***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 16 *****
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 7 Feb 14 at 01:02
|
>>>...dancing the Lambada vigorously and with a lot of grinding at some corporate bash, with a girl who he'd previously given an award to for her dancing. He also asked her to sit on his knee at the top table, and put his hand on her leg at some point.
>>>She wasn't a victim, so was presumably there to set the scene, show a pattern of behaviour.
I think she was a victim. In court she said the hand on her thigh progressed to him rubbing his thumb on her groin (her word) through her knickers then slipping his thumb inside her knickers to continue rubbing... before she managed to escape from him.
It's only her side of the story of course but kind of fits the pattern for claims against the guy. If true he's very much crossed the line.
|
>>It's only her side of the story of course but kind of fits the pattern for claims against the
>>guy. If true he's very much crossed the line.
Seems perfectly possibly true - and indeed perfectly possibly welcome attention at the time. And if there was a line to be drawn at the boundary of acceptable behaviour, she didn't draw it.
There is no way I would ask a colleague to sit on my lap. The moment the girl sat on his lap then she consented to 'something'.
Doesn't mean he mightn't be a rapist; doesn't mean he is. Just means the age-old will he, won't he, will she, won't she routine was happening.
|
>>>There is no way I would ask a colleague to sit on my lap. The moment the girl sat on his lap then she consented to 'something'
Oh really social pressure in front of her bosses to "have a laugh" with a very well known celeb amounts to consent???
There are very few young girls (21ish I think) that want a near 50yr old bloke near them in a sexual sense.
|
This was the story I was referring to. I'm sure the the day it said she was not a victim (or an accuser or somesuch term), that's what i meant - can't see it now though.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25805884
|
Quote from court reporter: An alleged victim has told the court that he told her she had "won the key" to his hotel room after he groped her during a dance at a corporate event.
The woman, who was 23 at the time, said the former Radio 1 presenter also put his hand inside her knickers during a British Airways Christmas party.
The alleged victim told the jury she met Travis, 68, on two occasions when she worked at BA and he was acting as a compere at company events in 1993.
Both times she said he grabbed her to dance the Lambada with her, "grinding" against her and becoming aroused.
|
|
I don't know if I am reading this correctly, but I get the impression that this happened to the young lady at more than one event. Did she keep returning to see if she could 'get a result'? For goodness sake, she was 23!
|
So now going to your employers work function for a second time is consent??
Field day for the pervy bosses it seems if that attitude is common.
|
|
If a dog bit me once, I wouldn't wave my hand in front of it again.
|
If a dog bit me once I would expect the owners (in this case the BBC) to keep it under control in the future.
It seems Fenlander is the only one her with the voice of reason and I'm getting increasingly annoyed at some of the comments.
Pat
|
"If a dog bit me once I would expect the owners (in this case the BBC) to keep it under control in the future."
So, presumably, she complained to the dog's owner (the BBC) about the fact that their dog had bitten her? Anyway, was this a BBC job, or a bit of moonlighting?
The incident clearly traumatised the young lady to such an extent such that she couldn't keep away.
I am not trying to justify bad behaviour in the dog, by the way. If I KNEW that it had bitten someone I would, at least, muzzle it.
|
>> I don't know if I am reading this correctly, but I get the impression that
>> this happened to the young lady at more than one event. Did she keep returning
>> to see if she could 'get a result'? For goodness sake, she was 23!
Something similar came up regarding the woman alleged to have been assaulted by Rolf Harris at two different instances. There are all sorts of reasons why she might had a second encounter. Fenlander provides one - expected of her as an employee. Others might embarrassment with colleagues or others if she drops out or a conviction that she can handle such things now.
You say 23 as though you mean 53, she's still a young woman.
|
>>Asked why she did not tell her bosses or the police, she said: "He was a big star. I thought 'Who was going to believe me?'"<<
....and not much has changed, has it?
That's progress for you.
Pat
|
Pda, it's got nothing to do with 'Big Star' and everything to do with 'another human being' in that age-old dance of did he/did she/will he/will she.
Did she say 'no'? Did she complain?
"*Should* she have complained?" is quite a different question. Plenty of 21-year-old girls like *every* aspect of the company of powerful 50-year-old men.
It's extremely difficult to know and I'm very glad I'm not on the jury and having to decide.
But the corollary of the argument you and Fenlander put forward is that every woman married to a man thirty years her senior the victim of sexual abuse.
Let's not forget Fenlander and Brompton have daughters of that age, so will see it in quite a different fashion from an unmarried chap in his forties or fifties who has girls of that age throwing themselves at him.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 23 Jan 14 at 16:27
|
>> every woman married to a man thirty years her senior the victim of sexual abuse.
>>
Does that apply to men too?
Ian is 27 years my junior and we're married, so does that make him the victim of sexual abuse?
Am I guilty of sexual abuse?
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 23 Jan 14 at 16:34
|
>> Does that apply to men too?
>>
>> Ian is 27 years my junior and we're married, so does that make him the
>> victim of sexual abuse?
>>
>> Am I guilty of sexual abuse?
No...but I think that makes you a 'cougar' though....if I understand these things correctly...;-)
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 27 Jan 14 at 21:57
|
:)
At least I know how to bring about silence on a forum.........!
Pat
|
>> But the corollary of the argument you and Fenlander put forward is that every woman
>> married to a man thirty years her senior the victim of sexual abuse.
>>
Sorry Mapmaker but that's cobblers. The issue is CONSENT.
I'm 54. If I were single and a 23year old took a shine to me I'd initially be disturbed as to her motives. If however it turned out simply to be a case of shared interests, outlook and true love then maybe, just maybe, I'd go with the flow.
If I copped a dance off her at the works hop cos I'm her boss's boss, pushed my 'arousal' against her and then fumbled in her panties I'd be an utter fool. Ditto if I were a Celeb.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 23 Jan 14 at 16:57
|
>> Sorry Mapmaker but that's cobblers. The issue is CONSENT.
i.e. everything else I wrote in the post above which you have ignored.
>> If I were single and a 23year old took a shine to me I'd initially be disturbed as to her motives.
You're not single. I bet if you were that you wouldn't think three times. And if you were famous, and girls did it all the time, you wouldn't think once. Her 'motives' would be absolutely clear.
|
>> i.e. everything else I wrote in the post above which you have ignored.
I was replying to the bit about plenty of 21 yr old girls liking the company of powerful 50yo men and the suggestion that corollary of Pat/Fenlander's arguments being that all relationships with a large age difference were abusive.
I know plenty of 21 yo girls cos they've been my daughters friends. Some go back to nursery, others to primary or secondary school and then another set from Uni.
I don't think one of them has any interest in men outside their own age group. That's not to deny the existence of 'good time girls' or those who'll use their sexuality to get on. And of course there are 'groupies' too But that's not behaviour of 'plenty'.
>> You're not single. I bet if you were that you wouldn't think three times. And
>> if you were famous, and girls did it all the time, you wouldn't think once.
>> Her 'motives' would be absolutely clear.
And if it was consensual, whether the 'Full Monty' or a grope, nobody's got any comeback.
The point in these cases is that the women did not consent. Whether willingly up to a point or not they found themselves (allegedly) imposed on by a man who was physically large and had the power of fame and money.
Even if they agreed to a dance that's a progress around the dance floor not a hand in their pants.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 23 Jan 14 at 18:32
|
>>about plenty of 21 yr old girls liking the company of powerful 50yo men
I don't know how you would quantify or prove "plenty", but it certainly happens enough to be noteworthy.
However, its not really relevant, is it.
For me there seems to be two main items; the consideration of her consent (he's guilty or not), and how reasonable his belief of consent was (there's mitigation or there's not).
So, if he touched her when she didn't consent, then he is guilty. If she told him she didn't like it and wanted it to stop there is no mitigation, if she was lying naked in his bed having voluntarily stripped and entered then there is some level of mitigation, with some kind of sliding scale between the two.
And the consideration of guilt and possible mitigation should be done with regard to the law and normal behaviours of the time.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 23 Jan 14 at 18:45
|
>> I know plenty of 21 yo girls cos they've been my daughters friends. Some go
>> back to nursery, others to primary or secondary school and then another set from Uni.
>>
>>
>> I don't think one of them has any interest in men outside their own age
>> group. That's not to deny the existence of 'good time girls' or those who'll use
>> their sexuality to get on. And of course there are 'groupies' too But that's not
>> behaviour of 'plenty'.
We are talking the 1960's and 70's. It was a different age when there were plenty of screaming girls willing if you were famous enough. You can't use your current knowledge of todays society and use it as a yardstick for the 70s.
And that is the basic problem with some of these prosecutions.
|
>> We are talking the 1960's and 70's. It was a different age when there were
>> plenty of screaming girls willing if you were famous enough. You can't use your current
>> knowledge of todays society and use it as a yardstick for the 70s.
>>
OK, for the purposes of this debate, I accept the 70s were different. In practice I suspect there are 'screaming girls willing if you're famous enough' now if you're Harry Styles or whoever.
If DLT's defence were that they were 'groupies' and consenting he might gain some traction.
As it is he's simply saying none of it happened and they're all liars.
|
>>>We are talking the 1960's and 70's.
Actually in the DLT case above and the girl in question that sparked this line of discussion we are talking 1993.
|
|
Still 20 years ago. A lot has changed in that time.
|
|
Don't agree... by the mid 90s the decent majority knew where the line was.
|
not in the "pop" world they didn't.
Don't get me wrong, not defending him, just don't think parading lots of alleged examples in court is proof or justice. Merely a hope of slinging mud and hoping it sticks.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 23 Jan 14 at 20:14
|
As I said in my fist post on the thread happy for judge and jury to decide. But in truth as more accounts from girls/women who don't seem to have colluded are given in court there is a real pattern emerging.
I do remember when he appeared outside his house when allegations first hit the press he denied them but added a much more firm denial to any thought this may involve children.
Almost as if he knew the game may be up re what's in court at the moment but still wanted to distance himself absolutely from kiddy fiddling.
|
>> Still 20 years ago. A lot has changed in that time.
It was changing long before 1993. I was asked a question about young women employees and unwelcome attention by older male staff at a promotion board in May 1985. Sexual harassment was a known term by then and I undoubtedly helped my marks by using it.
|
>>I know plenty of 21 yo girls cos they've been my daughters friends. Some go back to
>>nursery, others to primary or secondary school and then another set from Uni.
>> I don't think one of them has any interest in men outside their own age group.
Bless you Brompton. Surely you're not so naïve as to think that your daughters friends discuss with you whom they've slept with. Or even that your daughters would tell you who their friends had slept with - as you'd no doubt worry they were doing the same.
No surprise to see Mark - who also has daughters of the 'right' (wrong?) age coming in on similar lines.
Of course it's all about consent; that's the point of my argument. But history (a newspaper) is full of tales of consent that was 'withdrawn' after the event. One girl's 'dirty old man' is another girl's 'exciting sophisticated silver fox'.
|
>> Bless you Brompton. Surely you're not so naïve as to think that your daughters friends
>> discuss with you whom they've slept with. Or even that your daughters would tell you
>> who their friends had slept with - as you'd no doubt worry they were doing
>> the same.
And bless you too for your lack of insight.
Of course they don't discuss who they've slept with. OTOH older men would be sufficiently out of the ordinary that it would count as gossip and get out. There's a 'fly on wall' TV thing about Bulgaria's Sunny Beach resort, shown on TV over Xmas. Daughter, who'd been there with friends just at end of Uni first year pointed out she recognised two male staff members in one of the bars. She then added in mock scandal tone 'and Becky H slept with both of them'!
Becky was in house next door to Miss B last year. Her sexual athletics with a range of guys were reportedly audible through the wall.
>> No surprise to see Mark - who also has daughters of the 'right' (wrong?) age
>> coming in on similar lines.
He too is nearer to being on the ground in this stuff then you are.
>> Of course it's all about consent; that's the point of my argument. But history (a
>> newspaper) is full of tales of consent that was 'withdrawn' after the event. One girl's
>> 'dirty old man' is another girl's 'exciting sophisticated silver fox'.
Consent 'withdrawn later' was probably either absent or only apparent 'cos the girl was too drunk to give it.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 24 Jan 14 at 10:08
|
>>nearer to being on the ground in this stuff then you are.
Lol. It's years since you were chatted up by a 20 year old.
>>Consent 'withdrawn later' was probably either absent or only apparent 'cos the girl was too drunk to give it.
Or she changed her mind after the event. Happens often enough. One night stands are a very dangerous way to live for a man.
I don't see why you deny all these possibilities. The DJ (whose name I have forgotten) may well be guilty of all this. But it's equally possible he's not.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Fri 24 Jan 14 at 12:21
|
>> I don't see why you deny all these possibilities. The DJ (whose name I have forgotten) may well be guilty of all this. But it's equally possible he's not.
>>
Mapmaker, some people on here don't live in the real world - or they are too scared to even think about it....
I have two daughters, and whilst I don't know if either has slept with an older man, it wouldn't surprise me.
My own experience of age difference is sleeping with a girl 17 years my junior (fully legal I must add!!!)
Oh... and it was good! I was in my mid forties....
Last edited by: swiss tony on Sat 25 Jan 14 at 09:29
|
>> I don't see why you deny all these possibilities. The DJ (whose name I have
>> forgotten) may well be guilty of all this. But it's equally possible he's not.
I don't deny them outright. I am however extremely sceptical about that sort of thing as a defence for DLT (or any other of the Yewtree etc. accused). Neither am I saying sex between younger women and older men never happens though I don't think it's as common as a lot of you seem to think. And I'm certainly not denying the existence of 'groupies' either in the seventies or now. John Peel's autobiography contains ample account of such activity!!!
I'm particularly galled by the blatant sexism evident in some posts which assume certain clothing allows men to assume women are 'available' and blames the women for the consequences when males follow the assumption through.
It's not even as if such things are relevant to DLT's case. His defence is not that girls were gagging for it and consented. He will say that none of it ever happened.
|
One girl's
>> 'dirty old man' is another girl's 'exciting sophisticated silver fox'.
>>
Oh I do hope so.
|
>> One girl's
>> >> 'dirty old man' is another girl's 'exciting sophisticated silver fox'.
>> >>
>> Oh I do hope so.
You fail at hurdle one, certainly wouldn't make hurdle two.
|
Looks as though prosecution case is near to closing. Last witness a German journo who alleges DLT invited her to see his Flight Sim and then touched up her bum. Followed up by replaying recordings of his interviews with Police.
I'm fascinated as to whether he'll go in the box or just rely on assertion that nowt happened and he's no case to answer.
|
"I'm fascinated as to whether he'll go in the box"
I always try it on a second date.
|
>> Looks as though prosecution case is near to closing. Last witness a German journo who
>> alleges DLT invited her to see his Flight Sim and then touched up her bum.
>>
>>
When I heard that on the radio report my immediate reaction was, "For Christ's sake love, get a life".
|
>> >> Looks as though prosecution case is near to closing. Last witness a German journo
>> who
>> >> alleges DLT invited her to see his Flight Sim and then touched up her
>> bum.
>> >>
>> >>
>> When I heard that on the radio report my immediate reaction was, "For Christ's sake
>> love, get a life".
Yeah, FFS, at least make it a Train Sim.
|
>> >> invited her to see his Flight Sim
>>
Don't people have etchings any more?
|
He is giving evidence and sticking by line that he's a decent cove, albeit tactile, and none of it actually happened.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/27/dave-lee-travis-old-bailey
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 28 Jan 14 at 09:20
|
|
And now the chuckle brothers are in court as witness for the DLT trial.... only Orville and Basil Brush to go and we have a full house.
|
|
I was just reading that.....brilliant...!
|
|
If they were taking bets I'd have a double on Not Guilty in both the current trials. Perhaps one could get Each Way if only some of the charges were proved.
|
|
I'd go for guilty in DLT's case. Not heard enough on Roache to form a conclusion.
|
|
Evidence from witnesses today rubbished the claims of two of the alleged victims. I wouldn't convict without at least some degree of proof and there appears to be none.
|
>> And now the chuckle brothers are in court as witness for the DLT trial...
I'd send him down for that alone.
|
Coronation Street star William Roache has been cleared of one of seven sex abuse charges at his trial, on orders of the judge.
Jurors at Preston Crown Court were directed to acquit Mr Roache of the indecent assault charge because of insufficient evidence.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-25918373
|
One down, six to go. Is whatsisname going to be a damp squib? That'll put the cat among the pigeons. Perhaps the (slightly demented) Raccoon is right and no one's ever really done anything that can be proved.
OO-er... am I guilty of libel? Surely not.
|
One charge dismissed with the following comment;
"[The defendant] thought she had been indecently assaulted [in 1965] but had no actual memory of the episode".
What in God's name were the CPS thinking passing that one through for trial?
What a farce.
|
>> One charge dismissed with the following comment;
>>
>> "[The defendant] thought she had been indecently assaulted [in 1965] but had no actual memory
>> of the episode".
>>
>> What in God's name were the CPS thinking passing that one through for trial?
>>
>> What a farce.
She wouldn't be the first or last witness to lose her nerve faced with a red judge and a phalanx of bewigged counsel.
|
>> She wouldn't be the first or last witness to lose her nerve faced with a
>> red judge and a phalanx of bewigged counsel.
>>
Happened to a little old lady who was the alleged victim of a confidence burglary at a trial in which I was on the jury. She'd ID'd the defendant at an identity parade, that's him Sarge, no doubt at all. Then, when in the witness box under questioning, she says she can't be sure. Defendant sniggers, coppers sigh and roll eyes. Judge chucks out case because of insufficient evidence.
|
Presumably two people were at the [non] event. I'm guessing that the CPS knew Roach would deny it, that there was no physical evidence, that there were no 3rd party witness and that it all hinged on the material given by this person (who I incorrectly called "The defendant" above).
I would assume that they have an opinion of the witness, on the quality of her statement and memory etc. etc.
So I repeat, what were the clowns thinking?
I think it was Zero who said some time ago that these things were going to trial because there were groups of accusations and media attention, but that none of them would have stood on their own.
|
>> going
>> to trial because there were groups of accusations
That's a good point which has not really been answered.
Do more accusations of an individually rather imprecise nature collectively amount to stronger evidence, or not?
A Telegraph article on Saturday most definitely argued that they did. The writer used the well-worn line from the Oscar Wilde play, to lose one parent, but to lose two etc etc to argue that more accusations = a stronger case.
|
|
Each case should be tried separately, and the evidence should pass the test in each separate case.
|
>> Each case should be tried separately, and the evidence should pass the test in each
>> separate case.
>>
I think the Telegraph writer was falling into the trap of reasoning that just because supporting evidence of identification in a single case clearly bolsters the case, it does not do so when there are separate cases involving different people and occasions.
|
>> Presumably two people were at the [non] event. I'm guessing that the CPS knew Roach
>> would deny it, that there was no physical evidence, that there were no 3rd party
>> witness and that it all hinged on the material given by this person (who I
>> incorrectly called "The defendant" above).
Historically that was true of any rape allegation. These days DNA can corroborate. It's even got perps pulled 30yrs after the offence. If no forensics were taken at time then, excepting a gang bang or voyeur it's word/word.
As I mentioned before I had a boss c1980/83 who was a cultured charmer but acquired wandering hands and worse with a few drinks in him. It was known that he very occasionally had a bit of 'afternoon delight' in his office though never with anybody in his command. Participants were usually willing and at least one was 'tactile' herself - she later made a play for me at an Xmas party.
On one occasion however the facts were different. The woman was a relative youngster part of a wider lunchtime pub circle. She ended up alone with him by about 3pm, a position most who knew him would avoid but she failed to bail with a colleague. She was next seen leaving the office just after him at 4:30 looking dishevelled and weeping copiously. I suspect he then made advances and she ended in position where she didn't really consent but couldn't scarper without a scene so had to submit.
She worked on an adjacent section to me in another office a few years later. She went out of her way to avoid me even with technical inquiries for which I was the 'Go To Guy' and moved to another building shortly afterwards. Embarrassed? almost certainly.
He is probably dead and she'll now be in her fifties. If she were to come forward with allegations now I'd be a conflicted man.
>> I would assume that they have an opinion of the witness, on the quality of
>> her statement and memory etc. etc.
>>
>> So I repeat, what were the clowns thinking?
She might, in way Al suggests upthread, have seemed convincing at allegation/interview. None of that is going to help if she 'corpses' at the door of the court.
>> I think it was Zero who said some time ago that these things were going
>> to trial because there were groups of accusations and media attention, but that none of
>> them would have stood on their own.
If they all accuse the same person then 'no smoke without fire' must be a reasonable assumption. Anna Raccoon asserts that Duncroft girls fabricated allegations against Savile in an internet forum of some sort. Police would surely check for any such thin re DLT and you've got to ask why, if it's a fit up, there are not allegations against others such as Edmonds, Blackburn, Jensen etc.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 28 Jan 14 at 15:29
|
>>
>> If they all accuse the same person then 'no smoke without fire' must be a
>> reasonable assumption.
That might be true for independent corroborative evidence of the same offence. But does it hold in law for separate unrelated cases?
"He's a known burglar, therefore he must be the one who burgled me"
|
>> That might be true for independent corroborative evidence of the same offence. But does it
>> hold in law for separate unrelated cases?
>> "He's a known burglar, therefore he must be the one who burgled me"
Housebreaking is not quite comparable though.
What they've all (independently) said is 'It was theft by that Cliff Pope, he picked my pockets when I met him'.
Not encouraged by an expose of Cliff but because of a posthumous expose of one of his former colleagues.
|
>
>> If they all accuse the same person then 'no smoke without fire' must be a
>> reasonable assumption. Anna Raccoon asserts that Duncroft girls fabricated allegations against Savile in an internet
>> forum of some sort. Police would surely check for any such thin re DLT and
>> you've got to ask why, if it's a fit up, there are not allegations against
>> others such as Edmonds, Blackburn, Jensen etc.
I'm not saying it's the same thing, but that reminds me of the woolly thinking, and "evidence" from people who should have known better, that got Sally Clark locked up, wrecking several lives.
We might reasonably surmise that not all investigators are above asking the odd leading question either.
|
>>
>> She wouldn't be the first or last witness to lose her nerve faced with a
>> red judge and a phalanx of bewigged counsel.
>>
It's very easy to tell a load of porkies to sympathetic listeners, it's another when your tale is being put to the test in court.
We only know what the media are reporting, but based on what they have reported so far if I were on either jury on the DLT / Bill Roach trials I would not give a guilty verdict. I could not send a man down without any evidence other than the word of one person. And my view of multiple complainants all coming out of the woodwork after four or more decades would be coloured by the fact they could sue for a fair sized payout after a guilty verdict.
Compensation should only ever be awarded to cover actual financial loss, awarding a small lottery win to anyone whose complaint succeeds constitutes a dangerous conflict of interest. As football manager Dave Jones will tell you.
|
>> Compensation should only ever be awarded to cover actual financial loss, awarding a small lottery
>> win to anyone whose complaint succeeds constitutes a dangerous conflict of interest. As football manager
>> Dave Jones will tell you.
Compensation will be proportionate to damage suffered. As a guide the Criminal Injuries Tariff for a sexual assault over clothing is £1,000. For a non-penetrative offence under clothing it's £2,000. Not exactly lottery territory.
Larger amounts are payable for more serious offences for example physical damage to genitalia or loss of reproductive capacity.
www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/victims-and-witnesses/cic-a/how-to-apply/cica-guide.pdf
It's some months since Hall was convicted but I've seen no public mention of damages claims. Nor the predicted rush of 'victims stories' in the Sunday papers though I suppose fact that SH has been charged with further offences might be a factor.
Who was David Jones and what happened to him?
|
>>
>> Who was David Jones and what happened to him?
>>
When he was manager of Southampton FC he was arrested and charged with sex offences against boys from the time he ran a care home after his playing career finished. The case collapsed when some of the complainants were found not to have even been at the home when he was in charge, and a few of the others had collected long criminal records in the meantime.
I haven't time to look it up, but it's all available on the web.
|
>> When he was manager of Southampton FC he was arrested and charged with sex offences
>> against boys from the time he ran a care home after his playing career finished.
>> The case collapsed when some of the complainants were found not to have even been
>> at the home when he was in charge, and a few of the others had
>> collected long criminal records in the meantime.
So he was the victim of a possible conspiracy between former inmates of a care home ie people who were linked prior to the allegations emerging? I believe there have been other such cases. They all tend to involve allegations of long term beatings and/or serious sex offences in a environment where the alleged perp was in a position of continuing physical power.
Far more compo at stake there than for an isolated grope.
Quite different to independent allegations emerging form diverse places in aftermath of Savile. Police are now well aware of capacity of internet to spawn allegations and will surely be checking for it.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 28 Jan 14 at 16:52
|
>>
>>
>> So he was the victim of a possible conspiracy between former inmates of a care
>> home ie people who were linked prior to the allegations emerging? I believe there have
>> been other such cases. They all tend to involve allegations of long term beatings and/or
>> serious sex offences in a environment where the alleged perp was in a position of
>> continuing physical power.
>>
>> Far more compo at stake there than for an isolated grope.
>>
>> Quite different to independent allegations emerging form diverse places in aftermath of Savile. Police are
>> now well aware of capacity of internet to spawn allegations and will surely be checking
>> for it.
>>
There was no suggestion of any conspiracy against Jones, just a load of bandwagon jumpers looking for a quick buck. And allegations are just that, without proof they mean nothing no matter how many in number there are.
|
|
Roache trial hearing closing speech for prosecution. Allowing for defence speech and Judge summing up jury should retire early next week.
|
Fred Talbot, Granada weatherman, one time Liverpool island jumper and biology teacher at an Altrincham school charged today with sex offences allegedly carried out at the school.
HO
|
Internet chatter hints the biggest shock yet will come out soon in this inquiry. A "household name" with a whiter than white reputation...
***A famous pop star being probed by Jimmy Savile cops faces an allegation of abuse on a boy of ten. The person is being investigated over historic sex claims after their alleged victim came forward and gave a statement to officers last year.
Detectives from Operation Yewtree have also spoken to a witness to the alleged attack who has apparently backed up the claims.
A source close to the inquiry said: “This is huge, and detectives are examining more than one witness statement. “The alleged victim was very young at the time, which makes it a more serious allegation.
“This inquiry is not going to go away, and police will make arrests when they feel they have enough to do so.”***
Last edited by: Fenlander on Mon 3 Feb 14 at 10:38
|
|
Where can we hazard a guess and not be liable for damages?
|
Daily Mail. No hint of who it is.
tinyurl.com/phxljqw
|
>> Daily Mail. No hint of who it is.
>>
>
Googling "beloved pop star" does give some hints.
Long career, many hits, worldwide appeal, whiter than white, great shock to everyone ...
|
|
Sorry guys, seemed to inadvertently put my foot in it. Should have been more attentive...
|
Not a story involving the young ones!
Its probably nonce-ence
As always
Mark
|
|
Didn't happen on a bus did it? During the summer holidays?
|
Still if you look on the bright side of things the BBC will not be able to show any full length Christmas special of TOTP that was made in the past 30 years ever again.
As always
Mark
|
Herself and I have a bet on who the shocking new gay nonce will turn out to be. Or rather I say 'I bet it's him' and she says she'd rather not think about it.
I am running on the spot already for tomorrow's comic. Meanwhile I may squint at the rolling news channels...
Mark: there are a lot of people running about happily who deserve an enormous kicking over Savile, some of them among the real great and good.
Up against the wall mofos!
|
Nonce-sense?
Made me look this up and have a hoot:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU
Oops has some bare skin about 3 mins in so NOT SAFE FOR WORK
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 4 Feb 14 at 00:08
|
|
I remembered it from the box. I always give those things several chances... Excellent of course, but a bit much for some probably. Using real sports and other pundits was utterly brilliant, and jolly sporting of them too. I loved the little girls saying indignantly that they wouldn't mind if the (alleged) paedophile bubblegum star tried to kiss them... They reminded me of little girls I know... lovely.
|
Anyone else beginning to think the Mail story is a bit of fiction?
They headlined something similar a while back regarding a "Well known pop star" who'd had sex with a 15 year old girl a few decades ago but couldn't be prosecuted because up till 2003 you only had twelve months to report a case of consensual but otherwise unlawful sex with a girl over 13 and the time had long elapsed.
You can print what you like if you don't actually name anyone.
|
>>
>> You can print what you like if you don't actually name anyone.
>>
I don't think that is true. If you create a fictional character in a novel but make it so obvious by similarities and allusions that really it is a living person, then you can risk a libel action.
Somerset Maugham sometimes steered a very dangerous path.
|
DLT court reporting - Fenlander
