Can You Believe Nigel Lawson Said This On National Tv?

[Hypognosis]

Historical sex abuse allegations:
If prosecutions ever come about, they have to happen while the perpetrators are still alive and the politicians in the seventies were mostly over 40.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/tory-peer-says-police-should-save-money-by-stopping-historia#.sqwz8L7za

And, if the accusations turn out to be false then the accusers need to taken to task.

The question is: would you have believed he could have suggested putting public finances ahead of the law of the land and the forces of justice?

[bednobs]

that's wherr you and he agree gness - he and you think it's futile (and in his case a waste of precious resources) to prosecute or investigate historical allegations

[Psybbo]

But what about the facilitators and those who turned a blind eye as in the Savile cases?

[gness]

Thanks, FF......I can only hear him saying that the money spent on chasing up unsubstantiated accusations of sex abuse should be put where the need is.... and he doesn't say that's in investigating historical sex abuse.

I don't think it's futile at all, Bednobs.....if someone has been abused and wants it investigated so be it....however "historical".

[gness]

Zacs @ 22.07...neither can I....am I missing it?

Making me wonder a bit.

[Mamyalynne]

I think something has definitely been lost in translation here and that makes this very difficult to comment on.

[bednobs]

i cn't see why you think i'm being disrepectful - we seem to all (you, me and nige) be agreeing

[woofgang]

I mean this politely. I think part of the problem is the same as the NHS. By this I mean that the function of the police force has broadened and its objectives have become unclear...or possibly the public perceptions of the function and objectives of the police force have become unclear.
If the objective is to secure convictions and punish offenders, then he may have a point about the pursuit of dead people. That’s terrible for the victims, but like every other service, the police do not have an unlimited budget.

I absolutely agree about people who make false accusations.

I don’t think the situation has been helped by the way things have panned out in public whatever the reasons for it are.

[Zacs-Master]

I think people are confusing 'historical' with 'dead'.

[Zacs-Master]

He hasn't made any point about the pursuit of dead people,woof.

[gness]

I can only think you are right about confusing dead and historical, Zacs....

The time between the abuse and the accusation should not be a consideration....more difficult to investigate I agree....but never a reason not to investigate.....x

[Zacs-Master]

Well Gness, we won't get a more valuable opinion than that. X

[Peter Pedant]

apart from the fact that Jimmy Savile is dead
we all agree on that
and a huge amount of money has been spent on it ( and spent better elsewhere IMO )

and also trying convicts in prison ( Clifford , Harris ) on further charges I regard as a waste of money

and I have no difficulty in suggesting it could be better spent elsewhere


[ even in the sixties my father commented that he wouldnt like to give sworn evidence on anything that happened in a POW camp 'beyond reasonable doubt' as it was well known even then human memory was fallible - that is why we have paper medical notes as I keep on reminding my co-workers ]

[gness]

Woof...police deal with perpetrators and victims.....

Honestly....sometimes you just need to be listened to and believed...if that means a police investigation for some then it has to be.

[Peter Pedant]

sorry G I do not agree that a police investigation is there to listen to a victim as an end in itself

it should be investigating a crime/allegation with a view to bringing/recommending a prosecution

[ Police helping victims come to terms with their abuse - nope I dont think so, not where I live ]

[Peter Pedant]

O here's the ref that says the govt is spending ten mill on war crimes

\ complete waste of money as far as I can see - if you were 20 y in 1945 ( hardly a planner or architect ) then you would be 92 now

[gness]

I'm going to say one last thing on this before going to bed....and a bit off topic but may help to explain my posts.....

It must be easy to think clearly and rationally about if and when things should be investigated if you have never been subjected to sexual abuse....that there are other things more important to put resources into...
And perhaps easy to imagine that there was the abuse.....it stops and you get on with life.....I don't mean that unkindly.....I don't know how I would think if circumstances were different.

For some of us there are constant reminders....silly things.....my abuser was a photographer with his own dark room....I hate, hate having my photograph taken now....
Without going into detail he made use of newspaper on the floor and to clean up......I was in my thirties before I could have a newspaper delivered because I didn't want to see it lying on the hall floor....how daft is that.....☺

I'm fine now.....but the pictures are still in my head.....x

[Peter Pedant]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/war-crimes-trial-may-follow-ruling-the-libel-action-by-anton-gecas-against-a-tv-company-that-1534016.html

oops - £10m since 1994 is £210m

[gness]

Peter...I didn't say it was an end in itself...if you are going to investigate a crime you have to listen to the victim....x

[woofgang]

As I see it though, it is not the job of police to believe or to disbelieve but to establish evidence and facts...to investigate allegations.
I truly cannot imagine your pain Gness....I honestly don’t know what the answer is for victims whose tormentors are dead.....I do think though that as a general principle its dangerous to say that its a part of the police’s role to believe allegations without evidence.

[Hypognosis]

Thank you to all of you for your replies. Remiss of me to post and then fail to curate the thread but my last few attempts all fizzled out on page 1.

Prosecute before they snuff it was me. Yes, I actually use quotation marks when I want to roast things people said and there weren't any, so that wasn't NL's words. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Jackdaw even pointed out that it was a statement of the obvious. Using markers //blah// would have made it more obvious he was quoting my OP words back at me.

Anyway, the general public wants sex abuse and a purported murder(s) investigated but its austerity this, priorities that, delay, delay (conjugate the verb to Chilcot) and, if he gets his way the perpetrators will get the opportunity to keel over before the court attendances give them a coronary.

They tricky part is that it was the job of the party whips office to know every MP's foibles, peccadillos and blackmail pressure points. Who knew what and did not act is who some really want to see taken to task. The abusers are mostly obscure names only constituencies will recall; the whips often become cabinet-level famous. And what do whips ever hide from a Prime Minister?

I don't want that aspect to trivialise any of the actual crimes but it was that hush-hush atmosphere (reputation of the "establishment" paramount) which facilitated the protection of the likes of Savile.

If whips ever used "dirty secrets" to coerce votes at crucial divisions then the laws of this land have, at times, been shaped by this alleged abuse.

So let us, please, change it from 'alleged' to 'proven', or 'disproven', once and for all.