leicsmac Posted 6 January 2015 Posted 6 January 2015 To be fair IMO until he is found guilty of an offence this should not have been made public (difficult I know with social media). Whether he is guilty or innocent only he and those others involved will know.The point being made was that if he is guilty he has a far greater chance of evading justice than a normal member of the public, in fact had the alleged offences taken place in this country I doubt any investigation would have been undertaken. The 3 names you mention were finally brought to justice years after their offences took place, they used power and influence to evade justice and were only investigated due to the public outcry over the Saville scandal. This. Whether it's the use of the class system and money here or just money in the US, it's perfectly possible to get away with pretty heinous crimes.
Grewks Posted 6 January 2015 Posted 6 January 2015 Quite an incredible read this thread. Supposedly liberal people prepared to believe a man is guilty before even being accused of doing something illegal. And if not he's obviously using his power and influence to avoid justice. If it's just as easy to hire a good lawyer for a lot of money and get away with it you have to wonder why Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall and Max Clifford are all doing serious time for their offences. They were mere celebrities, who held no power. I'll give you two names...George W Bush and Tony Blair. Two men who went to war for what? 1. Fear of nuclear weapons? 2. The attack on the twin towers? Correct answer? None of the above. George W Bush and Tony Blair were, lets fact it, terrorists. They caused mass unwarranted and unneeded slaughter of human lives, and for that there is no justification. The fact that 9/11 gets as much press as it does today when considering the millions of lives affected due to a single conflicted, created by ourselves, disgusts me. Power has always been and will always be everything.
leicsmac Posted 6 January 2015 Posted 6 January 2015 They were mere celebrities, who held no power. I'll give you two names...George W Bush and Tony Blair. Two men who went to war for what? 1. Fear of nuclear weapons? 2. The attack on the twin towers? Correct answer? None of the above. George W Bush and Tony Blair were, lets fact it, terrorists. They caused mass unwarranted and unneeded slaughter of human lives, and for that there is no justification. The fact that 9/11 gets as much press as it does today when considering the millions of lives affected due to a single conflicted, created by ourselves, disgusts me. Power has always been and will always be everything. And this too. Though it's the boys club high up in the US military (who keep very much to themselves) who are accountable to no one who must take most of the blame. From what it seems, they have free reign to do as they like.
ozleicester Posted 6 January 2015 Posted 6 January 2015 "men" fvcking teenagers younger than their kids whether legal or not, need to be spoken to.
Guest MattP Posted 6 January 2015 Posted 6 January 2015 Bush and Blair is a completely different case, these people have immunity from prosecution as soon as we elect them. They also go to war based on a vote from parliament. They should face severe action for lying to parliament and the Senate though to secure those votes. When it comes to paedophilia I think it was more a sign of the times than power and influence, people didn't seem to mention it whether the perpetrator was powerful or not, barely a week goes by without reading about a case of someone from a past era bring jailed and the vast majority were working in schools care homes etc without overt influence on anything. Charges against Mark Pritchard dropped today, the woman who accused him was in a relationship with him, looks like she just fancied destroying a bloke's career. Though I suppose as he's a Tory he deserves it anyway.
Carl the Llama Posted 6 January 2015 Posted 6 January 2015 "men" fvcking teenagers younger than their kids whether legal or not, need to be spoken to. I absolutely agree, we could all benefit from whatever tips he has.
Guest MattP Posted 6 January 2015 Posted 6 January 2015 "men" fvcking teenagers younger than their kids whether legal or not, need to be spoken to. Yet if it was two blokes doing this you think it's something to be celebrated.
Nick Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 Well, the more that's released and the greater the silence from 'Andy' - this looks rather 'unbecoming of royalty' at best.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.