quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:

I do like your way of thinking on that one but the evidence is overwhelming against her - its on her phone FFS so the police are probably hoping everyone will come forward now - one fell swoop (if thats the expression)

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:

quote:

Originally posted by tupps:
I don't know if I dare read this thread.

PMSL
It's a cunning trap Tupps

Actually it's all been quite civilised, with the exception of Ennis's arseflakes

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

It’s not as simple as that though.
In the case of Vanessa George, and indeed any suspected paedophile, there is huge potential for unidentified victims. By naming her at this stage parents whose kids attended little teds can contact the police and attempt to find out if their child has fallen victim, whereas if she had been given anonymity (and potentially acquitted) the parents of all those kids (who were in her care) are left completely unaware.
It's a choice between the ‘rights’ of the defendant’s family and the 'rights' of the family whose child was in her care and potentially fell victim.

whats wrong with naming her AFTER she has been convicted?, and THEN the parents of other possible victims could come forward, and she could then be charged with further offences, rather that than some inocent person getting wrongly accused and having their life destroyed, because if she IS guilty she aint going anywhere and if she isnt, her life hasnt been destroyed for NO reason,

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:

quote:

Originally posted by tupps:
I don't know if I dare read this thread.

PMSL
It's a cunning trap Tupps

Actually it's all been quite civilised, with the exception of Ennis's arseflakes

Yeah Tupps, this one is way more civilised, I think the flaming torch brigade have fallen asleep due to ethanol fumes

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

It’s not as simple as that though.
In the case of Vanessa George, and indeed any suspected paedophile, there is huge potential for unidentified victims. By naming her at this stage parents whose kids attended little teds can contact the police and attempt to find out if their child has fallen victim, whereas if she had been given anonymity (and potentially acquitted) the parents of all those kids (who were in her care) are left completely unaware.
It's a choice between the ‘rights’ of the defendant’s family and the 'rights' of the family whose child was in her care and potentially fell victim.

whats wrong with naming her AFTER she has been convicted?, and THEN the parents of other possible victims could come forward, and she could then be charged with further offences, rather that than some inocent person getting wrongly accused and having their life destroyed, because if she IS guilty she aint going anywhere and if she isnt, her life hasnt been destroyed for NO reason,

She could be acquitted, and that would leave the parents of potential victims (who would have come forward) completely unaware. It’s better to identify as many victims as possible before she is put on trial in order to secure a conviction.

As for CRB checks etc, other jobs was just one of many examples (and incidentally Ian Huntley was CRB checked using a false name) - it simply isn’t possible for the police to trace every child she has had contact with, and if there is a single child out there who has been alone in her care then that child’s parents have a right to know the allegations which have been made against her.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:

quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:

I do like your way of thinking on that one but the evidence is overwhelming against her - its on her phone FFS so the police are probably hoping everyone will come forward now - one fell swoop (if thats the expression)

i do hate to throw a spanner in the works but because its on her phone (was it her phone or did someone say it was?) it doesnt mean she put it there, in fact dont the police send pictures and videos to peoples phones in shopping centres nowdays to warn of shoplifters and such like, i know cinemas have recently started doing the same thing with upcoming movie trailers, its not IMPOSSIBLE for someone with a massive grudge to do a little photoshopping and upload the pics to her phone, the police certainly didnt have the time to forensicly find out before they released the info they did.


(ps i'm not saying she didnt do it, just that it is possible that she didnt)

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:
Yes Cologne, her kids are being wilfully forgotten in all of this. I did say earlier, it smacks to me of some kids being more equal than others

OHG, I agree. IF convicted then name and shame all day long, I'm sure there is no legal reason why, even serving a prison sentence she couldn't be taken back to court and have a sentence added if more cases came to light after the initial trial and sentences?

Any legal bods or clever peeps about that could clarify that?

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
well i'm a foster carer so i guess i dont care about kids either and more importantly so far today i've also been a left wing do gooder and a paedo lover because i though a fair trial and conviction was quite important.

I wish I could have seen you face when you were called a lefty, hahahah

quote:

I wonder, and I'm genuinely not being snooty or sneering or having a patronising attitude here-that those of us who have had to go through some procedures (CRBs, training etc) realise the importance of collecting strong evidence and presenting a strong case a bit more?

I know that makes me sound like a right git, I don't mean to...but I'm just thinking back to child protection issues, you can't go off half cocked and stuff procedure up before it's even started.

quote:

Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:

quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:

I do like your way of thinking on that one but the evidence is overwhelming against her - its on her phone FFS so the police are probably hoping everyone will come forward now - one fell swoop (if thats the expression)

i do hate to throw a spanner in the works but because its on her phone (was it her phone or did someone say it was?) it doesnt mean she put it there, in fact dont the police send pictures and videos to peoples phones in shopping centres nowdays to warn of shoplifters and such like, i know cinemas have recently started doing the same thing with upcoming movie trailers, its not IMPOSSIBLE for someone with a massive grudge to do a little photoshopping and upload the pics to her phone, the police certainly didnt have the time to forensicly find out before they released the info they did.


(ps i'm not saying she didnt do it, just that it is possible that she didnt)

no she was on her phone (allegedly) abusing the children

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:
100% behind you Lecs an Ennis and before anyone jumps on th e not caring bandwagon Lecs is a TA and Im a T.

i am in social care working with peeps with learning disabilities and hoping to get funding to train as one of those evil and uncaring social workers in the near future...Awaiting flaming pitchfork up the arse

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:

quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:

I do like your way of thinking on that one but the evidence is overwhelming against her - its on her phone FFS so the police are probably hoping everyone will come forward now - one fell swoop (if thats the expression)

i do hate to throw a spanner in the works but because its on her phone (was it her phone or did someone say it was?) it doesnt mean she put it there, in fact dont the police send pictures and videos to peoples phones in shopping centres nowdays to warn of shoplifters and such like, i know cinemas have recently started doing the same thing with upcoming movie trailers, its not IMPOSSIBLE for someone with a massive grudge to do a little photoshopping and upload the pics to her phone, the police certainly didnt have the time to forensicly find out before they released the info they did.


(ps i'm not saying she didnt do it, just that it is possible that she didnt)

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
Tupps I have just sent you a pic of Clarences arse... you scarey paedo beastilality person!

quote:

Originally posted by Mazzystar:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:
100% behind you Lecs an Ennis and before anyone jumps on th e not caring bandwagon Lecs is a TA and Im a T.

i am in social care working with peeps with learning disabilities and hoping to get funding to train as one of those evil and uncaring social workers in the near future...Awaiting flaming pitchfork up the arse

I'm an inclusion manager!The pitchfork is well and truly shoved up my arse!

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:
Yes Cologne, her kids are being wilfully forgotten in all of this. I did say earlier, it smacks to me of some kids being more equal than others

OHG, I agree. IF convicted then name and shame all day long, I'm sure there is no legal reason why, even serving a prison sentence she couldn't be taken back to court and have a sentence added if more cases came to light after the initial trial and sentences?

Any legal bods or clever peeps about that could clarify that?

What happens to her kids privacy once she is ‘named and shamed all day long’, are you only expressly concerned for their safety so long as the formalities remain uncompleted?

quote:

Originally posted by Mazzystar:
I'm an inclusion manager!The pitchfork is well and truly shoved up my arse!

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:
What happens to her kids privacy once she is ‘named and shamed all day long’, are you only expressly concerned for their safety so long as the formalities remain uncompleted?

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:

quote:

Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:

quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:

I do like your way of thinking on that one but the evidence is overwhelming against her - its on her phone FFS so the police are probably hoping everyone will come forward now - one fell swoop (if thats the expression)

i do hate to throw a spanner in the works but because its on her phone (was it her phone or did someone say it was?) it doesnt mean she put it there, in fact dont the police send pictures and videos to peoples phones in shopping centres nowdays to warn of shoplifters and such like, i know cinemas have recently started doing the same thing with upcoming movie trailers, its not IMPOSSIBLE for someone with a massive grudge to do a little photoshopping and upload the pics to her phone, the police certainly didnt have the time to forensicly find out before they released the info they did.


(ps i'm not saying she didnt do it, just that it is possible that she didnt)

no she was on her phone (allegedly) abusing the children

but we dont know that as we have no proof and as i say unless she was actualy caught in the act there is still the photoshop issue, that would require a forensic examination of the photos.

as i say i do think she did it i'm just playing devils advocate here to try to raise a few questions that the police / media naming of her havent covered.

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by Mazzystar:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by Lady P:
100% behind you Lecs an Ennis and before anyone jumps on th e not caring bandwagon Lecs is a TA and Im a T.

i am in social care working with peeps with learning disabilities and hoping to get funding to train as one of those evil and uncaring social workers in the near future...Awaiting flaming pitchfork up the arse

I'm an inclusion manager!The pitchfork is well and truly shoved up my arse!

this is the issue though innit! We are so busy rodgering each other with flaming pitchforks, that we forget to protect the peeps in our care

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:

quote:

Originally posted by Mazzystar:
I'm an inclusion manager!The pitchfork is well and truly shoved up my arse!

Yeah but that's because of your self confessed sick Tottingham love proclivities

Only joking hun

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:
What happens to her kids privacy once she is ‘named and shamed all day long’, are you only expressly concerned for their safety so long as the formalities remain uncompleted?

I am concerned for their privacy before, during and after a trial. I am concerned about their well being before, during and after a trial.

But I am rational enough to know that IF found guilty in a court of law their mother MUST be named, for the wider good. It is sad that her kids will suffer for that, I don't want that, but I know it will happen...

It's a shitty situation where her innocent kids will suffer if she's found guilty (well they already are, but I digress)...no one wants that...BUT naming her then would be for the greater good.

*waits to be likened to some obscure foreign political bod...or worse, Dubya*

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:
What happens to her kids privacy once she is ‘named and shamed all day long’, are you only expressly concerned for their safety so long as the formalities remain uncompleted?

I am concerned for their privacy before, during and after a trial. I am concerned about their well being before, during and after a trial.

But I am rational enough to know that IF found guilty in a court of law their mother MUST be named, for the wider good. It is sad that her kids will suffer for that, I don't want that, but I know it will happen...

It's a shitty situation where her innocent kids will suffer if she's found guilty (well they already are, but I digress)...no one wants that...BUT naming her then would be for the greater good.

*waits to be likened to some obscure foreign political bod...or worse, Dubya*

quote:

Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:


well I think the police might have already covered the photoshop thingy............also did you watch the press conference

quote:

Originally posted by tupps:
While we are thinking about the children who were subject to attack in the events that have been in the media... we should spare a thought to the family of the ALLEGED perpetrator.

Tonight a man and two young girls have lost.. their wife, their mum, their home, their school, their workplace, their friends, their colleagues, their identity, their memories, their future, their past, their present... need I go on?

They will never be the same again.. whether she is found innocent or guilty.. their lives will consist of safe houses, rebuilding, new identities and having to lie about who they are and their past etc etc etc.

It is not the damage done to the alleged perpetrator that is the truly tragic thing in naming her.. but the demolition of her families lives and particularly that of her kids.

quote:

Originally posted by Mazzystar:

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:

quote:

Originally posted by Mazzystar:
I'm an inclusion manager!The pitchfork is well and truly shoved up my arse!

Yeah but that's because of your self confessed sick Tottingham love proclivities

Only joking hun

Meh
I've only agreed to take a group of kids camping with me next week if they convert to Tottingham!

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:
It’s not as simple as that though.
In the case of Vanessa George, and indeed any suspected paedophile, there is huge potential for unidentified victims. By naming her at this stage parents whose kids attended little teds can contact the police and attempt to find out if their child has fallen victim, whereas if she had been given anonymity (and potentially acquitted) the parents of all those kids (who were in her care) are left completely unaware.
It's a choice between the ‘rights’ of the defendant’s family and the 'rights' of the family whose child was in her care and potentially fell victim.

quote:

Originally posted by Slinkiwitchx:
Might be totally wrong on this one, but I got the impression that the meeja " outed" her before the police did.. I wondered if it wasn't a strategic naming, as Jasmine suggested to encourage other witnesses to come forward, but because the info was out there already via local sources?

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:
Well said Tupps.

As an aside, I must pencil in a debate with BBBS about Thatcher or summat for later on this week, this agreeing with Tories thing is just no good (I kiiiiiiiiiiiiid, I kid!)

My heart goes out to any children who have been harmed in this situation, there are obviously victims due to the images and intercepted emails...who is responsible is another issue. So yes, bairns have been harmed and that is terrible, but we mustn't forget the other children who are, in a different way suffering too.

Our well wishes and love shouldn't be finite when it comes to kids, surely?

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:


the point there is that if/when she is found guilty it will also PROVE that her family are completely innocent (or may themselves have been victims of their mother god forbid) if they were not innocent then they too would have been charged, under those circumstances its likely that the family would have chosen for the sake of their children to move away from the area.

quote:

Originally posted by tupps:
I would have thought if there was a hint of the husband being involved he would have been arrested by now. The Police will have had an idea of the circumstances before the arrest of VG. I would have thought that if the husband was implicated they would not have risked him running or covering his tracks by arresting one and not the other.

Still.. time will tell.