Paedogeddon on the British Paedoisles - Paed Heath

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Paedogeddon on the British Paedoisles - Paed Heath

«‹›2 »

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

I can't believe anyone significant at NOTW will actually go to jail or be punished in any meaningful way. That sort of thing is for the little people.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2014 13:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 04:32

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Brown Moses posted:

Best news I've heard since I check the Bitcoin price this morning.

What does it mean exactly to be interviewed under caution? Caution of what?

# ¿ Feb 19, 2014 15:19

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

goddamnedtwisto posted:

"I must caution you that anything you say may be used against you in court, and that you may harm your defence if you do not mention something which you later rely on in court"

You've surely seen enough crime dramas to have heard that before?

Yes, but is that a meaningful distinction? Like are you ever formally interviewed under any other circumstances?

edit: is it basically a way of syaing "we think you're a suspect?"

# ¿ Feb 19, 2014 17:05

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

notaspy posted:

This is why we need an organisation that can investigate the rich and powerful in secrecy. As soon as NI saw this coming they deleted everything, truly does government need to be moving at the speed of business.

Isn't there a legal doctrine in some countries that says that if you delete things relevant to an investigation, the court will assume they were as damaging as possible and use that information as part of the trial?

# ¿ Jun 26, 2014 10:25

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Also it's utterly unbelievable that Brooks didn't know and this verdict bears no relationship to the truth of what actually happened.

At least we get to refer to her as "the staggeringly incompetent Rebekah Brooks" for the rest of her life?

# ¿ Jun 26, 2014 10:26

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

thehustler posted:

I weirdly feel sorry for him and I hate myself for that.

I don't, gently caress him. gently caress her too.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2014 12:12

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

goddamnedtwisto posted:

Well it's not what's happening here (Thurlbeck is accusing Kuttner, Kuttner isn't confessing) but yes - you can't be tried for the same crime twice.

Now there's a pretty big loving asterisk after that for the most serious crimes where substantial new evidence comes to light or where serious malfeasance by the trial judge or jury is suspected, and a particularly vindictive prosecutor may be able to use that confession to get a new trial on a different charge for a different crime but broadly speaking double jeopardy is still forbidden in English law, and the whole lot of them are free to publish Phone Hacking For Fun And Profit if they wish.

Surely a straight-up confession would count as new evidence?

# ¿ Jul 1, 2014 20:54

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

goddamnedtwisto posted:

It would, but only if the confession was to a crime to which the double jeopardy exclusion applied (murder, etc). Phone hacking is deeply unpleasant in a lot of ways but in terms of actual dry criminal justice terms it's pretty low down the scale.

That's interesting. So Rebekah Brooks could get "I hacked phones" tattooed on her forehead, deliver a signed confession by hand to the Attorney General and make "I fooled Britain's criminal justice system, by Rebekah Brooks" the lead story in the Sun for a week and she'd be untouchable?

# ¿ Jul 3, 2014 14:36

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

So what's the point of double jeopardy, then? I get that you don't want to make it possible for a vindictive state to harrass someone by constantly taking them to court. But surely the line's drawn in the wrong place if even confessing doesn't change things?

# ¿ Jul 3, 2014 15:17

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

marktheando posted:

I for one am glad The Sun learned their lessons from Leveson about what stories are in the public interest, and about harassing members of the public.

Once everyone's finished hand-wringing about this they can all feel better by ogling the tits on page 3!

# ¿ Jul 4, 2014 14:58

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

HortonNash posted:

Uh oh, that could be up to another 7 years at Her Maj's Pleasure.

Her Majesty's Pleasure means "we'll let you out when and if we feel like it". It's a type of sentence, not a synonym for being in jail. /nitpick

# ¿ Jul 8, 2014 10:22

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

pentyne posted:

I'll never get the blatent "Sure these people did incredibly illegal things BUT THEY DID SO MUCH GOOD AS WELL" as if you can literally karma balance your life. Killed a guy while driving drunk? Just hope you've volunteered at homeless shelters for 10 years and that brings it back to neutral.

I suspect most people think that when a friend or colleague turns out to have done something horrible. The difference is that most people aren't given time and space to talk about it in the mass media. The thing that annoys me about it is the colossal double standard that's being so blatantly applied. STRING UP THE CROOKS (unless they're my friends)

# ¿ Jul 8, 2014 10:24

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

goddamnedtwisto posted:

This is what might make the current press activity, along with this inquiry if it happens, so potentially explosive. If the rumours are trues there are dozens, if not hundreds, of victims who have been keeping quiet for a very long time, and as soon as one or two come forward the floodgates will open. Conversely though the scars of both the abuse and the suppression run very deep - we know that Cyril Smith's victims must have numbered in the dozens if not the hundreds and that he definitely did not act alone, but even with him long-dead and the story blown wide open only a handful of victims have come forward.

I would guess the other factor in this is not wanting to rake up the very painful past? If this stuff happened 20 or 30 years ago then most of these people will have been doing their best to build some kind of a normal life. Raking it all up again risks making those carefully-built lives fall to pieces again. That's not a justification for sweeping the whole thing under the carpet, but I can absolutely understand why victims might be reluctant to speak up.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2014 10:27

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Darth Walrus posted:

Part of me wonders if Butler-Sloss was set up to make the second offer, no matter how awful and inappropriate, look better by comparison.

I'm pretty sure there's a phrase for that ploy, isn't there?

This seems wildly conspiratorial to me.

# ¿ Jul 15, 2014 15:25

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Gum posted:

Yeah, lets keep the conspiracy theories out of this discussion of a decades-long government cover-up.

No, but at the same time let's not assume the government is peopled by Batman-type masterminds who are triple-bluffing and running false flag ops and generally playing 11-dimensional chess with everyone.

# ¿ Jul 15, 2014 15:58

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Darth Walrus posted:

Because they know the media is loving lazy and thrives on novelty (it's called the 'news' for a reason), so dodgy candidate number two is going to get less attention and scrutiny than dodgy candidate number one. Plus, if too many candidates get chased off due to being compromised as gently caress, it gives them an excuse to bury the inquiry altogether because silly old Joe Public doesn't know who he wants to lead it.

No, this is wrong. The media is only lazy when it's got nothing to get its teeth into. This is a perfect tabloid story and you can bet that every newspaper has got reporters out raking through everybody's backgrounds looking for dirt. The fact that Butler-Sloss had to resign is going to make her replacement even more heavily scrutinised, not less. The government can't afford to gently caress up the appointment a second time, and every reporter is going to be looking for any angle that allows him or her to suggest that they have.

# ¿ Jul 15, 2014 16:47

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Crashbee posted:

I still don't understand how that's even libel, she didn't actually say anything about McAlpine at all. Or is just asking whether someone's a paedophile libelous?

Innuendo is still libellous and that was a pretty clear-cut case of innuendo. So phrasing an accusation - "SA Forums Poster Crashbee is a paedophiel" as a question - "hey guys, why is everyone talking about SA Forums Poster Crashbee and his powerful and abiding love of children?" won't let you end-run around the law. Particularly if you ask that question at a time when the rest of Twitter is full of rumours that the person in question is a paedo, in which the context makes your intended implication crashingly obvious.

# ¿ Aug 8, 2014 13:16

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Daduzi posted:

I honestly have no idea how I feel about this. It's weird, every other news story I have a clear feeling either way but here I just don't know. On the one hand, this brings the chance of somebody actually being held to account closer, and maybe it will make people realise just how "last days of Rome" our whole society has become.

I'm not sure about this. I think the tolerance for casual sexual abuse, and sexual abuse of children particularly, has gone way way down in the past few decades. A lot of these Radio 1 DJs who are being prosecuted now committed their offences in an atmosphere where it was just sort of accepted that banging 15 year olds was one of the perks of the job. Just ask John Peel, or Jimmy Page.

Zephro fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Jan 2, 2015

# ¿ Jan 2, 2015 21:36

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Morrison also seems to be a line of inquiry in the investigation into the child murder claims:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11325064/Murder-link-to-Margaret-Thatcher-aide-accused-of-raping-teenage-boy.html

quote:

Scotland Yard is investigating a possible link between one of Margaret Thatcher�s closest aides and the unsolved murder of an eight-year-old boy in the 1980s. Sir Peter Morrison, the former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party who died in 1995, was a known child molester but was never charged with any crime during his lifetime.

Now police are examining whether the MP for Chester could have had any link to the unsolved murder of eight-year-old Vishal Mehrotra in 1981.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2015 15:30

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Arsenic Lupin posted:

"Line to take: There has been no cover up."

ie, "there has been a cover-up".

# ¿ Feb 3, 2015 14:13

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

He's from a country that's as far from Britain as it's possible to get while remaining on planet Earth, so looks like a good choice so far.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2015 14:13

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Zombywuf posted:

And Theresa May says there's more to come.

quote:

Theresa May, Britain's home secretary, was yesterday found dead at the bottom of the Thames. Her feet had been encased in concrete. Police said they were not treating the death as suspicious and were not seeking to question anyone in connection with it.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2015 17:11

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

It's also very flimsy because modern governments generally have no problem with legislating so that they can be seen to be Doing Something� even when the offence in question is already likely to be covered by existing statutes. So why the sudden attack of legislative minimalism?

Not to mention that you'd be brave as gently caress to make use of a previously-unused portion of the OSA in a case like this one and vague reassurances from the AG may not cut the mustard. It took actual physical letters of comfort to persuade ex-terrorists in Northern Ireland that it was safe to talk, after all.

quote:

The nearest I can come up with is that the Government (regardless of the party in power) has consistently voted against any public-interest immunity for unauthorised disclosure under OSA

You can see why a general public-interest exemption wouldn't be something any government would be keen on (it might encourage a British Snowden, for one thing). I'm not sure this applies to this one narrowly-defined issue, though. I don't think anyone thinks spilling secrets about child-raping politicians is a bad thing to do.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2015 22:00

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

On the "who's the sitting MP" speculation-fest, it's really hard to separate fact from rumour, or even plausible rumour from crazy rumour. A lot of the sites that list these things are pretty swivel-eyed. And Operation Ore* massively muddied the waters.

*Big transnational paedophile bust in 1999 that wrongly fingered a lot of people because Plod forgot to account for the fact that any child porn fan concerned about covering his tracks might consider using stolen credit cards, which are available at dozens to the dollar on certain parts of the interwebs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore

# ¿ Mar 22, 2015 22:06

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

I just mean that it's never been tested in a situation like this, that's all. This is unusual enough (and probably wasn't forseen by the authors of the OSA) that I think most people would need positive assurances before proceeding. After all the OSA was (AFAIK, perhaps I'm wrong on this) the same when people were told to shut up or face prosecution under it. They theoretically had the legal right to disclose to the relevant authorities then, too, but that didn't stop people using the OSA to intimidate them.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2015 22:17

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

RandomPauI posted:

No one keeps track of police shootings on a national basis

This amazes me every time I read about it. The idea that the only answer to "how many American citizens were shot by their own police force last year" is "I dunno and no-one else does either" is just staggering.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2015 14:06

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Sad Rhino posted:

You have to take a step back from this case/suspect and consider the broader principle. It would be absurdly unjust to put someone on trial when they could not comprehend what was happening to them.

One interesting question that flows from this is if you're not fit to stand trial, are you fit to bring a prosecution?

In other words, if people want to start writing about the allegations in detail, can they be sued for libel by Janner? I'd love to know if there's case law on this.

quote:

Not to defend Lord Shorteyes, but buggering a few kids really isn't of the same magnitude as mass murder.

The legal principle should apply in either case, though? Either you're mentally competent to stand trial, whether that's for shoplifting, child rape or mass murder, or you aren't.

Zephro fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Apr 19, 2015

# ¿ Apr 19, 2015 19:03

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

So if I'm a witness in a Scottish murder trial I can tell as many lies as I want as long as they're not directly germane to the question of whether x killed y?

edit: not being snarky (well OK a bit snarky) but this just seems weird. Is that really how it works?

# ¿ Jun 3, 2015 11:17

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Arsenic Lupin posted:

I am severely freaked that there's solid evidence that the effing Prime Minister was a pedo and using his political contacts to cover it up. I mean, man. I'd heard previously that he was a highly-closeted homosexual, which was just par for the course for the times.

Well, while Heath was PM, Jeremy Thorpe, one-time Liberal grandee, was tried and acquitted of commissioning the (failed) murder of his former gay lover. After he died last year Radio 4 broadcast a documentary full of some fairly persuasive evidence (including basically a confession) that he was guilty and that the only reason the murder didn't happen is that the crook that was hired to carry out the deed chickened out at the last minute and shot the guy's dog instead.

Does this sound loving crazy? Yes, but have a listen: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04wz633

# ¿ Aug 4, 2015 10:48

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Spangly A posted:

Yo if someone can demonstrate a similar case where the US has told the UK to gently caress off on a national security libel issue, then I'll post everything I can dig up that wont jeapordise any of the victims. Some things will out them by their very nature, like bank records, and I won't post those without being certain they're determined.

There's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act

But I don't know how jurisdiction works on t'interwebs. Though if a USican posted something to a USican site whilst in the US, that would seem pretty clear-cut.

Note that the law still means that USican libel laws apply.

# ¿ Aug 5, 2015 22:10

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

goddamnedtwisto posted:

I still remember in those final decadent days of LF the amount of people who were absolutely astonished that Lowtax wasn't prepared to lose his entire livelihood and do serious jail time in order to defend their right to shitpost.

It sounds like I missed something fun here, what happened?

# ¿ Sep 10, 2015 11:49

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Jose posted:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/08/former-bishop-peter-ball-admits-sexually-abusing-young-men

Yet another nonce protected by the police

What is it about clergy anyway? Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate so they have all this sexual desire and no outlet for it but CoE priests can have wives and everything.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2015 11:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 04:32

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

Guavanaut posted:

I think it was the time that someone threatened to kill the President of the USA. Or the other time that someone threatened to kill the President of the USA.

Don't tell me the Secret Service turned up? That would be hilarious.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2015 11:52

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Paedogeddon on the British Paedoisles - Paed Heath

«‹›2 »