Hundreds of dead babies found on Catholic property.

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah, I knew it wasn't a great post when I made it and couldn't be arsed to change it. Th headline makes it look like 'no crime has been committed, line drawn' but actually there are still ongoing enquiries into abuse, just not murder.

oh feckin hell, that is the second reasonable post in a day from people. Pooo!

[ProfessorDavey]

The latest, according to the Crown Office, is that there is no evidence of any crime having been committed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41242514

Perhaps you didn't read beyond the headline, but I think you missed out the critical word 'currently'. The article clearly states that:

'The Crown Office ... said there was currently no evidence of criminal activity.' - my emphasis.

Given that this is an ongoing investigation you cannot assume that no evidence of criminal activity will emerge during later stages of that investigation.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps you didn't read beyond the headline, but I think you missed out the critical word 'currently'. The article clearly states that:

'The Crown Office ... said there was currently no evidence of criminal activity.' - my emphasis.

Given that this is an ongoing investigation you cannot assume that no evidence of criminal activity will emerge during later stages of that investigation.

Anchorman isn't. Why is it you feel the need to misrepresent him?

[ProfessorDavey]

Anchorman isn't. Why is it you feel the need to misrepresent him?

I didn't I pointed that that just because there is currently no evidence of criminal activity you cannot assume there won't be as the investigation progresses.

I thought it very telling, however, that Anchorman, chose to commit the word currently from his post linking to the BBC article.

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't I pointed that that just because there is currently no evidence of criminal activity you cannot assume there won't be as the investigation progresses.

I thought it very telling, however, that Anchorman, chose to commit the word currently from his post linking to the BBC article.

He clearly said it was the 'latest' which means currently. His statement is correct and contains no assumption about the future. I suggest you apologise to him for this continued misrepresentation.

[Anchorman]

Good grief!
I post a link from the Beeb showing the straight fact tha, at the present time, there is as yet no evidence of criminal activity, and people draw conclusions that I assume any innocence.
I don't know.
Niether does anyone else, for that matter.
Yet untill as and when any evidence of criminal activity has been committed, we should presume innocent until proven guilty.

[ProfessorDavey]

He clearly said it was the 'latest' which means currently. His statement is correct and contains no assumption about the future. I suggest you apologise to him for this continued misrepresentation.

I'm sorry, but language and it's use is extremely important. In this context latest and currently do not imply the same thing, the former being a reference to the news, the latter to the investigation. Also Anchorman's statement very clearly detached latest from the allegations, while the article included currently directly in relation to the investigation.

So try it this way

Titanic hits iceberg.

Latest: Titanic has not sunk

Is clearly different in inference to;

Titanic hits iceberg.

Titanic currently has not sunk

The former implies a final outcome, the latter merely a snapshot on an ongoing situation, clearly subject to change.

[Gordon]

I didn't I pointed that that just because there is currently no evidence of criminal activity you cannot assume there won't be as the investigation progresses.

I thought it very telling, however, that Anchorman, chose to commit the word currently from his post linking to the BBC article.

Nobody is assuming anything: and since it is an on-going investigation it would be foolish to jump to any conclusions.

[Gordon]

I'm sorry, but language and it's use is extremely important. In this context latest and currently do not imply the same thing, the former being a reference to the news, the latter to the investigation. Also Anchorman's statement very clearly detached latest from the allegations, while the article included currently directly in relation to the investigation.

So try it this way

Titanic hits iceberg.

Latest: Titanic has not sunk

Is clearly different in inference to;

Titanic hits iceberg.

Titanic currently has not sunk

The former implies a final outcome, the latter merely a snapshot on an ongoing situation, clearly subject to change.

That doesn't work: in both your cases there is a single known fact (that the Titanic has struck an iceberg) whereas in the case of the on-going investigation into this setting there may yet be either new facts to be considered that are as yet unknown, or no facts that would be consistent with a particular interpretation (that there was foul play).

Best to wait and see.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yet untill as and when any evidence of criminal activity has been committed, we should presume innocent until proven guilty.

I think you are completely confusing presumption of innocent when an individual has been charged with a criminal offence and investigating whether a crime has, or has not been committed.

In the latter case the investigation is unbiased, there is no presumption that a crime has, or has not been committed. The purpose of the investigation is to gather evidence to allow a judgement as to whether a crime has been committed. If the Police (or other investigating bodies) presumed that a crime hadn't been committed no investigation would even proceed. The presumption of innocence only refers to an individual being charged with an offence and we aren't at that stage yet.

Also remember this is Scotland which has a slightly more complex legal option in which there isn't only 'guilty' and 'not guilty' (consistent with innocent until proven guilty), but 'not proven' as well, which weakens the innocent until proven guilty as 'not proven' isn't a statement of innocence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nobody is assuming anything: and since it is an on-going investigation it would be foolish to jump to any conclusions.

I agree, but the Lady Macbeth's here seem to always be sliding toward 'nothing to see here - move along please'.

[Gordon]

I agree, but the Lady Macbeth's here seem to always be sliding toward 'nothing to see here - move along please'.

Leaving aside your caricature of them, I don't think they are.

[ProfessorDavey]

Good grief!
I post a link from the Beeb showing the straight fact tha, at the present time, there is as yet no evidence of criminal activity, and people draw conclusions that I assume any innocence.
I don't know.
Niether does anyone else, for that matter.
Yet untill as and when any evidence of criminal activity has been committed, we should presume innocent until proven guilty.

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

Firstly you imply that you aren't assuming innocence, then you say that we should presume innocence.

Remember that the investigation is to determined whether or not a crime has been committed, so which is it AM - are you saying that we shouldn't assume that a crime has been committed or has not been committed (which seems to be the inference of your first statement), or are you saying that we should presume that a crime has not been committed (which seems to be the inference of your second statement).

[ProfessorDavey]

Leaving aside your caricature of them, I don't think they are.

But AM clearly stated that we should 'presume innocent' which in this case means we should presume that no crime has been committed.

[Gordon]

But AM clearly stated that we should 'presume innocent' which in this case means we should presume that no crime has been committed.

No it doesn't: it just means we presume that those involved haven't been shown to be guilty of any crime since there is, as yet, no confirmed crime for anyone to be guilty of. This doesn't presume that no crime has been committed, and there is an on-going investigation, but until there is evidence of a crime having been committed then those involved can be presumed innocent pending grounds to presume otherwise.

[Nearly Sane]

But AM clearly stated that we should 'presume innocent' which in this case means we should presume that no crime has been committed.

That's because that's the way the law works. This is basic stuff.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's because that's the way the law works. This is basic stuff.

No it doesn't - didn't you read my earlier post.

There is no presumption that a crime has not been committed when the Police or other agencies are investigating an allegation. Their role is neither to presume a crime has been committed nor that one has not been committed; it is to gather evidence to allow a judgement to be made.

Only then would you move onto the next question - if a crime has been committed, is there sufficient evidence (note not beyond reasonable doubt) to charge an individual or more than one individual with that crime.

Only then - thought the court process does the presumption of innocence kick in.

Yes you are correct, it is basic stuff - which it would appear you don't understand.

[Anchorman]

I agree, but the Lady Macbeth's here seem to always be sliding toward 'nothing to see here - move along please'.

What has Grouch got to do with anything?

[ProfessorDavey]

What has Grouch got to do with anything?

"what - in our house?'

[Anchorman]

Sorry, I thought we were dealing with facts, or the lack therof, hence the reference to Macbeth's queen, rather than the ficticious comedy written by a Brummie.
 You try to comment on the Scottish legal system, Scots law, Scots judicial inquiry, by quoting tripe dressed as 'tragedy' from someone who knew as much about Scotland and Scots history as he did about chicken farming on Pluto?

[Nearly Sane]

I agree, but the Lady Macbeth's here seem to always be sliding toward 'nothing to see here - move along please'.

No one has said anything like this. Stop lying.

[ProfessorDavey]

No one has said anything like this. Stop lying.

'That there are multiple burials is not in itself shocking given the times. The question is surely why this happened, and why the deaths weren't recorded. That the burials were greater in number than the records showed doesn't necessarily show any evil intent.'

Copyright - NS.

'Not trying to justify this, but local 'poor houses' - the Scottish equivalent of the workhouse - were not exactly brilliant at recording the burials of those children who died in their 'care' either.
I'm not saying there was no cruelty by the nuns - that would be wrong in every sense - but the biggest issue would be poor record keeping. From the Beeb reports this morning, the vast majoity of these deaths - over a 120 year period - were due to 'natural causes' - Ifyou count TB, polio, influenza, scarlet fever, etc, as natural.'

Copyright - AM

[Nearly Sane]

'That there are multiple burials is not in itself shocking given the times. The question is surely why this happened, and why the deaths weren't recorded. That the burials were greater in number than the records showed doesn't necessarily show any evil intent.'

Copyright - NS.

'Not trying to justify this, but local 'poor houses' - the Scottish equivalent of the workhouse - were not exactly brilliant at recording the burials of those children who died in their 'care' either.
I'm not saying there was no cruelty by the nuns - that would be wrong in every sense - but the biggest issue would be poor record keeping. From the Beeb reports this morning, the vast majoity of these deaths - over a 120 year period - were due to 'natural causes' - Ifyou count TB, polio, influenza, scarlet fever, etc, as natural.'

Copyright - AM

Posting stuff that shows you are lying as you have done here seems foolish.

[ProfessorDavey]

Posting stuff that shows you are lying as you have done here seems foolish.

In what way does it show I am lying.

Read my post - I said:

"the Lady Macbeth's here seem to always be sliding toward 'nothing to see here - move along please'."

I never said you, or AM for that matter, actually used those exact words - merely that the tenor of your posts (as indicated in the direct quotes I actually gave) are heading in that direction.

[Robbie]

The Lady Macbeth's what or whom? Her family, her servants?  I thought she was a fictional character and if that is true, she would hardly have any descendants posting on here.

Returning to the origins of the thread, on googling I cannot find anything later than April 2017 about the case.