Bill Roach, Jim Davidson, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, Freddie Starr and now Tarbuck
- Thread starter 50 Hertz
- Start date
So many that seem to have had links with a certain variety of charity. Surely its just coincidental.
I heard a BBC Radio 4 "File on 4" program on this subject about a year or so ago, covering some of the false convictions exposed after new evidence of innocence was discovered.
There's money to be made with a false accusation which sticks, since judges are obliged by the law to order compensation upon a conviction. The compensation amount depends on the means of the defendant as much as the degree of harm caused, and it can be very substantial. Past high earners are the most likely targets of such scams.
There's money to be made with a false accusation which sticks, since judges are obliged by the law to order compensation upon a conviction. The compensation amount depends on the means of the defendant as much as the degree of harm caused, and it can be very substantial. Past high earners are the most likely targets of such scams.
All of this happened so long ago that it is difficult to know what to believe. I'm of the opinion that some abuse took place, the magnitude of that abuse, I am unsure about. It's also pretty likely that 1960s and 1970s culture and social etiquette is being shoehorned into today's society and we are judging past deeds by today's standards. There will also be cases of genuine abuse victims who up until recently, were not comfortable in reporting crimes against them for fear of not being believed. And then there will be the filthy leech lawyers motivated by their god, the stench of money. Throw that lot into the melting pot, and it will probably be somewhere near the truth.
Now for a bit of slap and tickle or how's yer father. She'd better have my tea on the table first though. And do the washing up. And the ironing.
Now for a bit of slap and tickle or how's yer father. She'd better have my tea on the table first though. And do the washing up. And the ironing.
Very true, and I doubt that fair trials are even possible due to the intensive reporting of sexual offences in recent years. The public revulsion of paedophilia in particular makes it unlikely that juries will truly regard accused persons as innocent until proven guilty.
Since these cases are the accuser's word against the defendant's with no other evidence after so many years, logically an assumption of innocence until guilt is proven would almost always result in acquittal. Since the opposite is happening in practice with most being convicted, guilt is undoubtedly being assumed. The fact that complainants are being referred to as victims prior to trial by both police and the prosecution is of itself an assumption of guilt.
I agree with that, I doubt even the guilty will be found so, which leaves the question why is the Crown Proscution taking these cases on, unless it purely to make a futile gesture. ?
Remember the
Ritual, satanic, child abuse cases?
Like them, this is beginning to stink.
We are talking about 'victims' (with a small v) who must now be in their fifties and sixties and probably parents and grand parents.
So, some loose knicker elastic chick from 1960 who was ONLY 15 at the time, sees the opportunity for some loolah.
Values were very different then.
I for one can remember respectable grandmothers of today boasting in the 1960s of how they had had relations with prominent pop idols etc.
Ritual, satanic, child abuse cases?
Like them, this is beginning to stink.
We are talking about 'victims' (with a small v) who must now be in their fifties and sixties and probably parents and grand parents.
So, some loose knicker elastic chick from 1960 who was ONLY 15 at the time, sees the opportunity for some loolah.
Values were very different then.
I for one can remember respectable grandmothers of today boasting in the 1960s of how they had had relations with prominent pop idols etc.
I is worth remembering that Stuart Hall pleaded guilty to several sexual offences. That included sexual assault on a nine year old child.
The need for consent, and the age at which consent can be given has not changed since the 1960s. What has changed - and dramatically since the truth about Saville became public knowledge - is the willingness of the police to even consider claims against celebrities. Saville's crimes seem to have been common knowledge in the BBC and hospital/political circles he moved in. Complaints were made to the police but they didn't take them seriously.
I think that we should reflect a little before assuming the worst of the complainants.
The need for consent, and the age at which consent can be given has not changed since the 1960s. What has changed - and dramatically since the truth about Saville became public knowledge - is the willingness of the police to even consider claims against celebrities. Saville's crimes seem to have been common knowledge in the BBC and hospital/political circles he moved in. Complaints were made to the police but they didn't take them seriously.
I think that we should reflect a little before assuming the worst of the complainants.
Stuart Hall is one case. I'm not assuming the worst, just concerned that the way in which these trials are being conducted is convicting a small minority of innocents as well as the majority of guilty.
The old adage, "better a dozen guilty men go free rather than one innocent person be convicted" seems to have gone by the board, together with those other fine principles of English law, "innocent until proven guilty" and "it is for the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defence to prove innocence".
Those are the important matters for reflection.
