http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti....html#comments

So, why should they apologise for doing their jobs and completing enquirers based on a victim's account?

 

Presumably "Nick" came up with some compelling evidence to get the enquiry started in the first place and the fact that the police have left the door open for further enquires would suggest to me that is indeed the case.

I think it's always going to be difficult to bring proceedings on cases such as these with such great time lapses as well as lack of evidence, which isn't really surprising considering the allegations, it's not the sort of thing that happens with lots of whitnesses to testify to.

I guess no one but those involved will ever really know if it's true or not, certainly not a good situation to be on the receiving end of for either party, regardless of innocence or guilt.

 

No faith in the police whatsover and never will have.The other emergency services yes.

Not the police.Waste of tax payers money

 

HTF can the police be a waste of tax payers money? I'd say they're an essential use of taxpayers money. Yes there are bad apples, they're people after all.

 

I've never really had a problem with the police, just the odd one that thinks hes amazing. The rest just doing there job, my misses gets angry when police ever pull her up, i couldn't careless. Its no big deal.

 

So we'll just scrap them then and see how it goes? :

 

Why do you need police anymore?

FB and Papers find people guilty nowadays, evidence is so 1900's,,,,,

o wait a minute?

 

The establishment yet again being holier than thou, thinking they are above the law & closing ranks .The Daily Mail defending one of their own.What a surprise.

If it was some poor council house old boy living on a state pension we probably would never hear about it.

He probably had the best defense lawyers money can buy so I doubt very much he was intimidated or subject to 'Stasi tactics'.How the hell are you supposed to investigate sexual abuse cases without digging deep into peoples personal life & asking them very difficult questions ?

 

The obvious flip-side of that though is that it's far easier for anyone so-minded to research the whereabouts and other relevant details about a public figure at a particular time and use that information to level this sort of accusation than it is to do the same about a completely random Jim or Joe Bloggs.

That said, I still don't see why the police should be apologizing, unless it's found that their investigation didn't follow accepted procedures. The real question for me is whether the person who made the accusations should be investigated themselves for waste of police time and/or perverting the course of justice.

 

You could pinpoint the whereabouts of Jimmy Saville & Harold Shipman at any given time & look what they got away with.

I agree with prosecuting people who make false allegations & waste police time but it's a fine line as you don't want to put off genuine victims who may well be nervous or damaged which is what the abusers want.Unfortunately the more power, influence & position the abuser holds the greater the intimidation factor.

 

The key difference with Saville and Shipman is that you had dozens of different sources pointing the finger at them two single individuals, whereas in this case it's exactly the other way around - a single source pointing the finger at dozens of alleged perpetrators (and some of those allegations already proved 100% false). The whole thing is starting to smell very much like BS, and I'd be very surprised if it doesn't turn out in the end to be exactly that.

 

Given saville has never been found guilty of anything why are you putting him in the same sentance with shipman?

people are assuming guilt, which is exactly what the papers and FB are saying.

RIght now people are basing guilt on the words of live people vs the silence of a dead guy.

While it's rare there is no smoke without fire, we can't be 100% sure

 

Each to their own.Love how you got apple in there :-)

 

First of all, it wasn't me who brought up Saville or Shipman. Second, you've done a brilliant job of completely missing the point I actually made about them both. Third, the accusations against Saville have to all intents and purposes stood the test of evidence being properly weighed up in court, given that very close associates of his who are still alive have been prosecuted and found guilty in the time since his death, of offences which were directly contemporaneous with ones which he himself was accused of.

 

Just to clarify.I made the point about Saville & Shipman in regards to how difficult or easy it would be to pin down some peoples whereabouts at the time of alleged offences & how sometimes that doesn't stop them committing crimes. Not the type of crime they committed.

 

In that case you definitely misunderstood me. The point I was making about well-known people and their whereabouts being relatively more traceable is that this makes it potentially easier to fabricate stories about them.

 

Ok I see what you're saying now.Also I would add that some people falsely accused get put through the wringer because of the DPP taking time going through the evidence & who the police have to refer/defer to when trying to bring a case.SO it's not always just the police force.

 

Its always going to be difficult when its one word against another. Who do you believe, the victim who states its has definitely happened and seems very believable OR the suspect who states its has definitely not happened and seems very believable.

Serious offences, such as this tend to go to a court/jury to decide its outcome - then we can show that we have given the incident a fair hearing rather than one police officer ending the case at is early stage. If it does go to court, then it will take a while and the outcome will always be based on 'innocent until proven guilty'. If the the burden of guilt can not be proven, then the jury will find them not guilty - it doesn't mean to say that there was not a case to answer in the first place or that the police should apologise.

Most rapes will fall into the 'one word against another' with no other evidence to rely on. Hence why the conviction rate is so low. But do we apologise in these cases - and if we do how does the victim feel, it will be as if we have denounced the victim as a lire.

 

I think you missed what i was getting at

I dont believe saville has ever been found guilty in a court of law? or even gone to court? so how can they possibly be properly weighed up?

(don')t get me wrong, theres no smoke without fire)

Your assuming guilt based on accusations. Thats what im getting at.

Now adays accusations seem to be enough to tarnish someones reputation no mater the outcome, and there in lies the problem.

 

Only way is ban all press releases till the verdict is known. make it law that accusations can'e be made public knowledge untill guilt found in the eyes of the law

 

Statements like that are also part of the problem though, so you're kind of contradicting yourself.

There are some pretty twisted and vindictive people out there in this world and then there are those that need mental help, as you say once someone makes an accusation like that the mud sticks and no doubt follows the accused throughout the rest of their life.

Then any such further accusation or even suggestion of wrong doing is met with, well he's got form for that or he's always looked dodgy, it's trial and conviction by suggestion.

I think the accusers should be held up for scrutiny as well and not allowed to anonymously accuse others of wrong doing, who knows that way other people they have accused of something in the past may come forward and discredit them, maybe they are a known lier / fantasist but how can anyone find out if no one knows who they are.

There needs to be accountability on both sides.

 

O totaly, but if i didnt add that then it would start an argument. which perhaps is the route of the problem.