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
Let's start that your posting about the IPCC guidance is a huge irrelevance to your position, first of all the IPCC cannot make a fundamental change to the presumption of innocence in terms of court cases, it's guidance on how you carry out specific investigations.
Secondly as already pointed out a couple of tines and ignored by you, Anchorman is not in the position of the police here, so the guidance doesn't apply, the supposition of innocence does.
Third, and not damagingly for your point, you have conflated the statements about the mass burial with the claims of physical abuse by living individuals. Since Anchorman has been talking the mass burial, your reference to the physical abuse cases is irrelevant. This lead to your confusion in your reply 175 to not being able to understand that the no criminal activity indication so far as regards the mass burials is not in conflict with the testimony of living individuals about the physical abuse.
The rest of your points above simply arise from your continued misrepresentations. Note since they are clearly and consistently denied by those you have addressed here, your position is that those individuals are lying. This is something that elsewhere you seem to disagree with. You don't really manage what might be called consistency.
