rumours. Nothing was found, but imagine how great it would be for the news if someone like himself was found to be one. Everyone was ready to jump on him (and some already did) for being paedo scum, but there was nothing to suggest he was.


  • #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,219 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »
    That's grand from a preachy detatched point of view. Now how long have these people operated? As far as anyone can tell, it's always. These 1400, you can assume these allegations go back decades. They're walking around now with how many molested children to their names? Politicians, policemen and members of the judiciary are said to be included.

    If you expect any actual prosecutions outside a couple of scapegoats then I think you'll be disappointed. The world's far from a perfect place. Talking about lofty justice is grand but it's fantasy too when you look at the state of things. These people have been sheltered and protected. We'll all be awaiting justice on this for quite some time.

    What I'm saying isn't clean or fair but it's a better alternative to how it is and how it has been. There isn't a question that child abuse might have been committed. It's the case that it has, and on an industrial scale.

    Innocent people having their lives ruined by being named in association with crimes against kids is not acceptable collateral damage in a civilised society.

    Nothing justifies what you're advocating. The people who should be punished for crimes against kids are the people who are shown to have committed the crimes. Not people against whom there is nothing more than unfounded suspicion.

    It's a ridiculous thing to advocate, playing into the very worst mob mentalities.


  • #34
    Eutow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭Eutow


    Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »
    That's grand from a preachy detatched point of view. Now how long have these people operated? As far as anyone can tell, it's always. These 1400, you can assume these allegations go back decades. They're walking around now with how many molested children to their names? Politicians, policemen and members of the judiciary are said to be included.

    If you expect any actual prosecutions outside a couple of scapegoats then I think you'll be disappointed. The world's far from a perfect place. Talking about lofty justice is grand but it's fantasy too when you look at the state of things. These people have been sheltered and protected. We'll all be awaiting justice on this for quite some time.

    What I'm saying isn't clean or fair but it's a better alternative to how it is and how it has been. There isn't a question that child abuse might have been committed. It's the case that it has, and on an industrial scale.

    The media printing names is going to change what? Evidence still has to be gathered and it still has to go to court, and if you think by printing names, people are going to jail then you are the one that is living in cloud cuckoo land. If the media had true investigation qualities they would have probed this a long time ago instead of focusing on famous arses, liposuction and stretch marks.


  • #35
    Clandestine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭Clandestine


    Corey Feldman talked about this a few years back, he said pedophilia is the biggest problem in the entertainment industry. He said most of the bigwigs involved are untouchable.


  • #36
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »
    See my reply to candie above. Monocle, try not resorting to such boring ad hominem style replies.

    Ok just did. Looks like she's right and you're wrong.

    .... and boring.



    ..... and butthurt. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Mechanical Clocktail
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Mechanical Clocktail


    Candie wrote: »
    Innocent people having their lives ruined by being named in association with crimes against kids is not acceptable collateral damage in a civilised society.

    Nothing justifies what you're advocating. The people who should be punished for crimes against kids are the people who are shown to have committed the crimes. Not people against whom there is nothing more than unfounded suspicion.

    It's a ridiculous thing to advocate, playing into the very worst mob mentalities.

    I'm talking about individuals who the police are looking at, and with reason, not with unfounded suspicion. And I'm talking about actual journalism being done. That doesn't mean just publishing a big list of 1400 names on the front page. It's how you get it out there that certain untouchables are actually scum. Media has a role in society beyond vapidness. You believe the institutions that harbored and protected these people are the same ones that are going to prosecute them?

    You can tell me all night how outraged you are but it means nothing. Can you address the points I raise.


  • #38
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Odd police can investigate this but seem powerless in places like Rotherham....


  • #39
    Mechanical Clocktail
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Mechanical Clocktail


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Ok just did. Looks like she's right and you're wrong.

    .... and boring.



    ..... and butthurt. :)

    Homophobe. :)


  • #40
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    The media are in cahoots

    The day they mention the Gaspar statements is the day I'll reconsider my opinion


  • #41
    Eutow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭Eutow


    Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »
    I'm talking about individuals who the police are looking at, and with reason, not with unfounded suspicion.

    Who decides what is unfounded suspicion and what might show as suspicious? The media? They have shown in the past that ethics is not their strong point. Remember, something that looks suspicious might not actually mean that person is guilty of anything.
    Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »
    And I'm talking about actual journalism being done. That doesn't mean just publishing a big list of 1400 names on the front page.

    Good luck with that. Once a name is known by them, they will print all 1400 because it is click-bait. They won't hold back from printing them because if they do they are afraid some other media outlet will steal their thunder and print them instead.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,219 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »
    I'm talking about individuals who the police are looking at, and with reason, not with unfounded suspicion. And I'm talking about actual journalism being done. That doesn't mean just publishing a big list of 1400 names on the front page. It's how you get it out there that certain untouchables are actually scum. Media has a role in society beyond vapidness. You believe the institutions that harbored and protected these people are the same ones that are going to prosecute them?

    You can tell me all night how outraged you are but it means nothing. Can you address the points I raise.

    I do see your point. And I think it's a lousy one.

    It amounts to approval of trial by media and an abandonment of the rule of law that sees all accused persons as innocent until proven guilty, and overlooks the fact that a person can come to police attention and even under investigation, and still be completely innocent of the crime they're suspected of.

    It's not the medias job to dispense justice, it's the courts.


  • #43
    Mechanical Clocktail
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Mechanical Clocktail


    Candie wrote: »
    I do see your point. And I think it's a lousy one.

    It amounts to approval of trial by media and an abandonment of the rule of law that sees all accused persons as innocent until proven guilty, and overlooks the fact that a person can come to police attention and even under investigation, and still be completely innocent of the crime they're suspected of.

    It's not the medias job to dispense justice, it's the courts.

    No it doesn't, you're given to speaking in hyperbole. What do you think of the fact that the courts, the police, the political establishment, are all implicated. You're ignoring the elephant in the room because it compromises your ideals.

    This thing requires its own wikileaks scenario. No one will ever know the extent of this thing without it. What do you think of whisteblowers Candie? A bunch of scumbags that wouldn't follow the rules?


  • #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,219 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »
    No it doesn't, you're given to speaking in hyperbole. What do you think of the fact that the courts, the police, the political establishment, are all implicated. You're ignoring the elephant in the room because it compromises your ideals.

    This thing requires its own wikileaks scenario. No one will ever know the extent of this thing without it. What do you think of whisteblowers Candie? A bunch of scumbags that wouldn't follow the rules?


    Gas.

    Don't know how you come up with that, but then again you're clutching at straws.


  • #45
    Mechanical Clocktail
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Mechanical Clocktail


    Candie wrote: »
    Gas.

    Don't know how you come up with that, but then again you're clutching at straws.

    Gas.

    Don't know how you're still avoiding actually talking about the child abuse. Talking about straws instead.

    Edit: In case you don't understand, whistleblowers commonly break laws and leak information that would otherwise have been supressed or unknown. Just in case you actually don't know how I came up with that. It's what we're talking about and goes against your ideas of justice.


  • #46
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    I am sick to the teeth of the culture of suspicion. Between the NSA and British Surveillance and the Irish reactionary policies of reporting adults who so much as sneeze in the wrong direction of a child, exploiting the presentation of "protection" to control and hunt citizens and to be able to do this immune from come back, protected from slander and immunised from prosecution from the accused, is an ingenious way to bi pass democracy and rule of law.

    Suspicion is enough to smear and condemn, even without the sounding of s gavel.


  • #47
    Dinging
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 273 ✭✭Dinging


    What is more shocking is that only 10% of prosecutions that go to court end in a conviction the other 90% go free. The odds are stacked against the victim in sexual crime cases so you can expect a high majortiy of these child sex offenders to get away with their crimes.


  • #48
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    zeffabelli wrote: »
    I am sick to the teeth of the culture of suspicion. Between the NSA and British Surveillance and the Irish reactionary policies of reporting adults who so much as sneeze in the wrong direction of a child, exploiting the presentation of "protection" to control and hunt citizens and to be able to do this immune from come back, protected from slander and immunised from prosecution from the accused, is an ingenious way to bi pass democracy and rule of law.

    Suspicion is enough to smear and condemn, even without the sounding of s gavel.


    Yeah what happened with them Roma kids ? It went very quiet very fast after all the better safe than sorry people found out they were wrong.


  • #49
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Yeah what happened with them Roma kids ? It went very quiet very fast after all the better safe than sorry people found out they were wrong.

    And you know what else, everyone involved in that is immune from litigation.


  • #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,219 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »
    Gas.

    Don't know how you're still avoiding actually talking about the child abuse. Talking about straws instead.

    Edit: In case you don't understand, whistleblowers commonly break laws and leak information that would otherwise have been supressed or unknown. Just in case you actually don't know how I came up with that. It's what we're talking about and goes against your ideas of justice.

    Oh, I understand you fine.


  • #51
    Mechanical Clocktail
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Mechanical Clocktail


    Candie wrote: »
    Oh, I understand you fine.

    Grand.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Ficheall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,067 ✭✭✭Ficheall


    stimpson wrote: »
    Say there’s 200 million priests in the world, and 5% of them are paedophiles, that’s still only 10 million…

    Uh huh.. And 310 paedophiles browsing boards at the minute...


  • #53
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭Cold War Kid


    Whistle-blowing is taking great personal risk to expose something you have evidence of.

    That's not the same thing as anonymously interfering with judicial process without concrete evidence.

    Naming someone as possibly guilty of child sex abuse when they could be innocent... how would that be a good thing?


  • #54
    Mechanical Clocktail
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Mechanical Clocktail


    Cold War Kid wrote: »
    Whistle-blowing is taking great personal risk to expose something you have evidence of.

    That's not the same thing as anonymously interfering with judicial process without concrete evidence.

    Naming someone as possibly guilty of child sex abuse when they could be innocent... how would that be a good thing?

    I think I've made it clear that I'm for the former. We're talking about a police investigation. This is where there is evidence. Using the word whistleblower in my first post would have helped. I said there's a need for a leak, and it amounts to the same thing with a set of caveats. Some people enjoy being hysterical about things and assuming the worst case scenario. The fact is that justice has failed those who were abused and it will probably continue to do so.


  • #55
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭Cold War Kid


    Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »
    Some people enjoy being hysterical about things and assuming the worst case scenario.
    You could say the very same thing about people who are obsessed with seeing paedophilia everywhere.


  • #56
    Mechanical Clocktail
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Mechanical Clocktail


    Cold War Kid wrote: »
    You could say the very same thing about people who are obsessed with seeing paedophilia everywhere.

    You could. Now are you trying to infer something? If you're aware of the topic then you're aware that it's huge. You do know that?


  • #57
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭Cold War Kid


    Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »
    You could. Now are you trying to infer something? If you're aware of the topic then you're aware that it's huge. You do know that?
    Huh? No, I'm only saying protection of identities until actual conviction is not an hysterical position.

    You didn't make it clear you were talking about a whistle-blowing type operation where there is actual proof.


  • #58
    Mechanical Clocktail
    Closed Accounts Posts: 255 ✭✭Mechanical Clocktail


    Cold War Kid wrote: »
    Huh? No, I'm only saying protection of identities until actual conviction is not an hysterical position.

    You didn't make it clear you were talking about a whistle-blowing type operation where there is actual proof.

    The police aren't dealing with just rumours so why make such assumptions. I did say these people are being investigated for a reason, not based on unfounded accusations. I think I have made myself clear, but some like to assume the worst.

    eg. when I refer to an editor as an intermediate I am suggesting someone with the ability to parse information and who has an idea of the law and responsibility, and I don't have red tops in mind.

    Whether I use the word whistleblower or not shouldn't matter when the idea is the same. I think it raises questions when people are opposed to an idea that they would support when given different context. Shows a lack of rationality. But that's another topic again.


  • #59
    j80ezgvc3p92xu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 392 ✭✭j80ezgvc3p92xu


    Two words: degenerate networking.


  • #60
    joseph brand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Candie wrote: »
    It wouldn't be a bad thing. It'd be a terrible thing.

    All those names are innocent until proven guilty, but if the names were leaked they'd be tried in the court of public opinion.

    In the words of Pope Benedict XVI: "Sh1t sticks."


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Mechanical Clocktail wrote: »
    It might not be due course but if these allegations are founded on actual police work then I don't think it would be a bad thing for a list of names to be leaked. Assuming that 1400 names haven't been compiled on nothing but hearsay.

    would you take that approach if you lived in UK yourself ?

    cause if you did you could be giving yourself the reputation of a suspected pedo for the rest of your life.


Advertisement
Advertisement