blonde poker forum

Thoughts? Did he or didn't he?

Heard the recording of him and an underage girl and sounds rather bad.

He is dead ffs just let him rip

What about his 'victims' that got slapped with a law suit if they let out a murmur before his death?

I dont know much of the story but if i was a victim I woulda done anything to get him outed

Don't care if I ended up broke


Just dont see the point when he is dead

The most telling thing was that I wasn't surprised when the news first broke as there was always 'something' about him.

Right now, it's developing in the same way that the Lance Armstrong story is - the scale of it is the shock.

If there was any doubt as to whether he could clear his name, I don't think his family would have taken down the headstone so quickly.

Sadly, I think it's all too true.

Then your probably a stronger person that the vulnerable people he allegedly picked on. You gotta remember what people might do now they wouldn't do 30/40 years ago. Nonces are clever people and choose their victims well.

There is so many stories is hard to disbelieve them all

Mods gonna be all over this thread lol  :D

Sadly looks to be true

Scale of the BBC/establishment cover up in the 70s and 80s very unedifying

certainly do not belieive things should be left just because he passed away. The aggrieved parties will demand and deserve and investigation of the facts, for their own comparative peace of mind

Sick old world sometimes....


(http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/full/670371154.jpg?key=600791&Expires=1349995211&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=aqHcIE0lBTxumdmArwy-Mkr6jIqLq3hAWNnKlIHG7IyUerkrI4ue9CkRQC6zuHoNK3SswKiwT6047EYMKNHbKh5gVXCgqRHIdtHrbA-S0i0wkPc0y58X2mt7l4rTKdRl3w506oaf4oQBeYWHOzgPEUtJGKf~5KRVGMaXmF95EKw_)

Probably, but people know what boundaries not to cross, I hope as with any thread like this

the quotes from his autobiography don't read particularly well

i was actually in an audience for one his "jim will fix it" shows or whatever it was called. Even being 11 or so i remember him being exceptionally strange of camera and displaying what you could say were "strange" behaviours at the very least

i have little doubt he did most of the alleged crimes

It's slightly ironically sa"vile" by the way not "ville" as in a Cadillac coupe de ville.

Did anyone see his Range Rover that had a double mattress in the back?

IIRC when Jonathon King was accused and then convicted of abusing young boys he stated at the time there were other people involved and many a finger pointed at Saville.

This shouldn't be forgotten about and the victims deserve an enquiry.

That book cover is extremely disturbing (and I don't just mean the hairstyles) in hindsight.

Its a shame the wankers dead

I came across this earlier when looking for the Louis Theroux documentary.

It is from 2000. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,178381,00.html

Jimmy Savile has been a bizarre icon for six decades. Miner, wrestler, cycle racer, dancehall manager, marathon man, Britain's first D J, Mensa member, book reviewer, Top of the Pops presenter, fundraiser extraordinaire, and perhaps most famously the fixer, the man who would one day realise our childhood dreams. Savile rises from the bed to tell an anecdote from his book-reviewing days. "After a couple of weeks I said, 'I want to expose a book. It's for children and it's dreadful; there's this girl who's well underage and she takes up with a geezer who's yonks old and eventually they schlep off together.' "

What's the book?

"Wait a minute because you're the audience now," Savile chides. "Now bear in mind this was live TV, and I'm saying, personally, I don't think it's a good thing because I don't think an underage girl should be exhorted by her parents to strike up a relationship with a guy five, six, seven times older than she is. And the book - Peter Pan! I got the sack for that." He loves the story, laughs himself silly and hops back on to bed.

Peter Pan. Could be the story of his life.

It seems like it was an epidemic in the 70s and 80s.

From their own autobiographies, both John Peel and Ed Stewart admit (actually more like brag) about "sleeping" with underage girls.

Peel married a 15yo ffs.

Danny Baker's review of Stewart's autobiography:

http://soreeyes.org/archive/2005/06/05/stewpot/

Julie Burchill on John Peel:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/1999/jan/23/weekend.julieburchill

Pretty surprised by the John Peel stuff - I must walk around with my eyes/ears closed

While I don't blame any victims for not coming forward when he was alive (no one has ever come forward claiming Gary Glitter abused them either, have they?)

What pisses me off is people like Paul Gambaccini saying things like "I've been waiting 30 years for these stories to come out".

Well, if you knew about it 30 years ago, and it didn't come out, why didn't you say something 29 1/2 years ago?

You are guilty by association, you scumbag.

This ......I was not in he least bit surprised

From the first review:


The book ends with him today, alone, with his whining thumb up his useless arse...

I might use that expression today. Brilliant

This, to me anyone who knew about this and let it slide (victims excluded) deserves to go down in jail for a long time. They are responsible for every grope/rape he did after they found out what he was like.

I met Jimmy lots of times, just glad he didn't like boys. He and my Gran used to be in St. Anns cathedral all the time, helping out, raising money and generally being a celeb.....its a real shame now all his fundraising and church work is meaningless.

Whilst I agree that he was an arse who deserved to be punished before his death and I agree that an enquiry should be held post death, pre 1980 these things happened in GB on a regular basis and was accepted in a strange kind of way. I'm definately not saying just because it was accepted back then it was right what I am saying is that you can't hold people accountable now because they knew something back then unless it was the most vile of crimes.

Obviously rape is rape and he should of had is cock chopped off.

Don't think there should be a statute of limitations for serious crimes - and rape is definitely a serious crime.  Same goes for anyone harbouring or abetting someone who carried out these crimes - espeically if the victims are still alive and suffering.

I don't understand why past victims are going to the press though first instead of the police? why do we have to know about every little step of the investigation. Its sickening and vile.

You are right Kin and I'm not saying this for the most serious of crimes but where do you draw the line? If you harboured or helped someone to cover up or commit these crimes then yes you should get the book thrown at you, but if just because you knew something happened should you still get punished?

In a ridiculous sort of way they dont trust the police???

I was talking to my wife (she's got a psychology degree and counsells children of all ages) about this and without going into too much detail she told me of a client of hers who was seriously abused in the late 70's by a family member. She went to the police and was sent back home and told to stop making stories up. This client's family were even against saying things like 'why do you want to cause trouble for the family'. Back in the day these crimes happened as regularly as they do now but people didn't really take it seriously.

I agree but these days I think its different, for them to go first to the press BEFORE police is wrong, morally and legally.

as somebody said above i would imagine at least some of them DID go to the police and were told to "grow up" or "Wake up"

easy to say report to the police but if you had been told to go away you probably wouldnt trust them for the rest of your life

so what are they gaining from going to the press now? I just do not get it in 2012 them doing this.

I imagine it's because the press have generated the interest.

Pretty sure a fair few of them have been wanting to get it off their chests without fear of being slapped with a lawsuit, he was notorious for doing that.

This is certainly a factor - I'm no media insider but it was pretty common knowledge that once he died all sorts of stories would come out.

Also, if you were a victim of his back in the 70s there would have been the strong feeling that no one would believe you and it would be something that you'd want to put behind you and try and forget about. Once a couple of people come forward, then the victims don't feel alone any more and that gives more of them the strength to come forward.


There's also a very pernicious angle to this from the press as well. The Leveson inquiry has severely clipped their wings as to how far they can chase stories on celebrities. The subtext to this Savile stuff is 'we might out the next Savile/Glitter sooner if we're allowed more freedom in running stories investigating celebrities'.

$$$$$$$

I think you're wrong on this one Pleno. More $$$$$$$ would have been gained while he were alive.

There may be some women out there who are after money, but I bet these aren't the genuine cases.

This is so very true.

spot on

they would have been paid god knows how much for these events ten years ago

a lot more than now anyway like anything possibly 10% will be cranks

I dont like it when people say things like. "i knew it!, he was so weird"  or "there was always something about him"  aftertimg strerotypes dont' sit well with me.

I thought somebody would say this

+1 always easy after the event

100% correct and something I've been guilty of since the stories started coming out.

Trigg wins.

When you play live poker do you never go with your gut feeling when deciding what to do?

The most annoying poker players are the ones who say "I knew you had that", but played the hand totally opposite to the way they would have played it if they really did know.

After timers.

Knew you were going to post that.

When will these jimmy saville sex allegations ever end? Police are now saying jeremy beadle may have had a small hand in it.

ditto

Quality

Has there been one shred of evidence that would stand up in court been presented yet ?  yes unfortunately the overwhelming amount of claims pouring forth would seem to strongly indicate guilt..however we ( supposedly ) live in a society that requires proof before the die is cast...however we still live in a society where pseudo lynching occurs..there may well be plenty out there guilty by association as this level of perversion and abuse could never go unaided.

I do get pissed off though when i switch on the news and see some old Doris saying she witnessed Saville abuse a disabled girl and call him despicable...WTF she never said anything and waited 40 years to get her fizog on the goggle box..fuck off love your worse than Saville..your saying you stood by and watched him do this and didn't say a word?  someones despicable here alright...

what makes you think they never said anything before?

As others have said children who complained were sometimes ignored and sometimes told not to cause a fuss - and even when they were listened to the representatives of Jimmy Saville told them that it would come down to their word against his - and he would win.

the old dear wasnt a child at the time...and im sorry ..seriously if you saw someone molest a disabled child would you really give a toss who it was... would you not scream from the rooftops and keep screaming or just shut up in case you looked like a prick..think i know what id do

this occurrence i call experience rather than 'gut feeling'

Good answer

My point being that sometimes you just know whether from experience or 'gut feeling' if something is right or wrong.
I actually remember the rumours from over 10 years ago about similar accusations. I didn't know whether to believe it or not back then but this time round my gut feeling tells me there's no smoke without fire.

Mbn to live in your world Dean where everything is so cut and dried. I agree to some extent but u seem to be judging a lot of people without the full facts.

I Live in the apartment below where Jimmy Saville used to live, for the past week we've had endless strings of reporters knocking on the door asking for interviews about JS.

What can I possibly tell them lol

He has a point though.

I watched the documentary on ITV yday that was on the other week, someone that worked with him at the BBC said something along the lines of "I was in my twenties and was naive and vulnerable, also he was a bigger bloke than me and I didn't want him to find out I had snitched on him as he could've knocked me out"

I mean are you fucking serious ?

How selfish can you be to know someone is molesting and abusing children but your going to keep quite because you don't want to get beat up, WTF is that. As for being vulnerable, in what sense ? Only one I can see is he'd have not been believed and then getting the sack, again how selfish can you be. It's a bit extreme to say they're as bad as him and I disagree with that but it's very, very wrong. I can understand someone who's been raped or abused keeping quite due to whatever mental reason or trauma they've gone through but for someone to witness it being done and not do anything about it is shameful at the very least.

A somewhat chilling sentence from the 2nd article, "And, while in interviews he is always at pains to stress that he has had many one-night stands, no one seems to have ever found a woman willing to admit to sleeping with him."

Yeah completely agree, I mean, wtf?! My parents were trying to say it was because he had this 'aura' and status and that maybe they worried ppl wouldn't believe them, but I don't buy that as an excuse.

Oh and it's you're btw ;)

don't say you played poker with him.

Geezer has terrible taste..

Only point of going through it now is money imo. Guy died at 84, it's not like they didn't have enough time to bring it up if they felt that aggrieved. Fair enough 40yrs ago or what have you it would have been brushed under the carpet, but no chance if they decided to do something about it in the last 10yrs.

Some people had obviously said something, as he was asked about it by Louis Theroux and in other interviews.  The rumours were out there while he was alive (which he denied) so it kind of supports the fact that no-one took it seriously enough to investigate properly at the time.

:)

wish i did live in a world of cut and dried George.. i can only comment from my own point of view and try to make it succinct otherwise its gonna be a Tl:DR... yes there are scared..weak ...vulnerable people out there, but im sorry if you saw a young, helpless disabled girl being being molested you would have to do or say something surely?... i mean come on the its jimmy saville not Al Capone FFS... how scary can he be.. and tbh id glady risk my job to stop that shit... wouldn't you ?

oh and as for judging without the full facts I think there has been enough gone on of that already...

LOL...did you spell check that on the office program i gave you  ;)

However as for parents selling their kids down the road, what about that kid ..Jordy... i think who was Michael Jacksons plaything..

' you molested my kid on a regular basis'

'sorry heres a shit load of money we will say no more '

'er... ok cheers '

I would be so happy if it was Tony Bliar. Fingers crossed

Just to clarify - Not happy that this shit goes on.

It is Ted Heath's government - an MP called Peter Morrison (who was deputy chairman of the Conservatives) got caught a couple of times cottaging with 16 year old boys but got let off with a caution both times.

Boo

Not sure if this has already been mentioned on this thread but the link below is a transcript from HIGNFY.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rogerb/jokes/HIGNFY.txt

The link is safe

I think its safe to say Paul Merton wasn't a fan

Balls, just found out it's a fake. Sorry.
Funny nonetheless

Scotland Yard now saying 300 victims have come forward.

I understand why someone wouldn't come forward while he was alive.

But 0 from 300?

Finding hard to believe some of the allegations aren't fabricated.

I'm sure some are if there is a sniff of £££ down the line for compensation.

It's probably also fair to say that a lot probably aren't fabricated.

Definitely.

The mail straight down to the point:

Nestled in the Highlands a mile from any other building is paedophile Jimmy Saville's Scottish hideaway, and these pictures show the chilling scene inside the cottage where he may have abused more than 20 people

The remote white-washed property outside the village of Glencoe has been untouched since the pervert died last year

Also - as has already been reported it isn't 0 from 300; an indeterminate amount of them did tell people. Some of them were told not to cause a fuss, some of them weren't believed etc. Of those that were believed an indeterminate amount of the adults they reported it to were intimidated into silence by Saville's lawyers and even when it got to the police it's known that at least one investigation (in 2009) was then dropped.

I think it's true that a lot of the media and public are now just accepting every story about Saville that comes out but suggesting that nobody ever tried to do anything about it before is identifiably just not true.

Even the worst in society are entitled to a defence.

I found the panorama doc earlier in the week interesting. Paul Gambaccini spoke of being the new boy at Radio 1 and not feeling able to speak up about what he saw.

Savile made it clear a number of times that, if anything came out about him, he'd take a lot of people down with him. Gambaccini arguably had things about him he didn't want released but I was interested that he wasn't questioned further on why he didn't say anything when he became less expendable - at least that if any such questions were asked, they weren't broadcast. He has struck me as being able to speak his mind throughout his career.

The irony is that the Newsnight show which was allegedly pulled because of the impact it could have on the BBC could now result in a wider investigation that could bring down the BBC.

This is going to get so much bigger than we currently know. It seems that rumours were circulating widely amongst in the entertainment and media sectors and many people had some idea of what was happening. Most are not as stupid as Gambaccini and will be keeping their heads down and hoping they don't get dragged into this. If the media knew, you can be sure that there were politicians who knew, and there must be some of those from the time who are currently dreading this expanding further. A lot of reputations are going to be tarnished before this runs out.

I was parked behind this car today.

(http://i726.photobucket.com/albums/ww270/bobalike/Snapbucket/68AC86B1.jpg)

I think I'd have to throw it away if it was mine.

NOT in the best taste, but oh dear for the radio presenter...

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9yJUOdVyUc

wow, you're right, it's not in good taste but LOL

so funny, how did she fall for that one!?

Its the producers that choose and pass on the texts and emails to be read out, I doubt she even knew the content before she read it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/28/gary-glitter-arrested-jimmy-savile

gosh that's a shock

Well he was in his gang.

It's the idea of Savile being linked to paedophile rings that makes it all the more disturbing though. Definitely going way beyond groping a few teenagers.

See saviles estate frozen in prep for comp claims.... Lol..... Stand by for the stampede

Just trying to remember if I ever met him.

:)

Freddie Starr arrested, are any 80s variety has-beens safe? Look out Cheggers and Gary Wilmot.

Does Freddie Starr's arrest mean that "ate my hamster" was a euphemism?

After taking legal advice, Spit the Dog is going after Bob Carolgees fortune.

i applied for jim'll fix it when i was 9.... i feel mental anguish

When I was 8 he fixed it for me to milk a cow blind folded. Mustn't grumble .

A very interesting article that has been written because of this sorry saga.- http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/jamesrhodes/100067072/outrage-at-jimmy-savile-conceals-the-fact-that-our-culture-encourages-paedophilia-believe-me-i-know-what-im-talking-about/

...You can serve longer in prison for saying "I'm going to kill you" (maximum sentence 10 years) than you can for having sex with your three-year-old daughter (maximum sentence seven years).

to actually hear it......


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/jimmy-savile-let-me-milk-cow-blindfolded-prank-text-bbc-radio-ulster-reporter-left-redfaced-16231035.html

lol. Yeah I did steal it. I also stole my Jimmy Saville pumpkin pic on Facebook. Fessed up now :)

That Pumpkin pic is incred :D

Bet you stole that Perspex toilet too

The legal work for the estate is apparently being done by Nat West, rather than a firm of solicitors.

We'll see this more and more in the future; an overlapping of services.

I've never had PPI, an accident at work, or any contact with Jimmy Saville.

I think there should be some kinda agency set up to deal with compensation claims from people like me because it's unfair and I feel molested.

UntouchedandUnloved.com

They were doing estate administration back in 1992 when I worked in Inland Revenue dealing with Inheritance Tax, nothing new.

This is just getting surreal now

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jimmy-savile-yorkshire-ripper-suspect-221121966.html

Can only be days before someone says they saw him in Dallas in '63

I heard the reason Berry Johnston couldn't find the $1000 chip in the 1986 Main Event was because Jimmy Savile was abusing it at the time he shoved.

No smoke without fire.

Nadine "Mad Nad" Dorries could have stopped all Jimmy's child abuse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/17/nadine-dorries-abstinence-for-girls

http://guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jan/10/jimmy-savile-abuse-inquiry-published

Wathcing it on Sky news. The scale of it beggers belief.

I live in the flat directly below where he used to live and there has been all sorts of commotion coming out of it the last two weeks!

Interesting how the news sites aren't calling him Sir Jimmy Savile any more, even though the knighthood hasn't been stripped.

Surely you're either a Sir or you aren't.

He's a bloody loony.  I'm sure I posted something about him on here as well. He's a very strange individual.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21869330

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk

Max Clifford.

I'm not entirely comfortable with all the 'naming and shaming' in these cases.  There probably is a public interest when a person has been charged, such as Clifford and Hall.  However the ones just being questioned and then having their identity leaked make me feel a little uneasy.  Mainly because the average public sentiment, especially after Saville, is 'no smoke without fire.'  It's meant to be innocent before proved guilty.  Don't get me wrong, if something is proved then use the full force of the law to chuck people in a hole.  It's just after Saville there seems to be a somewhat witch-hunty desire to find someone to blame and enact vengeance upon them, which is probably exacerbated by the perceived missed opportunity to make Saville pay for his crimes now he's dead.

That being said the amount of rapes and sexual offences which go unpunished is absolutely shocking and something seriously needs to be done about it from the highest level.

I've just read about David Jason being questioned.

Are they just going to open question/accuse anyone with a celeb status over 70?

...and another one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22366981

This is the reason Deirdre had that affair with Mike Baldwin.

Getting a bit ridiculous now TBH...

...and understandably that's the reason Mike Baldwin lost his marbles.

Ken Barlow accused by woman who waits 46 years before reporting it.  Utterly absurd.  Police should have laughed in her face.

Utterly absurd, just a complete farce. Even if he was guilty all he has to do is say the words not guilty and he will be fine anyway so what's the point

Or did she report it 46 years ago and the police failed to follow it up adequately?

why bring it up now though....? that bandwagon must be slowing down with all that weight on it

I don't think the individuals are bringing all these cases up. The police are going through old allegations that weren't followed up correctly at the time.  As I've said before, there shouldn't be a statute of limitations on crimes like this.  If your mum/sister/daughter was raped and the police didn't investigate properly, you'd want them to do so no matter how many decades later it was.

Don't know the details of this case obviously.

I bet it was also him that wired up Valerie's hair dryer #onefortheteenagers

"The police are going through old allegations that weren't followed up correctly at the time"

So the police are investigating their own incompetence?  I haven't heard any apologies, just dawn raids on 80 year old entertainers' homes with full press coverage, using flimsy evidence which is decades old.

Current police officers are investigating cases that were dealt with by people who are long since retired/dead. If they're righting wrongs, then I'm all for it.

Those who are rapists/sex abusers now need to know that there's never a time when they'll have 'got away with it'.

Maybe they're not releasing all the evidence as it would prejudice the cases?

"Current police officers are investigating cases that were dealt with by people who are long since retired/dead"

So RBS can carry on as normal now that Goodwin was pensioned off?  Police should still take some responsibility if it is the case that they should have acted decades ago.

What are we basing this on?  Have the police said that it is not alleged victims coming forward after decades?

"Maybe they're not releasing all the evidence as it would prejudice the cases?"

Certainly.  But I fail to see how they can now make a good case that was deemed not strong enough 46 years ago?

Meanwhile old Roache has his name dragged across the press before being found guilty, along with scores of others.

Stinks if you ask me.

I think what annoys me is this.

How many people have been all over the papers after being investigated?

And how many people have they charged?

And how many people have been found guilty?

This is no way to conduct justice.

Completely agree with this.  However still don't think the names should be released by the media and the circus that brings pre-charges, but that's probably another discussion.

Dungbeetle, who are you having a go at - the police or the media?

The Police for not doing their job in the first place.

And the laws which allow the accused to be named in public before being even charged, never mind convicted.

My primary concern is with the second point.  Can't really blame the media, but seems odd they can report on something like this but get gagged when a footballer plays away.  Seems perverse.

Jim Davidson has had his say on his blog:

I was in Middlesborough when my wife called and told me the Police have charged Max Clifford with eleven counts of indecent assault.Max has been charged with 11 counts dating from 1966 to 1985! What!!!  Am I alone at thinking that this is going to be difficult to remember what we were all doing. Who scored the second goal at the world cup final? I am staggered that the media have not made more of this.Is it because it is Max and there is a certain schadenfreude going on?

I see that the Sunday Mirror are not naming another celebrity about to be arestted…how caring? Why aren’t they naming him? He must be a labour supporter.

 

Do you know who I feel sorry for? The Police.We have the best Police force  money can buy (perhaps not the right term) but I know the public are getting fed up, but these allegations must be investigated no matter how silly they appear.I know from the messages I get that the public have lost faith in what  was once  an attempt to arrest pedophiles has turned into a celebrity witch hunt. The Police have been kind and courteous to me. They must know that these accusations are  things that can literally ruin peoples lives.My life is on hold,so is that of my wife.It is as Max says, “a nightmare”,it really is.I have to shake my head and ask is this really happening? Well,it is!. The only good thing is that  I know I am innocent, and that is a powerful weapon to have. It’s still is upsetting though. You have to be strong and wait for the game to play out

Thank God for My Wife and my family,friends and my Fans…Oh  and a good legal team!!

I will still keep performing for as long as you still want to come and see me.

I thank you all for your support.

And now the bad news….

Charlton won’t get to the play offs…….what a year I’m having!!! x


http://blog.jimdavidson.org.uk/2013/04/yewtree/

Jim Davidson is scum.

But anyway, the anonymity of the accused is a contentious issue. I've yet to hear a convincing argument against keeping the accused's name secret until found guilty.

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/exclusive-three-in-four-believe-those-accused-of-sexual-assaults-should-be-granted-anonymity-8599788.html

Agreed.

Kinboshi - from Davidson's piece, it doesn't seem it is the Police who are instigating these cases, more accusations from the supposed victims.  Which brings us back to why it has taken 46 years.

I see they have actually charged Roache.  I'm genuinely intrigued as to what evidence they have that the CPS thinks has a chance of winning.  They won't have 46 year old DNA, so what can it be above her word against his (in which case obviously he will win due to the 46 year issue)?

They must think they have a good chance of securing a conviction, so will be interesting to see the prosecution case when it comes out.

The broadcaster Stuart Hall has pleaded guilty to 14 sex offences

Yes indeed - just read that. 

;gobsmacked;

Does sound like they might have evidence in these cases?

Inadmissable.

Probably/hopefully more to do with remorse

Remorse?  Unlikely.  He was publicly and fiercely denying all up to now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22379286

Doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't remorseful.

In public:


Yet, according to the latest report, he'd confessed a month ago, but this couldn't be reported for legal reasons.

Bit bloody late to be remorseful.  To think he was considered something of a national treasure to many, whilst in reality he'd been sexually assaulting children as young as 9.

Vile man.

I actually have to admit to being truly shocked at Hall's admission... im not sure if its because of fond, youthful memories of his unique chuckling on its a knockout... but...

Just shake my head... what is wrong with this world FFS

vile man

I'm definitely not condoning his actions and he should be shot for what he did.

What will even happen? He is nearly dead anyway.

Deal probably done or hinted at.  The CPS/police need a very public win, they want this to go through as soon and as publically as possible.  Probably showed him what they had and offered soft prison if he pleaded guilty considering his age.

I used to tune in to the Radio 5 Live's match reports just for his one, normally a Championship game in recent years, I thought they were wonderful.  Now this comes to light and you think to yourself 'You spent that much time going out of your way to listen to this kind of person?'  Shocked and appalled.

He's nearly dead? 

Hopefully, he'll be imprisoned for a long time, and it will also act as a sign that perpetrators of such vile crimes cannot feel safe even if they think they might have escaped prosecution for a long time.  Hopefully, it will help victims of rape and other sexual assault report the crimes to the police sooner and they might feel more confident that their allegations will be taken seriously and investigated fully.  That in turn might protect others from becoming victims to these sad, pathetic and vile men.

general question

will they send an 84 year old man away to "hard" prison?

Always to start with..they are then categorised may take a week then prob ship him to Cat D holiday camp..but he will be sectioned probably

I think he'll have some sort of 'illness' very soon into his jail term and need to go to a prison hospice or the like.

kevin o sullivan on twitter (tv critic) has hinted for a while that there is still a lot more to come out

infact his recent tweet

"See what I mean? These TV people are so often frauds. You should never buy the image they try to project."

sums it up quite well

Do you think the Mirror's TV critic has any access to the "talent" whatsoever?

I'd imagine his opinion is no more valid that anyone on this forum to be honest.

Still interesting 180 degree about turn from Hall.  The police will be pleased as they can point to a success story for all the stones they have been turning over.

What is happening to those who did not investigate this all those years ago?

The JS/BR/SH cases must be looked at with some vigorous finger pointing going on...

All news is bad news.

I would hate to think what people think of our nation when our top stories are all about the sexual abuse of children, then and now.

Yes, this does need to be looked at.  If they could have stopped future abuses from happening, but chose not to act, then they are in some way culpable.

i would imagine he does yes

if he check some of his tweets from months ago he was hinting he knew about a lot more that was about to come

Sadly this was my first thought too

It reflects well on our society, now against then, and against other countries where offences remain covered up, that such potential offences are investigated and enquiries far more likely to be brought to a conclusion

Much better for the victims too, who we know have lived with the offences of Hall and possibly others for many many years 

how many other tv "stars" that are now long gone have gone to the grave without being found out?

We will never find out, imo.

They definitely will not want to show up the failures of the past even more. So many names in windows and it just angers you that it starts to come out now.

Saville
Roache
Hall

----------

Davidson
Jason
Harris

Don't think sectioning is likely unless his condition deteriorates. He has pleaded guilty and must be of sound mind to do so.

He isn't likely to be a threat to anyone wherever he is sent and sticking him in an A or BCat for a few years would be more trouble than it is worth, as they would likely have to put him in some form of protection. Plenty of kids trying to make a name for themselves or folk who don't take too kindly to people who offend against children. He'd be on constant watch in a Segregation unit, I imagine.

Only the judge can determine sentence and it is then for the authorities to decide where he is sent, after his initial stint. CPS don't "cut deals" on prison categories.

Abhorrent crime and punishment must follow. Justice will be both done and seen to be done, as best as the law allows.

"So many names in windows and it just angers you that it starts to come out now."

This post seems to illustrate the problem.  You've lumped Saville and a guy who has pleaded guilty in the same boat as a man who has yet to proven guilty in the same boat as 3 guys who haven't even been charged yet.

I 've been reading the sentencing guidelines (been a while since I had to do that).  We might well be jumping the gun implying he's going to get a long jail term.  It could easily be weeks and months rather than years.  It depends on the more specific details of what he did and in what way he assaulted these girls.  While Tal is quite right that the CPS in this country can't cut deals as to which sort of jail an offender can go to, unofficial deals are done.  Remember, they've put the rape case and another serious allegation 'on file.'  Which means they won't be actively pursuing it (however they reserve the right to go back to it, particularly if some clearer evidence comes up).  He's pleaded guilty to these offences, the much harder to prove in court rape case goes on the back burner.

From the guidelines, guilty pleas and from what I have read of the offences from the BBC reporting, I wouldn't be surprised if he's in and out in under two years.

How does it work?  Did he plead guilty on the proviso of the more serious (but hard to prove) charge being dropped?  That seems odd that an accused can negotiate that?  Or are they treated completely seperate?

I very much doubt the accused led the negotiations.  It'll also be nothing like L.A. Law or CIS or anything like that when the police/lawyers shout deals at people in handcuffs in dingy rooms.  Most of the stuff that goes on is unofficial, lawyers on one side let lawyers on the other side know the ways a the thing could go, lawyer's inform clients of the likely outcome of each of their actions.

If he spent 2 actual years in jail id be completely astonished. Guilty pleas instantly reduces sentence by 1/3, no-one does more than half their time. For him to do 2 actual years in jail its the equivalent to a 6 year+ sentence if went to trial, which just aint happening imo

Most likely outcome is he has pled guilty to lesser chargers to avoid a trial for harder stuff. Probably get 2 years, do 9 months in jail

For 14 sexual assaults spanning 30-years, on girls aged 9-17 years?  We don't have details of what the 'sexual assualts' are, but I'd assume they're pretty serious (I don't think we're talking the odd grope), and if that's the case he'll get more than 9 months.

Pretty much agree, but everything hangs one of the cases.  Sorry to be blunt, but concerning the assault of hand up a nine year old girl's skirt, how far that hand went, what he touched and how he touched could literally change his sentence by years.  The evidence on that charge is key to how long his prison term will be.

How many common or garden, non famous people are guilty?

Banging up a few celebs is like removing a dog turd from the steps of Buckingham Palace. It looks like you're doing a good job, but there are thousands more in the bushes.

You're completely right.  However what I hope this'll do is renew the public's faith that sexual offenders and rapists can and will be caught, can and will be prosecuted.  The amount of rape and sexual offences reported compared to committed is shocking, one of the main reasons is that victims think they'll never get justice so why put themselves through more pain and harassment to only be called wrong or a liar at the end of it.  There needs to be public cases like this to encourage victims to report these crimes.

Operation Yewtree is covering more than just famous names.

But you're right of course, most sexual assault is carried out by family members.  The positive thing from Yewtree and getting these high-profile abusers is that it highlights that it's wrong, that the victims shouldn't have suffered the abuse, the perpetrators should have been investigated a long time ago, and the police should investigate such allegations correctly.

If it means more victims of sexual abuse come forward and report these crimes it might lead to the sick men being caught earlier and others escaping the same abuse in the future.

Edit: TommyD beat me to it

Getting 2 years= 9 months in jail. Which given he has pleaded guilty is a 3 year sentence at a trial. Not saying its right, just seems to be about what he will get imo

Had a guy worked for us for a year or two, seemed a decent enough type, reliable, got the job done, deliveries made, PoD's signed collections collected.
Then one day I get a call from a client to ask if I know much about him and the suggestion that I google him
Him and his brother had been convicted of possessing child pornography. Some pretty extreme stuff too.
You just can't tell.

I do think the celebrity thing has an added factor of abuse of position though, as would a teacher or a priest so I think yes, we should chase the thousands in the bushes, but just as celebrity endorsement of a charity or a product carries weight, so too does the prosecution of a celebrity when they transgress.

"The amount of rape and sexual offences reported compared to committed is shocking"

To be devil's advocate how can you make this statement?  To do this you have to assume when anything is not reported then the guy is guilty.  And how can you get numbers for non reported crimes?

Not saying it isn't true, but it's impossible to make this as a statement and have it hold any water.

you definitely can say it, in fact there are whole books in criminology devoted to just this topic. This is pretty old but a 'classic', I suppose: http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Understanding_Crime_Data.html?id=pWV5QgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

Fair comment.  I'll try to find the relevant documents and reports online later on to back my statement up.

There are three key areas.  Offences committed, offences reported and offences convicted.

Numbers from non reported crimes come from reports from Crisis centres and other non-police organisations who deal with helping the victims of sexual crime while not having the power or authority to make the victims report the crime.  This may also be the case for hospitals and health care professionals treating Adults (I'm not 100% on this but I believe they cannot act without the victim's consent if the person is of Adult age and not likely to injure themselves or others).  Like I said before, I will try to find the hard facts on these later on.

We do have records of reported compared to convicted.  I've had a brief look through the Home Office website but nothing obvious has sprung to view just now.  Will do a proper look later.

For now here's an article from the BBC written in 2008:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/07/rape_a_complex_crime.html (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/07/rape_a_complex_crime.html)

And here's the quote from Wiki which referenced the above source material, for those who just want the key point.


'Of women aged 16 to 59 in England & Wales interviewed for the 2006/07 British Crime Survey, 0.5% (1 in every 200) reported that they had suffered rape or attempted rape in the previous year, equating to approximately 85,000 nationally. In the same year, less than 800 persons were convicted of rape'

Taken from the 'Sexual offences in the United Kingdom' page on Wikipedia

So can someone remind me why all those priests and other "holy men" got away with it please?

It was covered up.  The church didn't report the offences to the police, moved priests on to other areas, paid off the victims to remain silent, etc.

Institutionalised evil.

God knows.

it appears being a man of God is greater protection than being an old celebrity.

In the US alone there were 4,392 allegations between 1950-2002, and many more since.

http://bishop-accountability.org/member/index.jsp

Remember though, that allegations of abuse are easy to make and can be spurious. One of the children at my wife's school has been heard to threaten to accuse some of her male colleagues simply to gain leverage in a dispute.

My Dad was stuck in a traffic jam on the way home from work about 20 years ago.

A girl aged maybe 14 or 15 just opened his passenger seat door and got in.

Said if he didn't give her £20 she'd go to the police and say he raped her.

Obviously he said no, and she got out and tried her luck with another unsuspecting driver.

some interesting (and saddening) rape data
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rape-a-lack-of-conviction/

i'd wager there are more men of God than celebs though ;)

Great find and very interesting website.  I think this'll do for the supporting data I mentioned before.

Interesting that the Stuart Hall case wasn't an old allegation being reinvestigated, but one kicked off by a letter written by one of the abused after the publicity of the Jimmy Savile case.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/how-i-exposed-stuart-halls-abuse-yasmin-alibhaibrown-on-the-letter-that-kickstarted-the-sex-assault-investigation-8601517.html

West Yorkshire Police investigate themselves, and find no wrongdoing...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/may/10/jimmy-savile-police-report

Really?

makes sense.

if only there was an Independent Police Complaints Commission which could look at allegations like these....


if only

Errrrrmmmmm - the one 'branch' of the celebrity scene that hasn't hit the news - so far - is the music industry, DJs excepted.

An investigation of what many groups (might) have got up to with underage fans in the last 50 years may make Operation Yewtree look like a mere pimple on an enormous cancerous growth!

Izzy wizzy let's get busy


(Sorry)

I read loads of these wiki potted biographies.

I enjoyed this one, but the last bit spoiled it.

Why should stuff like this go into print unproven?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Mullard

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-22846712

So he did or he didn't, but he probably did, but the boy might have been 16 - is that what it's saying?

bit of history with them doing this if I recall!

i guess the 15 quoted, should read 16....that said, surely you can indecently assault anyone irrelevant of age?

Yes, thought they meant 16 instead of 15 for the birthday. But like you say, if it's non-consensual then the age is irrelevant. So is the judge saying it didn't happen at all?

Lots of unproven stuff finds its way into print each and every single day. Just a few weeks ago, in an article in the Evening Standard, on Thursday 23rd May, page 16, entitled "Marjorie's (Wallace) fond memories of BBC's gropers":

Wallace recalls being interviewed by the late Elkan Allan for ITVs Ready Steady Go when she was an aspiring rock chick. "He told me to sleep with him or I wouldn't get the job," she says. "After lunch he showed me the casting couch. I took one look at him and one look at the couch and I knew I would never get the job."

I assumed it meant that it was consensual - but if it's under 16 then that's irrelevant.

Andrew Watkinson, 42, from Gateacre, Liverpool, is accused of abusing the boy, then aged 14, between 1993 and 1994. He denies six counts of indecent assault of a child under the age of 16.

Seems like the judge "quashed" 2 charges on Thursday last week because at the trial today "Judge Clement Goldstone QC directed the jury to find Mr Watkinson not guilty on two of six counts he originally faced because the complainant said he could not be sure the alleged abuse happened before he turned 15."  (still confused by the age....as 14/15 all still illegal.....then as mentioned, surely indecent assault isn't age restricted?!.

So then today at the court, the jury deemed a not guilty verdict over the remaining 4 counts of indecent assault..  Reason is unclear??!!?

No. The jury didn't "deem" a not guilty verdict; it delivered a not guilty verdict. The reason for the jury's decision is and will remain secret.

The two counts the judge ordered a not guilty verdict on were of "indecent assault of a child under 16". As the prosecution couldn't prove the alleged victim was under 16 at the time, that's entirely fair.

We are entitled to have some faith in the legal system and the integrity of the law. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

It's the reporting that's dodgy I think here, not the legal process.

Damn. I thought you were referring to the Marjorie Wallace, the first USA Miss World, first Miss World to be sacked and paramour of George Best, Tom Jones, Peter Revson & Jimmy Connors. Haven't heard of her for years, I thought - gotta check this. Turns out you're on about some BBC biddy I've never heard of. Oh well. I suppose the text gave it away if I had taken the time to read it properly - she wouldn't have been applying for some crummy daytime show. But I shot off too quickly to check it out. I wonder how the real Marjorie Wallace is getting on these days.

(http://cine-talkies.com/fashion/miss-world/marjorie-wallace/marjorie-wallace-103.jpg)

Harris found guilty on 12 counts of sexual assault.

Rolf

You've been saving that for some time haven't you.......?

I'm afraid so  ;marks;

(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrZiwwKIAAAiKWg.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrZiwwKIAAAiKWg.jpg)

So how long is Harris likely to get ?
5+years I hope!

I would like to see him get 20 years but that ain't gonna happen !

2.5 years or thereabouts is my guess. Sentencing is based on the guidelines in place at the time the offences were committed, not what he would get now.

I read about this the other day. Seems a ridiculous rule.

Does this mean that if someone who committed murder before capital punishment was abolished gets caught now they could technically be hanged?

Would be nice to think it could work both ways....

If you use sentences as a deterrent, then someone should suffer the penalty as the deterrent was set at the time of the crime.  If someone was willing to carry out a murder when there was a death penalty in existence, then technically I would argue they should be subject to hanging.

Of course whether sentences are a deterrent is another debate, but logically how they do it now makes sense.

Fkin sickos in this world, glad my brain isn't wired like theirs were. I imagine the drive of pedophilia is what got these people their good image and successful careers in the first place. Sickens me to even write that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28163593

Justice? He's pretty old now, so a fairly decent chance he will be in ill health by the time he's done with prison. I imagine up until now he's had a very cushy lifestyle.

He's also going to get his arse sued off by his victims, so they'll take his money.

Fyp

i would say he would be on rule 45 like the other nonces

Ok, who had Cliff Richard in the sweepstake?

Just surprised its taken this long.

No idea, but funny coincidence how virtually all the people getting these accusations are minted...

Celebrities generally are though..

I heard this story about cliff richard 12 years ago, from a decent source. Apparenty the police were aware of it but decided to sweep it under the carpet for whatever reason.

i had to remove a few things which referred to legal processes. blonde doesn't want to be held to account for statements that may or may not be true and publicising things which are protected by the courts, but which potentially leave us liable

please tread carefully thanks

Not sure I follow. Lots of other accusations are made and people arrested and convicted, but they don't make national news. Don't think it's surprising that cases involving famous people make news headlines.

It's also no coincidence that those found guilty have abused children…

It's also no coincidence that many of those investigated have either not been charged or have had charges dropped. I'm suggesting there are bullshitters out there looking to make a quick buck because they think they have seen a rich mark. I hope they get the book thrown at them also as being labelling someone a nonce/rapist/abuser etc ain't the most pleasant thing either. I would bet my right arm that even those that have been found guilty have had oppotunitsts making stuff up also.

I would bet my left arm that there are some who have got away with it who were guilty as sin. 

FWIW, the one I was actually most surprised with was Max Clifford, I just assumed with him being the PR Guru/Fixer that he was the one least likely to have been embroiled in this.   

Sir Cliff who is abroad, says the bbc denies the allegations. 

Anyone able to remind us why Sir Cliff gave up his residency of the UK and took up citizenship in Barbados which incidently doesn't have extradition treates with the UK.  Just thinking out loud. 

3 letter word beginning with T ?

You think?

Police still haven't asked to speak to Cliff Richard yet.  WTF are they doing raiding his home with the BBC televising it if they aren't going to charge him?  Surely they should be doing this kind of thing out of sight of the media?

How do they charge him when he's not a british citizen and has citizenship of a country that has no extradition with the UK?

Conveniently when the story broke he was supposed to have been holed up at his home in Portugal but made a sharp exit.  Portugal does have an extradition treaty with the UK. 

Well he was supposedly playing tennis in Portugal on Friday, which is after the house raid.  Doesn't sound like a man who is trying to avoid the police to me. 

Barbados is part of the Commonwealth and the London Scheme for Extradition Within the Commonwealth seems to be a multilateral extradition agreement covering all member countries?

Yeah this.  It still has a British Governor General with the Queen as Head of State.  That's the only reason there isn't a formal extradition treaty.  Absolutely zero chance they refuse to extradite someone.

Pls not Cliff Richard. I mean I'm cynical enough about people as it is!

Who next, Mother Teresa??

Dont start me on that bitch!!!!!

Not according to the laws of Barbados. 

Think he's pulling your leg, there is I belive quite a bit of dodgy stuff out there about Mother Teresa. 

there is a massive difference between having unknowing sexual relations with an under age person, and being "predatory", everyone knows this. But technically, even if the "child" has told the "adult" that they are old enough, it is still against the law (as far as i am aware).

So to that end, what worries might some of the stars of the music industry,both past and present, have right now?


dont want to mention any names/groups etc, but if a groupie gets into the hotel room of a musician, offers themselves up for anything the musician wants, wants and allows it to happen, does not go to the authorities and complain about it, but mum finds out her 15 year old "angel" has been taken advantage of.

where does the musician stand there? both moraly, and in the eyes of the law?

Another one. I really hope they throw the book at anyone found to be bullshitting..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29431833

I really hope they punish those who have sexually assaulted people.

Don't know who is going to disagree with that  :dontask:

It's a fair point that has been made.  Jim Davidson went though a year of public speculation in the papers and interrogation before the authorities decided there were no charges to answer.  The Police even arrested him in public at the airport, when they could have just waited for him to arrive home.  It's obviously dented his career and I imagine a cloud of suspicion still hangs over him in some people's eyes.  Is it just acceptable collateral damage in the crusade?

Dr Fox isn't a real doctor, or a real fox - how can we believe anything he says?

No, but he'll survive.

There are thousands of women who have been sexually assaulted but for numerous reasons the perpetrators have not been arrested, charged and convicted.  This is a much more important issue for me than a racist bigot having his career dented.  Of course, I wouldn't want anyone accused of a sexual assault they haven't done, it must be terrible.  Probably not as terrible as being sexually assaulted though.
 

I'm no Jim Davidson fan, but the fact that you don't like him seems pretty irrelevant to this issue.  I can imagine your disappointment when the allegations were found by the authorities to hold no water.

I dislike Jim Davison with a passion (obviously).

But the police arresting him at the airport, having obviously tipped off the press first was unnecessary, vindictive and cruel.

Just trying to curry good will amongst Daily Mail readers.

How difficult would it be to wait until he got home to arrest him?

Not like he is a dangerous criminal.

I'm certain the reason the press were tipped off is because even the police wanted to see the 'Nick Nick Nicked' headline in the Sun.

i'm in a minority of people in UK and on blonde it seems that likes jim davidson

yeah his jokes used to be racists and homophobic etc
but who amongst us that grew up in the 70s and 80s didnt find that sort of humour the norm back then
man of his jokes were actually written by black/gay writers
more recently his humour and his characters have poked fun at himself
his career was over long before his arrest atleast on tv, this just nailed the coffin shut
but i would rather have 50 coffins nailed shut on careers than one offender getting away with these heinous crimes   
the way they are handled by police needs work on though arresting him arriving at an airport was wrong
if it was him leaving the country i see the point
and alerting the media over his arrest and cliff's house search is just out of order

It just seems like a bit of a freeroll for all these people making accusations without any consequences if they are trying it on. I know a lot of these accusations will be genuine, but I think we all know deep down there are a few chancers in the mix hoping to make a few quid. Obviously there are a few where no charges were brought, Jimmy Tarbuck and Freddie Starr spring to mind, there are others too...

That fact I dislike him is completely irrelevant to this issue.  Which is why I gave an answer to your question that is completely independent to my feelings towards him or anyone else.

Oh, and anyone who beats a woman like Jim Davidson did deserves to be punished for it.

Once again - if he beat up his wife he can be charged seperately.  I'm not sure why you think this is relevant to him being arrested at the airport in a blaze of publicity.  Illogical.

Did you actually bother to read my answer to your question? 

I also didn't comment on the airport arrest, that was obviously ludicrous.

Yes I did.  As far as I could see you claimed that Davidson's character had no impact on your views of the situation before promptly having another pop at him.  Kind of undermines you.

Well you need to read it again. 


My point was that the focus should be on those who are assaulted, but of course anyone who is innocent of sexual assault and is accused is going to be tarnished by the "there's no smoke without fire" as people conveniently forget the "innocent until proven guilty" concept that they probably agree with rationally.

My initial comment was aimed at some people's initial concern is that some of these accusations are false and are financially driven.  My first response is that I'm appalled that people carry out these assaults and get away with it.  The more who are arrested, charged and convicted the more other victims will feel confident to come forward and bring others to justice (and hopefully spare others from being victims).


Arresting him at the airport was obviously wrong, and whatever my views of Jim Davidson are, there's no evidence to suggest he's carried out any sexual assault, and until I see any I won't think of him as this.  Others might, but they probably believe everything they read in the tabloids as well.

However, I do see him as a racist, bigoted wife-beater though. But that's a separate issue.

Actually I think they should focus on both issues that's why I posted what i did. I think destroying someone's career, stressing them to the max for a year or two, potentially damaging relationships with their spouse, costing them a lot of money defending themselves amongst other issues by falsely accusing someone to make a few quid is a serious issue also.

Agree with this (heading to see a doctor later;-)). 

The problem is that the offense itself has such a vilified status now in our society that anyone that is in any way associated with any kind of sex crime or paedo is automatically ostracised by a lot of people whether they are guilty or not and can have their lives ruined in a way that would never happen if they were being falsely accused of another crime.  Those that accuse falsely should be subject to very strict penalties and always named in my opinion.

Deffo agree with the naming mate.

I wonder once charges are dropped how much they consider a false accusation or whether they just let it be?

Just because someone is found not guilty, doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime.

Penalties for people complaining but not resulting in convictions would lead to less complaints and accusations.

Which would mean more crimes.

What I do believe is people who are arrested for sex crimes should not be named at the very least until they are charged. And personally think they shouldn't be named until they are convicted.

Outrageous that Cliff Richard has been named without even being arrested!

EDIT: Read post properly before posting!

Yeah obviously, I'm not taking about auto penalties for if a not guilty charge is found. I'm talking about a proper investigation about the person making the allegations if there is sufficient reason to. I'm absolutely convinced there are people trying it on in many of these recent cases because they know they are probably free rolling.

There are already offences for people who make knowlingly false allegations: wasting police time, perverting the course of justice and perjury. There also exist civil actions in defamation and malicious falsehood.

Obviously not everybody found not guilty is innocent and vice versa but there has to be a point at which we accept that due process has been carried out and as a country that accepts the rule of law we might not like certain decisions but we should still abide by and respect them.  Perhaps you are right about complainants but there does seem to be a minority that use their ability to ruin peoples reputations as capital to either make money or gain revenge and that, in itself, should be a criminal act.

Obviously agree that the accused shouldnt be named in public until they are found guilty.

No I mean someone who has been found not guilty is guilty but there isn't enough evidence to convict them.

If there's not enough evidence to convict, then we have to assume innocence. 

I agree that there should be anonymity until they're actually charged.  However, there are issues with this but in the present day with the internet, media (especially social media) and how much an innocent person can suffer, the innocent need protecting.

However, there are far more victims of sexual assault who don't/won't/can't press charges than there are people falsely accused of sexual assault.  Same goes for domestic violence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11323146/Thatcher-confidant-raped-boy-and-police-covered-crime-up.html

This whole thing stinks.  the establishment is upto its knees in this. 

I think the ongoing operation should be handed over to someone outside the Met to deal with, they seem at best icompetent in this whole debacle. 

It'll be interesting how fulsome people will be in their praise of Leon Brittan, lest they be Saviled at a later date.

A convenient death?

Quite a stretch of the imagination to suggest dying of cancer is "convenient".

I'd find it a tad inconvenient, to be honest.

I have no association with Mr Brittain whatsoever, but i find this pretty offensive

He died today ffs

The guy was 75 and had cancer for several months - it's not a Dr David Kelly level of oddness that he dies now.

I suggest you don't look at Twitter for the next couple of days.

This is extremely mild compared to some things I've seen written about him in the last couple of hours.

I know it is, have seen some of it

we don't have to compare to complete idiots on social media, a moderated forum can hold itself to a higher standard than causing offence

(off pompous horse now)

Offensive, get a grip ffs. 

I simply posed a question. I could have said he was one of the most obnoxious and reactionary of the Thatcherites too, an absolute bastard. He'll be joining Thatcher, Saville, Cyril Smith and the rest of the beasts in hell

Now that I could understand you taking offence to, but its true.

Are you Jason Herbert's long lost Scottish cousin?

There's a subtle hint in Tighty's post.

Which you've either missed, ignored or gloried in flouting.

Who?

Tiresomely offensive.

Herbie "smashedagain".

I think it's offensive to put Thatcher with the like of Smith and Savile. It's kind of insinuating she's the same kind of scum.

<3 The Iron Lady

I'm sure this has been answered somewhere, but after 10 minutes searching through Google I can't find it.

If, as claimed today in the papers, Leon Brittan was named in the infamous paedophile dossier why did Geoffrey Dickens give him the dossier and not go straight to the police?

Gadd game, Gadd game.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/05/gary-glitter-guilty-child-sex-offences

Fred Talbot found guilty of assaulting two boys.