DJ Squelch
King Of Insides
Some of the worst criticism I've read online aimed at Messham has not come from Tories or the press but from other abuse victims from Bryn Estyn.
How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?
- Thread starter free spirit
- Start date
Some of the worst criticism I've read online aimed at Messham has not come from Tories or the press but from other abuse victims from Bryn Estyn.
elbows
Well-Known Member
That does not surprise me, although I've not read any of it myself.
The same was true with Duncroft girls, albeit not necessarily people who were abused themselves doing the attacking, just people who went there.
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
Got a bit heated early hours of this morning on Twitter
Badger Kitten
oof
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Not sure what happened to it, hope it wasn't shredded! Found by someone in our office randomly opening hard bound dissertations in the storage room
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
Not sure what happened to it, hope it wasn't shredded! Found by someone in our office randomly opening hard bound dissertations in the storage room
I'd make a point never to register with that doctor. Harold Shipman may have rubbed off on him
elbows
Well-Known Member
Does not surprise me at all.
There is more than one reason for that though. If I had been a victim myself then some of my thoughts on Messham would be unprintable, but I dont really want to go there, I want to focus on the wider issues.
Wilf said:I worked at Rochdale Town Hall in the early 80s and there was always said to be an inch thick file on him over the road in the police station (somebody told me earlier it was on the Manc news that it's now gone 'missing'). The stories that circulated were pretty much a rehash of the piece that appeared in RAP (Rochdale Alternative Press).
Can that story be sourced though Wilf? Not doubting that you heard it, and it is believable, but I'd like to see a link to the story ....
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
OK thanks for that link.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
No worries.
Treacle Toes
Time
That's why I said 'big' claims. I didn't say I believed them, nor that anyone else should.
DJ Squelch
King Of Insides
David Rose has publicly stated that he had connections to MI5/MI6, although he claims that it ended a few years ago.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/09/mi6-mi5-intelligence-briefings
It is also true in 2002 he appeared before the Select Committee on Home Affairs into possible wrongful convictions due to police trawling of witnesses. He was in a room with Richard Webster and Bob Woffingden talking to, among others, David Cameron about police techniques for questioning possible abuse victims. Indeed it was him that raised the fact of police showing pictures of alleged abusers to victims. Tom Watson was also on the Committee although not present that day.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/836/2051404.htm
The Mail article was dreadful and unnecessary but if he wrote it on unbehalf of anyone it was probably FACT (Falsely Accused Carers & Teachers).
Buckaroo
Donkey piss and tractors
87. Why do you think it is so difficult to mount an effective defence case?
(Mr Rose) I think defence lawyers are in a very difficult position and the less specific the allegation the more difficult it becomes. Also, there are a couple of other factors that make it even more difficult. Let us say the defence find a fact which appears to quash what a complainant says, for example the gap that somebody said he squeezed through is only three inches wide, the complainant will say, "Oh, yes, well it was twenty-five years ago. Maybe it wasn't in that room. Or maybe I got out through a door, maybe it didn't actually happen in that building at all. It is such a long time ago." In summarising the case in his closing speech the prosecuting counsel will say "Members of the jury, such a long time has gone by you can't expect this person's memory to be precise and anyway he is trying to blank out so much of it because it was so horrible". The second thing that makes it particularly difficult is that a lot of the witnesses in these cases are, by definition, people of bad character; they are people who were locked up because they had committed offences when they were children and they carried on committing offences. But the problem is that if you then counter this in cross-examination with the fact that an individual has, let us say, 62 offences of dishonesty on their record and perhaps (as in Shuttleworth's case) with an attempt to defraud the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in an earlier case, then the answer comes back: It would never have happened if he had not been sexually abused. There is one other notion I would like to plant with this committee and it is this: there is simply no basis at all anywhere in the scientific literature to suggest that a victim of sexual abuse is more likely to be dishonest. The biggest studies in America—and they are mostly American studies—suggest that there is no definable syndrome of behaviours which a survivor of sexual abuse in adulthood will exhibit. They are no more likely to be drug addicts, thieves, credit card fraudsters or, indeed, Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority fraudsters than anybody else. But, unfortunately, that belief is widely held in the courts, widely held by judges who make no attempt to quash this claim and so defendants are in an even more difficult position.
Widely held by cunts. No shit Sherlock.
(Mr Rose) I think defence lawyers are in a very difficult position and the less specific the allegation the more difficult it becomes. Also, there are a couple of other factors that make it even more difficult. Let us say the defence find a fact which appears to quash what a complainant says, for example the gap that somebody said he squeezed through is only three inches wide, the complainant will say, "Oh, yes, well it was twenty-five years ago. Maybe it wasn't in that room. Or maybe I got out through a door, maybe it didn't actually happen in that building at all. It is such a long time ago." In summarising the case in his closing speech the prosecuting counsel will say "Members of the jury, such a long time has gone by you can't expect this person's memory to be precise and anyway he is trying to blank out so much of it because it was so horrible". The second thing that makes it particularly difficult is that a lot of the witnesses in these cases are, by definition, people of bad character; they are people who were locked up because they had committed offences when they were children and they carried on committing offences. But the problem is that if you then counter this in cross-examination with the fact that an individual has, let us say, 62 offences of dishonesty on their record and perhaps (as in Shuttleworth's case) with an attempt to defraud the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in an earlier case, then the answer comes back: It would never have happened if he had not been sexually abused. There is one other notion I would like to plant with this committee and it is this: there is simply no basis at all anywhere in the scientific literature to suggest that a victim of sexual abuse is more likely to be dishonest. The biggest studies in America—and they are mostly American studies—suggest that there is no definable syndrome of behaviours which a survivor of sexual abuse in adulthood will exhibit. They are no more likely to be drug addicts, thieves, credit card fraudsters or, indeed, Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority fraudsters than anybody else. But, unfortunately, that belief is widely held in the courts, widely held by judges who make no attempt to quash this claim and so defendants are in an even more difficult position.
Widely held by cunts. No shit Sherlock.
Treacle Toes
Time
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...se-victims-step-forward-in-wales-8317070.html
More alleged child abuse victims step forward in Wales
Dozens more victims of alleged child abuse in North Wales
care homes have come forward since the unfounded Newsnight allegations against
Lord McAlpine.
Keith Towler, Children’s Commissioner for Wales is now handling 52 new cases including 35 relating to the original inquiry and a further 17 in connection with historic allegations elsewhere including two from England.
More alleged child abuse victims step forward in Wales
Dozens more victims of alleged child abuse in North Wales
care homes have come forward since the unfounded Newsnight allegations against
Lord McAlpine.
Keith Towler, Children’s Commissioner for Wales is now handling 52 new cases including 35 relating to the original inquiry and a further 17 in connection with historic allegations elsewhere including two from England.
Treacle Toes
Time
dp
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
name namesSorry, I've missed something. Why is Messham now being painted as a complete fantasist by people?
Corax
Luke 5:16
Thomas, Richard, and Harold.name names
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
and were they supporting messham and have not changed sides?
Corax
Luke 5:16
The use of 'sides' is perhaps related.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you're all over the shop
Corax
Luke 5:16
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
what question?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I've missed something. Why is Messham now being painted as a complete fantasist by people?
I wouldnt go that far, even though I've not been afraid to post about the downside of Messhams words.
There are certain media entities and talking heads who would like to use the fact that Messham isnt exactly likely to win a 'most reliable witness' award in order to pour scorn on the whole thing. Their agenda ranges from being twats in general, to wanting to have a go at the BBC, to wanting to put a lid of child abuse allegations involving politicians, to wanting to prevent gossip or witch-hunts. There is also an anti-Leveson agenda but the Messham business may complicate rather than aid their points on that one.
There are other victims of abuse or people from wales who are aware of certain other incidents in Messhams past that make them unhappy but not terribly surprised at what has happened.
There are journalists, including some who covered the story years ago who are dismayed at other journalists for not doing their job properly when reporting on Messhams allegations.
There are people who thought the Messham apology was dodgy and want to weave this into some additional layer of conspiracy.
And there are people such as myself who, mostly as a result in particupating in the relevant u75 threads, were not exactly shocked when it turned out that some of what Messham said ended up backfiring. I cant speak for anyone else but this was not terribly clear when the story began, but it started to dawn on us as more past detail was uncovered. And its also possible that we expected the newsnight investigation had been done properly, and the fact they were reporting on it meant that past doubts must have been overcome and Messhams detail was more valid than it might have seemed when taking his past statements and behaviour into account.
elbows
Well-Known Member
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I think that's hit the nail on the head.
I assumed that newsnight must have found supporting evidence to verify Messham's statements when they started tweeting about the programme, and then broadcast the programme.
I couldn't believe that they'd go ahead with that programme just on the basis of his evidence alone, as whether justified or not, it had already been found to be unreliable at the inquiry, so they'd have been nuts to just rely on that alone, as they'd get screwed instantly if it came to court and that was all they had.
I reckon that was the logic a lot of people were working on tbh, and they could well take a fair few into court with them who followed on their coat tails and went further.
Fair play to the mods on here for their caution, and instilling that caution into posters on this site, even if a few (possibly myself included) might have been sailing a bit close to the wind at times.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Bit tired right now but would suggest that the 'not in the public interest' thing is just as much of a story as the MI5 bit, if not more so.
Much can be justified using such terms, eg not in the states interest to have political classes undermined by child sex abuse allegations.
Much can be justified using such terms, eg not in the states interest to have political classes undermined by child sex abuse allegations.
Similar threads
- Poll
