sub-text of the campaign. People in high places . Surely this particular problem has no class base ? Waht is the social ideal that "Fergie" wishes to create ?

This is by no means intended as a defense of of thos acused of sexually abusing children. But we may indeed have a problem relating to "defense". Ferganoid, you are ignoring WHY the evidence for guilt often appears "overwhelming".

It is the very nature of these cases that often charges are brought only after the interval of many years. Because of that fact, and because it would be unreasonable to expect children to be able to remember "exactly when", we are forced to allow evidence less than specific as to time and place.

Now normally, when there are charges of criminal conduct, the prosecution has to be specific enough to permit the defense to produce evidence "couldn't have been the acused, he/she was elsewhere at the time". In other words, the overwhelming evidence of several eyewitnesses to the crime might all of a sudden become a lot less overwhelming if other witnesses came forward "but we saw the acused 100 miles away at that time".


That is what might be seen as problematical here, why the very ability to conduct a defense is being questioned. What I'd like you to do Ferganoid, is to ask yourself a simple question. Suppose that out of all the cases where somebody is accused of molestation, in ONE by some mistake, the wrong person has been acused. Precisely what would you consider evidence they could present to prove their innocence. If you can't think of any, then of course the evidence against them will almost always be "overwhelming".

In other words, we have a "process" problem brought about by the very nature of the situation. If the legal system insists upon the usual precision of specifying time and place (thus allowing a defense should one exists) then prosecutions become impossible regardless of guilt since only rarely would a child be able to remember. On the other hand, when we require no specifics at all, defense becomes impossible and to be acused the same as to be convicted. The judge making the statement may be wrong in where he thinks the balance belongs, but we indeed do have a problem of balance. Otherwise, why bother having a trial at all? Why bother allowing the defense to present witnesses?

"Surely this particular problem has no class base"

You'd think that wouldn't you, sadly paedeophile rings are run by the top echelons of society, politicians, judges, 'celebrities,' police cheifs etc. that's how it proliferates because they all cover for each other.

Britains top entertainer, Barrymore, is an alchoholic, drug addict, sodomist, rapist, and murderer, but he'll get off with it, and get more awards and accolades.