SIGN UP

Can You Believe Nigel Lawson Said This On National Tv?

Avatar Image
Hypognosis | 21:57 Sun 22nd Nov 2015 | News
58 Answers
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?


Answers

41 to 58 of 58rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Hypognosis. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Question Author
@Gness

I didn't know that happened to you and am sorry that this subject may have refreshed some unpleasant memories. It is a shame that you didn't get the satisfaction of a prosecution although it has to be said that, to get one, you have to go through an ordeal yourself.

While Savile revelations were in the news I was puzzled by why so many had failed to speak out and was, if anything, cross with them. As cases have racked up, I understand their reticence a lot more. Fear of not being believed, for one, having to re-live the experience for the other.

Enlightened by years of Police procedurals, we know that all that is required is to turn up and state the facts. They always add up. Perpetrators always get their facts wrong. You will win.

Of course dead people can't be prosecuted ! Lawson is stating the bleeding obvious here !

But that doesn't mean that the vile activities of people like Savile and Cyril Smith can't be exposed, otherwise how are we going to learn from previous mistakes ? Those perverts were protected by people in high places and its probably still happening today.
Hypo....to address your last question, all he is doing here is trying to protect his dead Tory friends.
Not clear what the definition of historic cases is. I'm unaware that the police spend time investigating future cases. If it means that the accused has died then maybe a different group with a different budget should check it ?
Cyril Smith wasn't a Tory.
Naomi ..., Wow...I never knew that ! How clever you are !
You're welcome.
OG, //If it means that the accused has died then maybe a different group with a different budget should check it ?//

That's probably a better idea.
Question Author
@mikey4444

//Of course dead people can't be prosecuted ! Lawson is stating the bleeding obvious here ! //

Once again, my apologies, to latecomers who haven't read any of the replies. Despite the lack of quotation marks to make it clear that my opening paragraph is me speaking, the way I phrased the question does trick the casual reader into thinking that the first words they read are from the person I have drawn attention to.

@O_G

Very witty point about future cases but the subject does not lend itself to humour. :(

So historical cases. 1970s. How old were MPs, typically, in the 70s? I guessed 40s as I think of young MPs as a new-ish trend. Cyril Smith is a perfect example of one who got away with it, thanks to their advancing years. More delaying tactics mean more get away unpunished.

By the way this is not an anti-Tory thread, it's an anti-whoever was involved thread, including those implicit in the cover-up.

They delayed some war widows' pensions so long that half the potential recipients had died of old age. As we know, the richest live longest.


Hypo...Cyril Smith didn't get away with it because he was told old to be prosecuted. The investigations into him were called off by senior Police officers and security forces, because if he were taken to Court, he would have brought down a lot of other people with him. To put it bluntly, he knew where the bodies were buried.

This interference in the due process was totally unacceptable and its my belief is that it maybe still going on now.

I recommend anybody who hasn't read the following book, to do so....it will make the hair stand up on the back your head ::

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10796249/Smile-for-the-Camera-The-Double-Life-of-Cyril-Smith-by-Simon-Danczuk-and-Matthew-Baker-review.html

But you are correct in what you say that historical child abuse isn't confined to the Tories....Smith himself was a Labour politician before he went over to the Liberals. Men from all Parties were involved. The guest list at the parties given at the Elm Guest House show a wide range of men, from lots of different backgrounds.

But unless we take heed of the mistakes of history, we are condemned to continue to repeat these mistakes for ever more.
An increasing problem is that many of the historic sex abuse cases now being investigated involve witnesses who are using 'memory recovery' techniques to recall events, these techniques are being found to be unreliable and even produce vivid but false 'memories'
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/nov/24/false-memories-abuse-convict-innocent
This makes investigation very difficult and time consuming.
Eddie...more difficult perhaps but not impossible.
Woof....I am not saying the police should believe or disbelieve without evidence.....if an allegation has been made they have to investigate and find the evidence if they can.....
Had I told after fifteen years there may have been photographs in his house.. but after he was dead....??..probably no evidence to show I was being truthful...but it happened.

Hypo....telling someone, when you are a child, and not being believed ....being punished for saying it......being scared....makes you keep quiet for a very long time....x

If Lawson has said...note the if please....that historic cases shouldn't be investigated.......then when is the cut off point?
You have to report within two years....ten years.....how many?

I know you are all discussing famous cases....mine of course isn't....x

Still wondering why he said it though....(if he did)....☺
// involve witnesses who are using 'memory recovery' techniques to recall events,//

Eddie I hadnt realised that - False Memory Syndrome can be reproduced experimentally in the lab - Raj Persaud did a prog about this and demonstrated it

witnesses were played a film clip including a short glimpse of a wibbly wobbly white van - and subsequently were quite happy to tell the questioner what it was doing before and after ....

I thought all the convictions in the US with enhanced memory reccovery had all now been acquitted

[ Max Clifford - a letter from one of his accusers was found in his bedside cupboard oo-er ! and Rolf Harris admitted the liaison but tried to show it wasnt unlawful - and does anyone remember Owen Oyston ? - an early ccasualty]
It wasn't humour, it was pointing out a lack of clarity. Not that I agree a reasonable amount of lightness when discussing any subject, should be barred.
Old-Geezer that very much depends on who decides to get 'offended' and where they stand in the AB hierarchy.
Question Author
@mikey4444
Re 08:35

Thanks for the book link (again). Sorry for a weak cop-out but I can barely keep pace with AB and social media as it is and have a dozen unread books in the pile, should life ever slow down (I know it will not but I will). I cannot think of anything more unappetising to read and I even feel sorry for anyone who is paid to review books, who has to read that one at their standard rate. Don't take that the wrong way; I'm sure it's a quality product.

@EDDIE51

//using 'memory recovery' techniques to recall events, these techniques are being found to be unreliable and even produce vivid but false 'memories' //

I feared as much, when I first heard of this. As the concept circulates in conversation, it gets edited down to just the two words, 'false memories' and thus undermines every other case, even down to how juries might handle a case (although they could get a roasting for deciding on the basis of any idea not presented in the courtroom).

@Gness

//Still wondering why he said it though....(if he did)....☺//

Money.

-----OP----

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?

...to which I should add "if you hadn't seen it for yourself?"

We hate bankers but it is accountants who govern our lives, through influencing everyone from the likes of Lawson to the Treasury and every aspect of the private sector. They know the cost of everything but (too frequently) the value of nothing.

You won't see the value of goodwill assessed on a spreadsheet.
Question Author
@Peter_Pedant

Thanks for your reply.

@Old_Geezer

Yes, you're right. Maybe it's just that I guess I would get slammed for inappropriate humour for choosing to do it on the wrong subject, so I wad only making the effort to fit in.

@Retrochic

AB has a hierarchy?? That can't be good. It's a discussion forum.


41 to 58 of 58rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3

Do you know the answer?

Can You Believe Nigel Lawson Said This On National Tv?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.