[Beso]

Dirty scumbag, another one saved by his own death. Great timing.

Should he somehow be stripped of his former post?

[user104658]

Tip of the iceberg, let's be honest.

But yes, while we can't somehow pretend he was never Prime Minister, he should be stripped of honourary positions as Savile has been. Although, like Savile's, I believe his KG / MBE should remain in place to remind us just how much of an absolute joke / shambles the whole thing is. No whitewashing history, no saying "nothing to do with us!", people high up in these "Great British" institutions knew fine well what people like this were up to behind closed doors and they chose to honour and award them anyway. That should be remembered.

[bots]

there is no actual evidence against him though is there, other than the word of a couple of people. He may well have been a paedo, i have no idea. Seems to me he is an easy target now that he is dead and has no means to defend himself.

There was (maybe still is) some very dodgy goings on and it should be uncovered if at all possible, but I prefer to treat people as innocent until proven guilty or in the case of the deceased, compelling evidence proving the case beyond doubt.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

there is no actual evidence against him though is there, other than the word of a couple of people. He may well have been a paedo, i have no idea. Seems to me he is an easy target now that he is dead and has no means to defend himself.

There was (maybe still is) some very dodgy goings on and it should be uncovered if at all possible, but I prefer to treat people as innocent until proven guilty or in the case of the deceased, compelling evidence proving the case beyond doubt.

It's good to be an optimist. Hold onto that.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's good to be an optimist. Hold onto that.

I'm not being an optimist, just not part of a lynch mob

[Crimson Dynamo]

No evidence I am afraid

nothing proven

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I'm not being an optimist, just not part of a lynch mob

There's a pretty big gulf between believing he probably did it, and being part of a "lynch mob". When horrible accusations are made, truth is, there's probably truth to them, because the world is a deeply unpleasant place. Like I said above; tip of the iceberg. You prefer to assume innocence until guilt is proven. On a personal level, I would call that optimism, and it is a good thing to have. I fully agree from a legal standpoint, of course, there should be no legal presumption of guilt until such is proven, and no legal action should come unless guilt is proven. That doesn't mean that there isn't truth in it, though, or that there isn't a high likelihood of it being true.

That goes for several of the "not enough evidence" cleared historical accusations tbqfh... most of them probably did do something illegal. Proving it after decades is nearly impossible, of course, the only reason it was proven so conclusively with Savile was because the scope of his abuse was so massive.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

No evidence I am afraid

nothing proven

Again; so what? Utterly meaningless statement. This isn't a courtroom.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again; so what? Utterly meaningless statement. This isn't a courtroom.

well to brand the man a paedo based on mere accusation is beyond ridiculous

[joeysteele]

There are issues they say that would warrant him being interviewed under caution.
However that no way proves guilt,many people are interviewed like that with no resulting charges.

I'm sorry but I have many doubts on these extensive large numbers of claims that have surfaced since the possible compensation culture arrived.

I actually think the Police have handled this less than well or appropriately at times too.
He is no longer here to state his case and facts which for all anyone knows,he could blow these allegations out the water if he was here.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

well to brand the man a paedo based on mere accusation is beyond ridiculous

Yes LT there has never actually been anything shady or any corruption at all in politics. Squeaky clean, in fact, and any and all accusations are boulderdash and hogwash. That seems likely. What a real and accurate vision of the world.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes LT there has never actually been anything shady or any corruption at all in politics. Squeaky clean, in fact, and any and all accusations are boulderdash and hogwash. That seems likely. What a real and accurate vision of the world.

I am afraid that is not how the law works in the UK

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

There are issues they say that would warrant him being interviewed under caution.
However that no way proves guilt,many people are interviewed like that with no resulting charges.

I'm sorry but I have many doubts on these extensive large numbers of claims that have surfaced since the possible compensation culture arrived.

I actually think the Police have handled this less than well or appropriately at times too.
He is no longer here to state his case and facts which for all anyone knows,he could blow these allegations out the water if he was here.

Well said Joey.
At least 23 so called victims have been discounted, no saying the other 7 alleged victims are out for what they can get as well.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I am afraid that is not how the law works in the UK

Again LT; this is not a courtroom. You seem to be confused.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Well said Joey.
At least 23 so called victims have been discounted, no saying the other 7 alleged victims are out for what they can get as well.

I have a very suspicious mind smudgie.
I agree,that's a lot to be discounted I feel.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again LT; this is not a courtroom. You seem to be confused.

no i just dont like people to be called a paedo with no evidence

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

no i just dont like people to be called a paedo with no evidence

There isn't "no evidence" though, there's insufficient evidence, as is usually the case with a lot of these "big celeb" accusations.

And what you don't like, apparently, is the suggestion that it might be true, rather than people being "called a paedo". In the absence of trial-level evidence you don't like anything other than the declaration that they are definitely NOT a paedo... But I'm afraid, there's just no evidence of that, either.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There's a pretty big gulf between believing he probably did it, and being part of a "lynch mob". When horrible accusations are made, truth is, there's probably truth to them, because the world is a deeply unpleasant place. Like I said above; tip of the iceberg. You prefer to assume innocence until guilt is proven. On a personal level, I would call that optimism, and it is a good thing to have. I fully agree from a legal standpoint, of course, there should be no legal presumption of guilt until such is proven, and no legal action should come unless guilt is proven. That doesn't mean that there isn't truth in it, though, or that there isn't a high likelihood of it being true.

That goes for several of the "not enough evidence" cleared historical accusations tbqfh... most of them probably did do something illegal. Proving it after decades is nearly impossible, of course, the only reason it was proven so conclusively with Savile was because the scope of his abuse was so massive.

not necessarily....unless you presume everyone who is accused of something is guilty

[arista]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Dirty scumbag, another one saved by his own death. Great timing.

Should he somehow be stripped of his former post?

My problem
is Labours Tom Watson
demanding another 10 million pounds to spent on another
over long inquiry.



Feck the Hospistals TOM
go waste PUBLIC CASH - on this dead peado??????

[Beso]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

no i just dont like people to be called a paedo with no evidence

But there is evidence.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

There are issues they say that would warrant him being interviewed under caution.
However that no way proves guilt,many people are interviewed like that with no resulting charges.

I'm sorry but I have many doubts on these extensive large numbers of claims that have surfaced since the possible compensation culture arrived.

I actually think the Police have handled this less than well or appropriately at times too.
He is no longer here to state his case and facts which for all anyone knows,he could blow these allegations out the water if he was here.

I completely agree with this. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ or does that only apply when it suits. Without the alleged perpetrator being here to defend himself it is all just hearsay.

I also agree about the ‘coincidence’ of large numbers of claims and the compensation culture’. It is all just a bit too convienient.

[arista]

Originally Posted by parmnion

But there is evidence.

Only with
the MOD.

The Police and MP's
can ask for the File
but keep getting the wrong one/





James
if I get a D-Notice
I will PM you Direct,
other than that
this is in Public Press (LWonly)





©arista 10/7/17
All Rights Reserved.

No outside folk can re use this post
under UK Laws.

Without prior permission of the Admin
of this Fantastic Site.

Guardian, Please behave
I do spend £2 on your Hard Copy
so all your staff are Great.....................

[DemolitionRed]

If the investigation hasn't been exhausted then it needs to continue, regardless of cost. If Heath did commit these crimes, the least his victims deserve is closure.

[DemolitionRed]

Why would any outsider want to re-use your post Arista?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

If the investigation hasn't been exhausted then it needs to continue, regardless of cost. If Heath did commit these crimes, the least his victims deserve is closure.

How do you realistically and fairly convict someone unable to defend themselves?

As mentioned in a previous post the ‘accused’ may have a perfectly good/provable explanation for any so-called ‘allegations’ or ‘evidence’ against them that cannot be presented if they are dead. Even living defendants get falsely convicted so what chance do dead ones have.

I’m not saying he is either innocent or guilty, I have no idea, but he is undoubtedly at a considerable disadvantage in that he cannot possibly defend himself. This makes it a lot easier for certain people to ‘go to town’ with their spurious and malicious allegations. I don’t go in for hounding the dead.

Whilst I have sympathy for any genuine ‘victims’ I would hope they would take some satisfaction from the fact that he is now gone and can no longer hurt anyone else. They have raised a question mark over him that will never disappear and I think it should be left at that.