Boris

There’s one poster who has not criticised his language and who seems very negative about pursing historic cases

I am not concerned about his language, education or class.

Class war is something I have no interest in, I dislike foul language and swearing but the latter is accepted on this forum.

I said the dead cannot defend themselves.

Yes, but I read paddyannes diatribe as applying to a lot of posters on this thread, or possibly me as it was posted immediately after my post - except for the fact that I was opposing Boris and supporting the view that these historic cases should continue

Can he please take his freeloading talentless father with him too.
I rather like Stanley

Sorry!

So its not right to investigate the historic abuse cases involving politicians etc but according to many on here last week it was the right thing to do with the Michael jackson allegations.Excuse me for being confused
I don't think that anyone is saying that but they are saying that Boris has muddied the waters with his puerile outburst.

There will be differing views, of course, and it is a subject worthy of debate.
I believe these case should be pursued.

ab your belief that likening spending money on historic child abuse investigations is analagous to rjactulsting up a wall is nothing to be concerned about is truly truly appalling. Also nice to know that you believe that the child abuse enquiry going on at the moment should not be pursuing investigations into anyone dead. Can’t you begin to understand that so much historic child abuse went undetected and unpunished because the so called great and the good conspired to hide it and indeed were sometimes party to it.

There has been no investigation into Jackson, two alleged victims have made a documentary

Stanley produced Boris - nuff said

Stanley Johnson had six children. I don't know too much about the others but Jo and Rachel seem to have turned out OK. Boris didn't.

Often one child turns out to be quite surprising and unlike either parent!

And why was MJ never properly investigated - what part of the rich and powerful buy the silence of the victims do you not understand. ab ? And how do you think the RC church got away with it for decades if not centuries?

maryeliza Jackson was American, ask your question of an American.

No idea what the RC Church has to do with me saying the dead cannot defend themselves, this is all I have said about
historical child abuse, you do get carried away in your eagerness to pounce .

It wasn'y just RC, it was Cof E, social services, the prison service, not to mention the scouts, teaching, and I am pretty sure as much happens in the Islamic community, although it hasn't surfaced yet. Paedophiles will choose to go into professions and join organisations where they can use their authority to both attack children and make it impossible for them to complain.

The highest number of abuse attacks are in the home. I don’t think priests who are paedophiles choose the priesthood to abuse children , not defending them, just think it is more complicated than just joining the priesthood to abuse children.

I agree about the abuse, but I think men and women who are abusive (physical or sexual) are instinctively drawn to occupations that give them maximum opportunity and least chance of being discovered. I agree it may not be a conscious decision, However is cases like going into social work and custodial work, I think there is more conscious planning,

Thank you MOnica for replying without accusations of defending paedophiles. I think it is something which needs to be discussed without emotion, very hard to do,

I doubt men who become priests study for at least five years so they get close to children, and when we here of teachers found guilty of sexual abuse they are not usually young teachers.

Boris can’t really talk about wasting money - he spent £53million on a bridge that didn’t have a single brick laid.

The RC church is the biggest single world wide example of endemic child sexual abuse in an organisation where a culture of cover up
was institutionalised and led from the top. It is an example from which many many examples of historic child abuse have emerged now and will continue to emerge. That was my point of mentioning the RC church. The investigation of historic child abuse is necessary in situations were that abuse happened and was not disclosed or believed or further dealt with at the time. Children’s lives were ruined, their futures lost, some took their lives. So to say that money spent on this is being ‘spaffed up the wall’ hits a new low even by the already low standards of this politician. Anyone who cannot bring themselves to condemn BJ for these words in this context clearly and unequivocally is beyond my comprehension.

And

Yes maryeliza it is obvious from your posts on many threads, much is beyond your comprehension

I'm sorry Annie, I don't understand your point. Because somebody is dead, there should be no funds allocated to investigations?
Surely the victims may take some comfort from the fact that they are being taken seriously and they have fellow victims and can support each other?

Lily you don’t understand ? How can the dead be questioned ?

OK, never mind. I am not in the mood for an argument. If it was me or my friends/family I think I would take comfort from an investigation and knowing I had been heard and taken seriously.

And if it was a deceased member of your family accused ?

He is a despicable, self-serving lowlife, passing for an educated man and - God help us - politician. When you can't believe he can go any lower, he somehow finds new depths.