Isn't it now time for the 'witch-hunt' to begin?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....millions-viewers.html

/// A clearly-unhappy Mr Cameron said he did not like what the presenter was doing, and warned he was fuelling a ‘witch hunt'. He said: 'There is a danger if we are not careful, that this can turn into a sort of witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay. ///

Also does it really matter if some of the suspects might happen to be gay?

[emmie]

surely what Scholfield did was wrong, and leaves him and the programme makers open to all sorts of writs for libel. If the parties concerned have pass away there could still be their families who could take issue with this.
this strikes me as very foolhardy by the presenter and his team

[Duncer]

Lightweight news programme tries to get "heavy".

[Duncer]

Like a paediatrician?

[anotheoldgit]

Baldric

A dog lover would not even own one, never mind exhibit one on their Avatar.

[Baldric]

Sit down!
Be quiet!
Bad boy..........

[ummmm]

That is seriously scraping the barrel.

[Duncer]

Perhaps all dogs born before the introduction of this law should be put down?

[jackthehat]

Perhaps we need a Sheepdog to round this thread up and get it back on track....?

[emmie]

there was a lovely picture of one yesterday in the mail, bought for a princely sum i might add, see if can find the photo.

[LazyGun]

"If a 'witch hunt' managers to lift one or two rocks and some vermin comes scurrying out, then that can't be a bad thing surely?

Better to go out hunting them, than allowing them to carry on with their vile actions unchallenged."

I am pretty sure Senator Joe McCarthy would have endorsed your sentiment, but that does not make a witch hunt a good thing.

Allowing sentiment and suspicion and malice and prejudice to inform the investigation wastes police time and resources, unfairly treats some people as suspects, and often serves to reinforce negative stereotypical thinking. These are all bad outcomes.

Better the sniper rifle than the scattergun. Follow up allegations that have corroboration and believable testimony.

[emmie]

as i mentioned, doing this sort of stunt can lead to all sorts of repercussions.

[FredPuli43]

Interesting , aog. Why would a dog lover never own a docked breed before the Animal Welfare Act came into force? And why would a dog lover not own one newly acquired now ? The Regulations made under the Act (S.I No 1120 if you are interested), permit tail docking of dogs of the types listed, if they are required for one of the purposes therein set out e.g. in gamekeeping, or by Customs and Excise or the Prison Service. Are the owners of such exempted dogs not dog lovers?

[dickythecook]

Oh Balders, you are a wag.

[Baldric]

Not according to aog, but let's not go into the de-tails.

[Zeuhl]

<If a 'witch hunt' managers to lift one or two rocks and some vermin comes scurrying out, then that can't be a bad thing surely>

That must be one of the most stupid and thoughtless comments I've seen in a while.

If you think about a 'witch hunt' for more than a nano second you realise that by definition they do not do what they are supposed to. They are a lie and a deception.

Worse still they distract attention and resources from the true issue by allowing people to exercise their own prejudices in persecuting people who have nothing to do with the actual wrong doing. To use the poster's dubious phrase they lift the 'wrong rocks'.

Indeed, the allusion to 'lifting rocks' betrays the poster's existing prejudiced view and lack of respect for those potentially in the firing line regardless of whether they have actually done anything wrong or not.

The fact is that witch hunts of the past enabled some to get rid of rivals or act on personal grievances - i don't believe they caught any real witches.

[naomi24]

I saw that part of the programme, and I think the newspaper is sensationalising it somewhat. As I understood it, Philip Schofield said he’d found those names during just a 3 minute search of the internet, illustrating how easily it could be done. David Cameron didn’t look shocked to me – he handled it well.

Actually, I worry about witch hunts too - but I came under fire here in AnswerBank the other day for objecting to calls from people eager for names to be named regardless of whether or not those people were guilty. Mud sticks – and if it sticks to the innocent, it can destroy lives. Whilst the perpetrators must be brought to justice, we must be ensure that we have good cause to reveal identities before doing so. Paedophilia is not a matter to be taken lightly – and malicious gossip rarely abates completely.

AOG,// Better to go out hunting them, than allowing them to carry on with their vile actions unchallenged. //

But what if the suspicion is wrong, and they’ve done nothing vile? If your innocent reputation was called into question in such a way, you might not think witch hunts such a good idea.

[sandyRoe]

Scofield may have found a number on names during his search of the internet, but has he found any proof?

[pdq1]

Isn't it a tragedy that just as society is trying to normalize the gay community a link is made between them and paedophilia of young boys. The MPs being named must tarnish other gay MPs who just want to live a normal life and find they are part of a witch hunt.

[Duncer]

Why would they be? The sexuality of the guilty is irrelevant - they must be pursued. The welfare and protection of children must take precendence over the supposed potential for anti-gay feeling. As we are now more accepting as a society then why should we let this hinder a genuine investigation, and it does gay men a disservice to suggest the reported/alleged homosexuality of a paedophile should hinder an investigation. I'm sure all innocent gay men will be in full support of the investigation.