It's not a defence. Why did you read that as a defence, Dave?
I'm just saying that "a lack of accountability means cover up" is shifting the goal posts to a previously unknown definition of cover up because it's now becoming clear that the cases were reported, investigated and prosecuted, and then an inquiry was held (into why it was cove…
It's not a defence. Why did you read that as a defence, Dave?
I'm just saying that "a lack of accountability means cover up" is shifting the goal posts to a previously unknown definition of cover up because it's now becoming clear that the cases were reported, investigated and prosecuted, and then an inquiry was held (into why it was covered up for so long) and the findings were published two years ago.
For what purpose would you bring up the financial crisis if not to use it as a defense of the handling of this situation, El? Stop arguing in bad faith.
If you ask normal people (well, those that were old enough at the time) whether people believe the crimes of the financial crisis were covered up, overwhelming majorities would say yes! If I recall properly only one person (a midlevel banker) went to prison. Many people think the crimes were covered up and made to go away!
I feel like you're proving my point, but instead you think it's supporting some opposite point.
Again I ask this comment section, who *in government* was prosecuted or held accountable! This whole "well we eventually got around to investigating and prosecuting the rapists, so you have no basis to complain" position is so frustrating to me.
I think the issue between us is that your definition of "not a cover up" involves people in power getting in trouble? And mine doesn't. We can both be right.
It's really disappointing that you've taken such a dim view of my intentions instead of approaching this conversation with a stranger with curiosity.
It's not a defence. Why did you read that as a defence, Dave?
I'm just saying that "a lack of accountability means cover up" is shifting the goal posts to a previously unknown definition of cover up because it's now becoming clear that the cases were reported, investigated and prosecuted, and then an inquiry was held (into why it was covered up for so long) and the findings were published two years ago.
For what purpose would you bring up the financial crisis if not to use it as a defense of the handling of this situation, El? Stop arguing in bad faith.
If you ask normal people (well, those that were old enough at the time) whether people believe the crimes of the financial crisis were covered up, overwhelming majorities would say yes! If I recall properly only one person (a midlevel banker) went to prison. Many people think the crimes were covered up and made to go away!
I feel like you're proving my point, but instead you think it's supporting some opposite point.
Again I ask this comment section, who *in government* was prosecuted or held accountable! This whole "well we eventually got around to investigating and prosecuting the rapists, so you have no basis to complain" position is so frustrating to me.
Here's someone making the same point but not bringing up the financial crisis as their example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/12/grooming-shipman-chilcot-for-all-the-post-inquiry-never-agains-the-default-is-inaction
I think the issue between us is that your definition of "not a cover up" involves people in power getting in trouble? And mine doesn't. We can both be right.
It's really disappointing that you've taken such a dim view of my intentions instead of approaching this conversation with a stranger with curiosity.