***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 12 *****
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 13 May 13 at 12:42
|
Rolf has finally been named
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22212131#
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 19 Apr 13 at 12:44
|
>> Rolf has finally been named
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22212131#
It'll soon be easier for the police to identify those that are innocent.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 19 Apr 13 at 12:44
|
>> It'll soon be easier for the police to identify those that are innocent.
>>
Have they been found guilty then, or only the dead ones..;)
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 19 Apr 13 at 12:44
|
RH is apparently known to the police as Yewtree 5.
Is there a complete index available?
Was JS himself Yewtree 1, or is there a different nomenclature for the dead ones?
Yews of course are famous for living to a great age - is that a police witticism?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 19 Apr 13 at 12:44
|
|
They'll have a job getting past his excellent defence. Seems he's got an extra leg to stand on.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 19 Apr 13 at 12:44
|
>> They'll have a job getting past his excellent defence. Seems he's got an extra leg
>> to stand on.
You'll never take me alive said he!
|
|
Have we been informed why he wanted to tie his kangaroo down?
|
|
There are some bars, some grey walls, a toilet and a big black man. Can you guess what it is yet Rolf?
|
So what emboldened the Sun to name him today and why did rest of media immediately follow suit?
There's now 'no comment' on nature of allegation. BBC report around 08:15 today suggested it was historic and involved one woman and a single event.
|
Whether guilty or not mud sticks especially when writ in large black letters under the red top banner of a popular tabloid or three.
I bet anyone who presented a kid's tv program in the 70's & 80's is absolutely terrified whenever the door bell goes. God forbid if a presenter has to recollect (under caution) if they happened to place their hand on a childs shoulder whilst they did a piece to camera about the phantom flan flinger or collecting milk bottle tops for guide dogs!
Chris Tarrant, Lenny Henry, John Noakes et al had better get good lawyers.
This whole things is getting evermore similar to the anti-communism witch hunts of 1950's America.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 19 Apr 13 at 13:56
|
|
Apparently this is based on one allegation from over 30 years ago. Frankly its getting bleed-in ridiculous.
|
The Jim Davidson episode was the most ridiculous, arrested by umpteen coppers at the airport and then a coachload of CSI descend on his home for evidence...what did they expect, that if they didn't nab him as he stepped off the plane that he'd whip a pump action from under the bed and go out in a blaze of glory yelling 'you'll never take me alive copper'?
The whole thing has become a farce, causing as much exposure and embarrasment to people no longer fashionable.
|
Agree zero, whilst the Saville thing is obviously very worrying and there seems to be a load of evidence against him, but when you have a witness coming forward 30 years later and claiming things then it really does get ridiculous.
If I was a celeb just now I would be videoing every sexual liason and getting permission slips signed!!
|
Next one up is Morph.
A well known playdoughphile - allegedly.
|
>> Next one up is Morph.
>>
>> A well known playdoughphile - allegedly.
>>
Careful there Brompt, insinuating things like that without proof could land you in serious trouble.
|
>> >> Next one up is Morph.
>> >>
>> >> A well known playdoughphile - allegedly.
>> >>
>>
>> Careful there Brompt, insinuating things like that without proof could land you in serious trouble.
Yeah, he is a model citizen but it could land him in a sticky situation.
|
>> >> Next one up is Morph.
>> >>
>> >> A well known playdoughphile - allegedly.
Used to hang around clubs in East London apparently.
Well known on the Plaistow scene,
|
|
Look at what has happened to Old Holborn!
|
>> Look at what has happened to Old Holborn!
>>
What has happened Roger, i noticed his old blog has been removed, just prior to that another poster using his blog mentioned he was in trouble on Twitter, which i don't use.
Any links please?
|
|
Agree: presumably the motive is financial compensation from some type of "victim" fund
|
Should the claim turn out to be malicious, as in a provable pack of lies as opposed to merely an unproven claim, then there ought to be a fine equivalent to the amount of compensation claimed.
|
One 'victim' alleged she was assaulted when the accused placed a hand on her thigh in the cinema.
That puts me, and no doubt countless others, in deep doo-doo for what we got up to in cinemas in the '60s.
|
|
The one sided law which gives accusers anonymity while the name of the accused is splashed all over the media needs urgent review. Making false or spurious allegations of a sexual nature against someone is a win-win for a malicious person, prosecutions for false claims are rare and the poor accused has his reputation ruined whatever the outcome.
|
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of your proposal as it applies to adults for a moment, RR, you would have to make children exempt.
Abusers of children are often able to frighten them into not telling the authorities by making threats. Being anonymous at least gives the child some protection from this, especially when the child knows that there are other victims like themselves and the accused could not easily trace them as the whistleblower.
|
|
Can we rename this thread from Saville Row, to "All of Central London" it covers the scope better I think.
|
>> Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of your proposal as it applies to adults for
>> a moment, RR, you would have to make children exempt.
>>
>>
Young children are a special case.
But a sexually active star struck fifteen year old who willingly sleeps with a pop star and at the time regards it as a feather in her cap but then thirty years down the line decides she was the victim of "abuse" isn't, to name but one scenario. Victim anonymity in these cases is along the same lines as "No win, no fee" accident claims.
|
I would be fascinated to know the mechanics of such an investigation by police when dealing with allegations of this nature from so long ago.
How would the victim and accused be interviewed, for instance?
Does the officer ask "So were you raped in 1967?"
Answer: "Yes".
Same question posed to the accused, "Did you rape X in 1967?"
Answer: "No".
Then what - it goes to court and a jury of 12 decide on balance of probability? or believeability?
|
>> I would be fascinated to know the mechanics of such an investigation by police when
>> dealing with allegations of this nature from so long ago.
>>
>> How would the victim and accused be interviewed, for instance?
>> Does the officer ask "So were you raped in 1967?"
>> Answer: "Yes".
>>
>> Same question posed to the accused, "Did you rape X in 1967?"
>> Answer: "No".
Dont work like that. Closed question as not used
"tell me what happened in 1967"
|
>>
>> "tell me what happened in 1967"
>>
A bit time consuming, surely? Do I get a clue as to his line of interest, or does he really want to know all about my Physics A-level exam?
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> "tell me what happened in 1967"
>> >>
>>
>>
>> A bit time consuming, surely? Do I get a clue as to his line of
>> interest, or does he really want to know all about my Physics A-level exam?
Ok then..
"Tell me what happened on the 4th June 1967"
Jeez, I wasn't writing the effin interview techniques manual, merely providing general comments.
|
>>
>> Ok then..
>>
>> "Tell me what happened on the 4th June 1967"
>>
>>
>> Jeez, I wasn't writing the effin interview techniques manual, merely providing general comments.
>>
A canny interviewee will still turn the question back though and force the interviewer to reveal what he is getting at.
If he simply says it's a long time ago and he has no idea what happened on 4th June, can the questioner be a bit more specific, he will either have to start suggesting the real reason for his enquiry, or give up.
|
|
I can guarantee you if you asked me that question about the 4th of June last year I'd be clueless, never mind thirty years ago. I often have trouble on a Monday morning replying to "have a nice weekend?".
|
Pretty much my take.
Unless there is a smoking gun still lying around after 46 years the whole thing is rather laughable - or would be if the accused didn't have his life ruined while the accuser sat behind a cloak of anonymity.
|
Next one in the smoking gun firing line
Coronation Street's Ken Barlow aka William Roach
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22366981
|
I know that I'm hardly the first to point this out, but I just can't get over the fact that the press are allowed to print the names of people that have been charged, or even just arrested.
It is, of course, particularly problematic when the alleged offences are of a sexual nature, but even for other offences the potential damage to a wrongly accused individual is huge.
If the Daily Mail suggested that celebrity X was a guilty of abusing children, then they would be in a world of trouble, unless they could prove it.
However, once the person is arrested (and it must be pretty easy to get someone arrested, with little hard evidence) then they can splash it all over the papers, with no fear of being sued because they actually have been arrested.
I don't see any public interest angle in papers being able to publish names, prior to conviction. It would seem to me that there should be a law that prevents publishing of names of those arrested/charged (for any crime), unless granted permission by the courts.
|
>> I know that I'm hardly the first to point this out, but I just can't
>> get over the fact that the press are allowed to print the names of people
>> that have been charged, or even just arrested.
There's a bit of a toussle going on about this. A sideshow of the Leveson Report co-incident with a Law Commission Consultation on the whole issue of contempt of court.
The Law Commission's view was that Police should name at arrest but that ACPO should issue guidance to ensure this was done in a consistent way including protections for vulnerable arrestees.
Although strictly outside the terms of his inquiry Leveson's report expresses the opposite view. Police should not, other than exceptionally where there is a risk to the public, release the names of arrested suspects.
The Judiciary response to the Law Commission written by Lord Justice Treacy and Mr Justice Tugendhat on behalf of their brethren adopts Leveson's line.
The press see the possible enactment of such restrictions as a threat to their freedom (or a cynic might observe their circulation and profits). Hence there have been a stream of stories about 'secret' arrests with implications of midnight knocks at the door etc.
I've no doubt the coverage of the arrests of Roache and Clifford and the 'revelation' of Rolf Harris's arrest are presented in a way to drive the agenda.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 1 May 13 at 13:45
|
Joe Bloggs retired dustman next.
oops seems not, he hasn't got two bob to scratch his back side with.
|
I still cannot believe all these people are guilty. It just seems far too many people, I mean it seems like it is almost half the male cast of Coronation Street just for starters.
|
>> I still cannot believe all these people are guilty. It just seems far too many
>> people, I mean it seems like it is almost half the male cast of Coronation
>> Street just for starters.
>>
>>
>>
It would make a great storyline for the Street after the dust has settled, wouldn't it? Police uncover a paedo ring in Weatherfield.
|
>> I still cannot believe all these people are guilty.
>>
>>
I agree.
Bill Roach has been arrested for rape.
In 1967.
Who, really would wait 46 years before reporting a crime - especially one as serious as rape?
|
..............and how could it possibly be proved after all these years?
|
|
I often have trouble remembering what I did last week! Unless the event in 1967 was a memorable one, a lot of questions as to what he was doing will be answered by, "no idea".
|
>> ..............and how could it possibly be proved after all these years?
>>
>>
Possibly more importantly - how would one prove your innocence after this amount of time?
It's fairly easy to find 'witnesses' especially where there's money involved..
'EXCLUSIVE!! Miss A tells her rape story...'
|
Wot Tony said.
And surely there's no evidence anyway other than one person's word after all this time?
|
|
Could be. Complainant might have describe what happened at the time to a third party. Possibly there were witnesses to an assault. Might even have told the police who took no action at the time. No doubt all will be revealed in due course.
|
|
I do hope that there is a review *AFTER* all is said and done. And if any case was brought on inadequate evidence, or simply on the word of one person, and a not guilty verdict resulted, then someone needs nailing to a wall.
|
>>Who, really would wait 46 years before reporting a crime - especially one as serious as rape?
The reality of this statement is that it is by someone who is neither a rapist or a rapee.
If you can cover something like that up for a week, or a month, 46 years isn't difficult either.
Why would you bring it up after half a century?
Perhaps because you were asked by someone you had disclosed it to, or had previously made a complaint that wasn't taken forward by the Police/CPS (surely not....), or maybe you think it's easy money making up a lie hoping for a modest pay out as is the knee-jerk rection by many on this forum.
I can easily see how someone would keep it quiet for 46 years having seen loads of abused women through the years.
When conviction rates for rape were running at under 10% did this mean 90% of women crying rape were liars and perjurers?
Proveability? Well that's a different matter entirely.
|
Well said Lygonos, and spoken from a woman's point of view too.
I gave up trying to put that point forward in Volume 1 of this thread!
Pat
|
>> Well said Lygonos, and spoken from a woman's point of view too.
>>
>> I gave up trying to put that point forward in Volume 1 of this thread!
>>
>> Pat
Well thats because women should be seen and not heard. Shut your trap and get back in the kitchen.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wait, gastronomically wise, that might be a bad idea.
|
>>Shut your trap and get back in the kitchen.
.
Got a day off, so I'm off to the greenhouse!
If anyone wants food they can cook it:)
Pat
|
>> I mean it seems like it is almost half the male cast of Coronation Street just for starters.
Yes, the credits at the end is beginning to look like the sex offenders register ;)
|
>> Although strictly outside the terms of his inquiry Leveson's report expresses the opposite view. Police
>> should not, other than exceptionally where there is a risk to the public, release the
>> names of arrested suspects.
>>
>> The Judiciary response to the Law Commission written by Lord Justice Treacy and Mr Justice
>> Tugendhat on behalf of their brethren adopts Leveson's line.
In light of your comments, I read this with interest today.
tinyurl.com/cyd3hb6
|
>> In light of your comments, I read this with interest today.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/cyd3hb6
Link to article in Mail where Police will not name an officer chargfed with offences of dishonesty.
As the first comment on the article makes clear this goes beyond anything Leveson proposed. They're conflating it with Leveson as part of their claim that press regulation will threaten freedom.
|
Newsflash on BBC, Stewart Hall pleads guilty to offences against children, youngest a girl of nine.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22379286#
link edited it
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 2 May 13 at 10:55
|
|
Now THAT is sick. Plea bargain?
Last edited by: Roger on Thu 2 May 13 at 11:40
|
>> Newsflash on BBC, Stewart Hall pleads guilty to offences against children, youngest a girl of
>> nine.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22379286#
>>
>> link edited it
Thanks VX. At time I posted it was just a ticker flash at top of main news page.
|
>> Newsflash on BBC, Stewart Hall pleads guilty to offences against children, youngest a girl of
>> nine.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22379286#
I hope Stuart Hall's prison guards make him feel at home by making him take his slopping out bucket over an obstacle course before measuring what he comes back with.
|
I can understand how someone might confess to a single burglary they didn't do because they were ill, browbeaten or scared but I don't see that would happen with sex offences against children - such a confession ruins your life. Therefore I'm comfortable to take it then that Stuart Hall is guilty of offences against children, even if I don't know exactly which ones.
I also assume he's pleaded guilty because he thought life could be a lot worse if he didn't and everything as discussed in court. I'd take that to mean he got up to some horrible stuff.
And whilst I don't doubt that having a man's hand up your skirt is distressing for a 9 year old, I wonder how bad it must have been for that 9 year old to still be worried about it at least 20 years later.
And its worrying that *all* of them kept it secret for so long, assuming that they're telling the truth. And if one takes the police statement that the complainants didn't and don't know each other, I can't believe that they're all lying.
I would also assume that if 10 people, or whatever it was, are prepared to come forward after such a time period, then there is almost certainly a whole bunch of them who didn't.
Its all very worrying and if all is as it seems one can only hope that the people concerned get some level of healing closure from this.
|
>> its worrying that *all* of them kept it secret for so long,
My impression is that they didn't all 'keep it secret', but that they or their parents did sometimes make complaints and were intimidated into keeping quiet, or made to realise they wouldn't be listened to.
Same sort of thing is supposed to have happened with the vile Savile. It's quite believable.
People are less timid about that stuff in this whistleblowing age, and some are now suspected of exaggerating or making things up. Perhaps there's a bit of that but it must be quite rare. Think about it: it's one thing to make up a cock-and-bull story but quite another to maintain it convincingly in court against a sceptical team of QCs.
|
>> I hope Stuart Hall's prison guards make him feel at home by making him take his slopping out bucket over an obstacle course before measuring what he comes back with.
He'll just play his Joker.
|
>> >> I hope Stuart Hall's prison guards make him feel at home by making him
>> take his slopping out bucket over an obstacle course before measuring what he comes back
>> with.
>>
>> He'll just play his Joker.
H'ell be running the games in the prison. Its a cock out.
|
New evidence emerges about the level of depravity that Bill Roache was prepared to sink to in the 1970s.
tinyurl.com/c7nshog
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Thu 2 May 13 at 11:53
|
Bill Roache has claimed to have slept with over 1000 women.
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9145261/Coronation-Street-star-Bill-Roache-Ive-slept-with-1000-women.html
so, that proves it *is* possible to bore the pants off someone....
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 2 May 13 at 13:00
|
|
Looks like the 'witch hunt' found a witch. Good, never too old for justice and if the many calls from people suggesting there was nothing to it had been listened to he would have got away with it.
|
|
len fairclough another street actor caught with his fingers ' ahem' not in the till , there must be something in the newton and ridley bitter
|
|
It were that Ena Sharples. I never did like that woman. She were the guiding spirit, behind the scenes like. She were no better than she should've been either in her day that Ena. I could tell you some thinggs... but me lips are sealed. Least said soonest mended.
|
Comedian Jimmy Tarbuck has been arrested in connection with a historical child sex abuse investigation, the BBC understands.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22429904#
The entertainer and quiz show host was released on police bail pending further enquiries.
He was questioned about an alleged assault on a young boy in the late 1970s.
|
Oh this is getting ridiculous....
I want one of these to come to trial so that I can understand what level of evidence is being used to initiate these inquiries including those with house-storming, arrest and public naming.
|
One already has.
Stuart Hall...he pleaded guilty.
Pat
|
>> One already has.
>>
>> Stuart Hall...he pleaded guilty.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Touche!
('ere, you are up early!)
|
I was absolutely 100% sure that Jimmy Tarbuck had died a couple of years ago.
Or was it that orange bloke? Monkhouse.
|
As he pleaded guilty then there was no call for a trial at which evidence was presented.
It needs to go to trial with someone pleading "Not Guilty" for the evidence to be presented.
|
>> As he pleaded guilty then there was no call for a trial at which evidence
>> was presented.
>>
>> It needs to go to trial with someone pleading "Not Guilty" for the evidence to
>> be presented.
The evidence that would have been presented in Hall's case is emerging in newspaper columns etc. See Dog's link above , Joan Smith's piece, also in the Indy and interviews with an IAK 'cheerleader' broadcast at time his plea was publicised.
On the one hand offences were mostly away from most serious level but victims were young and vulnerable. I also suspect that such abuse was commonplace at time.
The culture that allowed men in influential positions to get away with it was still around at the start of my working life in the late seventies.
|
I'd rather see it presented in court and know that it hadn't been "interpreted".
|
>>
>> I'd rather see it presented in court and know that it hadn't been "interpreted".
I agree with you Mark but I think Hall was bang to rights and recognised it. A guilty plea saved the women from giving evidence and I suspect, given his age, will help him escape custody.
Next up is Max Clifford as he's got to 'second base' and been charged. Cannot remember if any other famous names have got past first.
|
|
Hasn't William Roach been charged?
|
But that's my worry Bromp.
It would certainly seem that Stuart Hall was guilty. But I'd still like to know what level of evidence there was against him.
It may be that their criteria is pretty solid, in which case good.
But it may be flimsy and Stuart Hall only pleaded guilty because of his conscience.
The risk is that because Stuart Hall was guilty, then we assume that they must all be. But I doubt that's true.
So some poor git is going to get hoisted by the media when he actually did either nothing or little wrong.
And I worry about the fact that we're not applying the standards of the time.
i.e. Remember that "comedy" series "Love Thy Neighbour"? You could go to prison for that language now. Does that mean we should go back and prosecute them?
Clearly they were wrong, and they were discriminatory and abusive. But should we go back and punish them for a comedy series which fitted the times, however wrong it was?
Well I think we're in danger of doing that with these guys.
I think that there could be some standards; rape is/was wrong. Underage (<14ys) is/was wrong; (<16 was probably wrong). Unauthorized touching etc, I think it depends much more on the circumstances, not merely the simple fact that touching took place.
|
And here we go.
Twelve victims of sexual abuse by veteran broadcaster Stuart Hall are to sue for compensation after he admitted indecently assaulting 13 girls.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22435505
|
|
Financial compensation for victims of crime should be stopped, unless someone has suffered a clear disadvantage as a result, ie been unable to work because of injuries. It gives a clear incentive for a load of chancers to jump on the band wagon as in the football manager Dave Jones case. This is a particular problem in sex crime allegations where the alleged victim can hide behind a cloak of anonymity.
|
>> Financial compensation for victims of crime should be stopped, unless someone has suffered a clear
>> disadvantage as a result, ie been unable to work because of injuries.
Isn't that what happens now? Victim has to satisfy either Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority or a court that they have suffered an injury or loss.
Need not necessarily be physical. Psychological injury can disadvantage people as much as physical. Inabilty to work need not be total, folks are denied their potential.
If there's a problem it's because insurers roll over rather than chancers/anonymity.
|
>> If there's a problem it's because insurers roll over rather than chancers/anonymity.
Not sure that's right Bromptonaut. Insurers are cold fish and quite capable of denying a legitimate payout to a shy, retiring claimant who hasn't done the paperwork very well, and on other occasions cutting their losses with some chancer screaming like a stuck pig and running to the comics and the telly. I suspect both these things happen often.
|
I also thought Tarbuck was dead.
Wonder what effect this will have on his daughters career?
|
>>some chancer screaming like a stuck pig and
>> running to the comics and the telly.
>>
I have seen a couple of people have a miraculous recovery after a compensation payout.
|
>>
>> I have seen a couple of people have a miraculous recovery after a compensation payout.
Me too, including a few who've recovered or at least gained a semblance of normality after serious head injury.
One one hand its easy to adopt the sceptic's approach and suggest they've done an Ernest Saunders. OTH scrabbling for compo after a painful and life changing injury is a traumatic experience on it's own. Once the money's in the bank and the adapted house is bought and sorted life's problems gain a new perspective.
|
One could almost (but not quite) imagine that this was one of those mass-hysteria incidents, when dozens of hitherto normal people, often schoolgirls, bring on a collective psychosomatic illness or panic attack.
Another image is the Stalinist show-trials, where the brain-washed defendants ended up being as eager as the prosecution to convict themselves of ever more unlikely crimes.
|
|
If it caries on at this rate will be easier to name the BBC employees who are a) still alive, and, b) not at it than it will to remember who has been pulled in.
|
|
I hope he didn't tickle any diddy men...
|
|
I really hope that Brucie isnt on the list.
|
|
Those carriages always looked a bit nervous when Thomas The Tank Engine was around the shunting yard. I wouldn't be surprised...
|
...not forgetting Jasper Carrott's revelations about "The Magic Roundabout".
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8CzutKaM7I
|
Worst letter I ever wrote,
"Dear Jim can you fix it for me to be on It's a Knockout?"
|
Savile Row - Volume 11 - VxFan