This has all been a face-saving exercise because they failed monumentally with Savile.
They have to be seen to be doing 'something' - even if the sacrifice is to drag down a few genuinely innocent names along the way.
Once a person's name is out there it forever sews the seeds of doubt in the minds of some folk: "did he or didn't he?".
It does seem as though they're trying desperately to right the wrong that happened with Savile. According to reports, there was supposed to have been countless complaints made against him and every time it was all just hushed up and ignored. They basically let him get away with anything.
The Dail Hail are a sorry waste of shit that's my point. Next week would not surprize me if they employed JT saying no bad feelings you will be head of Kids young girls and boys>:(
...don't think tarby is a pedo,but the police are obliged to investigate
claims of sexual abuse and act if they feel there's a case to answer...they'd get slated if it was found out they did nothing..so it's a bit of a lose/lose..
...don't think tarby is a pedo,but the police are obliged to investigate
claims of sexual abuse and act if they feel there's a case to answer...they'd get slated if it was found out they did nothing..so it's a bit of a lose/lose..
Before they put the accused's name into the public domain I think that the police should at least check that there are no contradictions in the evidence.
In too many cases recently, events have progressed without anyone spotting quite glaring inconsistencies. For example Tarby supposedly assaulting someone on TOTP in 1963 when the programme didn't begin until '64 and he never appeared on it anyway. There were massive inconsistemcies in the DLT and Bill Roache trials too.
People's lives are being ruined due to the gross incompetence of the police. Some people will shout "the police are damned if they do, damned if they don't". The point is that they should apply a little common sense and impartiality.
I only collect the rewards. The paper is outside of the shop. So I just use my phone to take a photo of the numbers on the back page. I have collected many points that way. My account now stands almost 7000 rewards.
I love getting my rewards from a RIGHT WING Black Shirts Paper for NOTHING:)
Before they put the accused's name into the public domain I think that the police should at least check that there are no contradictions in the evidence.
In too many cases recently, events have progressed without anyone spotting quite glaring inconsistencies. For example Tarby supposedly assaulting someone on TOTP in 1963 when the programme didn't begin until '64 and he never appeared on it anyway. There were massive inconsistemcies in the DLT and Bill Roache trials too.
People's lives are being ruined due to the gross incompetence of the police. Some people will shout "the police are damned if they do, damned if they don't". The point is that they should apply a little common sense and impartiality.
...where are the police not applying impartiality ? establishing the authenticity of historic sexual crimes is challenging because of the time passed..it doesn't mean they didn't do it..and the dlt " inconsistencies " haven't averted a retrial on two outstanding counts..being acquitted has to be favorite over brushing shit under the carpet..
...where are the police not applying impartiality ? establishing the authenticity of historic sexual crimes is challenging because of the time passed..it doesn't mean they didn't do it..and the dlt " inconsistencies " haven't averted a retrial on two outstanding counts..being acquitted has to be favorite over brushing shit under the carpet..
I don't regard it much of a victory for someone like DLT, Bill Roache or Mike LeVell to be found not guilty if in the process they have to face legal bills of over £100,000. JIm Davidson said he has had to pay £160,000 to demonstrate his innocence and Tarby had probably done the same. And every time the false accusers walk free.
The lack of impartiality on the part of the police is in the fact that they pursue allegations relentlessly, as far as court if they can when they know (or darned well should know) that the allegations are not factuall;y correct (once again Tarby supposedly on TOTP in 1963. Bill Roache's accused given lift home by actor not working on Corrie at the time. A lift from Roache in a car he did not own etc etc)
I don't regard it much of a victory for someone like DLT, Bill Roache or Mike LeVell to be found not guilty if in the process they have to face legal bills of over £100,000. JIm Davidson said he has had to pay £160,000 to demonstrate his innocence and Tarby had probably done the same. And every time the false accusers walk free.
The lack of impartiality on the part of the police is in the fact that they pursue allegations relentlessly, as far as court if they can when they know (or darned well should know) that the allegations are not factuall;y correct (once again Tarby supposedly on TOTP in 1963. Bill Roache's accused given lift home by actor not working on Corrie at the time. A lift from Roache in a car he did not own etc etc)
...of course it's a victory..don't believe the affluent being out of pocket sob stories...a hundred grand for your freedom,to a fancy lawyer adept at distorting the truth,is a drop in the ocean,that they can make a hundred times over.. weigh that against what that senile old perv stuart hall is facing,it's a small price to pay..
...of course it's a victory..don't believe the affluent being out of pocket sob stories...a hundred grand for your freedom,to a fancy lawyer adept at distorting the truth,is a drop in the ocean,that they can make a hundred times over.. weigh that against what that senile old perv stuart hall is facing,it's a small price to pay..
Why do you think DLT had to sell his house then ?
In any case, it might not be an affluent TV personality next time.
It is time that accusers' anonymity is dispensed with IMO.
IF the accuser is absolutely proven to have lied about their allegations towards said celebrity. It's really not fair at all that innocent celebrities (because of the accuser being massively caught out on something) have to go through the finger pointing while the malicious accuser walks away with their anonymity intact.
[QUOTE=zx50;71961801]IF the accuser is absolutely proven to have lied about their allegations towards said celebrity. It's really not fair at all that innocent celebrities (because of the accuser being massively caught out on something) have to go through the finger pointing while the malicious accuser walks away with their anonymity intact.[/QUOTE]
He told them he had an amateur video, filmed at the opening of a hospital radio station where Travis was alleged to have sexually assaulted a carnival princess while they were alone, touring the wards.
The video was crucial, Travis's barrister Stephen Vullo said, because it suggested that at no time was Travis away from his wife, Marianne, and therefore he could not possibly have molested the girl.
It truly is. It has been an utterly appalling clusterf*ck of embarrassing and disgusting proportions since it started. How many more innocent men are going to have their lives ruined in the name of this ill advised face saving exercise? Notice how Yewtree only seems to be going after the very easiest of targets, too. It's all the biggest load of bullshit I've ever seen.
On another note, the mess of Operation Yewtree will surely make it even harder for genuine abuse victims to get the justice and treatment they deserve as people will now assume anyone making allegations is an attention seeking gold digger..
On another note, the mess of Operation Yewtree will surely make it even harder for genuine abuse victims to get the justice and treatment they deserve as people will now assume anyone making allegations is an attention seeking gold digger..
thats why there should be a statute of limitations of 10 years
with a exception for DNA
concentrate on the ones with a good chance of conviction
thats why there should be a statute of limitations of 10 years
with a exception for DNA
concentrate on the ones with a good chance of conviction
I agree.
While I want justice for victims of historical abuse, I also think people need to be realistic when it comes to getting the courts involved. If twenty, thirty, etc years have passed since the incident(s), most of the time you aren't going to get a conviction. People who wait decades to come forward, whatever their reasons for doing so, really need to start taking this on board and try to come forward much sooner.
Comments
Would they have got Liza Tarbuck in the dock as a character witness I wonder
Weird how these people wait this long and yet strangely have miraculous memories.
They have to be seen to be doing 'something' - even if the sacrifice is to drag down a few genuinely innocent names along the way.
Once a person's name is out there it forever sews the seeds of doubt in the minds of some folk: "did he or didn't he?".
It does seem as though they're trying desperately to right the wrong that happened with Savile. According to reports, there was supposed to have been countless complaints made against him and every time it was all just hushed up and ignored. They basically let him get away with anything.
Agree with this post
You obviously work for The Mail.
I do think there must be some sort of statute of limitations on these things
how many times must these people go to court when new allegations come along
2 3 4? its a joke
you can destroy someone financially emotionally etc all just because they didnt get jimmy savile?
look just dig him up put him on trial then convict him and be done with it
Jimmy savile is dead
and will continue to be dead
claims of sexual abuse and act if they feel there's a case to answer...they'd get slated if it was found out they did nothing..so it's a bit of a lose/lose..
Before they put the accused's name into the public domain I think that the police should at least check that there are no contradictions in the evidence.
In too many cases recently, events have progressed without anyone spotting quite glaring inconsistencies. For example Tarby supposedly assaulting someone on TOTP in 1963 when the programme didn't begin until '64 and he never appeared on it anyway. There were massive inconsistemcies in the DLT and Bill Roache trials too.
People's lives are being ruined due to the gross incompetence of the police. Some people will shout "the police are damned if they do, damned if they don't". The point is that they should apply a little common sense and impartiality.
I love getting my rewards from a RIGHT WING Black Shirts Paper for NOTHING:)
...where are the police not applying impartiality ? establishing the authenticity of historic sexual crimes is challenging because of the time passed..it doesn't mean they didn't do it..and the dlt " inconsistencies " haven't averted a retrial on two outstanding counts..being acquitted has to be favorite over brushing shit under the carpet..
I don't regard it much of a victory for someone like DLT, Bill Roache or Mike LeVell to be found not guilty if in the process they have to face legal bills of over £100,000. JIm Davidson said he has had to pay £160,000 to demonstrate his innocence and Tarby had probably done the same. And every time the false accusers walk free.
The lack of impartiality on the part of the police is in the fact that they pursue allegations relentlessly, as far as court if they can when they know (or darned well should know) that the allegations are not factuall;y correct (once again Tarby supposedly on TOTP in 1963. Bill Roache's accused given lift home by actor not working on Corrie at the time. A lift from Roache in a car he did not own etc etc)
...of course it's a victory..don't believe the affluent being out of pocket sob stories...a hundred grand for your freedom,to a fancy lawyer adept at distorting the truth,is a drop in the ocean,that they can make a hundred times over.. weigh that against what that senile old perv stuart hall is facing,it's a small price to pay..
Why do you think DLT had to sell his house then ?
In any case, it might not be an affluent TV personality next time.
IF the accuser is absolutely proven to have lied about their allegations towards said celebrity. It's really not fair at all that innocent celebrities (because of the accuser being massively caught out on something) have to go through the finger pointing while the malicious accuser walks away with their anonymity intact.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/13/prosecution-case-dave-lee-travis-fell-apart
Halfway through the trial, a member of the public contacted the DJ's legal team after reading about the claims in the Sun.
He told them he had an amateur video, filmed at the opening of a hospital radio station where Travis was alleged to have sexually assaulted a carnival princess while they were alone, touring the wards.
The video was crucial, Travis's barrister Stephen Vullo said, because it suggested that at no time was Travis away from his wife, Marianne, and therefore he could not possibly have molested the girl.
It truly is. It has been an utterly appalling clusterf*ck of embarrassing and disgusting proportions since it started. How many more innocent men are going to have their lives ruined in the name of this ill advised face saving exercise? Notice how Yewtree only seems to be going after the very easiest of targets, too. It's all the biggest load of bullshit I've ever seen.
thats why there should be a statute of limitations of 10 years
with a exception for DNA
concentrate on the ones with a good chance of conviction
Well Bl..dy said! Couldn't agree more!
I agree.
While I want justice for victims of historical abuse, I also think people need to be realistic when it comes to getting the courts involved. If twenty, thirty, etc years have passed since the incident(s), most of the time you aren't going to get a conviction. People who wait decades to come forward, whatever their reasons for doing so, really need to start taking this on board and try to come forward much sooner.