Hundreds of dead babies found on Catholic property.

[Nearly Sane]

Why are you using a different example which isn't comparable (hint, think about what 'latest' and 'currently' are referring to in this example and in the real one).

So let's focus back on the actual example. Once again:

'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is no evidence of criminal activity'

is not the same in implied meaning as:

'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'

  oh yes it does! He's behind you!!!!!

[ProfessorDavey]

For those interested in what happened at Smyllum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-41229124/i-was-abused-by-nuns-for-a-decade

Hard to see how this is consistent with either:

'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is no evidence of criminal activity'

or

'The latest, from the Court Service, is that there is currently no evidence of criminal activity'

[ProfessorDavey]

  oh yes it does! He's behind you!!!!!

[ProfessorDavey]

  oh yes it does! He's behind you!!!!!

Lets try another example, phrased in exactly the same manner as the real statement (unlike your completely different football example).

'The latest, from the Met Office, is that it is sunny'

Compare that with;

'The latest, from the Met Office, is that currently it is sunny'

I think you must accept that the implied meaning is different as the second statement deliberately provides greater emphasis on the possibility of change compared to the first. So were you to hear the second statement I think you'd be rather more likely to pack an umbrella compared to hearing the first.

And, to reiterate, 'latest' and 'currently' refer to different things. 'Latest' refers to the latest in a series of reports from the Met Office; 'Currently' refers to what that report contains, in this case information about the status of the weather and the likelihood of change.

[Gordon]

And, to reiterate, 'latest' and 'currently' refer to different things. 'Latest' refers to the latest in a series of reports from the Met Office; 'Currently' refers to what that report contains, in this case information about the status of the weather and the likelihood of change.

I suspect pedantry is getting the better of you: if a weather report is just issued then at that point surely it is both 'current' and the 'latest', and only when the details in latest weather report are overtaken by changed current and projected weather events would they differ, prompting the need for a new 'latest' update (which will reflect the current and expected conditions at that point in time).

In the case of this care home then the 'latest' update is all that is publicly available so there is no basis for the public to be aware of changes that differ from the last update: since the last update was that there was no evidence of any criminal activity then we can presume that the relevant staff can be presumed to be innocent since there is as yet nothing they could be guilty of.

In essence Jim's summary was and remains correct until such times as we are updated with any new information to the effect that there is evidence of criminal activity.

[ProfessorDavey]

I suspect pedantry is getting the better of you: if a weather report is just issued then at that point surely it is both 'current' and the 'latest', and only when the details in latest weather report are overtaken by changed current and projected weather events would they differ, prompting the need for a new 'latest' update (which will reflect the current and expected conditions at that point in time).

I don't think that you would see:

'The latest, from the Met Office, is that it is sunny'

and

'The latest, from the Met Office, is that currently it is sunny'

As identical in terms of their implied meaning. The second deliberately places much greater emphasis on the likelihood that the situation may change.

In the case of this care home then the 'latest' update is all that is publicly available since there is no basis for the public to be aware of changes that differ from the last update: since the last update was that there was no evidence of any criminal activity then we can presume that the relevant staff can be presumed to be innocent since there is as yet nothing they could be guilty of.

In essence Jim's summary was and remains correct until such times as we are updated with any new information to the effect that there is evidence of criminal activity.

But the point remains that the 'latest' update specifically chose to use the word 'currently' in relation to whether criminal activity had been identified. This is, presumably (as with my example above) that they wanted specifically to directly emphasise that the situation might change.

The presumption of innocence or otherwise is, as you suggest, moot as there is 'currently' nothing to be charged with. However it is worth noting that in sex and other abuse cases the guidance to police is that the victim (or anyone else) reporting or making an allegation that an offence has been committed is to be believed in the first instance. In other words there is a starting presumption that a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. It may be the case that following investigation there is insufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution, or even that the claim is subsequently determined to be vexatious, but the starting point remains that police should start their investigation on the presumption that a crime has been committed, i.e. that the victim is believed.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think that you would see:

'The latest, from the Met Office, is that it is sunny'

and

'The latest, from the Met Office, is that currently it is sunny'

As identical in terms of their implied meaning. The second deliberately places much greater emphasis on the likelihood that the situation may change.
But the point remains that the 'latest' update specifically chose to use the word 'currently' in relation to whether criminal activity had been identified. This is, presumably (as with my example above) that they wanted specifically to directly emphasise that the situation might change.

The presumption of innocence or otherwise is, as you suggest, moot as there is 'currently' nothing to be charged with. However it is worth noting that in sex and other abuse cases the guidance to police is that the victim (or anyone else) reporting or making an allegation that an offence has been committed is to be believed in the first instance. In other words there is a starting presumption that a crime has been committed, rather than the other way around. It may be the case that following investigation there is insufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution, or even that the claim is subsequently determined to be vexatious, but the starting point remains that police should start their investigation on the presumption that a crime has been committed, i.e. that the victim is believed.

You seem much more concerned about proving that you might be right on grammar than the actual suffering that may have happened at Smyllum. I pity you.

[Shaker]

I suspect pedantry is getting the better of you

I suspect you're addressing the wrong person.

[ProfessorDavey]

I suspect you're addressing the wrong person.

Indeed

[jeremyp]

You seem much more concerned about proving that you might be right on grammar than the actual suffering that may have happened at Smyllum. I pity you.

I only read back one page of this argument before I lost the will to go on. There's an important difference between "there is no evidence of criminal activity" and "there is currently no evidence of criminal activity". The former implies that the inquiry is complete, the latter implies that it is on going, but no evidence so far.

The distinction is important because the the former says we don't need to take legal action and the latter leaves open the possibility that somebody did something that means they should go to prison.

[ProfessorDavey]

I only read back one page of this argument before I lost the will to go on. There's an important difference between "there is no evidence of criminal activity" and "there is currently no evidence of criminal activity". The former implies that the inquiry is complete, the latter implies that it is on going, but no evidence so far.

The distinction is important because the the former says we don't need to take legal action and the latter leaves open the possibility that somebody did something that means they should go to prison.

Thank you - strange how some people here fail to recognise (or rather more likely refuse to admit) the distinction.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem much more concerned about proving that you might be right on grammar than the actual suffering that may have happened at Smyllum. I pity you.

Quite the contrary.

The reason for me starting to post on this thread was because I was concerned that some posts from a couple of posters came across to me as being rather dismissive of the significance of the allegations and findings.

Indeed it seemed to me that a whole range of the classic elements from the 'apologists' textbook were being trotted out. Specifically:

1. It all happened such a long time ago
2. Sure bad things happened but that was the norm back then
3. That the indications that a majority died of natural causes is somehow relevant to the possibility that some didn't
4. Assuming that crimes hadn't been committed, rather than believing victims as the starting point
5. Mistakenly assuming that a presumption of innocence (which applies to individuals) also somehow applies to investigating whether a crime has been committed or not
6. That really the main issue is one of record keeping
7. That making legitimate points about broader culture within an organisation based on numerous examples of institutional failures to protect children in their care of that organisation somehow amounts to tarring all individuals in that organisation as guilty

[Gordon]

Quite the contrary.

The reason for me starting to post on this thread was because I was concerned that some posts from a couple of posters came across to me as being rather dismissive of the significance of the allegations and findings.

Indeed it seemed to me that a whole range of the classic elements from the 'apologists' textbook were being trotted out. Specifically:

1. It all happened such a long time ago
2. Sure bad things happened but that was the norm back then
3. That the indications that a majority died of natural causes is somehow relevant to the possibility that some didn't
4. Assuming that crimes hadn't been committed, rather than believing victims

That isn't how I see it: I'd offer this sequence.

1. Previous residents of this home have made complaints of child abuse against the relevant staff members.

2. These complaints merit an investigation to see whether or not they are justified by evidence that would support a prosecution. It is always possible, however unlikely it may seem, that the investigation could reveal that these complaints of child abuse are spurious (and if so this may constitute a separate criminal act but not one involved the relevant staff being accused of child abuse).

3. The investigation would commence on the basis that there could be criminal activity but, I'd imagine, there would also be a recognition that the complaints could be unfounded (however unlikely): the findings of the investigation would determine whether there were grounds to prosecute.

4. At the outset of the investigation there could be no presumption of culpability in respect of the staff until such times as there were grounds to conclude that; a) there had been instances of criminal child abuse, and b) which staff members could be implicated (which may not be all those working there at the relevant times).

5. Therefore, at that point, which seems to be the current point, these staff would be presumed innocent of the accusations since, as yet, there are no grounds to feel confident that criminal activity had occurred or, if it had, that all the staff implicated were culpable.

6. Even so this presumption of innocence doesn't presume that no criminal activity took place - just that this has yet to be confirmed with details sufficient to challenge the presumed innocence via the legal processes (in this case the Scottish legal processes).

That is how I see it as things stand. 

[ProfessorDavey]

That isn't how I see it: I'd offer this sequence.

1. Previous residents of this home have made complaints of child abuse against the relevant staff members.

2. These complaints merit an investigation to see whether or not they are justified by evidence that would support a prosecution. It is always possible, however unlikely it may seem, that the investigation could reveal that these complaints of child abuse are spurious (and if so this may constitute a separate criminal act but not one involved the relevant staff being accused of child abuse).

3. The investigation would commence on the basis that there could be criminal activity but, I'd imagine, there would also be a recognition that the complaints could be unfounded (however unlikely): the findings of the investigation would determine whether there were grounds to prosecute.

4. At the outset of the investigation there could be no presumption of culpability in respect of the staff until such times as there were grounds to conclude that; a) there had been instances of criminal child abuse, and b) which staff members could be implicated (which may not be all those working there at the relevant times).

5. Therefore, at that point, which seems to be the current point, these staff would be presumed innocent of the accusations since, as yet, there are no grounds to feel confident that criminal activity had occurred or, if it had, that all the staff implicated were culpable.

6. Even so this presumption of innocence doesn't presume that no criminal activity took place - just that this has yet to be confirmed with details sufficient to challenge the presumed innocence via the legal processes (in this case the Scottish legal processes).

That is how I see it as things stand.

Much of that I don't disagree with. But I would take issue on 2 grounds.

First you do not seem to be recognising the requirement in investigations of abuse that the victim is believed as a starting point.

Secondly you haven't mentioned one of the key elements in the time line - that an estimated 400 bodies are believed to be in an unmarked mass grave, while the home only appears to be able to account for about 150 of those bodies.

[Gordon]

Much of that I don't disagree with. But I would take issue on 2 grounds.

First you do not seem to be recognising the requirement in investigations of abuse that the victim is believed as a starting point.

Yes I have, since that is what my points 1 & 2 are about: the accusations merit investigation. However, and no matter how unlikely, the accusations could be spurious so just believing the accusations seems presumptive to me: I'd have thought the credibility of those making the accusations would be an important aspect of the investigation.

Secondly you haven't mentioned one of the key elements in the time line - that an estimated 400 bodies are believed to be in an unmarked mass grave, while the home only appears to be able to account for about 150 of those bodies.

That finding would surely would be a key aspect of the investigation, such as establishing the reasons for the discrepancy, but only as the result of the investigation could there be any presumptions of culpability related to this discrepancy. Even then consideration would have to be given to the strengths and weaknesses of the information recording processes of the time.

Don't get me wrong: the accusations of abuse, that so may of these young people died and the apparent discrepancy in records does need investigation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes I have, since that is what my points 1 & 2 are about: the accusations merit investigation. However, and no matter how unlikely, the accusations could be spurious so just believing the accusations seems presumptive to me: I'd have thought the credibility of those making the accusations would be an important aspect of the investigation.

The point is that, as per IPCC guidance, investigators should believe the victim when an accusation is made. Whether or not the accusation is able to proceed to charges and ultimately conviction is, of course, dependent on the evidence acquired during the investigation but that doesn't change the presumption that the victim is credible and to be believed.

Sure there is the chance of a spurious or vexatious allegation, and presumably that will become apparent as the investigation proceeds, but should never change the starting point presumption. More likely is that the allegation goes no further, not because there is any suggestion that it is spurious, but because enough evidence cannot be obtained to sustain the possibility of conviction (noting that when charges are made the person being charge is presumed innocent until demonstrated in a court of law to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt). Further with historic cases the allegation might not proceed to charge as the alleged perpetrator may be dead.

That finding would surely would be a key aspect of the investigation, such as establishing the reasons for the discrepancy, but only as the result of the investigation could there be any presumptions of culpability related to this discrepancy. Even then consideration would have to be given to the strengths and weaknesses of the information recording processes of the time.

Don't forget that the victim in the video clip upthread was at the home in the 1970s, so not all of the cases are likely to be so historic that inadequate, or lost records, can be used as an excuse. I've no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if failure to adequately record deaths in the home may in itself be an offence, although probably civil rather than criminal.

Don't get me wrong: the accusations of abuse, that so may of these young people died and the apparent discrepancy in records does need investigation.

Glad to hear it.

[Gordon]

The point is that, as per IPCC guidance, investigators should believe the victim when an accusation is made. Whether or not the accusation is able to proceed to charges and ultimately conviction is, of course, dependent on the evidence acquired during the investigation but that doesn't change the presumption that the victim is credible and to be believed.

I think that presumption is risky.

Sure there is the chance of a spurious or vexatious allegation, and presumably that will become apparent as the investigation proceeds, but should never change the starting point presumption.

That presumption still worries me.

More likely is that the allegation goes no further, not because there is any suggestion that it is spurious, but because enough evidence cannot be obtained to sustain the possibility of conviction (noting that when charges are made the person being charge is presumed innocent until demonstrated in a court of law to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt). Further with historic cases the allegation might not proceed to charge as the alleged perpetrator may be dead.

That the evidence might be insufficient is, of course, dependent on the scope of the investigation: it may be that reliable evidence isn't accessible even where it is suspected. Have to say I still worry about the risks of presuming the accusations are always credible.
 

Don't forget that the victim in the video clip upthread was at the home in the 1970s, so not all of the cases are likely to be so historic that inadequate, or lost records, can be used as an excuse. I've no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if failure to adequately record deaths in the home may in itself be an offence, although probably civil rather than criminal.

I don't know enough about the recording arrangements to comment.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that presumption is risky.

Take it up with the IPCC

That presumption still worries me.

Take it up with the IPCC

Actually the point here is about fairness to both sides. Firstly, over decades people who suffered abuse as children felt unable to come forward as they were routinely disbelieved. Secondly, in many cases these types of crime took place behind closed doors, without witnesses and with any other evidence long gone. That makes it very difficult to gain a conviction when, quite rightly, there is a presumption of innocence when someone is actually charged. If police do not take, as a starting point, that someone making an allegation is credible and to be believed, then that stacks justice further in favour of the alleged perpetrator and against the victim.

Same goes for rape case.

I see no issue with police starting their investigations with a presumption that the victim is credible and to be believed. If that proves not to be the case that will come out in the wash as the investigations proceed.

Whatever - it is supposed to be the approach in our justice system, so it isn't really reasonable to bang on about presumption of innocence, but then quietly ignore the staring-point presumption that a person bring forth an allegation of abuse is credible and to be believed.

[ProfessorDavey]

Have to say I still worry about the risks of presuming the accusations are always credible.

Presumed credible and to be believed until or unless proven otherwise.

Why is that so difficult as a concept than presuming someone is innocent until or unless proven otherwise - the cornerstone of our legal system when someone is charged and brought before the courts.

[Gordon]

Presumed credible and to be believed until or unless proven otherwise.

Then I still worry about accusations being necessarily believed as a start point to any investigation on any matter.

Why is that so difficult as a concept than presuming someone is innocent until or unless proven otherwise - the cornerstone of our legal system when someone is charged and brought before the courts.

Presuming innocence places the emphasis on the supporting evidence presented by the accuser in an attempt to overcome the presumption of innocence, whereas presuming there may be guilt by believing the accusations at the outset seems (to me anyway) to risk bias.

[ProfessorDavey]

Then I still worry about accusations being necessarily believed as a start point to any investigation on any matter.

Presuming innocence places the emphasis on the supporting evidence presented by the accuser in an attempt to overcome the presumption of innocence, whereas presuming there may be guilt by believing the accusations at the outset seems (to me anyway) to risk bias.

I think the reasoning is that it provides the best opportunity to ensure justice for victims (presuming they are credible and to be believed as a starting point of investigations) while still minimising the chances of miscarriage of justice for those accused (who still are presumed innocent when changed and during court proceedings).

Remember this is largely for crimes where it is likely to rest on the word of one person against another - e.g. child abuse cases and rape.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the reasoning is that it provides the best opportunity to ensure justice for victims (presuming they are credible and to be believed as a starting point of investigations) while still minimising the chances of miscarriage of justice for those accused (who still are presumed innocent when changed and during court proceedings).

Remember this is largely for crimes where it is likely to rest on the word of one person against another - e.g. child abuse cases and rape.

To add to this - I think one of the reasons for the change in policy a few years was a recognition that the issue, for example with child abuse, wasn't people being wrongly convicted, but that the conviction rate was so low, meaning that vast numbers of victims were failing to receive justice as no-one was even charged let alone convicted.

[Enki]

Some interesting points here. If I have understood correctly(and I may not have done, of course)the idea is that 'a victim is presumed credible and to be believed'. Surely then a person accused could possibly claim that he/she is the victim and therefore also has the right to be 'presumed credible and to be believed'. The only answer, it seems to me, is to conduct a thorough investigation without fear or favour to attempt to establish the truth of the matter, and then, dependent on the findings or lack of findings, decide whether a criminal prosecution should be brought.

[ProfessorDavey]

Some interesting points here. If I have understood correctly(and I may not have done, of course)the idea is that 'a victim is presumed credible and to be believed'. Surely then a person accused could possibly claim that he/she is the victim and therefore also has the right to be 'presumed credible and to be believed'. The only answer, it seems to me, is to conduct a thorough investigation without fear or favour to attempt to establish the truth of the matter, and then, dependent on the findings or lack of findings, decide whether a criminal prosecution should be brought.

That sounds exactly right - that, as far as I know, is the current policy.

The historic problem was that too many victims of rape and child abuse were simply not believed by police when they reported it. The effect being that many simply didn't report and even for those that did the police's lack of starting point belief in their credibility meant that the investigation went no-where or worse treated the victim like a criminal.

[Gordon]

To add to this - I think one of the reasons for the change in policy a few years was a recognition that the issue, for example with child abuse, wasn't people being wrongly convicted, but that the conviction rate was so low, meaning that vast numbers of victims were failing to receive justice as no-one was even charged let alone convicted.

I can see that, perhaps for cultural reasons, allegations made by the comparatively powerless against the powerful (such as authority figures) might be easily suppressed by power/authority. My view would be not that the powerless should be believed by default but that any investigation should not be unduly swayed by the status, influence or capabilities of those with power or authority who are accused.