RCC: Act II wrote:There is always a margin of error. If the system ran on absolute certainty, you might as well not have a system.
"“If a saintly man can be branded a sex abuser, none of us is safe."
Is just a horrifying position given the history of covering up sex abuse by clergy that was enabled by the absurd idea that clergymen are per se saintly.
So if a some of them do it, they all must be doing it? If a saintly man can be branded a sex abuser, none of us is safe
If we won’t fight injustice wherever we see it, then we are not safe from suffering injustice ourselves. If a man’s reputation can be destroyed in an afternoon by a secret kangaroo court, then we too can one day be propelled into a pit of everlasting shame by the same process.
If it can happen to anyone, it can happen to you.
Accusations of long-ago sexual crime have become a sort of industry in this country. People are so horrified by them that they almost always believe them.
Because the crime is so foul, we stop thinking.
To their shame, police and prosecutors use our horror to get easy convictions, when they must know that their cases are weak. The less actual evidence they have, the more they stress the disgusting nature of the alleged crime. And they forget to remind us that it is alleged, not proved.
Equally shamefully, judges do not stop these trials and juries leave their brains at the door. They convict not because they are sure the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, but because they are angry and revolted.
He goes on about the way the Church of England essentially hung this guy out to dry and how he and others worked to get the case re-opened.
Fortunately, I found allies who felt the same. At first slowly and then with gathering strength and confidence, we assembled the evidence which showed that grave wrong had been done. The Church of England, whose senior figures are astonishingly unimpressive and tricky, tried to smear us with false claims that we had attacked the complainant. But they failed, and at last grudgingly agreed to review the case.
When the review told them that they had run an incompetent, miserable kangaroo court and that they had condemned a great man on evidence too weak to hang a hamster, they sat sulkily on that report for nearly ten weeks, until they were jeered into releasing it.
Even then, when it came out on Friday, a Church which supposedly believes in penitence was still wriggling like a basket of embarrassed eels. The distinguished and impartial lawyer who conducted the review, Lord Carlile QC, made it quite plain that no court would have found George Bell guilty on the evidence (indeed, the Crown Prosecution Service would not even have brought it to court).
That's telling considering, parts of the CPS
are some of the same folks who apparently fucked up so royally n earlier posts....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... udent.htmlhttps://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -7hdjtlv9zhttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4313763/w ... is-jailed/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12 ... es-review/
Then Skank Of America could start in...