On 10/6/2017 at 7:42 PM, aright said:

I've often wondered about the entomological  derivation of TeddyBoys.

It's the Teddy Bares that worries me

On ‎06‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:55 AM, webfact said:

"No inference of guilt should be drawn by the decision to interview under caution...

Uh, huh. Yet the police saw fit to spend God knows how much taxpayers' money on an investigation into the 'alleged' activities of a man long dead, hence neither able to defend himself, nor to be charged.

12 minutes ago, Jonmarleesco said:

Uh, huh. Yet the police saw fit to spend God knows how much taxpayers' money on an investigation into the 'alleged' activities of a man long dead, hence neither able to defend himself, nor to be charged.

 

It's an attempt to get closure. Not least for the alleged victims, most of whom will still be alive. If you read the news, you will be aware of the fact that plenty of prominent people are defending him quite vociferously. You will also be aware of the fact that, in these alleged high profile paedophile rings, the alleged victims made many complaints to care workers and the police at the time of the alleged assaults, and were routinely ignored or warned away.

It's an attempt to get compensation, nothing more.

6 minutes ago, lungbing said:

It's an attempt to get compensation, nothing more.

 

Quite a few of the confirmed victims (North Wales, Leicestershire, Jersey, etc care homes) of paedophile abuse have committed suicide or died of substance abuse. Compo isn't going to help them, is it? Most of the ones still alive have had their lives ruined. Do you know anything about the damage that child sexual abuse does to the victims?

2 hours ago, lungbing said:

It's an attempt to get compensation, nothing more.

The usual knee jerk reaction from those ignorant about child abuse and the damage it does

On 10/6/2017 at 9:08 AM, bert bloggs said:

that ar-sehole Heath who led us into the "common market" knowing full well that it was going to become what it is today

Clearly he was quite farsighted in any case.

On 10/6/2017 at 11:04 PM, balo said:

He never married and hanged around with gay boys . It's a fact .

So of course its possible he abused young boys. 

 

As (I presume) you have been married and hung around with straight boys, can we also infer that you have possibly abused young girls?

19 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

can we also infer that you have possibly abused young girls?

No but I'm not defending a paedo , I feel for the victims .  

 

4 hours ago, balo said:

No but I'm not defending a paedo , I feel for the victims .  

 

I merely mimiced the exact same ludicrous and hugely offensive leap of failed logic that you posited. If it applies to homosexuals, surely the opposite must apply to heterosexuals?

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

merely mimiced the exact same ludicrous and hugely offensive leap of failed logic that you posited. If it applies to homosexuals, surely the opposite must apply to heterosexuals?

To me it sounds like you are defending mr. Heath.

I love gay people but not people in power abusing small kids. 

 

On ‎06‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 9:08 AM, bert bloggs said:

While i have no love for that ar-sehole Heath who led us into the "common market" knowing full well that it was going to become what it is today , not just a trading partnershio ,i am sick of these people who start on about how they were abused by people who are long dead ,SAY IT WHEN THEY ARE ALIVE/ then we can get to the truth .

They did and your corrupt police did nothing about it.

17 minutes ago, balo said:

To me it sounds like you are defending mr. Heath.

I love gay people but not people in power abusing small kids. 

 

Nothing of the sort - it is me pointing out how deeply offensive your A+B probably = Z hypothesis. 

It's not a hypothesis , it has been well documented he was a paedo. One of many politicians in power, 

 

 

Edited October 10, 20178 yr by balo

4 minutes ago, balo said:

It's not a hypothesis , it has been well documented he was a paedo. One of many politicians in power, 

But what you wrote was this:

 

"He never married and hanged around with gay boys . It's a fact .

So of course its possible he abused young boys."

 

Nobody is denying the first line - but the second line implies that the first means the second is more likely. I have tried to explain to you that this is as rational as suggesting that being married and having straight friends meant one tended towards abusing young girls. Of course, that is a ludicrous suggestion to any rational person but it is no different to what you wrote. 

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Nobody is denying the first line - but the second line implies that the first means the second is more likely.

 

I said " it's possible he abused young boys."   

Actually I was being kind since he is a dead man and can not defend himself. 

 

In this thread we discuss Heath , not all the gay men .

 

 

  

Edited October 10, 20178 yr by balo

4 minutes ago, balo said:

 

I said " it's possible he abused young boys."   

Actually I was being kind since he is a dead man and can not defend himself. 

 

In this thread we discuss Heath , not all the gay men .

 

If English is not your first language, I can accept that - but you should understand that your inclusion of the word 'So' at the start of that sentence implied that the latter was a direct result of the former. 

So I see