I was involved in that discussion and I don’t recall having to tweak anything. Please explain.
Certainly.
I mentioned the ill-conceived, much vaunted Clement Freud invitiation acceptance, but not as a particular criticism of the McCann's, because how could they know what was to be revealed, but more of a reflection on what his motives were, given all that we now know.
There were a few here who thought he wasn't given a fair trot because he was too dead to defend himself, and I used the Jimmy Saville analogy to refute that, given the overwhelming evidence against him.
The Proof by Example fallacy was trotted out as a defence of Saville, with isolated cases of money grabbing being cited as casting doubt upon the other 500+ cases - hence, despite the government, NHS, various charities, et al apologising retrospectively, apparently the 'rule of law' should be applied in absentia irrespective. Given that we are talking about inveterate, heinous, prolonged recidivism here, I question the veracity and motive of the moral compass tweaking to fit the paradigm of McCann defence at all costs.
So again, I'm more interested in the concepts at play here, and not the actual acts. It would appear to be a ham-fisted and transparent attempt to dispel the 'tainted by association' label at the cost of their own previous moral standing.
Always stick the shoe on the other foot, see if it fits.
