She was placed under investigation yesterday after The Sunday Telegraph found she was a director of a property firm alongside four current or former officers from the force
She has certainly not hidden anything, as I mentioned last night in a post that has been removed along with others (for reasons that I am unsure of as there were none breaching any rules in my post ) , it is a matter of public record and open for anyone to see for free that she has been a Director of said company since 10th August 1998, not something that has been hidden at all.
Which article was i supposed to read? I read those below, and neither says that Neville Buswell has even been questioned.
If "just anybody" can go to the police and ,make an outlandish claim that might well turn out to be nonsense and it is reported all over the papers as if the person has actually been arrested when they haven't even been questioned then its as sick as sick can be!
QUOTE
Asked about reports police are now investigating the allegation, the 70-year-old replied: “I have no idea.”
END QUOTE
I do have to say from reading the original cliams where no one was named I was expecting a far more serious case, now please before anyone jumps I am not syaing a man flashing is acceptable I am sure it could be very scary , but the way the story was written one could be forgiven for thinking this was far more than what is in the Mail today.
His alleged indecent assault on the wide-eyed schoolgirl is said to have happened in the late 1960s — and her continuing trauma is so severe she even now involuntarily writes his name on scraps of paper.
Now as I say dont get me wrong if there is any truth in the flashing story its plain wrong, but am I wrong in thinking the original story made it sound as though the actor actually physically assaulted the girl and she has been traumatised for over 40 years ?
Now I am sure flashing comes under the charge of Indecent Exposure not Sexual Assault as the media would be fully aware and if they know this then they should be very clear when they start putting articles out there , escpecially when someone has not been charged .
The fact that it is not a law to have mandatory reporting by those working with kids is atrocious, I can understand caution with rumours but if a professional witnesses or knows of abuse they should be bound by law to report it. It seems only Northern Ireland overules this UK lack of law by having a law that makes it an offence not to report an arrestable offence.
You would think that we wouldn't need a law to make people report suspected abuse wouldn't you?
You would think that we wouldn't need a law to make people report suspected abuse wouldn't you?
You would have thought so, as I say I can understand people proceeding with caution on rumour alone or on an unsubstantiated comment , but a person working with kids not having to report abuse they either witness or know is happening is to me criminal in itself.
And the BBC is the one who is hauled through the coals.
Come on Mail, join the dots FFS.
Whilst I agree that the BBC has had an unfair share of media coverage in all of this , and we all know that suits much of the media, at Granada other than Hall the rest are all innocent until proven guilty ( or even questioned , arrested and charged in one case )
Got to love how the Mail word things - below the belt to use a word like "preying" before anything has been proven, yet it's par for the course for that vile rag. How do they get away with it?
As for that idiot Sally Bercow, she is a nasty, attention seeking bitch and deserves punishment of some sort. People like her get away with everything though. :mad:
She was placed under investigation yesterday after The Sunday Telegraph found she was a director of a property firm alongside four current or former officers from the force
She has certainly not hidden anything, as I mentioned last night in a post that has been removed along with others (for reasons that I am unsure of as there were none breaching any rules in my post ) , it is a matter of public record and open for anyone to see for free that she has been a Director of said company since 10th August 1998, not something that has been hidden at all.
Maybe this is a stupid question but in what way does being a director of a property firm compromise or have any effect on the report/investigation? are they implying she would have wanted them to look good because its in her personal interest as well as professionally?
The fact that it is not a law to have mandatory reporting by those working with kids is atrocious, I can understand caution with rumours but if a professional witnesses or knows of abuse they should be bound by law to report it. It seems only Northern Ireland overules this UK lack of law by having a law that makes it an offence not to report an arrestable offence.
is it not law in a sense, in that if you knowingly don't report criminal activity, that can be seen and you can be charged with facilitating or indirectly being an accessory to a crime, by staying quiet?.
Maybe this is a stupid question but in what way does being a director of a property firm compromise or have any effect on the report/investigation? are they implying she would have wanted them to look good because its in her personal interest as well as professionally?
As long as its all above board and she is not neglecting her police role for it then I dont see a problem, now if her proeprty company was directly involved with Savile etc then I can see how there might be a conflict of interest but that does not seem to be the case.
It would appear The Sunday telegraph has made it an issue as they say they found out about it, but as I said its been a matter of public record sine 1998 so nothing hidden at all, but I assume if the media has made it an issue it has to be investigated to avoid any accusations of coverups etc .
Got to love how the Mail word things - below the belt to use a word like "preying" before anything has been proven, yet it's par for the course for that vile rag. How do they get away with it?
As for that idiot Sally Bercow, she is a nasty, attention seeking bitch and deserves punishment of some sort. People like her get away with everything though. :mad:
So being an attention seeker is worthy of punishment?? What a nice attitude to have :rolleyes:
So being an attention seeker is worthy of punishment?? What a nice attitude to have :rolleyes:
I suppose it would depend on the results of an attentions seekeers actions, if that person casued damage, pain or suffering to another or property etc then yes they should probably be punished , I am speaking in general and about reuslts of actions that should be punishable not punishment for just being an attention seeker.
So being an attention seeker is worthy of punishment?? What a nice attitude to have :rolleyes:
On it's own? Of course not - and I'm surprised you jumped from what I said to that, as that is a big leap on your part and a huge assumption of bad faith towards me.
She deserves punishment because she's libeled someone's name in her never-ending quest for attention, obviously. But I'm pretty sure you know full well that's what I meant.
What has this got to do with the original title of this thread? As far as I know the case has nothing to do with Saville, and he has not been accused of paedophila
What has this got to do with the original title of this thread? As far as I know the case has nothing to do with Saville, and he has not been accused of paedophila
This seems to be the go-to thread for posting all sex offence news.
As long as its all above board and she is not neglecting her police role for it then I dont see a problem, now if her proeprty company was directly involved with Savile etc then I can see how there might be a conflict of interest but that does not seem to be the case.
It would appear The Sunday telegraph has made it an issue as they say they found out about it, but as I said its been a matter of public record sine 1998 so nothing hidden at all, but I assume if the media has made it an issue it has to be investigated to avoid any accusations of coverups etc .
Ironically there is an estate agency with a very similar name (I process magazines where I work and have noticed it in the property section) but that has the name spelt with a double 'l' so is no doubt totally unrelated.
If there was an issue with who was running the investigation, surely that should have been brought up before it was finished? I guess the paper hadn't realised until later? weird.
As for that idiot Sally Bercow, she is a nasty, attention seeking bitch and deserves punishment of some sort. People like her get away with everything though. :mad:
She is guilty of jumping on the bandwagon, like a few other prominent people who have gone on a crusade after reading internet rumours that have no proof.
Its wrong to spout off about hearsay.
As I have said before, I don't know what to believe these days.
There must be people who have had evidence against them removed,changed or lost. Unless the corruption is totally laid bare, nowt to be done.
Ironically there is an estate agency with a very similar name (I process magazines where I work and have noticed it in the property section) but that has the name spelt with a double 'l' so is no doubt totally unrelated.
If there was an issue with who was running the investigation, surely that should have been brought up before it was finished? I guess the paper hadn't realised until later? weird.
I cannot see an issue from what information we have at present and as for the rest of the media , I can only assume they knew and thought nothing of it (or they are as thick as The Sunday Telegraph) and the Sunday Telegraph either has shoddy journlaists who do not know how to do a name search (which would be par for the course on a subject) which would show her as a Company Director , either that or they are muck raking and sat on it until after the report and are just trying to cause trouble.
Sir Cyril Smith abuse claims investigation widens
Two alleged victims came forward following publicity over the late MP Sir Cyril Smith
Smith 'raped some of his victims'
Ten people are being investigated over historical allegations of sexual abuse at a residential school, where it was claimed Sir Cyril Smith abused boys.
Comments
Yes she is but its all a lot of hot air if you ask me but if someone has complained (seemingly The Teelgraph) then they have to investigate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10066371/Jimmy-Savile-investigator-faces-inquiry.html
She was placed under investigation yesterday after The Sunday Telegraph found she was a director of a property firm alongside four current or former officers from the force
She has certainly not hidden anything, as I mentioned last night in a post that has been removed along with others (for reasons that I am unsure of as there were none breaching any rules in my post ) , it is a matter of public record and open for anyone to see for free that she has been a Director of said company since 10th August 1998, not something that has been hidden at all.
Which article was i supposed to read? I read those below, and neither says that Neville Buswell has even been questioned.
If "just anybody" can go to the police and ,make an outlandish claim that might well turn out to be nonsense and it is reported all over the papers as if the person has actually been arrested when they haven't even been questioned then its as sick as sick can be!
QUOTE
Asked about reports police are now investigating the allegation, the 70-year-old replied: “I have no idea.”
END QUOTE
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronation-street-ray-langton-actor-1897717
You would think that we wouldn't need a law to make people report suspected abuse wouldn't you?
You would have thought so, as I say I can understand people proceeding with caution on rumour alone or on an unsubstantiated comment , but a person working with kids not having to report abuse they either witness or know is happening is to me criminal in itself.
Caution yes , ignoring abuse no.
All Granada.
And the BBC is the one who is hauled through the coals.
Come on Mail, join the dots FFS.
Whilst I agree that the BBC has had an unfair share of media coverage in all of this , and we all know that suits much of the media, at Granada other than Hall the rest are all innocent until proven guilty ( or even questioned , arrested and charged in one case )
http://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/something-odd-in-the-mcalpine-v-bercow-case-is-legal-precedent-being-ignored/
The ruling is expected some time this week.
http://wrenfoewisdom.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/google-glasses-would-have-detected-savile/
As for that idiot Sally Bercow, she is a nasty, attention seeking bitch and deserves punishment of some sort. People like her get away with everything though. :mad:
Maybe this is a stupid question but in what way does being a director of a property firm compromise or have any effect on the report/investigation? are they implying she would have wanted them to look good because its in her personal interest as well as professionally?
is it not law in a sense, in that if you knowingly don't report criminal activity, that can be seen and you can be charged with facilitating or indirectly being an accessory to a crime, by staying quiet?.
As long as its all above board and she is not neglecting her police role for it then I dont see a problem, now if her proeprty company was directly involved with Savile etc then I can see how there might be a conflict of interest but that does not seem to be the case.
It would appear The Sunday telegraph has made it an issue as they say they found out about it, but as I said its been a matter of public record sine 1998 so nothing hidden at all, but I assume if the media has made it an issue it has to be investigated to avoid any accusations of coverups etc .
So being an attention seeker is worthy of punishment?? What a nice attitude to have :rolleyes:
I suppose it would depend on the results of an attentions seekeers actions, if that person casued damage, pain or suffering to another or property etc then yes they should probably be punished , I am speaking in general and about reuslts of actions that should be punishable not punishment for just being an attention seeker.
On it's own? Of course not - and I'm surprised you jumped from what I said to that, as that is a big leap on your part and a huge assumption of bad faith towards me.
She deserves punishment because she's libeled someone's name in her never-ending quest for attention, obviously. But I'm pretty sure you know full well that's what I meant.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22594276
What has this got to do with the original title of this thread? As far as I know the case has nothing to do with Saville, and he has not been accused of paedophila
This seems to be the go-to thread for posting all sex offence news.
...especially of the famous, rich or powerful.
The thread title does seem a little stale though.
Ironically there is an estate agency with a very similar name (I process magazines where I work and have noticed it in the property section) but that has the name spelt with a double 'l' so is no doubt totally unrelated.
If there was an issue with who was running the investigation, surely that should have been brought up before it was finished? I guess the paper hadn't realised until later? weird.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22542248
Eventually jailed 10 years for attacks in the 1960s and 70s.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22599017
She is guilty of jumping on the bandwagon, like a few other prominent people who have gone on a crusade after reading internet rumours that have no proof.
Its wrong to spout off about hearsay.
As I have said before, I don't know what to believe these days.
There must be people who have had evidence against them removed,changed or lost. Unless the corruption is totally laid bare, nowt to be done.
I cannot see an issue from what information we have at present and as for the rest of the media , I can only assume they knew and thought nothing of it (or they are as thick as The Sunday Telegraph) and the Sunday Telegraph either has shoddy journlaists who do not know how to do a name search (which would be par for the course on a subject) which would show her as a Company Director , either that or they are muck raking and sat on it until after the report and are just trying to cause trouble.
Two alleged victims came forward following publicity over the late MP Sir Cyril Smith
Smith 'raped some of his victims'
Ten people are being investigated over historical allegations of sexual abuse at a residential school, where it was claimed Sir Cyril Smith abused boys.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-22603419
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/jimmy-savile-trust-snubs-victims-charity-1-5692785