Jimmy Savile And Other Paedophiles

[DelboyVilla]

So you'd make the children's lives more difficult just to satisfy public curiosity?

The public don't actually have a right to know, the kids however have a right to privacy

 

The public knowing their names at this point actually serves no purposes.

 

I cannot understand why we do not castrate these basterds like Watkins??

 

Worryingly this is just the tip of the iceberg and these animals are very clever at being able to hide whilst carrying out these hideous acts against children and I do wonder if we as a society have the guts to stand up and deal with this once and for all!

[VillaForever1970]

I do wonder if we as a society have the guts to stand up and deal with this once and for all!

You’ll never deal with it once and for all, its like saying we need to deal with murder once and for all.. its impossible. Unfortunately in this world there will always be good people and bad people.

The only thing you can try and do is education and prevention, they’ll never be a ‘cure'.

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

So you'd make the children's lives more difficult just to satisfy public curiosity?

 

This seems to be missing my point on so many levels, but as a simple answer to your question, no! All I've questioned is the consistency in the weight of punishment.

 

Could you explain to me why we needed to know Ian Watkin's name? Is that to make HIS life more difficult, protect the public or satisfy public curiosity?

[Kingfisher]

It helps protect the identity of the victims to not name the women. I don't know what part of that you're finding difficult to get your head around?

[bickster]

Could you explain to me why we needed to know Ian Watkin's name?

Because justice needs to be open wherever possible in a democracy, it is not possible in the case of the mothers for the obvious reason already outlined.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

I got to page 5 before I had to stop reading. That was one of the most uncomfortable experiences of my 30 years on earth.

[PaulC]

 

I do wonder if we as a society have the guts to stand up and deal with this once and for all!

You’ll never deal with it once and for all, its like saying we need to deal with murder once and for all.. its impossible. Unfortunately in this world there will always be good people and bad people.

The only thing you can try and do is education and prevention, they’ll never be a ‘cure'.

 

 

Is a case of good or bad. Are people going turn out this way naturally or do they become this way because either they were abused as a child, or corruption of the mind, by the stuff you can you find on the internet etc. What he did was sickening and beyond the comprehension of any normal human being. 

[snowychap]

...being excused from this element of punishment on a technicality. I don't think that is right.

I think it's fine to debate the merits of open justice versus the merits of protection of victims (and even the practicalities of the latter) but to be talking about the order to maintain the women's anonymity (the purpose of which is to try to maintain the anonymity of the victims not to give the mothers an easier punishment) as a technicality doesn't really serve that debate well.

FWIW, I don't regard it as an easy question and I think we've made (and continue to make) the mistake of travelling along the path of more and more anonymity throughout the system but I'd probably fall off the side of the fence in favour of anonymity in this case - just.

[privateer]

It helps protect the identity of the victims to not name the women. I don't know what part of that you're finding difficult to get your head around?

 

That's not a difficult concept to grasp, obviously, but a particular bone of contention for me in particular is implied by the tense used below:

 

"Could you explain to me why we needed to know Ian Watkin's name?"

 

Apparent victims of sex crimes are always granted anonymity in perpetuity, unless they choose to waive that right. The alleged rapist/abuser does not. I have to say I'm more than a little uncomfortable that the accused is named from the get go, not after a guilty verdict. Rapists and nonces carry the biggest stigma going and an accusation doesn't equal guilt but it certainly equals shit that sticks for both the accused and their family. 

[Kingfisher]

It helps protect the identity of the victims to not name the women. I don't know what part of that you're finding difficult to get your head around?

That's not a difficult concept to grasp, obviously, but a particular bone of contention for me in particular is implied by the tense used below:

"Could you explain to me why we needed to know Ian Watkin's name?"

Apparent victims of sex crimes are always granted anonymity in perpetuity, unless they choose to waive that right. The alleged rapist/abuser does not. I have to say I'm more than a little uncomfortable that the accused is named from the get go, not after a guilty verdict. Rapists and nonces carry the biggest stigma going and an accusation doesn't equal guilt but it certainly equals shit that sticks for both the accused and their family.

Well, that's another argument entirely, probably for another thread. Keeping to the point in hand, both women would have been named in this instance, except for one glaringly obvious reason. So the implied 'double standards' is a moot point.

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

 

So the implied 'double standards' is a moot point.

 

 

 

That's why we are mooting it right?

 

I believe that the children have a right to a degree of privacy and to live their life free of hassle. I am not sure that protecting the mother's identities is the correct way to go about it. Let's remember we are talking about very young children. The retention of their current identities indicates to me that they intend on being homed within their current local neighbourhood. A neighbourhood where despite any media ban every person will know exactly, or will have very strong suspicions, who they are. When they go to school, the chances are, every parent will know their back story, if every parent knows, soon every other child knows. You think in these circumstances they will care if some guy in Inverness knows too?

 

If they are not staying in the area, my question is why not just give them a new name and a clean break?

[bickster]

So the implied 'double standards' is a moot point.

 

 

That's why we are mooting it right?

 

I believe that the children have a right to a degree of privacy and to live their life free of hassle. I am not sure that protecting the mother's identities is the correct way to go about it. Let's remember we are talking about very young children. The retention of their current identities indicates to me that they intend on being homed within their current local neighbourhood. A neighbourhood where despite any media ban every person will know exactly, or will have very strong suspicions, who they are. When they go to school, the chances are, every parent will know their back story, if every parent knows, soon every other child knows. You think in these circumstances they will care if some guy in Inverness knows too?

 

If they are not staying in the area, my question is why not just give them a new name and a clean break?

So you want to cause them even more trauma by making them learn their new names and getting used to new surroundings and environment just so the mothers can be named, to what end exactly, why do you need to know the mothers names. I think the public have every confidence in the justice system in this case so it can't be for that reason (one of the main reasons criminals are named in the first place).

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

So you want to cause them even more trauma

 

You seem to be basing your responses to my posts on the basis that this is fact!  I think I gave reasons why I felt a change of identity was in the best interests of the child. Now, those reasons may be misguided or erroneous but they certainly had nothing to do with the suppositions you went on to make.

 

Oh and just for the sake of clarity, I have no personal interest in the names of the women, merely a passing interest in an even application of the penal code.

[LondonLax]

 

So you want to cause them even more trauma

 

You seem to be basing your responses to my posts on the basis that this is fact!  I think I gave reasons why I felt a change of identity was in the best interests of the child. Now, those reasons may be misguided or erroneous but they certainly had nothing to do with the suppositions you went on to make.

 

Oh and just for the sake of clarity, I have no personal interest in the names of the women, merely a passing interest in an even application of the penal code.

 

 

 

I can see what you are saying and the points you are making.

 

I think what it comes down to though is that the children should come first and we should do everything possible to not make this worse for them, even if that means the mothers end up getting treated differently.

[Guest av1]

Slightly OT but Ian 'H' watkins from the band steps has today taken a broadcaster to court after it displayed a picture of him in a piece about watkins the word removed. How do you get that wrong?

[Avfc96]

Which broadcaster?

[Guest av1]

Which broadcaster?

E! Entertainment Television apologised for using a picture of the pop star to illustrate a story about Lostprophets singer Ian Watkins on E! Online.

The US company's solicitor expressed regret for the "distress and damage" the photo's publication had caused.

[Genie]

I guess "H" will get a nice cheque in the post soon.

[Davkaus]

He got huge amounts of abuse on Twitter afterwards from people who made the same mistake.

 

I knew better but joined in anyway, because hey, it's "H from Steps"

[Shillzz]

He got huge amounts of abuse on Twitter afterwards from people who made the same mistake.

 

I knew better but joined in anyway, because hey, it's "H from Steps"

 

You'll get frowned upon for this, but it made me chuckle.