Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Convicted pederast Robert King back to directing King's Consort
1,819 views
Skip to first unread message
Oscar
Jul 9, 2013, 7:16:17 AM7/9/13
to
Paid his debt? Or, should be banned from leading children?
From The Daily Mail http://tinyurl.com/l7afm23
<< Conductor jailed for sexually abusing choir boys to star at in concert hosted by Prince Charles' charity
• Robert King is set to headline concert for charity Music in Country Churches
• He went to prison on 14 charges of indecent assault on five boys
By RICHARD ALLEYNE
PUBLISHED: 19:49 EST, 6 July 2013
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357693/Conductor-jailed-sexually-abusing-choir-boys-star-concert-hosted-Prince-Charles-charity.html#ixzz2YXue8Gg0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
When celebrated conductor Robert King was convicted of sexually abusing choir boys, the court heard his career was ‘devastated’.
Yet just four years after being released from jail, the musical director and Hollywood film score producer is back at the top of his profession — and has seemingly been given the Royal seal of approval.
The convicted sex offender is set to headline a concert at an event for Prince Charles’s charity, Music in Country Churches, with his choral group The King’s Consort. The move has caused outrage among concert-goers and child abuse charities.
‘It is as if nothing has happened,’ said Peter Saunders, of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood. ‘He made these teenagers’ lives a misery — the trauma continues for them. I can’t believe that the Royal family or their charities would have anything to do with him.’
Esther Rantzen, the founder of the child protection charity Childline, said: ‘You have to ask if his crimes have been taken seriously enough.’
King, 53, whose classical albums have sold more than a million copies, was given a three-year, nine-month prison sentence after he was found guilty of 14 charges of indecent assault on five boys, one as young as 12, during the 1980s and 1990s.
A court heard in 2007 that the conductor, who has performed at the BBC Proms eight times, had used his ‘god-like’ status to ply the young musicians and choirboys with alcohol and then indecently assault them.
He has always denied any wrong-doing and accused his victims of being ‘absolute’ liars and ‘looneys’.
King’s wife Viola, 34, supported him throughout the trial, following which the father of one was placed on the sex offenders register.
He was not banned from working with children and has since re-established The King’s Consort group, which recently toured and released a best-selling album.
The group has been booked to headline the ‘spectacular musical pageant’ in the village of Long Melford, Suffolk, on August 31, in aid of Music in Country Churches — which has Prince Charles as its patron.
The charity was set up in 1989, with the ‘active support of the Prince of Wales’, who is quoted on its website and has attended more than 40 of its concerts.
It organises musical events in the countryside with the revenues used to restore local churches, in this case the village’s medieval Holy Trinity church.
One parishioner, who did not wish to be named, said she was ‘shocked’ about King’s background.
‘I had absolutely no idea. You wouldn’t want Gary Glitter playing at your church, would you?’
Mark Bridges, the Royal solicitor and chairman of the charity, said: ‘I am obviously aware of the verdict of the court and that he has served his time and having done that, has come to back to society.
‘Our objective as a charity is to provide financial support to churches by providing world-class performances by musicians and he is by anyone’s standards a world class musician.’
Church spokesman Patrick Kohler said the evening had been organised by the charity. He added: ‘It is a very prestigious organisation and we would find it difficult to say no to them.’ >>
From The Daily Mail http://tinyurl.com/l7afm23
<< Conductor jailed for sexually abusing choir boys to star at in concert hosted by Prince Charles' charity
• Robert King is set to headline concert for charity Music in Country Churches
• He went to prison on 14 charges of indecent assault on five boys
By RICHARD ALLEYNE
PUBLISHED: 19:49 EST, 6 July 2013
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357693/Conductor-jailed-sexually-abusing-choir-boys-star-concert-hosted-Prince-Charles-charity.html#ixzz2YXue8Gg0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
When celebrated conductor Robert King was convicted of sexually abusing choir boys, the court heard his career was ‘devastated’.
Yet just four years after being released from jail, the musical director and Hollywood film score producer is back at the top of his profession — and has seemingly been given the Royal seal of approval.
The convicted sex offender is set to headline a concert at an event for Prince Charles’s charity, Music in Country Churches, with his choral group The King’s Consort. The move has caused outrage among concert-goers and child abuse charities.
‘It is as if nothing has happened,’ said Peter Saunders, of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood. ‘He made these teenagers’ lives a misery — the trauma continues for them. I can’t believe that the Royal family or their charities would have anything to do with him.’
Esther Rantzen, the founder of the child protection charity Childline, said: ‘You have to ask if his crimes have been taken seriously enough.’
King, 53, whose classical albums have sold more than a million copies, was given a three-year, nine-month prison sentence after he was found guilty of 14 charges of indecent assault on five boys, one as young as 12, during the 1980s and 1990s.
A court heard in 2007 that the conductor, who has performed at the BBC Proms eight times, had used his ‘god-like’ status to ply the young musicians and choirboys with alcohol and then indecently assault them.
He has always denied any wrong-doing and accused his victims of being ‘absolute’ liars and ‘looneys’.
King’s wife Viola, 34, supported him throughout the trial, following which the father of one was placed on the sex offenders register.
He was not banned from working with children and has since re-established The King’s Consort group, which recently toured and released a best-selling album.
The group has been booked to headline the ‘spectacular musical pageant’ in the village of Long Melford, Suffolk, on August 31, in aid of Music in Country Churches — which has Prince Charles as its patron.
The charity was set up in 1989, with the ‘active support of the Prince of Wales’, who is quoted on its website and has attended more than 40 of its concerts.
It organises musical events in the countryside with the revenues used to restore local churches, in this case the village’s medieval Holy Trinity church.
One parishioner, who did not wish to be named, said she was ‘shocked’ about King’s background.
‘I had absolutely no idea. You wouldn’t want Gary Glitter playing at your church, would you?’
Mark Bridges, the Royal solicitor and chairman of the charity, said: ‘I am obviously aware of the verdict of the court and that he has served his time and having done that, has come to back to society.
‘Our objective as a charity is to provide financial support to churches by providing world-class performances by musicians and he is by anyone’s standards a world class musician.’
Church spokesman Patrick Kohler said the evening had been organised by the charity. He added: ‘It is a very prestigious organisation and we would find it difficult to say no to them.’ >>
Christopher Webber
Jul 9, 2013, 7:39:41 AM7/9/13
to
On 09/07/2013 12:16, Oscar wrote:
> Paid his debt? Or, should be banned from leading children?
I shouldn't take much notice of the Daily Mail, if I were you. It is not
> Paid his debt? Or, should be banned from leading children?
a serious newspaper, but a muck-raking tabloid.
Robert King's case raised more doubts than most. The probity of this set
of accusers in remembering events of a generation ago was questioned
repeatedly, and the lightness of his sentence reflected those doubts.
In particular, it was made clear by the trial judge that when he had (in
your olde worlde phrase) "paid his debt" the nature of King's career
meant that a ban on working with children would be entirely inappropriate.
Luckily, Britain's concert-going public takes a more mature and sensible
line than the witch-hunters of the tabloid press, "stir it" though they
might. King has been back working for some time now, and the great
majority have been glad to welcome his return and leave management of
his conscience to the man himself.
So the responsible answer to your question is "of course not".
Oscar
Jul 9, 2013, 8:03:53 AM7/9/13
to
Thank you, Mr. Webber, for the concise primer on the case. I really wasn't aware of any of the details, so the question was an honest one.
O
Jul 9, 2013, 9:04:32 AM7/9/13
to
In article <b42b3t...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber
In Boston, Robert Zander was fired from his position simply because he
hired someone who had been convicted of child abuse and had done his
time.
I don't know about King's case, but if I were in charge, (almost wrote
"If I were King"), I'd consider the safety of the children first, and
the nature of King's career second. I hope that this was done.
-Owen
hired someone who had been convicted of child abuse and had done his
time.
I don't know about King's case, but if I were in charge, (almost wrote
"If I were King"), I'd consider the safety of the children first, and
the nature of King's career second. I hope that this was done.
-Owen
O
Jul 9, 2013, 9:11:16 AM7/9/13
to
In article <090720130904320330%ow...@denofinequityx.com>,
looked it up, but still failed to change it. Senior moment.
<ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article <b42b3t...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber
> <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > On 09/07/2013 12:16, Oscar wrote:
> > > Paid his debt? Or, should be banned from leading children?
> >
> > I shouldn't take much notice of the Daily Mail, if I were you. It is not
> > a serious newspaper, but a muck-raking tabloid.
> >
> > Robert King's case raised more doubts than most. The probity of this set
> > of accusers in remembering events of a generation ago was questioned
> > repeatedly, and the lightness of his sentence reflected those doubts.
> >
> > In particular, it was made clear by the trial judge that when he had (in
> > your olde worlde phrase) "paid his debt" the nature of King's career
> > meant that a ban on working with children would be entirely inappropriate.
> >
> > Luckily, Britain's concert-going public takes a more mature and sensible
> > line than the witch-hunters of the tabloid press, "stir it" though they
> > might. King has been back working for some time now, and the great
> > majority have been glad to welcome his return and leave management of
> > his conscience to the man himself.
> >
> > So the responsible answer to your question is "of course not".
>
> In Boston, Robert Zander
Er, pardon, Benjamin Zander. I thought I had the first name wrong,
> In article <b42b3t...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber
> <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:
>
> > On 09/07/2013 12:16, Oscar wrote:
> > > Paid his debt? Or, should be banned from leading children?
> >
> > I shouldn't take much notice of the Daily Mail, if I were you. It is not
> > a serious newspaper, but a muck-raking tabloid.
> >
> > Robert King's case raised more doubts than most. The probity of this set
> > of accusers in remembering events of a generation ago was questioned
> > repeatedly, and the lightness of his sentence reflected those doubts.
> >
> > In particular, it was made clear by the trial judge that when he had (in
> > your olde worlde phrase) "paid his debt" the nature of King's career
> > meant that a ban on working with children would be entirely inappropriate.
> >
> > Luckily, Britain's concert-going public takes a more mature and sensible
> > line than the witch-hunters of the tabloid press, "stir it" though they
> > might. King has been back working for some time now, and the great
> > majority have been glad to welcome his return and leave management of
> > his conscience to the man himself.
> >
> > So the responsible answer to your question is "of course not".
>
> In Boston, Robert Zander
looked it up, but still failed to change it. Senior moment.
td
Jul 9, 2013, 9:13:46 AM7/9/13
to
On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:04:32 AM UTC-4, O wrote:
> In article <b42b3t...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber
>
> <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 09/07/2013 12:16, Oscar wrote:
>
> > > Paid his debt? Or, should be banned from leading children?
>
> >
>
> > I shouldn't take much notice of the Daily Mail, if I were you. It is not
>
> > a serious newspaper, but a muck-raking tabloid.
>
> >
>
> > Robert King's case raised more doubts than most. The probity of this set
>
> > of accusers in remembering events of a generation ago was questioned
>
> > repeatedly, and the lightness of his sentence reflected those doubts.
>
> >
>
> > In particular, it was made clear by the trial judge that when he had (in
>
> > your olde worlde phrase) "paid his debt" the nature of King's career
>
> > meant that a ban on working with children would be entirely inappropriate.
>
> >
>
> > Luckily, Britain's concert-going public takes a more mature and sensible
>
> > line than the witch-hunters of the tabloid press, "stir it" though they
>
> > might. King has been back working for some time now, and the great
>
> > majority have been glad to welcome his return and leave management of
>
> > his conscience to the man himself.
>
> >
>
> > So the responsible answer to your question is "of course not".
>
>
>
> In Boston, Robert Zander was fired from his position simply because he
>
> hired someone who had been convicted of child abuse and had done his
>
> time.
Which only goes to show us the level of idiocy in the USA.
> In article <b42b3t...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber
>
> <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 09/07/2013 12:16, Oscar wrote:
>
> > > Paid his debt? Or, should be banned from leading children?
>
> >
>
> > I shouldn't take much notice of the Daily Mail, if I were you. It is not
>
> > a serious newspaper, but a muck-raking tabloid.
>
> >
>
> > Robert King's case raised more doubts than most. The probity of this set
>
> > of accusers in remembering events of a generation ago was questioned
>
> > repeatedly, and the lightness of his sentence reflected those doubts.
>
> >
>
> > In particular, it was made clear by the trial judge that when he had (in
>
> > your olde worlde phrase) "paid his debt" the nature of King's career
>
> > meant that a ban on working with children would be entirely inappropriate.
>
> >
>
> > Luckily, Britain's concert-going public takes a more mature and sensible
>
> > line than the witch-hunters of the tabloid press, "stir it" though they
>
> > might. King has been back working for some time now, and the great
>
> > majority have been glad to welcome his return and leave management of
>
> > his conscience to the man himself.
>
> >
>
> > So the responsible answer to your question is "of course not".
>
>
>
> In Boston, Robert Zander was fired from his position simply because he
>
> hired someone who had been convicted of child abuse and had done his
>
> time.
> I don't know about King's case, but if I were in charge, (almost wrote
>
> "If I were King"), I'd consider the safety of the children first, and
>
> the nature of King's career second. I hope that this was done.
TD
O
Jul 9, 2013, 9:45:17 AM7/9/13
to
In article <99407670-a7cc-42e2...@googlegroups.com>, td
I prefer to waste my paltry mental faculties in my own fashion. I
recommend you do the same.
-Owen
recommend you do the same.
-Owen
Steve de Mena
Jul 9, 2013, 2:46:27 PM7/9/13
to
On 7/9/13 4:39 AM, Christopher Webber wrote:
> On 09/07/2013 12:16, Oscar wrote:
>> Paid his debt? Or, should be banned from leading children?
>
> I shouldn't take much notice of the Daily Mail, if I were you. It is
> not a serious newspaper, but a muck-raking tabloid.
>
> Robert King's case raised more doubts than most. The probity of this
> set of accusers in remembering events of a generation ago was
> questioned repeatedly, and the lightness of his sentence reflected
> those doubts.
>
> In particular, it was made clear by the trial judge that when he had
> (in your olde worlde phrase) "paid his debt" the nature of King's
> career meant that a ban on working with children would be entirely
> inappropriate.
But he was found guilty, no? Strange that what is profession was
> On 09/07/2013 12:16, Oscar wrote:
>> Paid his debt? Or, should be banned from leading children?
>
> I shouldn't take much notice of the Daily Mail, if I were you. It is
> not a serious newspaper, but a muck-raking tabloid.
>
> Robert King's case raised more doubts than most. The probity of this
> set of accusers in remembering events of a generation ago was
> questioned repeatedly, and the lightness of his sentence reflected
> those doubts.
>
> In particular, it was made clear by the trial judge that when he had
> (in your olde worlde phrase) "paid his debt" the nature of King's
> career meant that a ban on working with children would be entirely
> inappropriate.
would have a bearing on his sentence or terms of his release.
>
> Luckily, Britain's concert-going public takes a more mature and
> sensible line than the witch-hunters of the tabloid press, "stir it"
> though they might. King has been back working for some time now, and
> the great majority have been glad to welcome his return and leave
> management of his conscience to the man himself.
>
> So the responsible answer to your question is "of course not".
Norman Schwartz
Jul 9, 2013, 2:44:54 PM7/9/13
to
children". (Not that I intend wasting my paltry mental faculties on this
issue.)
Christopher Webber
Jul 9, 2013, 3:40:06 PM7/9/13
to
On 09/07/2013 19:46, Steve de Mena wrote:
> But he was found guilty, no? Strange that what is profession was would
> have a bearing on his sentence or terms of his release.
It is called "tempering justice with mercy", and is a peculiarly British
> But he was found guilty, no? Strange that what is profession was would
> have a bearing on his sentence or terms of his release.
way of doing things. Personally I'm rather fond of mercy, a quality
which is not strained, and which we're all in need of.
O
Jul 9, 2013, 3:43:55 PM7/9/13
to
In article <D-SdnTR7usoZx0HM...@giganews.com>, Steve de
high, and many have been found to have assaulted very high numbers of
victims.
I understand the need for rehabilitation and reintegration with society
for offenders, but that doesn't mean we need to place the candy thief
with his old job back in the sweets shop.
-Owen
Mena <st...@demena.com> wrote:
> On 7/9/13 4:39 AM, Christopher Webber wrote:
> > On 09/07/2013 12:16, Oscar wrote:
> >> Paid his debt? Or, should be banned from leading children?
> >
> > I shouldn't take much notice of the Daily Mail, if I were you. It is
> > not a serious newspaper, but a muck-raking tabloid.
> >
> > Robert King's case raised more doubts than most. The probity of this
> > set of accusers in remembering events of a generation ago was
> > questioned repeatedly, and the lightness of his sentence reflected
> > those doubts.
> >
> > In particular, it was made clear by the trial judge that when he had
> > (in your olde worlde phrase) "paid his debt" the nature of King's
> > career meant that a ban on working with children would be entirely
> > inappropriate.
>
> But he was found guilty, no? Strange that what is profession was
> would have a bearing on his sentence or terms of his release.
Particularly since the rate of recidivism among pederasts is quite
> On 7/9/13 4:39 AM, Christopher Webber wrote:
> > On 09/07/2013 12:16, Oscar wrote:
> >> Paid his debt? Or, should be banned from leading children?
> >
> > I shouldn't take much notice of the Daily Mail, if I were you. It is
> > not a serious newspaper, but a muck-raking tabloid.
> >
> > Robert King's case raised more doubts than most. The probity of this
> > set of accusers in remembering events of a generation ago was
> > questioned repeatedly, and the lightness of his sentence reflected
> > those doubts.
> >
> > In particular, it was made clear by the trial judge that when he had
> > (in your olde worlde phrase) "paid his debt" the nature of King's
> > career meant that a ban on working with children would be entirely
> > inappropriate.
>
> But he was found guilty, no? Strange that what is profession was
> would have a bearing on his sentence or terms of his release.
high, and many have been found to have assaulted very high numbers of
victims.
I understand the need for rehabilitation and reintegration with society
for offenders, but that doesn't mean we need to place the candy thief
with his old job back in the sweets shop.
-Owen
Message has been deleted
Frank Berger
Jul 9, 2013, 4:23:09 PM7/9/13
to
On 7/9/2013 4:14 PM, frankwm wrote:
> Yack-Yack-Yack
>
> http://www.playbillarts.com/news/article/6591.html
> "Judge Hezlett Colgan sentenced King to three years and nine months in prison,[maximum sentence is 10 years] beginning immediately, and the conductor will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. The judge did not bar King from working with children in the future, however, citing the "radical change" in King's life (marriage and fatherhood) since the time of the offenses".
>
Does it occur to anyone that a compromise is to only prohibit the
convicted pederast from being *alone* with children?
> Yack-Yack-Yack
>
> http://www.playbillarts.com/news/article/6591.html
> "Judge Hezlett Colgan sentenced King to three years and nine months in prison,[maximum sentence is 10 years] beginning immediately, and the conductor will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. The judge did not bar King from working with children in the future, however, citing the "radical change" in King's life (marriage and fatherhood) since the time of the offenses".
>
> "It is called "tempering justice with mercy", and is a peculiarly British
> way of doing things".
>
> Tell That To Barry George...at the mercy of Dodgy English Judiciary/Wizened Witch Theresa May !!
> "It is called "tempering justice with mercy", and is a peculiarly British
> way of doing things".
>
>
Does it occur to anyone that a compromise is to only prohibit the
convicted pederast from being *alone* with children?
O
Jul 9, 2013, 5:19:23 PM7/9/13
to
In article <b10659e4-aaac-48d7...@googlegroups.com>,
15th charge was dismissed). In the US, getting married and having a
child will not mitigate any such charges.
>
> "It is called "tempering justice with mercy", and is a peculiarly British
> way of doing things".
I think the current US obsession with sex offenders is draconian and
amounts to a life sentence for people having sex on a beach, but I've
seen peoples lives ruined due to molestation and I don't have much
"mercy" for those who actually assault.
-Owen
frankwm <frankw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yack-Yack-Yack
>
> http://www.playbillarts.com/news/article/6591.html
> "Judge Hezlett Colgan sentenced King to three years and nine months in
> prison,[maximum sentence is 10 years] beginning immediately, and the
> conductor will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
> The judge did not bar King from working with children in the future, however,
> citing the "radical change" in King's life (marriage and fatherhood) since
> the time of the offenses".
It seems he was found guilty of molesting at least 14 young boys (the
> Yack-Yack-Yack
>
> http://www.playbillarts.com/news/article/6591.html
> "Judge Hezlett Colgan sentenced King to three years and nine months in
> prison,[maximum sentence is 10 years] beginning immediately, and the
> conductor will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
> The judge did not bar King from working with children in the future, however,
> citing the "radical change" in King's life (marriage and fatherhood) since
> the time of the offenses".
15th charge was dismissed). In the US, getting married and having a
child will not mitigate any such charges.
>
> "It is called "tempering justice with mercy", and is a peculiarly British
> way of doing things".
amounts to a life sentence for people having sex on a beach, but I've
seen peoples lives ruined due to molestation and I don't have much
"mercy" for those who actually assault.
-Owen
Christopher Webber
Jul 9, 2013, 5:28:32 PM7/9/13
to
On 09/07/2013 20:43, O wrote:
> I understand the need for rehabilitation and reintegration with society
> for offenders, but that doesn't mean we need to place the candy thief
> with his old job back in the sweets shop.
The case was sensitively judged on its individual merit, rather than
> I understand the need for rehabilitation and reintegration with society
> for offenders, but that doesn't mean we need to place the candy thief
> with his old job back in the sweets shop.
through easy, sweeping moral condemnations. The professionals and
experts decided (rightly) that there was not the remotest chance of
Robert King, who's been happily married with children for decades, of
returning to his youthful, post-Cambridge proclivities.
Luckily neither the howling of the witch-hunters, nor the
litigation-crazed baying of the Sweaty Night Cap Brigade, have quite
drowned out our rational justice system here in the UK. It's holding out
- barely - against the assault of the tabloid press, internet vox pop,
and a target-driven police force obsessed with easy PR to make it look good.
These, not Mr King, are the dangers to UK society.
Christopher Webber
Jul 9, 2013, 5:33:11 PM7/9/13
to
On 09/07/2013 22:19, O wrote:
> It seems he was found guilty of molesting at least 14 young boys (the
> 15th charge was dismissed). In the US, getting married and having a
> child will not mitigate any such charges.
This is totally wrong. He was found guilty of assaulting five boys. If
> It seems he was found guilty of molesting at least 14 young boys (the
> 15th charge was dismissed). In the US, getting married and having a
> child will not mitigate any such charges.
you're interested, you'd be better reading a more reliable report than
the Daily Mail's nonsense:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6720213.stm
Although this does not include what the judge had to say about the
strikingly "hazy memories" of the alleged "victims" in this case. One
way and another, the trial report made uncomfortable reading. And as to
what payments, if any, the "victims" received from junk tabloids, we
will never know.
Frank Berger
Jul 9, 2013, 5:45:45 PM7/9/13
to
you to trust Mr. King to be alone with your own 12 year-old son?
Frank Berger
Jul 9, 2013, 5:50:37 PM7/9/13
to
On 7/9/2013 5:33 PM, Christopher Webber wrote:
story didn't say how many counts were associated with the 4 convictions.
As if it matters much.
Message has been deleted
Christopher Webber
Jul 9, 2013, 7:39:56 PM7/9/13
to
On 09/07/2013 22:45, Frank Berger wrote:
>
> Would your apparent doubts about Mr. King's guilt be sufficient to allow
> you to trust Mr. King to be alone with your own 12 year-old son?
I have no doubts about his guilt. And yes, of course I would trust him
>
> Would your apparent doubts about Mr. King's guilt be sufficient to allow
> you to trust Mr. King to be alone with your own 12 year-old son?
with my own 12 year old son. He's a fantastic musician, and has inspired
many more young people than he allegedly "damaged".
Frank Berger
Jul 9, 2013, 8:28:22 PM7/9/13
to
don't understand why you would trust him with *anyone's* child. I
wonder, though, why you are so sure he his innocent?
O
Jul 9, 2013, 9:32:24 PM7/9/13
to
In article <b43dso...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber
straightened it out. It was indeed five boys, but there were 14
counts, so obviously he had been a multiple offender to them.
I find the Judges comment about his radical life change of marriage and
a child to be strange - almost like the Judge is saying "see, he's not
a homosexual anymore," and believing the false stereotype that child
molestation and homosexuality were linked.
"All were now adults and although some of their recollections might now
be "hazy", the accounts they had given police contained "very similar
features"."
It's not clear who characterized their recollections as "hazy," but
they were certainly clear enough to get 14 convictions.
> One
> way and another, the trial report made uncomfortable reading. And as to
> what payments, if any, the "victims" received from junk tabloids, we
> will never know.
The notorious Father Porter was a priest at the elementary school I
attended. Although I had no contact with him at all, several of my
classmates certainly did, and were instrumental in getting him
convicted decades later. Most of them didn't do it for the money, and
I doubt they got very much from the Church anyway, but they got him put
away for life (even though he had left the church, remarried and had
children - apparently he still hadn't stopped). Most of them had deep
emotional scarring from it that manifested itself in violence at
school, and destroyed many of their lives afterwards. The schoolyard
was a very dangerous place when I was in 8th grade. I can't imagine
anyone who'd gone through this doing it for a payoff from a tabloid.
Nobody got rich from Father Porter, nor the Church. I think they
recovered their legal fees, after years of effort, but any additional
amounts were small.
-Owen
<zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:
> On 09/07/2013 22:19, O wrote:
> > It seems he was found guilty of molesting at least 14 young boys (the
> > 15th charge was dismissed). In the US, getting married and having a
> > child will not mitigate any such charges.
>
> This is totally wrong. He was found guilty of assaulting five boys. If
> you're interested, you'd be better reading a more reliable report than
> the Daily Mail's nonsense:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6720213.stm
Thank you for that post. I had misunderstood and I'm glad you
> On 09/07/2013 22:19, O wrote:
> > It seems he was found guilty of molesting at least 14 young boys (the
> > 15th charge was dismissed). In the US, getting married and having a
> > child will not mitigate any such charges.
>
> This is totally wrong. He was found guilty of assaulting five boys. If
> you're interested, you'd be better reading a more reliable report than
> the Daily Mail's nonsense:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6720213.stm
straightened it out. It was indeed five boys, but there were 14
counts, so obviously he had been a multiple offender to them.
I find the Judges comment about his radical life change of marriage and
a child to be strange - almost like the Judge is saying "see, he's not
a homosexual anymore," and believing the false stereotype that child
molestation and homosexuality were linked.
>
> Although this does not include what the judge had to say about the
> strikingly "hazy memories" of the alleged "victims" in this case.
From your article above:
> Although this does not include what the judge had to say about the
> strikingly "hazy memories" of the alleged "victims" in this case.
"All were now adults and although some of their recollections might now
be "hazy", the accounts they had given police contained "very similar
features"."
It's not clear who characterized their recollections as "hazy," but
they were certainly clear enough to get 14 convictions.
> One
> way and another, the trial report made uncomfortable reading. And as to
> what payments, if any, the "victims" received from junk tabloids, we
> will never know.
attended. Although I had no contact with him at all, several of my
classmates certainly did, and were instrumental in getting him
convicted decades later. Most of them didn't do it for the money, and
I doubt they got very much from the Church anyway, but they got him put
away for life (even though he had left the church, remarried and had
children - apparently he still hadn't stopped). Most of them had deep
emotional scarring from it that manifested itself in violence at
school, and destroyed many of their lives afterwards. The schoolyard
was a very dangerous place when I was in 8th grade. I can't imagine
anyone who'd gone through this doing it for a payoff from a tabloid.
Nobody got rich from Father Porter, nor the Church. I think they
recovered their legal fees, after years of effort, but any additional
amounts were small.
-Owen
Steve de Mena
Jul 9, 2013, 9:47:09 PM7/9/13
to
On 7/9/13 2:33 PM, Christopher Webber wrote:
> On 09/07/2013 22:19, O wrote:
>> It seems he was found guilty of molesting at least 14 young boys (the
>> 15th charge was dismissed). In the US, getting married and having a
>> child will not mitigate any such charges.
>
> This is totally wrong. He was found guilty of assaulting five boys. If
> you're interested, you'd be better reading a more reliable report than
> the Daily Mail's nonsense:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6720213.stm
>
> Although this does not include what the judge had to say about the
> strikingly "hazy memories" of the alleged "victims" in this case.
I found this story ...
> On 09/07/2013 22:19, O wrote:
>> It seems he was found guilty of molesting at least 14 young boys (the
>> 15th charge was dismissed). In the US, getting married and having a
>> child will not mitigate any such charges.
>
> This is totally wrong. He was found guilty of assaulting five boys. If
> you're interested, you'd be better reading a more reliable report than
> the Daily Mail's nonsense:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6720213.stm
>
> Although this does not include what the judge had to say about the
> strikingly "hazy memories" of the alleged "victims" in this case.
""[...] although some of their recollections might now
be 'hazy', the accounts they had given police contained 'very similar
features'.""
You left off the second half ....
features'.""
" One
> way and another, the trial report made uncomfortable reading. And as
> to what payments, if any, the "victims" received from junk tabloids,
> we will never know.
assault between 1982 and 1995."
14 counts though. That was probably why "O" thought 14 boys.
The Daily Mail "nonsense" seems to have an accurate headline:
"He went to prison on 14 charges of indecent assault on five boys"
Steve
Steve de Mena
Jul 9, 2013, 9:50:10 PM7/9/13
to
"damaged"." So that makes it OK.
And why do you say "allegedly" when he was found guilty in a court of
law. That term "allegedly" is usually reserved for pre-trial and trial.
Steve
Frank Berger
Jul 9, 2013, 11:36:53 PM7/9/13
to
guilt" to mean he believes King is innocent. Otherwise, how on earth
would he trust King alone with young boys? I suppose he could believe
King is guilty but rehabilitated, but don't know the basis for that
belief. Surely not that he got married and had children. I've asked
him to clarify.
Christopher Webber
Jul 10, 2013, 4:29:44 AM7/10/13
to
On 10/07/2013 01:28, Frank Berger wrote:
> I assume you mean you have no doubt that he his innocent. Otherwise, I
> don't understand why you would trust him with *anyone's* child. I
> wonder, though, why you are so sure he his innocent?
No. I wrote what I meant. I've no doubt he was guilty. And I also meant
> I assume you mean you have no doubt that he his innocent. Otherwise, I
> don't understand why you would trust him with *anyone's* child. I
> wonder, though, why you are so sure he his innocent?
the rest of what I wrote. That seems to me to be the decent way to behave.
I think it is perhaps time to re-read "The Crucible".
Christopher Webber
Jul 10, 2013, 4:36:56 AM7/10/13
to
On 10/07/2013 02:50, Steve de Mena wrote:
>
> Oh, he has "inspired many more young people than he allegedly
> "damaged"." So that makes it OK.
>
It redresses the balance, certainly.
>
> Oh, he has "inspired many more young people than he allegedly
> "damaged"." So that makes it OK.
>
> And why do you say "allegedly" when he was found guilty in a court of
> law. That term "allegedly" is usually reserved for pre-trial and trial.
evidence (apart from their own testimony) that these five men were
"damaged" by the experience. People making such accusations need to make
such dramatic claims in order to get their hands on the compensation (a
bad "culture" we've imported from the States.
That is what the Judge in King's case was mindful of when making his
judgement, and passing the surprisingly light sentence.
The idea of "damaged" children is, in general, very dangerously tied up
to Disneyfication of innocence, the infantilising of even adult
experience, and the medicalisation (for cash) of every adverse chance
that life throws at us.
Once again, we need to re-read "The Crucible" to see where this leads,
for the "victims" as much as the "witches".
Herman
Jul 10, 2013, 4:44:47 AM7/10/13
to
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:36:56 AM UTC+2, Christopher Webber wrote:
>
> The idea of "damaged" children is, in general, very dangerously tied up
>
> to Disneyfication of innocence, the infantilising of even adult
>
> experience, and the medicalisation (for cash) of every adverse chance
>
> that life throws at us.
>
You make some interesting points, Christopher, although I'm not sure I'd let my daughter be alone with Mr. King.
>
> The idea of "damaged" children is, in general, very dangerously tied up
>
> to Disneyfication of innocence, the infantilising of even adult
>
> experience, and the medicalisation (for cash) of every adverse chance
>
> that life throws at us.
>
However, you have to keep in mind that this topic was set up by Oscar to elicit the predictable reactions, usually by people who have not checked the particulars of the case.
Christopher Webber
Jul 10, 2013, 5:30:10 AM7/10/13
to
On 10/07/2013 09:44, Herman wrote:
> You make some interesting points, Christopher, although I'm not sure I'd let my daughter be alone with Mr. King.
>
> However, you have to keep in mind that this topic was set up by Oscar to elicit the predictable reactions, usually by people who have not checked the particulars of the case.
Thank you Herman. I was feeling that I'd unwittingly stirred up a nest
> You make some interesting points, Christopher, although I'm not sure I'd let my daughter be alone with Mr. King.
>
> However, you have to keep in mind that this topic was set up by Oscar to elicit the predictable reactions, usually by people who have not checked the particulars of the case.
of vipers... and I'm shocked to find such 'predictable reactions' here,
in all honesty. I'd have hoped people would be aware of the particular
facts, before pronouncing general judgement.
As to letting our children (of either sex) be alone with other adults,
I'll pass on an anecdote I had from a friend over lunch a couple of
months ago. The police wanted to interview this man's 12yo son about his
piano teacher, who'd just been arrested for sexual molestation (boys and
girls). My friend refused, on the excellent grounds that he did not wish
his son's innocence to be besmirched by intrusive police questioning
about sex: if anything had indeed "happened" to him (and there was
nothing to suggest it had) the boy would feel more frightened by
questioning from strangers, than anything which might or might not have
happened between him and the piano teacher he liked and respected. The
police were shocked by this attitude, and offered social service
counselling to "help the process". This made my friend even more
determined not to be moved: if they wanted to interrogate his son, and
drag in social services to boot, then they'd have to come back with a
warrant. They didn't.
I give this merely as an example of the strong pressures which the
British Police engaged in the witch hunts put on to the parents of
alleged "damaged victims". These interrogations (in the majority of
cases where parents do not behave as strongly or sensibly as my friend)
cause much more "damage" to children than anything they might prevent.
It's about boosting Police PR for the tabloids, not about maintaining
the innocence of our children.
Back to "The Crucible"!
Message has been deleted
Frank Berger
Jul 10, 2013, 8:03:17 AM7/10/13
to
Frank Berger
Jul 10, 2013, 8:07:14 AM7/10/13
to
suffer. It's a legitimate medical question. I can't understand being
so confident that there is none that you would actually trust convicted
pedophiles around children. You seem virtually to be saying that
pedophilia is OK.
Christopher Webber
Jul 10, 2013, 8:49:12 AM7/10/13
to
On 10/07/2013 13:03, Frank Berger wrote:
> The mind reels.
Good, Frank. At least that's a start!
Read "The Crucible" .. particularly as it relates to a question raised
by your other recent post, where you suggest that refusal to join the
witch-hunt is the same as condoning the crime. c.f. John Proctor's
dilemma in "The Crucible", where because of his refusal to join in
hysterical condemnation of his neighbours he ends up being burnt as a
witch himself - despite the fact that even his judges know he is
completely innocent.
The play was 'about' Macarthyism of course, but it applies to all witch
hunts, including the present pedo-crusade.
Many fair-minded and tolerant people have been cowed into silence, while
our once robust British social glue is dissolving in the fires. Just
about every Youth Organisation (choirs, scouts, sports et. al.) reports
big difficulties because of labyrinthine sexual-offences checking
procedures, which put volunteers off applying to run such groups,
especially given the fear of malicious accusations and/or police
investigations.
This is the only area where people are assumed guilty until proven
innocent. It's also why so many teachers (currently pretty much unable
even to touch their charges without fear of prosecution, though there is
a public backlash on this one) refuse even to take children on school
trips any more.
If that's the kind of society you want, then that's what you'll get.
Personally, I think it stinks.
> The mind reels.
Good, Frank. At least that's a start!
Read "The Crucible" .. particularly as it relates to a question raised
by your other recent post, where you suggest that refusal to join the
witch-hunt is the same as condoning the crime. c.f. John Proctor's
dilemma in "The Crucible", where because of his refusal to join in
hysterical condemnation of his neighbours he ends up being burnt as a
witch himself - despite the fact that even his judges know he is
completely innocent.
The play was 'about' Macarthyism of course, but it applies to all witch
hunts, including the present pedo-crusade.
Many fair-minded and tolerant people have been cowed into silence, while
our once robust British social glue is dissolving in the fires. Just
about every Youth Organisation (choirs, scouts, sports et. al.) reports
big difficulties because of labyrinthine sexual-offences checking
procedures, which put volunteers off applying to run such groups,
especially given the fear of malicious accusations and/or police
investigations.
This is the only area where people are assumed guilty until proven
innocent. It's also why so many teachers (currently pretty much unable
even to touch their charges without fear of prosecution, though there is
a public backlash on this one) refuse even to take children on school
trips any more.
If that's the kind of society you want, then that's what you'll get.
Personally, I think it stinks.
Frank Berger
Jul 10, 2013, 10:04:34 AM7/10/13
to
On 7/10/2013 8:49 AM, Christopher Webber wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 13:03, Frank Berger wrote:
>> The mind reels.
>
> Good, Frank. At least that's a start!
>
> Read "The Crucible" .. particularly as it relates to a question raised
> by your other recent post, where you suggest that refusal to join the
> witch-hunt is the same as condoning the crime. c.f. John Proctor's
> dilemma in "The Crucible", where because of his refusal to join in
> hysterical condemnation of his neighbours he ends up being burnt as a
> witch himself - despite the fact that even his judges know he is
> completely innocent.
>
> The play was 'about' Macarthyism of course, but it applies to all witch
> hunts, including the present pedo-crusade.
>
> Many fair-minded and tolerant people have been cowed into silence, while
> our once robust British social glue is dissolving in the fires. Just
> about every Youth Organisation (choirs, scouts, sports et. al.) reports
> big difficulties because of labyrinthine sexual-offences checking
> procedures, which put volunteers off applying to run such groups,
> especially given the fear of malicious accusations and/or police
> investigations.
>
An alternative view is that pedophilia is a serious problem (when it
> On 10/07/2013 13:03, Frank Berger wrote:
>> The mind reels.
>
> Good, Frank. At least that's a start!
>
> Read "The Crucible" .. particularly as it relates to a question raised
> by your other recent post, where you suggest that refusal to join the
> witch-hunt is the same as condoning the crime. c.f. John Proctor's
> dilemma in "The Crucible", where because of his refusal to join in
> hysterical condemnation of his neighbours he ends up being burnt as a
> witch himself - despite the fact that even his judges know he is
> completely innocent.
>
> The play was 'about' Macarthyism of course, but it applies to all witch
> hunts, including the present pedo-crusade.
>
> Many fair-minded and tolerant people have been cowed into silence, while
> our once robust British social glue is dissolving in the fires. Just
> about every Youth Organisation (choirs, scouts, sports et. al.) reports
> big difficulties because of labyrinthine sexual-offences checking
> procedures, which put volunteers off applying to run such groups,
> especially given the fear of malicious accusations and/or police
> investigations.
>
occurs), and that pedophiles are naturally attracted to jobs and
activities that put them into contact with children. Hence the
necessity to pay close(r) attention to who our children are exposed to.
Are there false accusations? Of course, innocent people are accused
and sometimes convicted of crimes all the time.
> This is the only area where people are assumed guilty until proven
> innocent.
a *convicted* pedophile, who you *admit* is a pedophile (no false
accusation here). I can only assume you don't think pedophilia is a
very serious crime. If there is no damage to the so called victims,
then it should be entirely legal in the first place, shouldn't it?
Bob Harper
Jul 10, 2013, 10:07:48 AM7/10/13
to
of those questioning young people go well beyond mere questioning.
Here's a, maybe *the*, most famous case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Jul 10, 2013, 10:11:24 AM7/10/13
to
On 7/10/13 5:49 AM, Christopher Webber wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 13:03, Frank Berger wrote:
>> The mind reels.
>
> Good, Frank. At least that's a start!
>
> Read "The Crucible" .. particularly as it relates to a question raised
> by your other recent post, where you suggest that refusal to join the
> witch-hunt is the same as condoning the crime. c.f. John Proctor's
> dilemma in "The Crucible", where because of his refusal to join in
> hysterical condemnation of his neighbours he ends up being burnt as a
> witch himself - despite the fact that even his judges know he is
> completely innocent.
>
> The play was 'about' Macarthyism of course, but it applies to all witch
> hunts, including the present pedo-crusade.
>
> Many fair-minded and tolerant people have been cowed into silence, while
> our once robust British social glue is dissolving in the fires. Just
> about every Youth Organisation (choirs, scouts, sports et. al.) reports
> big difficulties because of labyrinthine sexual-offences checking
> procedures, which put volunteers off applying to run such groups,
> especially given the fear of malicious accusations and/or police
> investigations.
>
> This is the only area where people are assumed guilty until proven
> innocent.
I don't know about that. Had any experience with the TSA?
> On 10/07/2013 13:03, Frank Berger wrote:
>> The mind reels.
>
> Good, Frank. At least that's a start!
>
> Read "The Crucible" .. particularly as it relates to a question raised
> by your other recent post, where you suggest that refusal to join the
> witch-hunt is the same as condoning the crime. c.f. John Proctor's
> dilemma in "The Crucible", where because of his refusal to join in
> hysterical condemnation of his neighbours he ends up being burnt as a
> witch himself - despite the fact that even his judges know he is
> completely innocent.
>
> The play was 'about' Macarthyism of course, but it applies to all witch
> hunts, including the present pedo-crusade.
>
> Many fair-minded and tolerant people have been cowed into silence, while
> our once robust British social glue is dissolving in the fires. Just
> about every Youth Organisation (choirs, scouts, sports et. al.) reports
> big difficulties because of labyrinthine sexual-offences checking
> procedures, which put volunteers off applying to run such groups,
> especially given the fear of malicious accusations and/or police
> investigations.
>
> This is the only area where people are assumed guilty until proven
> innocent.
It's also why so many teachers (currently pretty much unable
> even to touch their charges without fear of prosecution, though there is
> a public backlash on this one) refuse even to take children on school
> trips any more.
>
> If that's the kind of society you want, then that's what you'll get.
> Personally, I think it stinks.
Bob Harper
Frank Berger
Jul 10, 2013, 10:32:15 AM7/10/13
to
questioned, for fear that more damage would be done to them than the
pedophilia itself (an unsupported assertion, perhaps), then pedophiles
would be virtually free to practice their trade, wouldn't they?
Frank Berger
Jul 10, 2013, 10:40:16 AM7/10/13
to
children from pedophiles is to ensure that they aren't alone with them.
Many of the managers where I worked had years ago adopted the practice
of not being alone with women employees, to protect themselves against
the possibility of harassment charges (or even to protect themselves
from actually inadvertently committing harassment). At times it was
inconvenient, but many felt it was a necessity.
If terrorists want to blow you up, you can let them or spend a lot of
money protecting yourself. Either way they are going to impose costs on
society.
The parallel with protecting children against pedophiles is obvious.
It's only if you don't think children are "damaged" by pedophiles that a
public policy of doing nothing would be appropriate.
Gerard
Jul 10, 2013, 11:26:10 AM7/10/13
to
Frank Berger <frankd...@gmail.com> typed:
You suggest that there is some logic in your reply, but there is none.
Probably you continued asking questions with the *purpose* to come to your
"virtually conclusion".
Probably you continued asking questions with the *purpose* to come to your
"virtually conclusion".
Bob Harper
Jul 10, 2013, 12:03:51 PM7/10/13
to
On 7/10/13 7:32 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 7/10/2013 10:07 AM, Bob Harper wrote:
>> On 7/10/13 2:30 AM, Christopher Webber wrote:
(snip)
> On 7/10/2013 10:07 AM, Bob Harper wrote:
>> On 7/10/13 2:30 AM, Christopher Webber wrote:
>>>
>>> I give this merely as an example of the strong pressures which the
>>> British Police engaged in the witch hunts put on to the parents of
>>> alleged "damaged victims". These interrogations (in the majority of
>>> cases where parents do not behave as strongly or sensibly as my friend)
>>> cause much more "damage" to children than anything they might prevent.
>>> It's about boosting Police PR for the tabloids, not about maintaining
>>> the innocence of our children.
>>>
>>> Back to "The Crucible"!
>>
>> Your friend was wise. It has been established here in the US that some
>> of those questioning young people go well beyond mere questioning.
>> Here's a, maybe *the*, most famous case:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> Taken to the logical extreme, if victims of pedophilia were never
> questioned, for fear that more damage would be done to them than the
> pedophilia itself (an unsupported assertion, perhaps), then pedophiles
> would be virtually free to practice their trade, wouldn't they?
Frank, I usually agree with you, but in this case I think you know
>>> I give this merely as an example of the strong pressures which the
>>> British Police engaged in the witch hunts put on to the parents of
>>> alleged "damaged victims". These interrogations (in the majority of
>>> cases where parents do not behave as strongly or sensibly as my friend)
>>> cause much more "damage" to children than anything they might prevent.
>>> It's about boosting Police PR for the tabloids, not about maintaining
>>> the innocence of our children.
>>>
>>> Back to "The Crucible"!
>>
>> Your friend was wise. It has been established here in the US that some
>> of those questioning young people go well beyond mere questioning.
>> Here's a, maybe *the*, most famous case:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> Taken to the logical extreme, if victims of pedophilia were never
> questioned, for fear that more damage would be done to them than the
> pedophilia itself (an unsupported assertion, perhaps), then pedophiles
> would be virtually free to practice their trade, wouldn't they?
you're proposing an absurdity. Logical extremes tend that way.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
Jul 10, 2013, 12:07:16 PM7/10/13
to
I don't think you do either.
>
> The parallel with protecting children against pedophiles is obvious.
> It's only if you don't think children are "damaged" by pedophiles that a
> public policy of doing nothing would be appropriate.
>
Bob Harper
>
Herman
Jul 10, 2013, 12:57:17 PM7/10/13
to
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:32:15 PM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
>
>
> Taken to the logical extreme,
That's your M.O.
>
>
> Taken to the logical extreme,
It's just logic to you.
Human ature isn't logic.
Frank Berger
Jul 10, 2013, 1:34:07 PM7/10/13
to
to make a point, which is that the less questioning of victims there is,
the fewer convictions of pedophiles there will be. That's a statement
of fact, not a value judgement about how much questioning there *should*
be. It's a starting point for a discussion.
It's similar to pointing out that if speed limits were reduced from
where they are, lives would be saved. But time would be lost,and time
is valuable, so there's a trade-off, which means opinions will vary and
public policy needs to be determined knowing all the facts.
Frank Berger
Jul 10, 2013, 1:37:17 PM7/10/13
to
own security measures. Competition among airlines will result in
"efficient" security measures. It's hard to imagine that airlines want
their planes to be blown up.
Frank Berger
Jul 10, 2013, 1:38:17 PM7/10/13
to
reason for posing the extreme case, as I posted elsewhere.
Herman
Jul 10, 2013, 2:10:05 PM7/10/13
to
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:38:17 PM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
> And if you were a scientist instead of a sniper, you would know the
>
> reason for posing the extreme case, as I posted elsewhere.
You're not "a scientist" either. Just a cold-hearted man who thinks he thinks like "a scientist".
> And if you were a scientist instead of a sniper, you would know the
>
> reason for posing the extreme case, as I posted elsewhere.
Bob Harper
Jul 10, 2013, 2:18:19 PM7/10/13
to
clear that Frank knows more about the scientific *method* than you do,
your ad hominem remarks notwithstanding.
Bob Harper
Frank Berger
Jul 10, 2013, 2:40:25 PM7/10/13
to
agrees with me on the subject. He said, "......although I'm not sure I'd
let my daughter be alone with Mr. King," which was the point of my
questioning Christoper in the first place. Now that I think of it, King
preyed on Boys, didn't he? What risk would there be letting a girl be
alone with him?
Herman
Jul 10, 2013, 3:01:30 PM7/10/13
to
I do not "attack" you and I do not "essentially agree" with you.
Frank Berger
Jul 10, 2013, 3:06:53 PM7/10/13
to
On 7/10/2013 3:01 PM, Herman wrote:
> I do not "attack" you and I do not "essentially agree" with you.
>
I demonstrated that you do essentially agree with me in questioning
> I do not "attack" you and I do not "essentially agree" with you.
>
Christopher's willingness to allow King to be alone with children. I
quoted you. And to deny "attacking" me is ludicrous. You said I am
"Just a cold-hearted man who thinks he thinks like "a scientist"." You
may think that's appropriate dialogue, but it isn't.
Dana John Hill
Jul 10, 2013, 3:37:03 PM7/10/13
to
"efficiency" has occasionally meant cut-corners and disasters. I'm not
saying the current system is the best, by any means, but I'd like there
to be some oversight.
Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
Herman
Jul 10, 2013, 3:39:24 PM7/10/13
to
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 9:06:53 PM UTC+2, Frank Berger wrote:
You
>
> may think that's appropriate dialogue, but it isn't.
because you don't like it?
You
>
> may think that's appropriate dialogue, but it isn't.
that's not logic.
Frank Berger
Jul 10, 2013, 3:47:06 PM7/10/13
to
amount of care. The fact that there would be some crashes were airlines
to provide their own security and quality control in no way suggests
that government supervision would provide more safety. The lack of
competition in an environment of government policies, rules and
regulations could logically just as easily result in *less* safety.
I'm not
> saying the current system is the best, by any means, but I'd like there
> to be some oversight.
>
> Dana John Hill
> Gainesville, Florida
>
Frank Berger
Jul 10, 2013, 3:48:38 PM7/10/13
to
nothing to do with logic.
cmling
Jul 10, 2013, 5:11:00 PM7/10/13
to
On 09.07.2013 15:13, td wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:04:32 AM UTC-4, O wrote:
>> In article <b42b3t...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber
>>
>> <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 09/07/2013 12:16, Oscar wrote:
>>
>>>> Paid his debt? Or, should be banned from leading children?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I shouldn't take much notice of the Daily Mail, if I were you. It is not
>>
>>> a serious newspaper, but a muck-raking tabloid.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Robert King's case raised more doubts than most. The probity of this set
>>
>>> of accusers in remembering events of a generation ago was questioned
>>
>>> repeatedly, and the lightness of his sentence reflected those doubts.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> In particular, it was made clear by the trial judge that when he had (in
>>
>>> your olde worlde phrase) "paid his debt" the nature of King's career
>>
>>> meant that a ban on working with children would be entirely inappropriate.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Luckily, Britain's concert-going public takes a more mature and sensible
>>
>>> line than the witch-hunters of the tabloid press, "stir it" though they
>>
>>> might. King has been back working for some time now, and the great
>>
>>> majority have been glad to welcome his return and leave management of
>>
>>> his conscience to the man himself.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> So the responsible answer to your question is "of course not".
>>
>>
>>
>> In Boston, Robert Zander was fired from his position simply because he
>>
>> hired someone who had been convicted of child abuse and had done his
>>
>> time.
>
> Which only goes to show us the level of idiocy in the USA.
>
>
>> I don't know about King's case, but if I were in charge, (almost wrote
>>
>> "If I were King"), I'd consider the safety of the children first, and
>>
>> the nature of King's career second. I hope that this was done.
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about it, if I were you. Waste of your paltry mental faculties.
>
> TD
>
Why the vitriol, TD? It is unbecoming.
CML
--
Charles Milton Ling
Vienna, Austria
http://www.proz.com/profile/1721567
> On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 9:04:32 AM UTC-4, O wrote:
>> In article <b42b3t...@mid.individual.net>, Christopher Webber
>>
>> <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 09/07/2013 12:16, Oscar wrote:
>>
>>>> Paid his debt? Or, should be banned from leading children?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I shouldn't take much notice of the Daily Mail, if I were you. It is not
>>
>>> a serious newspaper, but a muck-raking tabloid.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Robert King's case raised more doubts than most. The probity of this set
>>
>>> of accusers in remembering events of a generation ago was questioned
>>
>>> repeatedly, and the lightness of his sentence reflected those doubts.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> In particular, it was made clear by the trial judge that when he had (in
>>
>>> your olde worlde phrase) "paid his debt" the nature of King's career
>>
>>> meant that a ban on working with children would be entirely inappropriate.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Luckily, Britain's concert-going public takes a more mature and sensible
>>
>>> line than the witch-hunters of the tabloid press, "stir it" though they
>>
>>> might. King has been back working for some time now, and the great
>>
>>> majority have been glad to welcome his return and leave management of
>>
>>> his conscience to the man himself.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> So the responsible answer to your question is "of course not".
>>
>>
>>
>> In Boston, Robert Zander was fired from his position simply because he
>>
>> hired someone who had been convicted of child abuse and had done his
>>
>> time.
>
> Which only goes to show us the level of idiocy in the USA.
>
>
>> I don't know about King's case, but if I were in charge, (almost wrote
>>
>> "If I were King"), I'd consider the safety of the children first, and
>>
>> the nature of King's career second. I hope that this was done.
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about it, if I were you. Waste of your paltry mental faculties.
>
> TD
>
Why the vitriol, TD? It is unbecoming.
CML
--
Charles Milton Ling
Vienna, Austria
http://www.proz.com/profile/1721567
Gerard
Jul 11, 2013, 4:45:56 AM7/11/13
to
Norman Schwartz
Jul 11, 2013, 10:38:11 AM7/11/13
to
in such manner.
Frankly My Dear
Jul 13, 2013, 5:32:20 PM7/13/13
to
>
>
> I wouldn't worry too much about it, if I were you. Waste of your paltry mental faculties.
>
>
>
> TD
0 new messages