Major road to be renamed

[a_unique_person]

Depends on how terrible. Then again, what would be so bad about Ivan The Terrible Lane?



I'll keep it simple and just vote "no". Someone will always complain no mater what. And, as usual, who decides how bad "bad" is? Tired of this crap.

As usual, norms are decided by society. The recent royal Commission into child sexual abuse has uncovered a genuine unthinkable range of crimes and horror that was tolerated in those days. Slim is just one more actor in that era where abuse of children was mostly hidden and ignored.

 

[Trebuchet]

King County, Washington, used to be named after William Rufus DeVane King, who had just been elected Vice President when it was established. That's the county Seattle is in; and thus the tail that wags the dog in my state.
In 1986, the county was renamed in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.; because the other King had owned slaves.
W.R.D. King was also perhaps gay, and perhaps the lover of President James Buchanan. That would have been a point in his favor in present-day Seattle.

 

[arthwollipot]

Bloody hell, you are right. How did Canberra cope without Palmer’s Make Australia Great billboards....

Pretty nicely, actually.

 

[Information Analyst]

A bit of local news.

William Slim Drive to be renamed following Government review into place names

So what do you think? Should things be renamed if the people they were named after are discovered to have been terrible people?

I think you mean "accused" there.

 

[Information Analyst]

Who's being convicted? The guy's dead. Also, his sexual assault of minors is pretty well established as fact.

No, that details accusations.

The impetus for the name change wasn't some random politician, it was a submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Did that Commission actually make any pronouncement on the accusations against Slim?

 

[arthwollipot]

No, that details accusations.

Yes, accusations. Because that's all you have when the alleged perpetrator is dead. To prove anything, you'd need a medium.

Did that Commission actually make any pronouncement on the accusations against Slim?

It includes a case study from Fairbridge Farm, but falls short of mentioning Governor General Sir William Slim by name. His victims have mentioned him by name, which you will know if you read the Wikipedia article and the related links. Most of what we know has been reported in the media. Are you suggesting that the ABC has taken part in a conspiracy to falsely defame a famous dead man?

 

[Giz]

, which you will know if you read the Wikipedia article and the related links.

This wiki article?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation

 

[a_unique_person]

No, that details accusations.



Did that Commission actually make any pronouncement on the accusations against Slim?

What it made clear was that child abuse was rampant and out of control for years beyond what people imagined.

 

[arthwollipot]

This wiki article?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation

Oh, so you're also of the opinion that the Australian national broadcaster is wilfully participating in a conspiracy to defame a famous dead man.

 

[Information Analyst]

Yes, accusations. Because that's all you have when the alleged perpetrator is dead. To prove anything, you'd need a medium.

It includes a case study from Fairbridge Farm, but falls short of mentioning Governor General Sir William Slim by name. His victims have mentioned him by name, which you will know if you read the Wikipedia article and the related links. Most of what we know has been reported in the media. Are you suggesting that the ABC has taken part in a conspiracy to falsely defame a famous dead man?

So basically just hearsay. We know in the UK that some accusations have been thrown around, investigated, and - eventually - been found wanting. One prolific "accuser" is now being prosecuted. Simple accusations aren't enough.

 

[Information Analyst]

What it made clear was that child abuse was rampant and out of control for years beyond what people imagined.

That's not what I asked.

 

[Giz]

Oh, so you're also of the opinion that the Australian national broadcaster is wilfully participating in a conspiracy to defame a famous dead man.

Some widely reported UK accusations were thrown out. Was the BBC involved in a conspiracy to defame famous men?

 

[arthwollipot]

So basically just hearsay. We know in the UK that some accusations have been thrown around, investigated, and - eventually - been found wanting. One prolific "accuser" is now being prosecuted. Simple accusations aren't enough.

If you want to treat all news as hearsay, sure. You do that.

 

[theprestige]

If you want to treat all news as hearsay, sure. You do that.

Do you have any news about these allegations that *isn't* unproven hearsay?

 

[theprestige]

Are you suggesting that the ABC has taken part in a conspiracy to falsely defame a famous dead man?

I'm okay with such a suggestion. I don't think the ABC occupies some privileged place in the reporting of the news.

I'm not suggesting there is such a conspiracy. I am "suggesting" that your appeal to the alleged truth and honor of the ABC is grossly irrational.

Unless the ABC has done some original investigative reporting of its own, complete with good citations to reliable documents that tell us new things about the case... Have they done that? Is that the basis of your appeal to their reporting?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A lot of Churchill’s attitudes, behaviours and decisions are abhorrent by the contemporary standards of some. Like Slim, he was a war hero. You have judged Slim to be not appropriate to be commemorated on the basis of an untried allegation. What about Churchill?

Are you suggesting child sexual abuse has simply fallen out of favor?

 

[theprestige]

Are you suggesting child sexual abuse has simply fallen out of favor?

What abuse?

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm okay with such a suggestion. I don't think the ABC occupies some privileged place in the reporting of the news.

I'm not suggesting there is such a conspiracy. I am "suggesting" that your appeal to the alleged truth and honor of the ABC is grossly irrational.

Unless the ABC has done some original investigative reporting of its own, complete with good citations to reliable documents that tell us new things about the case... Have they done that? Is that the basis of your appeal to their reporting?

Did you watch the programs linked in the footnotes to the Wikipedia page? How do you know the ABC didn't do original investigative reporting of its own? Here's the direct link to the story, including a transcript in case you don't want to watch a 9-minute video. It includes a first-person account from someone who was sexually abused by Slim.

https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/inquiry-to-expose-sexual-abuse-of-british-child/8309506

In addition, and I acknowledge that this particular fact is extremely difficult for an American to grasp, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is one of the most reliable and impartial news organisations in the world. To an American, the phrase "impartial news" is an oxymoron - a logical absurdity. But the ABC has a legislative requirement to be "accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards of objective journalism" (Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, Section 8.1.c). This is absolutely unheard-of in American journalism, so it's not surprising that an American can't understand the respect Australians have for our ABC.

Furthermore, the author of the report, Steve Cannane, is a skeptic! He has reported on child abuse within the Church of Scientology, the harassment of the parents of a deceased child by the anti-vaccination lobby and the failure of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to protect consumers from dodgy products. He's been a speaker at the Australian Skeptics National Convention and was given an honourable mention in the 2010 Australian Skeptic of the Year awards.

So you can call him and the ABC unreliable if you like, but I will call that ********.

 

[Giz]

the ABC has a legislative requirement to be "accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards of objective journalism"

Well, say no more - case closed!

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, say no more - case closed!

The ABC, unlike any journalistic organisation in America, was formed via an act of parliament. They are not a commercial for-profit company. They are a publicly-funded broadcaster. They do occasionally slip from the legally mandated high standard, but they've been accused of bias by both sides of government, so they've got to be pretty balanced.

Like I said, I get that this is hard for Americans to understand.

And anyway, we're not talking about the ABC in this thread, we're talking about when it is and is not appropriate to change the name of a road.