Ted Heath - victim or rapist

[Nearly Sane]

I suggest you read my posts - they say nothing of the sort.

And while criminal court proceedings in much of England require a binary verdict (guilty/not guilty) we are not dealing with criminal court proceedings, as there isn't a living person charged with an offence. And even in criminal courts not all jurisdictions provide a binary choice - as you are well aware in Scotland there are 3 outcomes, guilty/not guilty/not proven. A not proven verdict will mean that the accused is acquitted, it does not mean the person is presumed guilty, or not guilty.

Apart from your simplistic approach to Not Proven (about which if you want to have a discussion,  I have a thread about thee bastard verdict already running), this is entirely irrelevant to your position. Do you want to explain or clarify it?

[Nearly Sane]

I think the point being that the accusations against Heath are related to sex abuse. While in no way determinative it is entirely relevant to bring to a court of law (whether a criminal court involving a living defendant charged with an offence, or a finding of facts investigation where the accused is dead) evidence that the accused had a reputation as a sex pest (for example). Again it would never be determinative, but would support the notion that the accusation is plausible in a manner that it might not be were the alleged act to seem entirely out of character.

And how is someone's dead dad's, who you have no idea of what relationship they had to Heath, opinion about what they would not be surprised by at a relevant to your above post?

[ProfessorDavey]

Which 'particular act" was being referred  to in Floo"s post?

Following on from my previous post.

There is another way in which taking account of broader accounts of a person's character can help in an investigation. If an individual has a 'reputation', for being violent, or abusive, for example talking to a person who has heard about that reputation may reveal further alleged victims (yes, I heard that he beat up that kid when he got so angry). This may allow that 'kid' to be identified who might provide much more concrete evidence to support the accusation.

[ProfessorDavey]

And how is someone's dead dad's, who you have no idea of what relationship they had to Heath, opinion about what they would not be surprised by at a relevant to your above post?

Given the length of time passed then this is likely to be of limited or no value to an investigation. But that wouldn't be the case if it were perhaps a bit more recent, so in the 1960s.

Sure this is heresy from someone who is dead, but it might lead to people that dead person worked with etc who are still alive who may be able to put more flesh on the bones of the allegations linked to the 'reputation', leading perhaps in due course to new victims able to come forward and actually give direct evidence. This is certainly what seemed to happen with Savile.

[Sassy]

I see many of Twitters have decided he is guilty as breach of a subjective moral code


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41503143

Accusations against dead people should be dismissed.

1. They cannot defend themselves from the grave.

2. It is a waste of tax payers money.

If all the accusations against all the celebrities were true. How come no member of Joe Public got wind of it.
Prime minister or not, famous or not, prominent or not. What parent left their child at that age alone with a stranger?

I would not leave my 11 year old child alone with Ted Heath or any other person.  So how did all this abuse happen. We were not allowed out of our parents site without chaperones.

[floo]

So it is all the fault of the parents if their children are sexually abused is it, not the paedophiles who perpetrate it?

[Shaker]

Accusations against dead people should be dismissed.

I'm sure the victims of abuse will be tremendously comforted by that nugget of advice.

[floo]

I'm sure the victims of abuse will be tremendously comforted by that nugget of advice.

I am sure they will!

[jeremyp]

Accusations against dead people should be dismissed.

1. They cannot defend themselves from the grave.

No they can't, but by the same token, nor can they be damaged by the allegations.

2. It is a waste of tax payers money.

How about providing the victims with some sense of vindication and/or closure. Quite often the victims of sexual abuse somehow feel it is their fault. If an enquiry finds their attacker guilty, maybe they can stop blaming themselves and get on with their lives.

If all the accusations against all the celebrities were true. How come no member of Joe Public got wind of it.

In the case of Jimmy Savile, they did, but nobody did anything about it because it was Jimmy Savile.

Prime minister or not, famous or not, prominent or not. What parent left their child at that age alone with a stranger?

I guess it was a different age.

[Harrowby Hall]

I recall in 1974 (I can be certain about the year because of my personal circumstances at the time) going to a nightclub performance in Nottingham. The headline act was Norman Wisdom. It was, I recall, supposed to be "adult humour".

One of the other performers intoned "Edward Heath, Superqueer, how many bums have you felt this year?". I was uncertain at the time as to whether this was simply intended as an insult to a notable politician who was unmarried - and therefore of questionable sexuality - or whether it reflected a truth of which the performer was clearly aware. Given the nature of the venue and the reaction of the audience I considered it to be the former. This was well before the public acceptance of the gay and lesbian community.

I have no idea whether the allegations against Edward Heath have any credibility, but the time has now passed for any investigation to be of any value. Heath is dead, and the experiences of William Roache, Paul Gambacini  and Neil and Christine Hamilton suggest that following complaints about the alleged past activities of "celebrities" is frequently extremely costly but totally counter productive.

.....

ProfD - there is a world of difference between "heresy" and "hear say".

[jeremyp]

One of the other performers intoned "Edward Heath, Superqueer, how many bums have you felt this year?".

To the tune of Jesus Christ Superstar?

[Shaker]

I recall in 1974 (I can be certain about the year because of my personal circumstances at the time) going to a nightclub performance in Nottingham. The headline act was Norman Wisdom. It was, I recall, supposed to be "adult humour".

One of the other performers intoned "Edward Heath, Superqueer, how many bums have you felt this year?". I was uncertain at the time as to whether this was simply intended as an insult to a notable politician who was unmarried - and therefore of questionable sexuality - or whether it reflected a truth of which the performer was clearly aware. Given the nature of the venue and the reaction of the audience I considered it to be the former. This was well before the public acceptance of the gay and lesbian community.

I recall many years ago (when Heath was still alive) the journalist Anthony Howard saying that it was generally regarded in journalistic circles that Heath was what used to be known as 'neuter' - the old-fashioned term, now never heard in this context, for asexual; so married to politics (and his well-known outside interests) that he had no inclination for an intimate relationship with anyone, male or female. Innuendos about homosexuality were common coin about anyone in the public eye who was unmarried and who had no known close relationships.

I have no idea whether the allegations against Edward Heath have any credibility, but the time has now passed for any investigation to be of any value.

Of any value to whom?

What about the value to victims of abuse (speaking generally, not with reference to Heath) feeling that they have been listened to and taken seriously?

[ProfessorDavey]

ProfD - there is a world of difference between "heresy" and "hear say".

There is indeed - and one that autocorrect doesn't really recognise.

[ProfessorDavey]

Accusations against dead people should be dismissed.

1. They cannot defend themselves from the grave.

2. It is a waste of tax payers money.

So you have no interest in justice for the victim then.

[Harrowby Hall]

To the tune of Jesus Christ Superstar?

Yes (within the limits of the performer's singing ability).

[ProfessorDavey]

I recall many years ago (when Heath was still alive) the journalist Anthony Howard saying that it was generally regarded in journalistic circles that Heath was what used to be known as 'neuter' - the old-fashioned term, now never heard in this context, for asexual; so married to politics (and his well-known outside interests) that he had no inclination for an intimate relationship with anyone, male or female.

I seem to remember the same was said about Savile - that he never had time for a relationship and wasn't interested in sex. That all his energies were spent on his work and devotion to his mother.

[Shaker]

I seem to remember the same was said about Savile - that he never had time for a relationship and wasn't interested in sex. That all his energies were spent on his work and devotion to his mother.

We now know that not to be true (although the rather disturbing post-mortem devotion to "the Duchess" was). We don't know what was the case with Heath.

Also IIRC there were credible allegations about Savile going back, if not to the beginning of his 'career' of abuse, then to not long into it, which were never looked into.

[Harrowby Hall]

What about the value to victims of abuse (speaking generally, not with reference to Heath) feeling that they have been listened to and taken seriously?

I have written before - some time ago - on this forum about my own experiences in early adolescence. I don't particularly want to go into them again, but I can assure you that this is not a subject of which I devoid of experience.

As far as the Heath case is concerned, as far as I can determine, the "strongest" case refers to events over 50 years ago, and, if the statement by an officer of the police force involved is correct, would be unlikely to be conclusive in any way.

[Sassy]

So it is all the fault of the parents if their children are sexually abused is it, not the paedophiles who perpetrate it?

Is there any logic in what you are suggesting.

Common sense tells us that a person who commits a crime are the only person responsible.

Common sense tells us we question how any adult such a Ted Heath can be left with an 11 year old boy in a house at
night where he could commit such an act.

Your problem is you never really read the original post information in context with the reply.

You judge everything and everyone to your own mental attitude regarding the person you reply to, looking for fault if religious and accepting it without questioning when they are not religious.

Prejudice is not a good thing whatever form it takes when it allows you, to believe accusing others of wrong is acceptable when you blatantly know they never said anything which would condone your answer.

[floo]

Is there any logic in what you are suggesting.

Common sense tells us that a person who commits a crime are the only person responsible.

Common sense tells us we question how any adult such a Ted Heath can be left with an 11 year old boy in a house at
night where he could commit such an act.

Your problem is you never really read the original post information in context with the reply.

You judge everything and everyone to your own mental attitude regarding the person you reply to, looking for fault if religious and accepting it without questioning when they are not religious.

Prejudice is not a good thing whatever form it takes when it allows you, to believe accusing others of wrong is acceptable when you blatantly know they never said anything which would condone your answer.

What on earth are you wittering on about?

[Sassy]

What on earth are you wittering on about?

I rest my case... Floo, should you ever wish to discuss contents of any post which are in line with the subject matter I will be more than pleased to do so. But I do wish, you would not just throw comments and create issues which are not related or really relevant. 

[Robbie]

It was a very different world 50 years ago, I was seven and no-one said much about sexual abuse then.
Children were left with people not known and still are, it can't be avoided - teachers, doctors, nurses, youth workers for example. Fifty years ago all of those had far more authority than they do now & there were not so many background checks. (The vast majority were fine.)
In any case, most abuse is carried out by friends or family.

When I was a child people seemed to like Jimmy Saville, eccentric, fun and all that which is how he got away with it for so long. What particularly horrified me about the cases that came to light was the thought of him molesting innocent children in hospital who maybe could not move or speak. Not just children, it's makes my stomach churn. He was a revolting piece of work.

I don't know about Ted Heath.  A few years ago someone I know well told me a few things about him, that they had been told, but I recall saying at the time it was only hearsay. I don't see how anything can be proven now but it can help victims of historical abuse to talk or write about it, it breaks the hold the abuser has had on them. They have to be careful who they are talking to though because any victim remains vulnerable. They need to be sure that they protect themselves.

[floo]

ALL cases of sexual abuse should be investigated, whether they took place many years ago or today. I wish my husband's uncle by marriage, who abused him when he was a small boy, had been made to face a court of law. My father-in-law had words with him, and my husband wasn't abused by him again. However, that evil piece of the proverbial worked as a clown for kids parties, which gave him plenty of opportunity to touch kids up.

[Robbie]

Oh yeuch. It goes on and on doesn't it?

[Owlswing]

So you have no interest in justice for the victim then.

With the antics of the Christian clergy as background - she wants justice for the accused so that it will flow on to any accused members of the clergy!