Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Jimmy Saville to be revealed as a paedophile? (Part 7)


Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16-02-2013, 00:23
StrmChaserSteve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,088
Blood boils

When people do this kind of thing, and still escape custodial sentences

Canteen worker at Dulwich College spared jail after sending 'depraved' child porn on the internet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-internet.html
StrmChaserSteve is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 16-02-2013, 00:29
lexi22
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,426
It's not just the vigilante justice that destroys the lives of those falsely accused. Apart from occasional assaults (can't believe I just typed that), my dad didn't really get much in the way of physical or even direct verbal abuse. What he did get, and what I think ultimately resulted in his suicide, was the constant looks, and suddenly hushed conversations. The parties that he "accidentally" didn't get an invite to. The sidling away. The person who crossed over the road so as not to walk too close to him. In the end, it just wore him down. No matter how flimsy and malicious the allegations, there is always that underlying suspicion that "there must have been something".
Too sad. And probably even more soul destroying - that daily erosion - than an actual physical attack.
lexi22 is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 00:37
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 33,864
Too sad. And probably even more soul destroying - that daily erosion - than an actual physical attack.
I often think the old saying is arse about face "sticks and stones may hurt my bones but names will never hurt me" when in fact it is probably more painful the other way round. (Not that I would condone either )
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 16-02-2013, 06:28
jjne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,179
So, first Granada's Stuart Hall is charged with child sex offences.

Now Granada's Michael Le Vell is charged with child sex offences.

When are we going to see an enquiry into the activities at Granada?
jjne is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 08:05
Sad_BB_Addict
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 86,770
c. 7.45am Phil Williams on Radio 5 Weekend Breakfast did a upsetting interview with Phyllis, a Magdalene Laundries survivor. Her and other UK survivors are meeting Edna Kelly, the Taoiseach, at the Irish Embassy today.
It'll be on I-Player later.

related
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21345995
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...-hunger-strike
Sad_BB_Addict is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 10:33
jerseyporter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,172
Pope Benedict has to answer for his inaction on child abuse
The Pope did too little to deal with sex offenders in the priesthood. He must be held to account in this life, not the next

Jonathan Freedland
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...on-child-abuse


Wishful thinking from Freedland I suspect.

BIB - forgive me for responding, as it is clear you have a strong drive to 'put things right', but I'm going to try and explain this form a slightly different aspect. It is quite a long explanation - apologies in advance, and I'm not even sure I'll make my point clearly enough, but I'm going to try!

I am Catholic and my best friend is an ex-priest (still a relatively young man in his early 40s) who was himself abused as a teenager by a male teacher at a very well-known religious boarding school. My friend decided to become a priest himself, after a night being subjected to the most disgusting things by this man (the teacher was a priest as well), not because he had a true vocation to be a priest, but specifically "because I wanted to right the wrongs that were done to me by a priest". But of course, it didn't work - he had a breakdown and I supported him through leaving the priesthood a few years ago because of course he was a priest for all the wrong reasons.

But unlike others from the same school who have brought prosecutions against the teachers/priests involved, my friend has never been motivated to seek redress that way - he doesn't want to, and I must respect that, even though I know the name of the man who abused him and where to find him (as do the police) but without enough evidence they can do nothing. This man was 'dealt with' by the Church internally several times after boys said things about him, but it was never enough to bring a prosecution without a willingness to go to court, and yes the priest/teacher was simply moved around in the naive hope he meant it when he said he was 'sorry' and 'wouldn't do it again'.

Who's fault is it that he was left at large? The different Headteachers who agreed to move him/take him on their staff knowing his history/rumours? The Diocese? Ultimately the Pope? Or... was it my friend, the victim's fault, and the other victims like him, who for whatever reason didn't want to say anything against this man publicly, and so also had to live with the guilt that if he had spoken up other boys may have been spared? Where does the ultimate responsibility lie for these awful acts when it comes to 'who pays?' The abuser is the only one against whom anger/payment for actions/whatever you want to call it should be leveled, surely?

Of course my friend lives with the guilt that he could/should/would have saved others if he'd spoken up, but until it's happened to you you cannot judge what is 'right' for the victim to do - they have to cope with life somehow, and if my friend doesn't want to go to court because he knows to do otherwise would probably drive him to another breakdown and/or taking his own life through the same of a public case (his family don't know what happened to him, even now) then I'd rather have my friend alive, and just support him as best I can to be the best person he can be.

You might expect my friend to be angry at the Headteacher, who knew this teacher had a history of abuse and had been shunted around to 'keep things quiet' and 'dealt with so no fuss is made', but actually he isn't. In fact, he still counts him as a friend, knowing that (at that time) no one really knew how to deal with accusations of abuse, and the Head himself had no more insight or knowledge about the seriousness of the situation when it came to 'covering it up by moving the teacher around' than any other organisation which did exactly the same thing at that time (and before that time). It's just that the Catholic Church ended up being the 'organisation every knows about', and so suddenly we heard about priests being moved by Bishops to 'keep things quiet' here, there and everywhere - but it was happening in other places too, with other professions, other non-religious contexts. But boy, did the Catholic Church pay, and is still the 'easy target' because of its somewhat unique way of running itself. It also didn't get much credit for leading the way in (admittedly after the horse had bolted in too many cases) instituting safeguarding for children way before schools did, hospitals did, anyone else did (at least, over here)! Whatever it does, however much good it now does to safeguard children, there will always be those (many of them not even Catholic themselves!) who will say "too little, too late". And yet... and yet there is my friend, Catholic ex-priest, victim of horrendous abuse by another priest, who shamed me into looking into my own heart and made me consider my 'righteous anger' against a man I'd never met, made me realise it wasn't my place, or my right, to judge.


I know now that every victim is different, reacts differently, wants different things to happen - but it is not up to any of us to say what that should be unless we are also one of those victims or directly involved in any way. Maybe you are, maybe that's why you feel so strongly, and if you are I'm sorry. But if you are just saying it because you think it's the 'right' thing to say/do, then I hope looking at it from a slightly different angle, from the point of view of my friend's story, has given a different aspect to your considerations.

I struggled with my faith a lot after I found out about my friend - when he was still a priest I'd go to Mass and watch him say the 'Our Father', specifically 'forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us', and for a while I was so confused how he could say that after what was done to him - I couldn't say those words on his behalf for a long time! But then I realised that by not being able to say the words, the abuser was still winning - and my friend, full of everything that's good and right, was looking right at me as he was saying the words as if he was telepathically telling me "you can't be angry for me, you can't put it right for me, please don't feel full of 'righteous revenge' on my behalf etc...".

So I think what I'm trying to say is, that even if you/anyone might have the idea that someone 'must' pay in terms of what should be done to any of the perpetrators, or those who are seen has having 'protected' the perpetrators to 'keep things quiet' in any of the abuse scandals - be it JS or anonymous priests answerable to Bishops and the Pope teaching in schools - it's easy to get caught up in feelings of 'righteous revenge' on behalf of the victims and see things from the narrow point of view of "they (the perpetrator/s) must be made to pay" (or, in the case of the Pope, "those ultimately responsible for them staying 'in post' must be made to pay") when held up against my friend, the victim, who those who don't understand why he can't, might also accuse him of aiding and abetting the abuser staying in post by not wanting to press charges.

It's very complicated - I'm not sure I've explained it clearly - but ultimately the only person who is responsible for any action is the person (abuser) themselves, and second hand responsibility (e.g. the Pope 'paying for his part in it in this life' is not always the way the victims themselves see it - some do, of course, but others don't. And one size does not fit all when it comes to how each victim would like those with first or second hand responsibility to be treated by others.

What an interesting and sad tale, BIB
From what I can recall from my school trips we were fairly well behaved and were all in bed before the teachers. They'd stay up having a little drink & be on hand to deal with any bad behaviour if it occurred. My friend and I got told off for being noisy (we were jumping on the bed) such rebels! Would never have crossed our minds to sneak out the hotel, let alone say 'oh I'll just make out the teachers a paedo' maybe we were boring.
Anyway back on topic I'm off to look at Sally from Corries ex's, I think there may be a pattern emerging
This answer will be shorter, I promise!

I am also a teacher, primary by training, a sector dominated by female teachers like myself, but often now secondary schools are more female than male in terms of teacher/gender ratios. But often the only male role model a young child has is a male teacher at school - but who the hell wants to put their head into the lion's mouth any more and train for a job where accusations can be used as bribes to get your own way on a school trip? I know if I were a man I'd think twice - all it takes is one unfounded/untrue word and your career is ruined, both as a teacher and probably in any other job because of the 'no smoke without fire' thoughts of others.

I don't know what the answer is - the ones who really want to get away with it are too clever to get caught, even now they know how to get around the rules of windows in classroom doors, spy holes, never shutting the door if you're on your own with a pupil of the opposite sex. I know work in the 16-19 sector and do a lot of 1:1 tuition with students who need to catch up on their class work - I am on my own with teenage boys in a room where no one can see me. He could say anything against me and it would be his word against mine. Likewise, he could do anything to me and it would be his word against mine that he did not. If I were a male tutor alone with a female student in the same way I think I'd be petrified - if a student takes against you, or you give them a bad grade or report, you do hear phrases such as "I'll make you pay - they'll believe me, not you" bandied about, just like with that party of teenagers in the hotel.

Teaching is not an 'easy option', and it's not all about the holidays - it's a minefield these days.
jerseyporter is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 10:45
lexi22
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,426
@Jersey Porter - that's Jonathan Freedland's quote from the Guardian article, not Sad_BB_Addict's.
lexi22 is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 11:19
inquirer64
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 85
BIB - forgive me for responding, as it is clear you have a strong drive to 'put things right', but I'm going to try and explain this form a slightly different aspect. It is quite a long explanation - apologies in advance, and I'm not even sure I'll make my point clearly enough, but I'm going to try!

I am Catholic and my best friend is an ex-priest (still a relatively young man in his early 40s) who was himself abused as a teenager by a male teacher at a very well-known religious boarding school. My friend decided to become a priest himself, after a night being subjected to the most disgusting things by this man (the teacher was a priest as well), not because he had a true vocation to be a priest, but specifically "because I wanted to right the wrongs that were done to me by a priest". But of course, it didn't work - he had a breakdown and I supported him through leaving the priesthood a few years ago because of course he was a priest for all the wrong reasons.

But unlike others from the same school who have brought prosecutions against the teachers/priests involved, my friend has never been motivated to seek redress that way - he doesn't want to, and I must respect that, even though I know the name of the man who abused him and where to find him (as do the police) but without enough evidence they can do nothing. This man was 'dealt with' by the Church internally several times after boys said things about him, but it was never enough to bring a prosecution without a willingness to go to court, and yes the priest/teacher was simply moved around in the naive hope he meant it when he said he was 'sorry' and 'wouldn't do it again'.

Who's fault is it that he was left at large? The different Headteachers who agreed to move him/take him on their staff knowing his history/rumours? The Diocese? Ultimately the Pope? Or... was it my friend, the victim's fault, and the other victims like him, who for whatever reason didn't want to say anything against this man publicly, and so also had to live with the guilt that if he had spoken up other boys may have been spared? Where does the ultimate responsibility lie for these awful acts when it comes to 'who pays?' The abuser is the only one against whom anger/payment for actions/whatever you want to call it should be leveled, surely?

Of course my friend lives with the guilt that he could/should/would have saved others if he'd spoken up, but until it's happened to you you cannot judge what is 'right' for the victim to do - they have to cope with life somehow, and if my friend doesn't want to go to court because he knows to do otherwise would probably drive him to another breakdown and/or taking his own life through the same of a public case (his family don't know what happened to him, even now) then I'd rather have my friend alive, and just support him as best I can to be the best person he can be.

You might expect my friend to be angry at the Headteacher, who knew this teacher had a history of abuse and had been shunted around to 'keep things quiet' and 'dealt with so no fuss is made', but actually he isn't. In fact, he still counts him as a friend, knowing that (at that time) no one really knew how to deal with accusations of abuse, and the Head himself had no more insight or knowledge about the seriousness of the situation when it came to 'covering it up by moving the teacher around' than any other organisation which did exactly the same thing at that time (and before that time). It's just that the Catholic Church ended up being the 'organisation every knows about', and so suddenly we heard about priests being moved by Bishops to 'keep things quiet' here, there and everywhere - but it was happening in other places too, with other professions, other non-religious contexts. But boy, did the Catholic Church pay, and is still the 'easy target' because of its somewhat unique way of running itself. It also didn't get much credit for leading the way in (admittedly after the horse had bolted in too many cases) instituting safeguarding for children way before schools did, hospitals did, anyone else did (at least, over here)! Whatever it does, however much good it now does to safeguard children, there will always be those (many of them not even Catholic themselves!) who will say "too little, too late". And yet... and yet there is my friend, Catholic ex-priest, victim of horrendous abuse by another priest, who shamed me into looking into my own heart and made me consider my 'righteous anger' against a man I'd never met, made me realise it wasn't my place, or my right, to judge.


I know now that every victim is different, reacts differently, wants different things to happen - but it is not up to any of us to say what that should be unless we are also one of those victims or directly involved in any way. Maybe you are, maybe that's why you feel so strongly, and if you are I'm sorry. But if you are just saying it because you think it's the 'right' thing to say/do, then I hope looking at it from a slightly different angle, from the point of view of my friend's story, has given a different aspect to your considerations.

I struggled with my faith a lot after I found out about my friend - when he was still a priest I'd go to Mass and watch him say the 'Our Father', specifically 'forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us', and for a while I was so confused how he could say that after what was done to him - I couldn't say those words on his behalf for a long time! But then I realised that by not being able to say the words, the abuser was still winning - and my friend, full of everything that's good and right, was looking right at me as he was saying the words as if he was telepathically telling me "you can't be angry for me, you can't put it right for me, please don't feel full of 'righteous revenge' on my behalf etc...".

So I think what I'm trying to say is, that even if you/anyone might have the idea that someone 'must' pay in terms of what should be done to any of the perpetrators, or those who are seen has having 'protected' the perpetrators to 'keep things quiet' in any of the abuse scandals - be it JS or anonymous priests answerable to Bishops and the Pope teaching in schools - it's easy to get caught up in feelings of 'righteous revenge' on behalf of the victims and see things from the narrow point of view of "they (the perpetrator/s) must be made to pay" (or, in the case of the Pope, "those ultimately responsible for them staying 'in post' must be made to pay") when held up against my friend, the victim, who those who don't understand why he can't, might also accuse him of aiding and abetting the abuser staying in post by not wanting to press charges.

It's very complicated - I'm not sure I've explained it clearly - but ultimately the only person who is responsible for any action is the person (abuser) themselves, and second hand responsibility (e.g. the Pope 'paying for his part in it in this life' is not always the way the victims themselves see it - some do, of course, but others don't. And one size does not fit all when it comes to how each victim would like those with first or second hand responsibility to be treated by others.



This answer will be shorter, I promise!

I am also a teacher, primary by training, a sector dominated by female teachers like myself, but often now secondary schools are more female than male in terms of teacher/gender ratios. But often the only male role model a young child has is a male teacher at school - but who the hell wants to put their head into the lion's mouth any more and train for a job where accusations can be used as bribes to get your own way on a school trip? I know if I were a man I'd think twice - all it takes is one unfounded/untrue word and your career is ruined, both as a teacher and probably in any other job because of the 'no smoke without fire' thoughts of others.

I don't know what the answer is - the ones who really want to get away with it are too clever to get caught, even now they know how to get around the rules of windows in classroom doors, spy holes, never shutting the door if you're on your own with a pupil of the opposite sex. I know work in the 16-19 sector and do a lot of 1:1 tuition with students who need to catch up on their class work - I am on my own with teenage boys in a room where no one can see me. He could say anything against me and it would be his word against mine. Likewise, he could do anything to me and it would be his word against mine that he did not. If I were a male tutor alone with a female student in the same way I think I'd be petrified - if a student takes against you, or you give them a bad grade or report, you do hear phrases such as "I'll make you pay - they'll believe me, not you" bandied about, just like with that party of teenagers in the hotel.

Teaching is not an 'easy option', and it's not all about the holidays - it's a minefield these days.
When I was teaching (now retired) I always made sure never to be alone with a child/teenager. Teaching assistants were a godsend.
If unavailable, I'd meet/teach an individual child in a public space ie library. Noise/concentration was not an issue, because I found other children/teachers were aware.
inquirer64 is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 11:38
Black Velvet
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 682
When I was teaching (now retired) I always made sure never to be alone with a child/teenager. Teaching assistants were a godsend.
If unavailable, I'd meet/teach an individual child in a public space ie library. Noise/concentration was not an issue, because I found other children/teachers were aware.
My late father was a music teacher at two secondary schools back in the sixties and seventies and it was mostly girls that he taught. If he was giving any of them music tution after school as both schools had brass bands he would always make sure that the door was left open of the music room.
Black Velvet is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 11:48
escargot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 8

I agree, teaching is a minefield. My ex was a teacher of many years' experience and if one-to-one contact was necessary, he would be sure to have another member of staff nearby. The school cleaners were often roped in as chaperones!

However... things changed. Long story short, he began abusing a (willing) 15 year-old pupil on the pretence of giving her extra tuition, alone in his classroom after school. All he had to do was spin out the lesson until the cleaners and other staff had left and the coast was clear.

Although the girl was indeed willing, he was still her teacher and was responsible for her safety. The judge, not impressed by this love story, gave him two years' prison and 10 on the Sex Offenders' Register.

Of course, most teachers wouldn't dream of molesting the kids or taking advantage of even the silliest, most lovesick pupil, but the odd one who does makes life so much harder for all the good ones.
escargot is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 13:32
Silent No More
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 276
This just worries me...

Originally Posted by Reuters
(Reuters) - Pope Benedict's decision to live in the Vatican after he resigns will provide him with security and privacy.

It will also offer legal protection from any attempt to prosecute him in connection with sexual abuse cases around the world, Church sources and legal experts say.
Full article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...91E0ZI20130215
Silent No More is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 13:45
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 33,864
So, first Granada's Stuart Hall is charged with child sex offences.

Now Granada's Michael Le Vell is charged with child sex offences.

When are we going to see an enquiry into the activities at Granada?
Has it been said any of these alleged offences took place anywhere on Granada property or during Granda work time ? At present they are accusations , trials are yet to happen.

If two unconnected people working at different branches of Sainsburys were charged with similar offences would you ask for an enquiry into Sainsburys ?
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 16-02-2013, 13:46
Sad_BB_Addict
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 86,770
Mental Health Survivors Guide has been updated today
http://whatislove-2010.blogspot.co.u...-survival.html
Sad_BB_Addict is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 13:51
Sad_BB_Addict
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 86,770
Whitewash fears as BBC is accused of cutting criticism from Savile report

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2L4OsMXrR
Sad_BB_Addict is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 13:58
lexi22
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,426
I often think the old saying is arse about face "sticks and stones may hurt my bones but names will never hurt me" when in fact it is probably more painful the other way round. (Not that I would condone either )
Totally. Killing someone's spirit slowly and cruelly, as in Soundcheck's post above.
lexi22 is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 16:02
Sad_BB_Addict
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 86,770
Magdalene Laundries survivor interview, as posted above, now on Iplayer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...st_16_02_2013/
Starts 1hr 40mins in
Sad_BB_Addict is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 16:06
nanscombe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kent, Uk
Posts: 15,066
I often think the old saying is arse about face "sticks and stones may hurt my bones but names will never hurt me" when in fact it is probably more painful the other way round. (Not that I would condone either )
Here's an update from me ...

Sticks and stone may hurt my bones but names might get you (starts counting on fingers):

Arrested, tried & convicted of a hate crime.
Sacked from your job.
Made homeless.
Ostracised by friends & family.
Discussed and slagged off on social media.




Although I've always known it as "Stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."
nanscombe is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 17:06
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 33,864
Here's an update from me ...

Sticks and stone may hurt my bones but names might get you (starts counting on fingers):

Arrested, tried & convicted of a hate crime.
Sacked from your job.
Made homeless.
Ostracised by friends & family.
Discussed and slagged off on social media.




Although I've always known it as "Stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."
It is , I typed it incorrectly
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 16-02-2013, 21:32
belinus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 168
Perhaps you might consider this before rushing off to a catholic conspiracy

http://www.annaraccoon.com/annas-per...nd-propaganda/
belinus is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 22:25
IzzyS
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 8,816
Incase this is of any interest?

Sex case defendants 'should get anonymity'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21487266
IzzyS is online now  
Old 16-02-2013, 23:05
LoudGeoffW
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 371
Police prepare to arrest former Tory cabinet minister

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/48...Fiz3Ok.twitter
LoudGeoffW is offline  
Old 16-02-2013, 23:21
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 33,864
Police prepare to arrest former Tory cabinet minister

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/48...Fiz3Ok.twitter
The Mirror has it as well

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ld-sex-1714162



Do they really have to plaster this across the press, it may be true but if so the media are basically actively tipping people off , to me that comes under obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice.
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter  
Old 17-02-2013, 00:47
Eddie Badger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,251
The Mirror has it as well

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ld-sex-1714162



Do they really have to plaster this across the press, it may be true but if so the media are basically actively tipping people off , to me that comes under obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice.
It's very strange, you don't get the local police saying "There has been a spate of burglaries in the area so in two week's time we'll be searching Bob the Burglar's house."

I wonder if they already have those people under close observation and are dropping hints about who they are in the press to see who they contact.
Eddie Badger is offline  
Old 17-02-2013, 04:37
jjne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,179
Has it been said any of these alleged offences took place anywhere on Granada property or during Granda work time ? At present they are accusations , trials are yet to happen.

If two unconnected people working at different branches of Sainsburys were charged with similar offences would you ask for an enquiry into Sainsburys ?
You know what the point was.
jjne is offline  
Old 17-02-2013, 07:12
tartan18
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 2,028
So, first Granada's Stuart Hall is charged with child sex offences.

Now Granada's Michael Le Vell is charged with child sex offences.

When are we going to see an enquiry into the activities at Granada?
Don't forget Fred the weatherman too. Questioned, but not charged I don't think.
Seriously though, the offences were not committed on Granada premises, so no enquiry necessary.
tartan18 is offline  
 
Closed Thread



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:25.