I think I read that the trial will be sometime in the new year. The ones that have been named will be tried but how on earth are they going to get a conviction on JS and CS as both are deceased?
There isn't going to be any trial for Savile or Smith, as dead people are not formally tried in court. Lee Travis and Clifford have been bailed to January, and Stuart Hall has been charged, though a date hasn't been set for his trial, as far as I'm aware.
I'll chance this as I am fairly sure I can't be sued, some very kind FM's have been in touch and altough one isn't a solicitor, he knows what he is talking about, so here goes
That's just a small list.There's another one showing convicted politicians of all parties and levels and its huge. I suspect that's the one a previous poster was referring to.
Suppose you or a family member is accused of a crime such as this one. And further suppose that the press and television news behave typically and repeat inflammatory statements that undermine your right to a defense. Would you simply plead guilty or advise your loved one to plead guilty and not retain a lawyer? If the allegation is false, would you still allow the citizens with pitchforks and torches to hound you or your loved ones into prison?
:eek: is that a recently compiled list and how long has it been in the public domain?
On clicking the links for each name, most of them seem to be dated 8th May 2012, a good 4 or 5 months before the Savile story finally broke loose.
All cases are factual, are in the public domain, and were reported at some point online by (or in a small article on e.g. page 33 of) the MSM newspapers.
I've been trying to be cautious with this thread, and contacted a forum member today about a post I wanted to share and if he thought I would get banned/get the thread shut down and the advice I was given was probably best not to. It was a link to a factual website, all public record, prosecutions, which the media has not covered. The reason I wanted to post it was to highlight hush ups in the media about living CONVICTED high profile criminals vs. public outrage and exposure among those dead.
If anyone wants the link, please PM me, but I suspect it's already common knowledge and we just shouldn't refer to it.
Look, I'm just an American, but it's unbelievable to me that a PR man, namely Max Clifford, has grown so powerful in the affairs of Great Britain that he can scare an internet site into censoring any mention of his recently being charged by the police for sex offenses. What the hell has happened in your country?
That list is taking the piss. Jesus, the internet.
It ties in paedos with people against gay penguins for gods sake. You also cant die of something called 'full blown AIDS'. The whole article is by an idiot for idiots.
I agree. Placing the same emphasis on a book about gay penguins as they do on people being convicted of Paedophilia is ridiculous. The BNP have been known to distribute the Labour25 newsletter at public events,
They are rather reticent about their own members who have been convicted of sex with children, however.
Look, I'm just an American, but it's unbelievable to me that a PR man, namely Max Clifford, has grown so powerful in the affairs of Great Britain that he can scare an internet site into censoring any mention of his recently being charged by the police for sex offenses. What the hell has happened in your country?
Look, I'm just an American, but it's unbelievable to me that a PR man, namely Max Clifford, has grown so powerful in the affairs of Great Britain that he can scare an internet site into censoring any mention of his recently being charged by the police for sex offenses. What the hell has happened in your country?
Digital Spy is quite quick to censor and ban members who it deems to be engaging in slanderous comments.
For example I was banned for a few days for mentioning that Imogen Thomas had a couple of gigs lined up in Swansea
nor have the other 3-4 household names, I lose count anyway it doesn't stop their names being plastered all over the place which seems odd. I wonder whether it's just that Max is far more media savvy & takes action to get things removed. The old gropers possibly don't have the internet like Jimmy;) (mr if I don't have t'net then I can't be accused of being a pervert-that was more or less what he said wasn't it?)
Oh, indeed he was charged by the police and had to post bail to be released. Go back and read the original story. He will not be brought to trial for some months, unless he plea bargains, of course.
nor have the other 3-4 household names, I lose count anyway it doesn't stop their names being plastered all over the place which seems odd. I wonder whether it's just that Max is far more media savvy & takes action to get things removed. The old gropers possibly don't have the internet like Jimmy;) (mr if I don't have t'net then I can't be accused of being a pervert-that was more or less what he said wasn't it?)
I repeat, Clifford was charged by the police with committing 2 sex offenses in the late 70's and was forced to post bail to be released. That's a public fact, which no one denies, including Clifford. That's why this see no evil, hear no evil dance is so bizarre. How could that be libel. It happened in front of the assembled media..
I repeat, Clifford was charged by the police with committing 2 sex offenses in the late 70's and was forced to post bail to be released. That's a public fact, which no one denies, including Clifford. That's why this see no evil, hear no evil dance is so bizarre. How could that be libel. It happened in front of the assembled media..
Look, I'm just an American, but it's unbelievable to me that a PR man, namely Max Clifford, has grown so powerful in the affairs of Great Britain that he can scare an internet site into censoring any mention of his recently being charged by the police for sex offenses. What the hell has happened in your country?
Thank you. My feelings exactly. He is powerful and should not be. It is a ridiculous state of affairs.
It is a news item on all the channels. If he has nothing to hide he has nothing to fear.
Thank you. My feelings exactly. He is powerful and should not be. It is a ridiculous state of affairs.
It is a news item on all the channels. If he has nothing to hide he has nothing to fear.
It astonishes me he gets asked on to TV to talk about one of his clients he is getting paid large sums to protect as if he is an unbiased source of information.
It's astonishing the printed media claim they are a free press yet they ask a publicist for permission as to when and what they can print.
It astonishes me he gets asked on to TV to talk about one of his clients he is getting paid large sums to protect as if he is an unbiased source of information.
It's astonishing the printed media claim they are a free press yet they ask a publicist for permission as to when and what they can print.
I don't like Clifford (from what I've seen and heard from him) so I rule myself out of jury service.
I don't like Clifford (from what I've seen and heard from him) so I rule myself out of jury service.
That's a very interesting interview ^^ above. He's a self-confessed liar, spinner and deceiver. Which would also have earned him a lot of enemies over the years... and people who might want to see him get his comeuppance.
Comments
There isn't going to be any trial for Savile or Smith, as dead people are not formally tried in court. Lee Travis and Clifford have been bailed to January, and Stuart Hall has been charged, though a date hasn't been set for his trial, as far as I'm aware.
Yes. But note that the past convictions have come from all parties, not just Labour.
This one, maybe...?
http://chris-ukorg.org/uk-child-abusers-named-and-shamed/councillorspolitical-party-affiliated/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20645600#TWEET429283
More on Smith from the Beeb
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20645148
Is Max Clifford allowed to be discussed on this site?
*facepalm*.
:eek: is that a recently compiled list and how long has it been in the public domain?
On clicking the links for each name, most of them seem to be dated 8th May 2012, a good 4 or 5 months before the Savile story finally broke loose.
All cases are factual, are in the public domain, and were reported at some point online by (or in a small article on e.g. page 33 of) the MSM newspapers.
Higher profile cases such as Harvey Proctor MP and Sir Ian Horobin MP have been known about & in the public domain for many years.
The more recent cases, though, have been kept relatively quiet....
Look, I'm just an American, but it's unbelievable to me that a PR man, namely Max Clifford, has grown so powerful in the affairs of Great Britain that he can scare an internet site into censoring any mention of his recently being charged by the police for sex offenses. What the hell has happened in your country?
I agree. Placing the same emphasis on a book about gay penguins as they do on people being convicted of Paedophilia is ridiculous. The BNP have been known to distribute the Labour25 newsletter at public events,
They are rather reticent about their own members who have been convicted of sex with children, however.
He's not been charged.
For example I was banned for a few days for mentioning that Imogen Thomas had a couple of gigs lined up in Swansea
nor have the other 3-4 household names, I lose count
Oh, indeed he was charged by the police and had to post bail to be released. Go back and read the original story. He will not be brought to trial for some months, unless he plea bargains, of course.
I repeat, Clifford was charged by the police with committing 2 sex offenses in the late 70's and was forced to post bail to be released. That's a public fact, which no one denies, including Clifford. That's why this see no evil, hear no evil dance is so bizarre. How could that be libel. It happened in front of the assembled media..
sorry I didn't know he got charged, I thought he just got bailed to appear at a later date
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/stuart-hall-and-max-clifford-protest-innocence-of-sex-charges-1-5203886
I think Mr Hall is the only one who has actually been charged
Fear not, the thread will undoubtedly be culled again in the morning...
I haven't posted much in JS part 6, but I do find miss-information quite irritating.
I'm so glad some FM's actually report actual facts.
Thank You.:)
I thought so:o
by a solicitor
http://iaingould.co.uk/2012/12/07/can-the-metropolitan-police-justify-max-cliffords-arrest/
Thank you. My feelings exactly. He is powerful and should not be. It is a ridiculous state of affairs.
It is a news item on all the channels. If he has nothing to hide he has nothing to fear.
It astonishes me he gets asked on to TV to talk about one of his clients he is getting paid large sums to protect as if he is an unbiased source of information.
It's astonishing the printed media claim they are a free press yet they ask a publicist for permission as to when and what they can print.
That's a very interesting interview ^^ above. He's a self-confessed liar, spinner and deceiver. Which would also have earned him a lot of enemies over the years... and people who might want to see him get his comeuppance.
Just a thought.