MrSmith

It's a fatuous argument to run with this particular subject matter. My only interest is the wellbeing and recovery of the victims.

I didn't force you to make the statement that prompted my response and you didn't have to respond to my response. This is after all a discussion forum, not sure what you expect to happen when you express your opinion on it.

So just to bring closure, given the weight of evidence against Hall and his admissions do you believe he's guilty?

 

 

I don't have an opinion either way because I'm not privy to all the evidence.

Perhaps it's just you who's wrong.

 

How can I be wrong, I know what I think and I don't think what you and several other members think I think, therefor you have all formed the same incorrect conclusion and all created a memory of something I didn't say, and in doing so proved the point I made several pages ago.

 

What you have done is try to speculate on the sincerity of Hall's guilty plea and the possibility of his victims suffering from 'false memories', is that correct?

 

No, what I have done is demonstrate that you are wrong in your assertion that a guilty plea means the person must have committed the crime.

But then it's highly unusual for several people to share the same 'false' memory about something that happened to them.

 

No it isn't, as demonstrated by this topic, several of you all share the same false memory.

 

---------- Post added 21-06-2013 at 16:18 ----------

 

Given that you were offered a multiple choice you probably have a point that you didn't put much effort into disproving a crime.

 

Though your reply was sufficiently cryptic to cause a response which I now suspect is what you wanted.

 

And of course just in case there wasn't any doubt, your inference that as humans we all misunderstand things whist knowing the real damage caused by not believing victims of child sexual abuse gives it completion.

 

I was unsure as to whether your contributions were based on naivty, so I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. But you seem to be aware of which posts to avoid answering directly and when to give just enough.

I think your either trolling, or your motive for excusing sexually abusive behaviour is nefarious. Either way your boundaries are ****ed.

 

No idea what you are talking about, just to clarify, I haven't tried to defend anyone, therefor I haven't put any effort into defending anyone.

I've heard that Nick Griffin visited Syria recently.

 

Did this really happen, or did my stupid mind just imagine this stupid scenario?

 

I also heard this, so either we both have stupid minds and good imaginations or he actually went.

Private landlords supply accommodation which would otherwise be too expensive . And now, with the Fair Rents Act, they should be encouraged.

 

Private landlords supply accommodation which usually more expensive than buying.

 

Renting a home is now more expensive than buying – even though most would-be purchasers are unable to get on the property ladder.

 

According to new research buying a home has become £1,440 a year cheaper than renting.

Enough of a fact to get him (IMO a pathetically short) custodial sentence.

 

Do you put the same effort in to disproving crimes other than child sexual offences? I'm asking directly because on this as well as another thread you're saying things that could be misconstrued.

 

 

I haven't put any effort into trying to disprove a crime.

 

I accept that because people are all unique some will misinterpret what they see and what they ear, some will create memories of things they didn't see or ear which its quite normal for us humans.

But why would folks want to set up businesses in crap holes like Goldthorpe?

 

They wouldn't, hence the government might want to look into incentivising them through substantial tax brakes.

[mod hat on]

 

And in this case there is absolutely no relevance to this argument. Victims have accused someone and he has admitted committing the crimes against them in a court of law, so that pretty much makes it a fact that the crimes did happen and that the accused committed them.

 

Move on, stop excusing sexually abusive behaviour.

 

[/mod hat off]

 

So not definitely a fact then, which is what I've been saying and everyone else as been disagreeing with.

 

I have not excused sexually abusive behavior.

More likely deny an action over a period of time because of guilt. As well as creating you can also refuse or reject something which can be seen as abhorrent.

 

"Who me?" I would never do such a thing.

 

Yeah right.

 

That's also a possibility, its possible to believe with 100% certainty that you didn't do something that you actually did.

Since when has your childhood and associated memories have anything to do with the memories of a grown adult?

 

Since they are memories and I am adult.

 

Here's another example for you, recently we have been viewing properties, we have looked at several properties over several months, my memory of each house is different to my wife's memory of each house, she remembers thing that I don't and I remember things that she doesn't, when we discuss the house we often disagree on which room belong to which house despite both looking at the houses at the same time and in the same order. This is the problem with memory, it can easily combine two completely separate events into one coherent event.

 

---------- Post added 21-06-2013 at 10:11 ----------

 

MrSmith is a troll and a clown of the severest order.

 

Here he is arguing that while a woman remembers being abused at 9 years old, and while the abuser remembers doing it and has openly admitted it in court - in reality, it's all just a fantasy.

 

 

Complete fiction created in your mind, you might even believe what you have typed despite it being complete nonsense. More evidence that the mind can and does get facts and fiction mixed into one memory.

'False memory' is a controversial term in the field of therapy, but there is no evidence in the Stuart Hall case that this is applicable.

Its a proven fact and can easily be demonstrated, it only takes few seconds to create a memory of something you didn't see, read or do.

Its very unlikely that a memory from decades ago can be proved to be accurate or inaccurate, what evidence would you expect to find? I have memories from my child hood that are apparently inaccurate, I remember doing things that I am told I didn't do, there are also apparently things that I did that I have no memory of doing.

 

From reading his contributions to this thread, it seems MrSmith is unwilling to accept that it took place, or how damaging it can be for victims not to be believed, even with Hall's guilty plea etc....

 

Again this demonstrates how you personal prejudice is clouding your views and leading you to an incorrect conclusion.

Where would they get the capital from?

 

Should they reduce the amount they pay in grants to councils? - That would make some money available ... though being politicians, they'd probably spend it on something else.

 

The government are currently borrowing money, some of that money is given in the form of housing benefits to landlords, the tax payer pays for something but gets sod all in return, so diverting that borrowed money to house building would be a better use of it.

 

The housing benefits some people get is enough to buy an house, so you get builders to build houses and the government buys them with the money they are dishing out in housing benefits.

There is no housing crisis, there are approximately 700K vacant properties in the UK. What they mean is that there is a shortage of affordable housing

 

In areas that people need to or want to live, many of the empty properties are in areas of high unemployment, the only way to bring them into use is increase employment in those areas or move long term unemployed from other areas into them.

M'lord, if I can draw the juries attention to exhibit B75, an electronic document authored by MrSmith at 21:07 today, so less than two hours old.

 

In it MrSmith makes reference explicitly to his belief that Hall may be innocent.

Yet he now claims that he has not made excuses for guilty pedophiles.

 

I would contend that not only has he made excuses for guilty pedophiles he has done so repeatedly, not only in this case but others in such a manner that it is actually worrying and a reasonable person may draw inferences on his character and inclinations as a result of this pattern.

 

Again your problem is how you have interpreted the information, this is the very problem I have been highlighting, you are reading my posts and then your emotions, bias and prejudices are inserting information that isn't on the page, which leads you to the wrong conclusion.

 

---------- Post added 21-06-2013 at 07:16 ----------

 

What point???????

Just because you say the word "point" over and over,does not mean you have made a point!

 

Its very apparent you are incapable of understanding the point, we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

---------- Post added 21-06-2013 at 07:17 ----------

 

Making the assertion that a poster may suffer from memory recollection failure is a bit rich coming from two profiles which occasionally back-up their own assertions (talking to themselves)..No memory loss there when you have each other to remind yourselves.

 

I think you're a bit of a nutter who bandies around with words to feed your own ego. Take the internet away and you'd be even more dangerous.

 

Anyway..off for a shower, feel a bit grubby.

 

:loopy::loopy:

If 'Right to Buy' Council houses was so wrong, why has this policy continued under both Labour and Conservatives? And why won't the Coalition build more houses, are they frightened of devaluing the expensive property?

 

Right to buy could have been better if covenants had been put onto the properties, so they could only be sold to first time buyers on low incomes and must be owner occupied, with the sale at 75% market value.

You proved nothing.

And the only person that thinks you did,is you!

The only thing you have shown on this thread,is excuses for guilty paedophiles!

Your mindset is quite scary TBH,and I do hope you are just trolling.

 

This post proves the point I have made, you have created a false memory of something I haven’t typed, it will be based on your own prejudices and bias. This is the problem when relying on memory to recall events of the past, it’s not always an accurate recollection, your error is just over a couple of hours just imagine the potential error when trying to recall events from decades ago.

To be fair andy even a robot would exercise it's logical mind to determine Hall was guilty, it's only MrSmith's emotional one that's preventing him doing the same for reasons thus far unknown.

 

That would require me to ignore the alternative possibilities, but because I'm not driven by emotion I can take them into consideration.

What "bias" is it that you keep referring to? An empathy with the victims of abuse? A desire to see justice done? (which wasn't in this case as the sentance was pathetically lenient) What "bias" do I have that you feel you don't?

 

An emotional bias is a distortion in cognition and decision making due to emotional factors.

Which gives the lie to your claim a few posts ago.

 

You are deliberately trying to excuse this child molestor and you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

No I am not, that’s just an emotional responds based on your bias, you are clearly to emotional to discuss this topic with any degree of reason.

Ok for the sake of peace let's assume the following:

 

a) The criminal justice system is imperfect

b) There have been instances of innocent people pleading guilty

c) Hall isn't one of them.

 

c)Hall may or may not be one of them.

It's difficult to accept this position because it is so unlikely. In fact it smacks of someone who is desperately clutching at straws.

I’m not clutching at straws; all I have done is presented an alternative possibility to the assertion that because Hall pleaded guilty he must have committed the crimes he is accused of.

Makes you wonder why an innocent person would plead guilty to avoid that possibility.

 

No it doesn't, I have already provided you with the reason why some innocent people plead guilty, but sadly you can’t accept them because of your obvious emotional bias.

 

---------- Post added 20-06-2013 at 20:46 ----------

 

You have very clearly suggested they may be lying, otherwise why has your whole tack been that we don't know the guy is guilty of the offences he pled guilty to? Your entire argument hinges on saying to the victims "you may or may not be lying, we'll simply never know. He may or may not be guilty, we'll simply never know."

 

No it isn't, that's just your interpretation of the words I have typed, and your interpretation is based on your emotional bias.

No, you haven't.

 

If you have any examples of alledged pedophiles accused by multiple independant witnesses in our country who pled guilty to the offences and were subsequently found to be entirely innocent then you will have proved your point.

 

Unless you can do that then you're defending this nonce and slandering his victims by suggesting they may be lying despite his admission to the crimes he committed against them.

 

I haven't suggested they are lying, that just in your head, you are letting your emotions run riot with common sense.

When was the last time someone was wrongly locked up for being a paedophile in the U.k?

Links would be great,but just be careful what you put into Google,we wouldn't want the Police wrongly knocking on your door,would we?

You do have a great ability to dig a hole,and not know when to stop.

 

I'm not the one in the hole, I proved my point a while back.

LOL.

 

No, it's common sense that multiple corroborating witnesses and a confession carry a far greater weight of evidence for this case than some randomly googled cases in a completely different legal system.

 

I imagine it's also common sense every time an innocent person is charged and convicted based of corroborating evidence from multiple witnesses, even though several years later it is proved that they were infact inocent allalong.

 

Makes you wonder how they got it wrong so many times when its just commen sense.