***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 21 *****
Continuing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Jun 14 at 21:33
|
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9DEKBzFUtHU
Gerard Batten, MEP (UKIP) on the threat to the English (+ Scots, Welsh and N.Irish, as applicable) law, including the attack on Habeas Corpus and our hard won Magana Carta and Common Law rights.
|
" I'm still waiting for a post forensically refuting my contention that CPS had, post Savile
>> etc, no alternative but to proceed. "
Hmm iirc on of the many and varied reasons given for Savile's non prosecution was the allegations of his having corrupt relationships with the police. tinyurl.com/lzuufjt
Judging by the above account the police are investigating themselves - no doubt with the inevitable "nothing to see, move along" result.
So now the CPS can either decide the police are competent to review allegations fairly - in which case I assume they think the police are no longer corrupt... or having given up on the police as corrupt .. and decide to charge on uncorroborated and often decidedly dubious evidence.
All I see from where I sit - miles and miles away from the past and the evidence.. is the CPS flailing around , doing their best to prove that British justice is incompetent. (see Hillsborough, various shooting in London where evidence has been lost etc... and cases where the CPS has been noticeable for its lack of action - usually because the police are involved in some way as the bad guys).
If the CPS can't be bothered to chase up corrupt police I suspect chasing up decades old cases of alleged sexual abuse smacks of a diversionary tactic..
Last edited by: madf on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 15:23
|
>> " I'm still waiting for a post forensically refuting my contention that CPS had, post
>> Savile
>> >> etc, no alternative but to proceed. "
>>
>> Hmm iirc on of the many and varied reasons given for Savile's non prosecution was
>> the allegations of his having corrupt relationships with the police. tinyurl.com/lzuufjt
@madf,
Not much there I'd disagree with where failure to deal with past corruption is concerned. Similarly the shootings of Azele Rodney and Mark Duggan.
If they're not competent enough to push those cases I doubt they could manage a diversionary conspiracy.
While noting the point about uncorroborated evidence in Yewtree cases same equally true of any sexual assault allegation where the incident took place in private and no DNA etc is available.
Still no account being produced of how the CPS might have justified/managed the public response to a decision not to proceed in any of the Yewtree cases where evidence was 1:1.
|
>>Still no account being produced.......
Do you mean here? If so, then you must have been sleeping.
|
Don't UKIP like Magna Carta! Pity it relates just to Barons. EAW highlighted in the video works both ways. Hence the return of drug dealers from Spain, Islamists from Italy. The EU has itself complained that certain EU states (Poland) are issuing too many warrants, and for trivia. Germany has a proportionality bar for issuing and responding to EAW. UK Government doesn't seem to have adopted such a bar, yet, although the issue is being discussed still in the context of "opt-outs".
|
>> www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9DEKBzFUtHU
>>
>> Gerard Batten, MEP (UKIP) on the threat to the English (+ Scots, Welsh and N.Irish,
>> as applicable) law, including the attack on Habeas Corpus and our hard won Magana Carta
>> and Common Law rights.
The best defence of our Magna Carta etc rights lies in the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act. The realisation that its an effective proxy for a proper constitution is what has politicians, particularly authoritarians like May, Grayling and Gove, running scared
|
|
If we had a proper constitution , we could try Tony Blair for treason and hang him.
|
Max Clifford
The jury is still out - (what is left of it) they are now down to 10, and reconvene on Tuesday.
At what point do they end up with a retrial? Can they have a majority verdict when the numbers drop?
|
>> Max Clifford
>>
>> The jury is still out - (what is left of it) they are now down
>> to 10, and reconvene on Tuesday.
>>
>> At what point do they end up with a retrial? Can they have a majority
>> verdict when the numbers drop?
My recollection is that 10 jurors is minimum in terms of attrition. Whether an 8-2 majority could convict, I don't know.
Defendant can probably insure against such a risk (in terms of his costs). It was certainly a common practice thirty years ago to insure against death/incapacity of judge in a long civil trial. Generally OK as long as Judge had to do no more than complete a confidential tick box questionnaire about life threatening conditions etc and whether they were a smoker or not.
|
|
Obviously I missed something, why or how have they lost two jurors?
|
I think one of the jurors knew one of the complainants, not sure what happened to the other one.
To lose one is bad luck, to lose two is careless...
|
>> I think one of the jurors knew one of the complainants, not sure what happened
>> to the other one.
>>
>> To lose one is bad luck, to lose two is careless...
As RR says one had to be discharged by the Judge because it turned out he/she knew a witness.
Second was reported as having failed to turn up on on one day during deliberations. That is an offence and he/she risks being hauled in front of Judge for contempt. Mitigation wil be treated sensitively. If it's a case of can't be arxed a punitive sentence will follow.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27131112
He's going to walk isn't he
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 23 Apr 14 at 18:13
|
Bit strange isn't it?
10 people cannot, and seemingly will not, agree on the verdict, however, they believe that 9 will.
Surely that means just one person holding out against the rest?
12 (10) Angry Men?
|
|
If the only evidence was verbal, not a bit surprised. Some convinced, some not.
|
>> Bit strange isn't it?
>>
>> 10 people cannot, and seemingly will not, agree on the verdict, however, they believe that
>> 9 will.
>>
>> Surely that means just one person holding out against the rest?
>>
>> 12 (10) Angry Men?
They've now had several hours since the majority direction so it looks as though it's more complex than one standing out in all cases. Given the range of charges and varying credibility of witnesses it may be different combinations on a range of allegations.
Certainly not open/shut in sense of Roache or some of DLT charges.
|
I realise its not 9:1 now; I meant that they believe 9:1 is perhaps possible but had accepted that 10:0 was not.
Someone in there feels pretty strongly.
My guess is that they will fail to reach agreement. So will there be a re-trial?
|
>> My guess is that they will fail to reach agreement. So will there be a
>> re-trial?
That's the usual outcome unless CPS discontinue or judge directs otherwise.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27131112
>>
>> He's going to walk isn't he
Or majority guilty, or retrial.
|
|
So when the judge says he will accept a majority verdict, does he have any idea of how the jury is thinking, i.e. will he offer it if they are 8-2 (and therefore more likely to reach an agreement) but not if 5-5?
|
>> So when the judge says he will accept a majority verdict, does he have any
>> idea of how the jury is thinking, i.e. will he offer it if they are
>> 8-2 (and therefore more likely to reach an agreement) but not if 5-5?
Presumably the foreman will say whether, given a majority direction, he thinks a verdict is possible so we can assume that on at least some of the charges they are not deadlocked.
Normally majority in England and Wales is 10-2 but they've lost two jurors during the trial so panel is only 10 to start with. I'm not familiar with the detail but I don't think anything other than 9-1 will be acceptable.
More on a legal blog here ukcriminallawblog.com/2012/11/18/how-do-juries-decide-a-case/ including confirmation of the max number of dissenters permitted for a majority verdict.
|
|
Blimey - 'e wur a rum ol' boy!
|
Now being reported that other women have come forward during the trial with fresh allegations against Clifford. IIRC same thing happened with Stuart Hall.
A very good reason why anonymity, albeit not without arguments in favour, is not a good idea.
|
>> Now being reported that other women have come forward during the trial with fresh allegations against Clifford. IIRC same thing happened with Stuart Hall.
>>
>> A very good reason why anonymity, albeit not without arguments in favour, is not a good idea.
Thank goodness nobody would ever falsify allegations, to try and gain compensation...
|
>> Thank goodness nobody would ever falsify allegations, to try and gain compensation...
Is there any evidence at all of that happening?
|
>> >> Thank goodness nobody would ever falsify allegations, to try and gain compensation...
>>
>> Is there any evidence at all of that happening?
>>
Looks like Constance Briscoe did...with her own mother.
|
>> Looks like Constance Briscoe did...with her own mother.
I've not followed case close enough to comment in detail but issue seems to be whether CB's childhood was as she describes or not. Her Mother sued for libel and lost.
Whichever way it went I doubt Mother had resources such that CB was enriched in way Swiss Tony suggests. Mother now seeks to reopen case following CB's conviction as there's a possibility of falsified statements.
I'm struggling with parallels to allegation of groping or worse by Radio DJs and publicists etc but I'm sure you can expand.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 3 May 14 at 20:10
|
>>Is there any evidence at all of that happening?
You seem to require evidence of others' statements or opinions but find sound argument in your own suggestions of "what if [insert outlandish, unproven and speculative alternative possibility]?".
It would appear that it is only the speculation of others you find unwise.
Or perhaps I am misunderstanding.
|
>> Or perhaps I am misunderstanding.
I try to work on basis of evidence but like you I have strongly held opinions of right/wrong and for that matter politics and economics. Obviously, I may draw different conclusions to you others from particular evidence.
If I'm making un-evidenced assertions feel free to challenge me.
Again though, what evidence is there of falsified allegations for gain in the Yew Tree context?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 3 May 14 at 20:59
|
>> in the Yew Tree context?
No idea, and increasingly no interest.
However, I was pointing out one of my own perceptions in regard to your approach to discussion, not making any comment on the subject under discussion.
|
>> >> in the Yew Tree context?
>>
>> No idea, and increasingly no interest.
>>
>> However, I was pointing out one of my own perceptions in regard to your approach
>> to discussion, not making any comment on the subject under discussion.
So I win then?
|
>> Now being reported that other women have come forward during the trial with fresh allegations
>> against Clifford. IIRC same thing happened with Stuart Hall.
>>
>> A very good reason why anonymity, albeit not without arguments in favour, is not a
>> good idea.
>>
As the accused would be named in the event of a guilty verdict other victims would still have the opportunity to come forward then. Even in that case anyone having to deal with fresh allegations so soon after a high profile trial would have the dice heavily loaded against them from the start.
|
|
What does Elm House have to do with Max Clifford? Or did you not intend tacking on to the Max Clifford sub-thread?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 18 Apr 14 at 23:10
|
|
Now sorted. Won't be the first, nor last.
|
|
Max Clifford found guilty of 8 counts of indecent assault. The CPS will be relieved.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 28 Apr 14 at 14:25
|
Jury failed to agree one charge and acquitted on two others.
Custodial sentence must be a certainty.
|
>> Custodial sentence must be a certainty.
I suspect though Clifford will appeal against verdict. The loss of two jurors and subsequent 9:1 majority direction might provide some traction for his team. In fact I they're on the case already.
Bailed until sentence on Friday. Warned custody is possible.
|
|
I too would eat my hat if there wasn't an appeal.
|
Guy must be worth some £10's of millions - he'll have a razor sharp team looking for every angle to appeal.
Will be interesting to see why this one led to convictions while others didn't - I presume the 'believability' of the witnesses will be the major factor.
Also wheeling out a bunch of celebs to say how much of a stand-up guy you are, while also admitting to running some sex parties is maybe a bit contradictory (unless I just made that last bit up in which case ignore me!)
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/max-clifford-was-a-ringmaster-who-provided-legendary-sex-parties-for-stars-jury-told-9222313.html
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 28 Apr 14 at 16:43
|
>> Will be interesting to see why this one led to convictions while others didn't -
>> I presume the 'believability' of the witnesses will be the major factor.
Witnesses may be part of it and having seen individuals look less than convincing in DLT and the MP case CPS may have sharpened the running order up. I also wonder about the make-up and dynamics of the jury. Even after getting a majority direction they spent a long time on it.
One or more members who had the professional skills to keep a discussion focussed and methodical (and or absence of people who were noisy but clueless)?
As jury room research is illegal we're not likely to find out.
>> Also wheeling out a bunch of celebs to say how much of a stand-up guy
>> you are, while also admitting to running some sex parties is maybe a bit contradictory
>> (unless I just made that last bit up in which case ignore me!)
Even without the sex party angle a defence composed of slebs saying you're a jolly good fellow struck me as weak. But OTOH if there's nobody able to say they were there at time and nothing happened it's a choice between the slebs and the defendant standing alone.
Muck or Nettles as we say in Yorkshire.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 28 Apr 14 at 16:57
|
Seems to me, and I know as much and as little as everyone else, that he is a bit sleazy and probably did do these things, and probably deserves what he gets.
But I still feel uncomfortable with this whole process and the CPS approach.
A time to be thankful for Juries, I think.
|
|
David Mellor was interviewed on R4 this evening, him having had the brunt of Clifford's techniques after his shenanigans with an actress a couple of decades back. It was all he could do to (Unsuccessfully) conceal the glee in his voice as he commented on the verdict.
|
|
Sex parties are harmless (probably) and consensual. They are (or should be) irrelevant in the Clifford case. Just saying, and making no comment on the overall position.
|
>> Sex parties are harmless (probably) and consensual. They are (or should be) irrelevant in the
>> Clifford case. Just saying, and making no comment on the overall position.
And if the 'available' girls are there on a prominent/rising PR's promise of fame and fortune is consent really consent??
I simply ask the question
|
>>And if the 'available' girls are there on a prominent/rising PR's promise of fame and fortune
>>is consent really consent??
But you're making that up. (Or at least, it doesn't tally with your earlier post.) I haven't read a word of the newspaper reports.
|
>> But you're making that up. (Or at least, it doesn't tally with your earlier post.)
>> I haven't read a word of the newspaper reports.
Not saying conclusively that girls were put in that position - just a suggestion/question. I'm only making it up to extent that anybody positing a theory does.
|
|
As the prosecution didn't mention it, Clifford's parties presumably could not be construed in such fashion.
|
>> As the prosecution didn't mention it, Clifford's parties presumably could not be construed in such
>> fashion.
Not sure about that conclusion. If (a) they were years ago and (b) none of the girls were amongst the complainants then given more immediate evidence of wrongdoing it wouldn't be good use of police time tracking the girls down.
The idea of a rich man, with connections to celebrity and by inference fame, throwing parties for his clients in which 'available' girls were part of the package sticks in my throat.
|
>> throwing parties for his clients in which 'available' girls were part of the package sticks in my throat.
And for most people, I imagine, if it had happened.
But, as has been said, you made it up so there's not much point in getting outraged about it.
|
>> But, as has been said, you made it up so there's not much point in
>> getting outraged about it.
The subject of sex parties was introduced by Lygonos yesterday afternoon, it looks as Clifford mentioned them himself. See this article in the Indy originally linked by Lygonos
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/max-clifford-was-a-ringmaster-who-provided-legendary-sex-parties-for-stars-jury-told-9222313.html There's more than an inference there that women were 'available' for the stars.
Mapmaker amplified that saying such sex parties were OK if consensual.
I'm suggesting that if women who are wannabee's or otherwise under the famous/rich/powerful organisers influence are part of the 'available' cohort my concept of consent is stretched.
What have I made up??
|
>>What have I made up??
Perhaps it's what you've forgotten/never known/never worked it out, which is that girls enjoy it even more than men do. And if it's with somebody who is older/richer/ more famous than they are then it's even better still.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 30 Apr 14 at 17:55
|
>> which is that girls enjoy it even more than men do. And if it's with somebody who is older/richer/ more famous than they are then it's even better still. <<
What an utterly 100% sexist remark and the one used by blokes to ease their conscience when they know they are doing wrong.
Disgusted with you Mapmaker......and not afraid to say it.
Pat
|
|
Have to agree with Pat. Unless you can change bodies at will (ie a star of a sci-fi film/novel) you've got no idea how somebody else feels. And thus, what she says goes.
|
|
I have to agree with you Pat. A very unpleasant remark.
|
|
I took it as witty comment, a Bromptease as it were....
|
>> a Bromptease as it were....
Heh heh... but fairly near the knuckle... there probably are girls like that, but not many I think.
|
It would be unlike Mapmaker to post such a comment and intend it to be taken literally and seriously.
Certainly I think "disgusted/ing" is a little strong.
|
Well Mapmaker, I hope you read the link Bromp has posted and see the effect this man has had on other people's lives.
I read every word, and what a thoroughly nasty human being he is.
Sentence well deserved and absolutely fair.
Pat
|
Agreed Pat.
I remember seeing him interviewed about ten years ago and saying to Mrs F there seemed a dark spiteful side to his character.
There was a fuss also not too long ago when he (I think his partner actually) bought a cottage in our home village. Famous celeb and all that. A contact asked him to do something on a campaign related issue and the opinion was he only would do what furthered his image/ego.
|
>> Perhaps it's what you've forgotten/never known/never worked it out, which is that girls enjoy it
>> even more than men do. And if it's with somebody who is older/richer/ more famous
>> than they are then it's even better still.
So either you're accepting I might be right about consent and responding ironically or, per Pat, you've gone OTT?
|
>>So either you're accepting I might be right about consent and responding ironically or,
>>per Pat, you've gone OTT?
Or maybe I've also got it spot on. "Come to my party and get laid and I'll get you a job," when there is no prospect of a job is obviously deeply unpleasant and quite possibly raises issues of consent. "Come to my party and get laid by somebody famous," raises no such issues. Problem is, you come across as prudishly unable to see the difference. Try some homework:
1. Google 'killing kittens' (NSFW) or 'torture garden' and find out how liberated girls (and boys) of the 21st century actually behave in London.
2. Consider who is taking advantage of whom here (SFW):
www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/201208279097/bernie-ecclestone-fabiana-flosi-wedding/
If there had been no truth in my statement then it wouldn't have got you lot so worked up. And best of all, there's just enough hyperbole to make for a Bromptease too.
And why is it sexist? I think it's the modern and emancipated view. It's utterly sexist to suggest that girls don't/shouldn't enjoy sex at least as much as men; and ignorant to suggest that they don't often enjoy the thrill of older, more famous and wealthier men too. It's not true for everybody, but it's certainly true of Fabiana. Or is it different where she'd concerned? And if so why? Perhaps because she's really in love?
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 1 May 14 at 17:27
|
>> David Mellor was interviewed on R4 this evening
>>
I heard that and I thought he was unwise to rehash all those events of several years ago. I think they had gone to the back of most people's minds - those of us that are old enough to remember - those of us too young to remember have now been told.
|
>> I heard that and I thought he was unwise to rehash all those events of
>> several years ago. I think they had gone to the back of most people's minds
>> - those of us that are old enough to remember - those of us too
>> young to remember have now been told.
If those too young recognise him know his name at all it will be a a presenter on Classic FM.
Different context but a colleague of mine c2002/3 and then in his twenties had an 'education' when he learned Cilla Black wasn't famous as just the presenter of Blind Date. In defence he was Australian but even so..........
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 28 Apr 14 at 20:42
|
>> David Mellor was interviewed on R4 this evening, him having had the brunt of Clifford's
>> techniques after his shenanigans with an actress a couple of decades back. It was all
>> he could do to (Unsuccessfully) conceal the glee in his voice as he commented on
>> the verdict.
Christine Hamilton was on R5live in similar mode Clifford having apparently represented the person who accused her and her husband of abusing them.
Glee notwithstanding she actually made a reasonably good case including a measured answer to question about whether there should be a 'statute of limitations' on allegations of sexual impropriety.
|
>>
>> Christine Hamilton was on R5live in similar mode Clifford having apparently represented the person who accused her and her husband of abusing them. Glee notwithstanding she actually made a reasonably good case including a measured answer to question about whether there should be a 'statute of limitations' on allegations of sexual impropriety.
>>
Despite the flak she gets Christine Hamilton comes across as very reasonable and intelligent. As for Mellor gloating, I would have done exactly the same. He had to put up with a story that was heavily embellished by Clifford to make him look ridiculous and laughable at the time and I'd now be playing it for all it's worth.
|
|
WTF is a 'sex party'? Never heard of one in a long, sometimes louche life. And it doesn't sound at all appealing.
|
>> WTF is a 'sex party'? Never heard of one in a long, sometimes louche life.
>> And it doesn't sound at all appealing.
>>
I think it's like a Tupperware party. An agent displays an array of sex toys, and your housewife friends are persuaded to make purchases.
|
AC
I did not think you were given to tautology, or was it elegant variation :)
|
>> Will be interesting to see why this one led to convictions while others didn't -
>>
I believe that the likeability of the defendant will come into the jury's assessment of guilt or innocence. You would never believe any criminal of Tommy Cooper and Ronnie Barker, would you?
Max Clifford lives not far from me and has a reputation locally of being arrogant, and amongst other things, believes that he is untouchable.
|
"You would never believe any criminal of Tommy Cooper and Ronnie Barker, would you?"
Some of Tommy's jokes were criminal and why was Ronnie doing Porridge?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 28 Apr 14 at 19:54
|
>> Some of Tommy's jokes were criminal and why was Ronnie doing Porridge?
>>
Who is Porridge?
|
|
I wonder what Max will get? I'd say three years.
|
|
Due to the age of the offences the maximum sentence is two years inside, I think.
|
EIGHT YEARS for Max Clifford
Quite a few people who were crossed by Clifford will have a wee smile and be raising a glass or two
|
>> EIGHT YEARS for Max Clifford
>>
>> Quite a few people who were crossed by Clifford will have a wee smile and
>> be raising a glass or two
Longer than I thought he'd get. The sentencing remarks have not yet been published on the judiciary website I'd expect them to appear shortly.
|
>> EIGHT YEARS for Max Clifford
Yes. As I stated at 14:45 in the Max Clifford sub-thread above!
;-)
|
|
I think the judge gave him three years for the offences and five for his arrogance.
|
>> I think the judge gave him three years for the offences and five for his
>> arrogance.
>>
Almost straight from Toad's trial in Wind in the Willows:
"which was a pretty bad sort of arrogance".
|
And on other cases:
Freddy Starr will not be prosecuted - insufficient evidence.
Stuart Hall has pleaded guilty to another indecency count and faces trial on charge/charges of rape.
|
|
It sometimes feels as if we are living on Pitcairn Island, except that we are multi-cultural, not just Christians. :)
|
Trial begins today before Sweeney J.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/06/rolf-harris-indecent-assault-trial-begins
No doubt we will have a summary of the prosecution's opening reported by end of day
|
Jury selection. The grey suited minders look a bit handy (apart from the fat one :-) ), wonder who supplied them and why they were deemed necessary? Crowd control I suppose...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27294828
|
|
Won't have been Max Clifford !
|
This is just awful....
www.bbc.com/news/uk-27340134
Let us, for the moment, assume that Harris is guilty and the female truthful...
"The jury was shown a school report which said the alleged victim had become "prone to tears and has been weeping about private/home matters".
Can you imagine the sadness in the life of a 14yr old if this is true?
If he did it, he truly needs nailing to a wall.
Either way, this isn't an accusation of a bit of groping or emotional blackmail. This is an accusation of nasty, deliberate and life-changing abuse of a child.
Also, and I know its trivial by comparison, I find it a bit sad having entertainers from one's childhood exposed as bad people.
I do worry a bit though; his life is messed up even if he didn't do it. And if he didn't, then perhaps he genuinely is a nice, charming children's entertainer who doesn't deserve this.
|
|
Looking at him staggering into court looking bemused and geriatric gave rise to the no doubt, unworthy, thought that he is preparing the Ernest Saunders/Margaret Moran defence ploy.
|
I find this all very sad. As a youngster, I saw Rolfe in the early days when he was one of the acts on a variety tour featuring Joe Brown/Bruvvers, Susan Maughan, the Tornadoes etc; must have been around 1962 or 63.
Whilst I could never describe myself as a huge fan, I've always thought of him as being a good egg, a warm personality and a pretty decent artist.
|
I'll confess I've stopped work on a campfire songbook for the local scouts as I'd included a song he made famous - but didn't write and found in another campfire songbook. However, he was one of the very few who could perform it as it requires serious breath control. I'm waiting to see what the outcome of the court case is now.
Song is "The Court of King Caractucus" and probably the best known example of a cumulative song.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Sat 10 May 14 at 14:07
|
>> I'll confess I've stopped work on a campfire songbook for the local scouts
>>
I remember them. I'm surprised that there are any that are fit for publication :)
|
Stuart Hall, already serving time for similar offences is prosecuted for a further 20 of varying degrees of severity.
He is found Not Guilty of 19 of them?
Oh I wish I was doing the performance review of the responsible person at the CPS / DPP or wherever it is these days. There's a person who shouldn't get the chance to win a Long Service award.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 16 May 14 at 15:32
|
I don't know if anyone else has noticed an aspect of the Rolf Harris trial that raised their eyebrows and made them think, "Aye aye".
I can't say what it is because it is probably Sub Judice but it doesn't look too good.
|
>> I can't say what it is because it is probably Sub Judice but it doesn't look too good.
Unlike all the other stuff about Rolf Harris that looks perfectly all right you mean RO'R?
|
|
Surely if it's in the public domain and the trial is active it can't be sub judice?
|
>> Surely if it's in the public domain and the trial is active it can't be
>> sub judice?
>>
It's highly probable that information is available that cannot be made public until the trial is over. You need to think back to the beginning of the whole thing for a clue, but it would be extremely unwise to say what it is (Or might be).
|
|
Somehow, I've got the impression that a fair few of the female accusers have seemed, in some way, slightly unhinged and or alcoholic etc.
|
I get the impression he comes across as having been a dirty old man (with his wife's approval) for many years.
Pat
|
>> I get the impression he comes across as having been a dirty old man (with
>> his wife's approval) for many years.
How do I go about getting my wife's approval?
|
>> Somehow, I've got the impression that a fair few of the female accusers have seemed,
>> in some way, slightly unhinged and or alcoholic etc.
And they say their alcoholic etc symptoms are a result of being abused. Is that really implausible?
|
>> they say their alcoholic etc symptoms are a result of being abused. Is that really implausible?
Yes they do, and it's plausible enough to be true anyway in some cases, perhaps in most.
It's a truism that many nonces have themselves been abused in childhood. But it's still selfish and thuggish of them - wicked really unless they are truly half-witted - to pass this behaviour on to a later generation.
|
English law under threat. - Roger.
