This is frightening, no matter how tough you are.

[blackburn_stevie]

http://tinyurl.com/jw8rhxh

This is the video that will make most parents squirm. 

It's what happened when a man (vetted and given the job) tried to entice single boys and girls out of a Park or Swing area away from their parents. If you didn't see it earlier today on the News, take note and pass it on to all parents and other folk with responsibility over kids.

[lost.parrot]

Unlikely isn't impossible., it's merely a subjective assessment of a probability which would exclude a two-state scenario., hence it's not fact, but speculation. 

I'm not so sure listening to accounts by convicted paedophiles, that some inhabit the same reality as the general populous, at all sorts of levels. 

[ronnybabes]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

". . . . or even both giving evidence of what they believe to be the truth from their individual recollections."

I have to say that this unlikely in this case - it's hard to imagine that you could fail to recollect if you had abused a child or if you had been abused as a child.

Well said  We can agree sometimes Creeky. 

---

[lost.parrot]

There are some drunks who claim they have no recollection of even the night before, and in some cases, they appear to mean it literally.

But as it's also possible neither were telling the whole truth, then it's clearly not necessarily a case of either or.

[ronnybabes]

@lost.parrot wrote:

There are some drunks who claim they have no recollection of even the night before, and in some cases, they appear to mean it literally.

How do you  know all that, did you read it somewhere, or.......

But as it's also possible neither were telling the whole truth, then it's clearly not necessarily a case of either or.

 That is a somewhat rather loose label, or tag that you seem to like to use.

You seem to have a deep insight into the minds, and memories that drunks have.

What constitutes a drunk?

Is it someone who drinks a lot?

Is it someone who can't hold his drink?

Is there a difference between drinking a lot, and drinking enough?

At what stage does a drinker become a drunk?

I've had a few drinks in my time, and become intoxicated, will you label me a drunk too, now you've read that statement.

Do they really always, always forget?,

When I've had a skinful I don't.

You use the word drunk in a derogatory way, but aren't there some amiable imbibers?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@lost.parrot wrote:

There are some drunks who claim they have no recollection of even the night before, and in some cases, they appear to mean it literally.

But as it's also possible neither were telling the whole truth, then it's clearly not necessarily a case of either or.

---

How can you partially tell the truth about something as specific as child abuse ????

It wasn't a one off offence he was charged with either but five counts of **bleep**, three of indecent assault, two counts of sexual activity with a child and two of causing a child to engage in sexual activity.

You are stretching the limits of credulity to suggest he could forget all those offence due to drink and likewise that he was only telling a partial truth in denial of them - they are the sort of offences you either have or haven't committed - no halfway house with child **bleep**!

[lost.parrot]

You mean like being an expert on Freud ?

Easy, ....Turner's Defence barrister admitted his client was ' a drunk and a bad husband'

Turner further admitted that he 'went out every night because im working class'

He claimed he drank up to 12 pints a night.
He's about 48 seemingly going on 14

Does that sound like an amiable drinker?

I didn't say they always forget, others are implying they never do

How probable it is, is a matter of opinion; that it's a possibility remains.
You seem to think that it's some sort of unique offence where either side are somehow compelled by a mysterious force to either lie completely, or tell the absolute truth in ever respect.That doesn't stretch credulity, it breaks it

[upthecreekyetagain]

"How probable it is, is a matter of opinion; that it's a possibility remains."
You seem to think that it's some sort of unique offence where either side are somehow compelled by a mysterious force to either lie completely, or tell the absolute truth in ever respect.That doesn't stretch credulity, it breaks it

You can't partially lie when accused with a charge like child R*A*P*E - you either committed the oofence or you didn't - there is no half way house.

He denied the offence - he was either telling the truth or he wasn't - no probability in it other than 100% or 0%

[lost.parrot]

• Not so. Given the legal definition, it may be after 12 pints Turner may have not have considered that he committed the offence as legally defined, perhaps not even fully aware after such intoxication. There is more than one offence.He may have lied about the lesser offences, and there may have been a less than a wholly truthfully account of the more serious offences from the complainant. Numerous possibilities, all hypothetical and all conjecture. Not fact  

[upthecreekyetagain]

Not so. Given the legal definition, it may be after 12 pints Turner may have not have considered that he committed the offence as legally defined

It is an absolute offence - no grey area

There is more than one offence.He may have lied about the lesser offences

So you are saying he may have lied about some and told the truth about others - I will accept that and I will also accept that he may have told the truth about all of them or lied about all of them - but none of that supports the idea you have been putting forward that he could be telling partial lies or partial truths.  He denied the charges - on each one he was either telling the truth or he was lying - no half way house.

[tommy.irene]

I see he is been tried again on ebay by the members..

[tommy.irene]

---

@tommy.irene wrote:

Now 17 years old, she told Manchester Crown Court that Le Vell, 48, had raped her while putting a teddy bear over her mouth to keep her quiet, allegedly telling her he was, ‘just getting rid of all the evil and bad inside me’.

The teenager said the memories ‘all came back to me in one big flush’ at the seminar.  But last week the soap star, who has played garage mechanic Kevin Webster for 30 years,...................... walked free after a jury took just four hours to find him innocent of all charges. 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420854/Incredible-moment-girl-accused-Coronation-Street-act... 

---

Did no one read this................walked free after a jury took just four hours to find him innocent of all charges. 

[ronnybabes]

---

@tommy.irene wrote:

The teenager said the memories ‘all came back to me in one big flush’ at the seminar.  

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420854/Incredible-moment-girl-accused-Coronation-Street-act... 

---

Did no one read this................walked free after a jury took just four hours to find him innocent of all charges. 

---

And we talk about alleged drunks memory lapses.

Tommy, we have all read up on this, that is why we dare to comment..

One  though, (not you Creeky) seems to think he is the only person in posseession of all the relevant facts.

We all have different takes, and put them up for fierce debate.

That is why I keep coming back (periodically after long absences to this Site) I enjoy an exchange of views.

I do not seek to change another viewpoint, just to put my point out there.

I have often bowed to someone's better judgement.

Not this time, in this debate though, well not yet anyway.

It is also surprising on the number of things one can agree on together, even with diametrically opposed points of view. 

[ronnybabes]

---

@lost.parrot wrote:

You mean like being an expert on Freud ?

Is that a dig at me, or CD?  Well it's a very silly one.

Suspect it's a dig at me.

Nope, I'm not an expert at all, never studied his theories, only know what I've read about him, (sound familiar)

and I could easily  form a more structured, and different opinion of him when people who are far more knowledgeable then I am, give me more structured imformation.

[joe_bloggs*]

I don't think it's a dig Ronny,as you did say that you studied and read him # 112

[ronnybabes]

---

@joe_bloggs* wrote:

I don't think it's a dig Ronny,as you did say that you studied and read him # 112

Hmmm!! yes...  I did say that, in a way back previous post. Hats off for being observant.

To put that comment into perspective.. 

I was making a point that I had read a bit about "Freud" and so was not unknowledgeable about him. However.... I am not that knowledgeable about his thesis's or theories.

But... rest assured ...           It was still a dig.

---

[lost.parrot]

Hmmm!! yes...  I did say that, in a way back previous post. Hats off for being observant.

Short term memory loss?

So you are saying he may have lied about some and told the truth about others - I will accept that 

Then under those circumstances the hypothetical defendant was not  telling  the whole truth. 

When commenting on  proposed legislation in this area, an Appeal Court Judge commented that one of the problems was not necessarily a legislative one, but partly due to the complex myriad of personal relations which are essentially private. They didn’t say ‘oh it’s all one or the other’.

You seem to have a deep insight into the minds, and memories that drunks have.

I said some drunks say they have no recollection of short term events, like what happened the night before, that’s discounting the obvious bravado of some.

I said some forget, others seem to maintain it’s impossible to have memory loss which considering it’s commonly and professionally accepted , is rather odd

You questioned the use of the term ‘drunk’ I explained it was Turners own account

Are you suggesting he may have lied about it?

[ronnybabes]

Good heavens! You do jump about a bit.

When I suggest something you wil be aware of it.

I have no idea if he lied, if he had short tem memory loss, (which you suggest I may have, you suggest a lot) or any insight into what he, or other  drunks (I don't like that word,it has a stigma)  people who enjoy a drink may, or may not remember.

You seem pretty convinced that because he admitted openly that he overindulged on alcohol, that memory loss could apply to him, and on that basis have formed an opinion. 

I can only say from my own experience, and the company I keep that people who like a drink, and I am one of them, are not  some lower life form to be labelled derogatorially.

"I said some drunks say......"  yes you did, and you label them accordingly, and seem to have insight and knowledge about a particular type, or group that I think could be applied to anyone who drinks, and sometimes over indulges.

[upthecreekyetagain]

So you are saying he may have lied about some and told the truth about others - I will accept that 

Then under those circumstances the hypothetical defendant was not  telling  the whole truth.

It still leaves just the probabilities of 0 or 1 for each offence when pleading not guilty to them - no question of any other probability as you suggested earlier and certainly not a subjective assessment.

[lost.parrot]

When I suggest something you wil be aware of it.

Perhaps you should practice what you preach

Well ya know some old drunks probably do remember they had forgotten, had another drink and promptly forgot they recalled they had forgotten in the first place

Fairly well documented as far as memory loss is concerned, though perhaps some have forgotten already

It's hardly 'alleged' when the person in question admits it, unless of course you are saying he's not telling the truth

So, somehow if someone has told lies denying some offences they actually committed in a trial involving multiple charges
they somehow aren't lying .
Surely in a binary world they are either lying or not insofar as 'guilt'  goes. 

If he lied on one charge then he lied, surely in binary

Actually there is a case before the cps which has been under consideration for some while and has been mentioned here before

The cps has advised one charge re a serious assault shouldn't go ahead because of the legal definition of consent at the time of the alleged offence. Perhaps they should have consulted here first

[cee-dee]

OK, here's a more clear-cut case. Who lied here?:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24546370