• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Why witch-hunts are never good..


Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
19,084
We have due process for a number of reasons, chief of which is to prevent innocent people from being subjected to trial by innuendo. In recent days we have seen something approaching a level of hysteria, mostly media-driven, in relation to peds under the bed. It reached a nadir this morning with Philip Schofield's stunt with the internet list of people who could be entirely innocent.

I posted this earlier about the Schofield stunt:

The blogs that named these people are largely repeating the claims of maybe two blogs - by dint of sheer repetition the less discerning members of the public then believe there must be something to these claims about these names, as they're 'all over the internet'. And maybe, in a couple of cases, they are right...

But what if they're wrong???
How many innocent men need to be smeared and put through hell (plus be left with the mud that sticks)because a couple of cranks on the internet listed their names on the basis of what they heard from someone who knew someone who heard something? The problem with situations like this is that there will often be a couple of names which turn out to be correct (and I know full well that at least one of the names mentioned is indeed correct), and that therefore leads people to say 'well, he was right about such and such, he must be correct about the rest too'. Therefore you actually now have reputedly sane people quoting David Icke's blog as an authority!!! But this same man (who might be right about at least one name, and then only because he got the name from others' work and incorporated it into his web of crazy) also claims that the entire royal family are child-killing, shape-shifting lizards, and he pretty much includes with them virtually any senior politician of the last 20 years. He's a paranoid fantasist with a severe mental-health issue (I'm sorry, but it's true), yet on the basis of what's in his blog, as well as others, people are actually feeling confident enough to name several people as paedophiles....

Have we learned anything from the Cleveland scandal? Or, for that matter, from Salem???? So yes, Cameron was entirely correct to say what he did in response to the idiotic Schofield...
But now we have The Guardian naming the Tory grandee concerned in the Newsnight investigation last week, saying that their investigations have revealed 'troubling discrepancies' between the evidence given to the North Wales Inquiry in the 1990s and what is being said now. Plus the evidence of man who was abused at the same care home saying that he believes the man named is a victim of mistaken identity.

Now I'm not commenting on whether the new evidence is sufficient to prove innocence beyond doubt, but it does show that internet lynch-mobs are not the way to go about uncovering this kind of alleged abuse or any other kind of alleged criminality. Perhaps there is still something to it all, or perhaps it is a ball of nothing. The point being that I am not in a position to decide, and nor is anyone else here, nor anywhere on the internet. Witch-hunts might catch a guilty party or two in the trawl, but not before condemning or smearing several innocent people too...

'Mistaken identity' led to top Tory abuse claim | UK news | The Guardian
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,093
Perhaps there is still something to it all, or perhaps it is a ball of nothing. The point being that I am not in a position to decide, and nor is anyone else here, nor anywhere on the internet. Witch-hunts might catch a guilty party or two in the trawl, but not before condemning or smearing several innocent people too...
You won't get any argument from me, but I've always taken that position regardless of who was being hunted.

Odd that you should bother posting this on mob central though.
 

onlyasking

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,735
We have due process for a number of reasons, chief of which is to prevent innocent people from being subjected to trial by innuendo. In recent days we have seen something approaching a level of hysteria, mostly media-driven, in relation to peds under the bed. It reached a nadir this morning with Philip Schofield's stunt with the internet list of people who could be entirely innocent.

I posted this earlier about the Schofield stunt:



But now we have The Guardian naming the Tory grandee concerned in the Newsnight investigation last week, saying that their investigations have revealed 'troubling discrepancies' between the evidence given to the North Wales Inquiry in the 1990s and what is being said now. Plus the evidence of man who was abused at the same care home saying that he believes the man named is a victim of mistaken identity.

Now I'm not commenting on whether the new evidence is sufficient to prove innocence beyond doubt, but it does show that internet lynch-mobs are not the way to go about uncovering this kind of alleged abuse or any other kind of alleged criminality. Perhaps there is still something to it all, or perhaps it is a ball of nothing. The point being that I am not in a position to decide, and nor is anyone else here, nor anywhere on the internet. Witch-hunts might catch a guilty party or two in the trawl, but not before condemning or smearing several innocent people too...

'Mistaken identity' led to top Tory abuse claim | UK news | The Guardian
One person's witch-hunt is another person's crusade.
 

BlackLion

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
4,856
witch hunts are good unless your a witch. :(
 

darkhorse

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
18,210
We have due process for a number of reasons, chief of which is to prevent innocent people from being subjected to trial by innuendo. In recent days we have seen something approaching a level of hysteria, mostly media-driven, in relation to peds under the bed. It reached a nadir this morning with Philip Schofield's stunt with the internet list of people who could be entirely innocent.

I posted this earlier about the Schofield stunt:



But now we have The Guardian naming the Tory grandee concerned in the Newsnight investigation last week, saying that their investigations have revealed 'troubling discrepancies' between the evidence given to the North Wales Inquiry in the 1990s and what is being said now. Plus the evidence of man who was abused at the same care home saying that he believes the man named is a victim of mistaken identity.

Now I'm not commenting on whether the new evidence is sufficient to prove innocence beyond doubt, but it does show that internet lynch-mobs are not the way to go about uncovering this kind of alleged abuse or any other kind of alleged criminality. Perhaps there is still something to it all, or perhaps it is a ball of nothing. The point being that I am not in a position to decide, and nor is anyone else here, nor anywhere on the internet. Witch-hunts might catch a guilty party or two in the trawl, but not before condemning or smearing several innocent people too...

'Mistaken identity' led to top Tory abuse claim | UK news | The Guardian
Does your suggestion extend to Sean Quinn, Sean Fitzpatrick, Bertie Ahearne, etc
Or to whom do you extend due process to?
 

oggy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
8,958
AS a FF supporter I know what its like to be on the receiving end of a witch hunt. But life has a way of balancing itself out and as an oldie I know that for certain based on experience. Between scapegoating and witch hunting the internet has become the best invention ever for the purveyors of such evil
 

BlackLion

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
4,856
AS a FF supporter I know what its like to be on the receiving end of a witch hunt. But life has a way of balancing itself out and as an oldie I know that for certain based on experience. Between scapegoating and witch hunting the internet has become the best invention ever for the purveyors of such evil

LOL Jesus SF try to be populist like FF and FF play the victims like SF. ahhhhh the world is ending.
 

councilkid

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
1,332
Personally, I think Chris Morris really nailed it in the "paedogeddon" episode of Brass Eye.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
19,084
Does your suggestion extend to Sean Quinn, Sean Fitzpatrick, Bertie Ahearne, etc
Or to whom do you extend due process to?
Yes, I'm all in favour of due process ocurring in all cases. It relies on evidence. There is a lot of evidence in the cases of some politicians and bankers to establish that a court case is appropriate in relation to other kinds of wrongdoing, but if someone were to accuse them of predatory paedophilia without any evidence beyond innuendo or sheer force of repetition, well then I'd defend them to the hilt.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
19,084
AS a FF supporter I know what its like to be on the receiving end of a witch hunt. But life has a way of balancing itself out and as an oldie I know that for certain based on experience. Between scapegoating and witch hunting the internet has become the best invention ever for the purveyors of such evil
I don't remember anyone accusing you of a crime?
 

darkhorse

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
18,210
Yes, I'm all in favour of due process ocurring in all cases. It relies on evidence. There is a lot of evidence in the cases of some politicians and bankers to establish that a court case is appropriate in relation to other kinds of wrongdoing, but if someone were to accuse them of predatory paedophilia without any evidence beyond innuendo or sheer force of repetition, well then I'd defend them to the hilt.

So you wouldnt defend them if they were accused of financial wrong doing.
Your commitement to 'due process' is noted
 

sethjem7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
6,489
Yes, I'm all in favour of due process ocurring in all cases. It relies on evidence. There is a lot of evidence in the cases of some politicians and bankers to establish that a court case is appropriate in relation to other kinds of wrongdoing, but if someone were to accuse them of predatory paedophilia without any evidence beyond innuendo or sheer force of repetition, well then I'd defend them to the hilt.
I thought the ambush of Cameron on TV today was grossly distasteful and did nothing more than create some hysteria and a TV moment, that, could put people's names and reputations in jeopardy, solely based on internet speculation.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
19,084
So you wouldnt defend them if they were accused of financial wrong doing.
Your commitement to 'due process' is noted
You seem to have a problem with comprehension or a tendency towards logical non-sequiturs.

Let's take this slowly, one step at a time...

If a person is being blackguarded all over the internet for financial wrongdoing or any other criminal or moral failing with very little or zero evidence to back it up, I would defend them, or at least urge caution. That includes anyone from Bertie Ahern to Nelson Mandela.

If, however, there is a ton of substantial evidence all pointing in the one direction, then it would be safe to conclude that there is sufficient cause for expressing an opinion about that person's behaviour.

In the case of the people listed as alleged paedophiles, the former is clearly the case. In the case of the alleged financial wrongdoings of the people you list, the latter is clearly the case.

I can draw pictures and diagrams for you if it's too much to process?...
 

darkhorse

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
18,210
You seem to have a problem with comprehension or a tendency towards logical non-sequiturs.

Let's take this slowly, one step at a time...

If a person is being blackguarded all over the internet for financial wrongdoing or any other criminal or moral failing with very little or zero evidence to back it up, I would defend them, or at least urge caution. That includes anyone from Bertie Ahern to Nelson Mandela.

If, however, there is a ton of substantial evidence all pointing in the one direction, then it would be safe to conclude that there is sufficient cause for expressing an opinion about that person's behaviour.

In the case of the people listed as alleged paedophiles, the former is clearly the case. In the case of the alleged financial wrongdoings of the people you list, the latter is clearly the case.

I can draw pictures and diagrams for you if it's too much to process?...
Crystal clear - thanks for that
So if there is a 'ton of evidence' of paedophilic wrong doing then you will call for due process
But if there is a 'ton of evidence' of financial wrong doing you will hang them from the lampposts
Typical populist double think
 
Top