It's really not me that's having a problem understanding.
I'm not talking specifically about the Jackson case when questioning your stance. I haven't expressed my beliefs either way on that case, because i'm fully aware that I have no idea of the truth of the situation. I've even said clearly that I haven't watched the documentary.
What I took issue with was you saying:
"they can question it, privately through counselling and therapy if need be. If you can't prove it legally, don't defame publicly." And confirming that it was "correct" that your opinion was they should "just get on with it" when asked by @Wizard.
My point has always been that if - I even put if in capital letters to try to make it clear what I was getting at - somebody has genuinely been abused, then saying they can only talk about it to a therapist is a disgusting attitude. I stand by that. I don't care whether they have the means to prove it in court, the real victims of abuse should not be silenced because their abuser is dead and can't defend themselves. There's a reason that many people only speak up about abuse years later, and often when their abuser is dead/can no longer hurt them. To effectively say 'ah well, should have said it earlier' leaves a very sour taste in the mouth for me personally.
The problem really is you with your understanding - it is biased far too much in one direction.
Nothing about what I'm saying is "disgusting". All I am doing is assuming a presumption of innocence and protecting the right to be innocent until proven guilty through due process. You seem to think I'm "disgusting" because I don't proscribe to the lynch mob mentality.
You can have an argument against the statute of limitations for the crimes, sure, but that's a different discussion. Ideally, his crimes should be able to be punished legally right now, but what I'm saying is that if that can't happen, then the alternative shouldn't be a one-sided accusation without the chance of rebuttal via a trial by media.
It's unfortunate, but anything other than that opens the door for anyone being able to say anything about anyone. That's not how it works and it definitely shouldn't be how it works, because for every one case where the accuser is telling the truth, there'll be ample examples of accusers telling lies - look up what happened with Leon Brittan as an example.










