Hi there LEOJ...

Unfortunately my dementia is gaining ground; but what I should've said is; another line of enquiry that's often taken with criminals, apart from teasing out contrary and conflicting accounts, is attempting to turn one against the other, or ors. But as I eluded to earlier on, many of these creatures are well educated, and smart enough to fully appreciate their rights, more so than some coppers, some more so than me I suspect?

The old days of the 'typed record of interview', though open to all manner of unlawful manoeuvring, did make it easier to ensnare 'guilty' parties. Today, police interviews are more like a 'Warner Bros.' Production , in Technicolour' and Hi Fi sound. I'm not for a moment suggesting it makes it much harder to obtain inculpatory evidence by dint of admission(s) but it does create inchoate evidence anticipating or preparatory to a conspiracy to commit further criminal act(s) that might emerge; thus muddying the waters somewhat. Personally, the new Interview techniques worked well for me when I was still in the job? Allowing the team to sit down quietly and watch the Interview all over again. Looking out for the small nuances and minute discrepancies' that were not picked up, about confederates etc. I should also admit also I've never been a Case Officer for any Paedophile brief.

In any crime LEOJ, investigations can only be successful, if all involved are dispassionate and completely unemotional, not only about the crime itself, but the suspects involved in that crime. On a personally level, I'd delight in doing a 'Mexican Hat Dance' on the faces of all Paedophiles, notwithstanding the myriad of excuses they may proffer for their actions. But upon reflection, why should I end up in 'the go slow' because of them? Without labouring the point, I'd be most surprised, if most ordinary men wouldn't harbour similar sentiments as myself? There again, perhaps not, the world's indelibly changed, and old men like me, have been left far far behind?

Don't worry, we're right there with you, O Sung Wu. :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear O Sung Wu,

We certainly are right there with you.

A Big Hug.

Thinking of you.

Hi there FOXY & LOUDMOUTH...

Thank you so much for your kind words of encouragement FOXY and Joe, that's so very nice of you both. It sort of sneaked on me, in the strangest of ways, essentially by my not being able to recognise incorrectly spelt words, syntax 'simply' spelling even basic punctuation. You've probably noticed it lately? Certainly my wife has. Anyway, no whinging, the world's full of whingers and whiners, therefore I don't wish to add to that total. Thank you both again, I do appreciate it very much indeed.

Geoffrey Luck mentions the lack of the Royal Commission's interest in the “much reformed” present, preferring to dig up the past. (Quadrant Online 19/12/17). That's the Royal Commission that went on and on for 5 years, and cost the Australian taxpayer $500 million!

“Like a team of council rat catchers”, as Luck describes them, they made much of kills in the sewers, but nothing about “rodents on the wharves”. In a “magnificent sleight of hand”, the Royal Commission focused on old history, but not what has been done about it.

The RC concentrated on easy cases. Thirty five percent of cases focused on the church, claiming that 60% of all cases related to “religious groups”. Ignored were, “ many state institutions, including the schools, the difficult area of domestic abuse, and Muslims.”

The  McLellan Royal Commission, was clearly a witch hunt against the Catholic Church, designed to make the government look good, but cover up the vast problem that the politicians don't have the guts to investigate.

A complete failure in other words.