If I was interviewing them I would want to slap them so hard. I know it is part of their legal rights, but gosh it would be aggravating, particularly when you are really convinced of their guilt.
That's why I could never do the police job. I would have to beat it out of them.
I lived round the corner from where this all happened. I still do. I met him a few times in the 70s because he ran dreadful dicos at the club I belonged to. We closed him down before the police raided us.
Ray Terets wall is rather sinister, I bet he got the girls to write such comments on the wall when he was being "friendly / uncle like", and then would use their comments as a kind of emotional blackmail after assaulting them, if that makes sense.
Interesting insight into how evidence is gathered and presented, leaves no doubt as to the guilt of these people. It's a travesty that Savile was never brought to justice, it's probably hoping against hope that those who let him get away are brought to book themselves.
Interesting insight into how evidence is gathered and presented, leaves no doubt as to the guilt of these people. It's a travesty that Savile was never brought to justice, it's probably hoping against hope that those who let him get away are brought to book themselves.
Could you imagine if he had lived and appeared on a programme like this. The ratings would have been through the roof. Shame he didn't live to get the justice he deserved.
If the sex was consensual he would get a lesser sentence even though she was underage.
But a 12 year old is not regarded as able to give legal consent in the UK as far as I know, so that should make no difference.
This is from the NSPCC website:
To help protect younger children the law says anyone under the age of 13 can never legally give consent. This means that anyone engaging in sexual activity with a child who is 12 or younger will be subject to penalties set out under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Ray Terets wall is rather sinister, I bet he got the girls to write such comments on the wall when he was being "friendly / uncle like", and then would use their comments as a kind of emotional blackmail after assaulting them, if that makes sense.
His trophy wall. I bet he never expected it would ever be uncovered, let alone lead to his imprisonment so many years after the offences took place.
I find it very hard to believe that Savile never left any clues; so many people must be guilty by implication.
Didn't he plead guilty and perhaps he didn't know she was as young as 12. It was slightly vague really.
The texts and photos on his phone proved he knew she was 12. Maybe the guilty plea meant he ended up getting only 3 years. It looks as though they don't treat these types of cases as harshly as someone who is raped against their will. Or maybe it's because he was 17 at the time. Because that link you posted says he ended up in a young offenders institute not in and adult prison.
I'm probably not the only one who felt a little uneasy at the beginning of the Operation Yewtree arrests, initially I thought it was just some token cases bought to appease an angry public reaction to the unanswered Savile allegations. Seeing how throughly the police gather and present their evidence leaves no doubt that justice has been duly served on those so far brought to justice.
Would love to see at programme like this on Rolf Harris's arrest & investigation.
The texts and photos on his phone proved he knew she was 12. Maybe the guilty plea meant he ended up getting only 3 years. It looks as though they don't treat these types of cases as harshly as someone who is raped against their will. Or maybe it's because he was 17 at the time. Because that link you posted says he ended up in a young offenders institute not in and adult prison.
They still didn't make it clear if he knew she was 12 before they had sex. It hints that she told him she was 12 afterwards. The 'photos' for indecent images were photos she'd of sent to him right? Perhaps thats why it was such a light sentence.
They still didn't make it clear if he knew she was 12 before they had sex. It hints that she told him she was 12 afterwards. The 'photos' for indecent images were photos she'd of sent to him right? Perhaps thats why it was such a light sentence.
He had images of the 12 year old but also images of younger girls. The detective said you could tell from them that he was targeting age specific girls
I've been 'enjoying' this - that really isn't the right word, I found last nights episode very harrowing especially the phone call from the lady who was assaulted.
I found that kind of haunting when they were removing the wallpaper to reveal that graffiti.
I found this bit utterly bogus. Going back thirty, forty years, nobody ever painted the wall, stripped it back to bare plaster? And voila! As fresh as if it had been drawn yesterday. 'Haunting'? Yes, straight out of 'Most Haunted'.:D
And it's a bit rich the BBC showing this 'Gosh, aren't these people awful!' melodrama when this guys 'tutor' - Savile - was allowed to get away with it for decades. Thanks to the BBC.
Why was Teret always hiding his mouth? He was either carrying something or holding something against his mouth the whole time he was on screen. He did the same when he was going into court for his trial. Weird. I could understand if he was hiding his whole face, but by just hiding his mouth he's not disguising himself.
Why was Teret always hiding his mouth? He was either carrying something or holding something against his mouth the whole time he was on screen. He did the same when he was going into court for his trial. Weird. I could understand if he was hiding his whole face, but by just hiding his mouth he's not disguising himself.
From a psychological perspective (I know, I'm sorry ) - constantly hiding the mouth is seen as a sign of someone who's lying. It IS interesting it's just his mouth and not his face. Presenting his face is saying - don't mind you seeing me, I've nothing to hide. The constant need to hide his mouth however, tells a different story.
Comments
That's why I could never do the police job. I would have to beat it out of them.
If the sex was consensual he would get a lesser sentence even though she was underage.
Could you imagine if he had lived and appeared on a programme like this. The ratings would have been through the roof. Shame he didn't live to get the justice he deserved.
But a 12 year old is not regarded as able to give legal consent in the UK as far as I know, so that should make no difference.
This is from the NSPCC website:
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-system/legal-definition-child-rights-law/legal-definitions/
But he must have received a lesser sentence than the others for a reason. They must treat cases like this differently.
I find it very hard to believe that Savile never left any clues; so many people must be guilty by implication.
Yes just like Cyril Smith. Those in power ignoring the signs and covering up the complaints and evidence.
Didn't he plead guilty and perhaps he didn't know she was as young as 12. It was slightly vague really.
Here is a news story which breaks it down slightly.
http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/11525006.JAILED__Teenager_who_raped_12_year_old_girl/?ref=mr
The texts and photos on his phone proved he knew she was 12. Maybe the guilty plea meant he ended up getting only 3 years. It looks as though they don't treat these types of cases as harshly as someone who is raped against their will. Or maybe it's because he was 17 at the time. Because that link you posted says he ended up in a young offenders institute not in and adult prison.
Would love to see at programme like this on Rolf Harris's arrest & investigation.
They still didn't make it clear if he knew she was 12 before they had sex. It hints that she told him she was 12 afterwards. The 'photos' for indecent images were photos she'd of sent to him right? Perhaps thats why it was such a light sentence.
He had images of the 12 year old but also images of younger girls. The detective said you could tell from them that he was targeting age specific girls
It was probably because he pleaded guilty and was a first time offender, but I agree it does seem very lenient. I doubt if he'll even serve that.
I found this bit utterly bogus. Going back thirty, forty years, nobody ever painted the wall, stripped it back to bare plaster? And voila! As fresh as if it had been drawn yesterday. 'Haunting'? Yes, straight out of 'Most Haunted'.:D
And it's a bit rich the BBC showing this 'Gosh, aren't these people awful!' melodrama when this guys 'tutor' - Savile - was allowed to get away with it for decades. Thanks to the BBC.
what do you expect him to say?its a fair cop,yes guv it woz me?
these people are pathological liars, they even deny to themselves what they are doing is wrong
thought Teret was a fool denying knowing them, it was so easily disproved
I really expected him to react in some sort of shocked way when they announced they'd uncovered the wall. He hardly seemed to bat an eyelid.
From a psychological perspective (I know, I'm sorry
OR
He could be missing some front teeth !
Did we see him react though? I thought it was only mentioned during interview which we only ever heard but didn't see?