I don't want to believe it!

[LARF]

I'd like to add some perspective into this debate, a certain grounding if you will and inside knowledge.

The big regret from this trial is that the woman lost and Ron Smith was found not guilty. Ron not being guilty is fantastic news, as someone mentioned on a thread above - it would seriously affect their childhood memories of his work, and for me Ron Smith is one of the best Dredd artists. I'm thoroughly behind the UK's court system, it works believe me and I'm sure in this case such evidence came to light to throw her convictions into clear doubt. My regret in all this is the fact that she was lying and for every case where someone is implicated of such a heinous crime further seeds of doubt are sown. Whilst I was reading JD in the 80's there were other kids out there suffering abuse, if they wanted to come forward now, tell all and try to get their abuser behind bars the fact that this woman lied, just makes it harder for them. Not only that, but how offensive is it to people who have really suffered at the hands of perverts that someone should come along and make false accusations out of spite, muddy the water for others and cast doubt into further abuse cases and their victims.

There's a young lady I have the great honour to know, an amazing girl who, discovered through her Mum's new boyfriend that adults should be decent towards young people, be respectful of their privacy and above all show tenderness and love towards their partner whilst being strong, fun and caring to their partner's children. This person provided her with the courage and strength to tell her mother about how a very close adult relative had been abusing her for three years, and had threatened to kill her mother and siblings if she ever told. It was an horrendous time for the family, but in the end justice prevailed and the relative was sent down for 24 years. The boyfriend proved his mettle and married the young girls mother and she now calls him Dad, because in all intents and purposes he is. But what if this young girl had seen the news on the recent case with Ron Smith?

Just think what this woman, in her spite and vidictiveness against Ron Smith may have done? There might be a person out there who, having been abused in the past or present, may now think "Nobody is going to believe me, they'll just think I'm lying - like her." So she's not just affected Ron Smith's life and that of his family, she affected other peoples lives. It only takes one person to have courage and come forward, but in turn it only takes another to prevent the truth from being told.

[flip-r mk2]

I'm with Shark and Steev on this.



flip

[LARF]

I've had my say Shark and Steev are correct.

[Jim_Campbell]

Hmm. I've been giving this thread a wide berth, on the assumption that no good would come of it, but the renewed activity has prompted me to have another look.

Firstly: I still think DXB's post that prompted my somewhat, err, robust response was ill-timed and poorly phrased. "I don't want anyone to think I'm talking about this case, but ..." I'm surprised more people didn't react badly to that, frankly.

However, the fact remains that they didn't, and I've now read DXB's follow-up posts as well, and I have to conclude that DXB's cunty-ness was clearly in the eye of the beholder.

For what it's worth, David: that was clearly a gross overreaction on my part, and I'm sorry. I appreciate that it's probably not worth very much, but it's an apology nonetheless, and genuine one.

Cheers

Jim

[TordelBack]

LARF eloquently sets out much of my own thoughts on the matter.  

I personally don't think this thread should be nuked, even if that was ever the MO of Wake and TPTB.  There's some silliness here, there's some stuff I absolutely disagree with, but to compare it with how most of the rest of the Internet would have dealt with this topic and it's a beacon of restrained and reasoned discussion.

[Mike Gloady]

This is quite typical of the gutter press.  Sadly such an accusation, even should it prove to be groundless and malicious (these things DO happen sadly) tends to provoke, at least among some members of society, a "no smoke without fire" response.  

Sadly we can't blame the hack journos for this, at least not exclusively.  Our courts need to be made aware of this imbalance of protection and legislation introduced to prevent such details being released.

[Eric Plumrose]

We all know journalists, and there are quite a few comments here that could be taken out of context. I know what I'm suggesting smacks of censorship - Hell, it is censorship - and if I may be morbidly practical for a moment, Ron is 80 years old. Now, I hope that he lives for many more years to come, but do we really want journos finding this thread when the inevitable happens and they dive into Google whilst researching his obituary?  I say no, which is why I suggest deleting the whole thing. Maybe this won't be a popular suggestion, and I stand ready to be villified for it, but I feel it's a suggestion that needs to be made.

I doubt there's anything in this thread that can't already be taken out of context elsewhere. I mentioned earlier dweezil2's use of the word 'hobby' which, in hindsight, was probably me just being paranoid.

And having just done a couple of searches for 'ron smith judge dredd', the first twenty pages from Google yield nothing from this particular thread, despite 2000adonline coming up a couple of time. Likewise, the first ten pages from Yahoo.

Ron has a not uncommon name; and one shared by a man convicted in 2006 of similar charges, it seems.

If people feel strongly enough this thread should be nuked, fine. It's unnecessary, in my opinion.

[Peter Wolf]

I cant see any journalists wanted to trawl the internet for this thread and take comments out of context at any time in the future for whatever reason as they werent particularly interested in him before this case and once all this blows over they wont be interested in him at all either.

They dont usually have a very long attention span and there will always be another unfortunate victim of hack journos and another reality TV celebrity or soap star that will divert their attention elsewhere.I bet they have forgotten about this already.

Tabloids are not usually interested in comic artists.They were interested this time though and everyone knows why.

I dont see what there is here to censor as there is nothing contentious here at all but i can see the point of deleting the thread as it will finally put the matter to sleep and partly help to wipe the slate clean for Ron but i disagree about the term censorship being used here as its not censorship as such.Putting something to sleep is not censorship.

So yes delete the thread.

AS for other victims being put off from coming forwards because of this case hopefully that wont happen as each case is different .A lot of victims dont speak out for lots of reasons when it does happen partly because "no one will believe them" etc when its happening and you only have to imagine how many cases go unheard.I dont see the point in worrying about what ifs ? regarding other similar cases.Forget it.You cant worry about everything .All you can do is be glad that the court arrived at the right conclusion this time.If anything it should put off others from being vindictive and spiteful and choosing to abuse the system in this way.

Its hardly going to be the first time this has happened.

[Eric Plumrose]

So yes delete the thread.

WE'RE NOT THE EFFING JBF!

Well, not yet. Even with the occasional knee-jerk reaction, this thread has been far more honest than what I've seen of The Sun's coverage. And if this thread gets nuked due to some people's concerns arising from it and the possible culpability of others, then yes, Pete. That's censorship.

[dweezil2]

We all know journalists, and there are quite a few comments here that could be taken out of context. I know what I'm suggesting smacks of censorship - Hell, it is censorship - and if I may be morbidly practical for a moment, Ron is 80 years old. Now, I hope that he lives for many more years to come, but do we really want journos finding this thread when the inevitable happens and they dive into Google whilst researching his obituary?  I say no, which is why I suggest deleting the whole thing. Maybe this won't be a popular suggestion, and I stand ready to be villified for it, but I feel it's a suggestion that needs to be made.

I doubt there's anything in this thread that can't already be taken out of context elsewhere. I mentioned earlier dweezil2's use of the word 'hobby' which, in hindsight, was probably me just being paranoid.

And having just done a couple of searches for 'ron smith judge dredd', the first twenty pages from Google yield nothing from this particular thread, despite 2000adonline coming up a couple of time. Likewise, the first ten pages from Yahoo.

Ron has a not uncommon name; and one shared by a man convicted in 2006 of similar charges, it seems.

If people feel strongly enough this thread should be nuked, fine. It's unnecessary, in my opinion.

Well collecting comics is a hobby to me, just as much as collecting music and films on DVD, I don't know what it is to the rest of you guys.
Unless I'm missing something blindingly obvious, which wouldn't be the first time!

[Peter Wolf]

So yes delete the thread.

WE'RE NOT THE EFFING JBF!

Well, not yet. Even with the occasional knee-jerk reaction, this thread has been far more honest than what I've seen of The Sun's coverage. And if this thread gets nuked due to some people's concerns arising from it and the possible culpability of others, then yes, Pete. That's censorship.

Different reasoning to mine.

Youre not wrong though.

[Eric Plumrose]

Well collecting comics is a hobby to me, just as much as collecting music and films on DVD, I don't know what it is to the rest of you guys.
Unless I'm missing something blindingly obvious, which wouldn't be the first time!

Sorry, mea culpa.

The word 'hobby' is often used by paedophiles, usually those networking with each other, to describe their shared interest in children, in particular the grooming of and their subsequent molestation. My initial (probably unfounded) paranoia was that some hack journo might do a Google search for 'ron smith judge dredd artist'; and, finding this thread and a fan using the word 'hobby', decide that an adult reading a comic (and they're meant for kids, right?), especially a comic drawn by Ron Smith, is therefore more unsavoury that the usual stereotype.

[Eric Plumrose]

Ach. Attributed dweezil2's quotes to me. That'll teach me to arse around here at some stupid hour instead of heading off to work.

[Richmond Clements]

Haven't looked at this for a few days- but I'd just like to say to LARF that that was a superb post.

[House of Usher]

I must say I've never heard the word 'hobby' used in the unsavoury context Eric Plumrose mentions. Anyway, I'd agree with Eric that 'hobby' isn't a word I'd use to describe buying and reading comics any more than I would use it to describe reading novels or watching feature films.

On the subject of hobbies, my Canadian aunt was quite worried about me playing Dungeons & Dragons when I was 15. She'd probably read a Jack Chick pamphlet about it.