Its about time they named the politicians and the senior member of the royal family who has been also been linked to all this sort of stuff.
We pay these people out of the public purse, all of us.
The police, who we also pay for, out of the public purse should therefore be open in their pursuit.
I think all these 'celebs' are just a distraction and viewed as plebs like the rest of us to avoid politicians and royals being looked at.
Well only dead politicos get named so I expect Donald Dewar to be next up for a mention.;)
It seems Harris' lawyers had written to several news outlets warning them that the Leveson report meant suspects should only be named in "exceptional" circumstances, so perhaps its taken until today for the Sun's lawyers to ascertain that this is not actually the case and so the floodgates re reporting his name are now open? Lawyers suppress arrest reporting
Thanks for posting that informative link . His lawyers tried to put the frighteners on newspapers and a website threatening them with expensive damages .
Something though must be done about these media organisations linking all suspects to Savile . Even DS gets it wrong with their headline Rolf Harris in Savile police probe when in fact his arrest has nothing to do with Savile but come under the stupid category of 'other'. "He was held under the "others" strand of Scotland Yard's investigation, which was launched during the Jimmy Savile scandal, and the allegations against Harris do not relate to Savile."
I blame the police for making this almighty blunder . Cases such as Harris and DLT should not have been linked to Savile under 'other'. There should just be NO link .
The police are obliged to follow up any lines of enquirey as this scandal in relation to Jimmy Savile had been going for a long time and was a cover to a certain degree. I think the police are looking at the structure of the BBC and who was associated with who during this period. I think matters will become clearer as time goes on and we will see who was involved and justice served.
There's almost a Schadenfreude edge to what you are saying.
I think so too. The poster seems to have a big chip on their shoulder regarding those working in the industry, almost like there's something personal in it.
"It's just been announced that Chris Jefferies, the landlord of the murdered student, Joanna Yeates, has received "substantial" libel damages from eight newspapers"
""Weird, posh, lewd, creepy" - this was how a Sun headline described Chris Jefferies, the landlord of Joanna Yeates, "
Please do not assume in hindsight that just because you think someone is an odd character means they have or a capable of murder or sexual offenses.
That is where witch hunts start.
Well said! I always cringe when someone automatically links "odd" with "potential rapist/murderer/etc"...it's a perfect example of hard-of-thinking lynch mob type stuff. Awful.
First of all what knowledge, evidence and or facts do you base this on or is it just a stab in the dark?
Second, if you're wrong will you be back here to acknowledge you were wrong?
Innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way round. If you disagree with someone saying a person is innocent, it's a bit cheeky to insist they provide the evidence ... you're supposed to.
Following the morning's news about Rolf Harris, combined with all the other raids and arrests since Operation Yewtree, I find there is something about the whole exercise that makes me very, very uneasy in terms of a form of justice seeking.
I never really trusted it anyway, partly because it seemed to come about with real haste due to the embarrassment of Jimmy Savile's crimes getting outed but also because I suspected from the start it was witch-hunt based more than anything more concrete and honest.
Has anyone else just had a bad feeling about this from the start?
Jimmy Savile was an extreme example of a predatory paedophile, whose activities went right on until shortly before his death.
The problem with the likes of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall, say, is that the alleged assaults are so long ago, that it's almost pointless bothering, as no hard evidence will remain to support the allegations. Plus, these guys are still alive and will contest the assertions vigorously, with well briefed and experienced barristers. They'll almost certainly be acquitted.
So yes, I'm inclined to agree that it's a bit of a witch-hunt.
I think it's outrageous that someone like Rolf Harris can be plastered all over the newspapers on the strength of allegations made by possibly one woman of something that might or might not have occurred 40 years ago.
What makes you say that there is even a possibility that only one woman has made an allegation?
How do you know that complaints weren't made at the time and ignored, as in Saville's case? Or that there wasn't an 'everybody knew' environment ditto?
I suppose all sex crimes could have the 'might or might not have occurred' label attached to them at some level - should we stop investigating sex crime altogether? I can think of only one group who would be pleased about that.
What makes you say that there is even a possibility that only one woman has made an allegation?
How do you know that complaints weren't made at the time and ignored, as in Saville's case? Or that there wasn't an 'everybody knew' environment ditto?
I suppose all sex crimes could have the 'might or might not have occurred' label attached to them at some level - should we stop investigating sex crime altogether? I can think of only one group who would be pleased about that.
Or that the complainants are indeed female? There is also the possibility that the complainant(s) are family members.
But if they had to take on these possibilities, how could they continue to perpetuate the myth that the world is full of greedy, money-grabbing slappers?
The real problem with this is that Yewtree is associated with Saville and underage sex...some of the celebrities , DLT, Hall(?) have been arrested due to accusations by adult women however unless people read into the cases this is not always made obvious and the celebs could potentially have the 'stigma' of possibly being involved in underage 'things'.
Also, there can be a no smoke without fire attitude with some people and people can be tarnished (even when accusations are untrue - e.g. John Leslie who became an untouchable.)
I also think that any one accused of crimes involving adults shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Yewtree.
I think so too. The poster seems to have a big chip on their shoulder regarding those working in the industry, almost like there's something personal in it.
FWIW I follow, and enjoy following, zillions of celebs on twitter of every conceivable description. I love interacting with those who are up for it. I've never been blocked and I've never trolled or even unfollowed a single one...even those who moan about the 'haters' but (predictably) never object to their sycophantic followers.
I don't know really what to believe as I can't imagine some of these people could actually do that, but I agree names shouldn't be released until they are actually found guilty[/QUOTE]
Ah now you see that's one of the worst ways to think. Because you can't imagine it does not mean they are ok. Bad way to think.
How many times have you heard 'I would never have expected it of xyz'
Anyone is capable of being something very different to what people think
What makes you say that there is even a possibility that only one woman has made an allegation?
How do you know that complaints weren't made at the time and ignored, as in Saville's case? Or that there wasn't an 'everybody knew' environment ditto?
I suppose all sex crimes could have the 'might or might not have occurred' label attached to them at some level - should we stop investigating sex crime altogether? I can think of only one group who would be pleased about that.
I do think this is getting tedious and I kind of think the "victims" are actors aiming for a bit of £££. The real culprit is Mark Williams-Thomas for exposing Jimmy Savile in that documentary.
A complaint is made and the police investigate those complaints - and that includes questioning those accused.
The problem is no one likes it when the accused is someone they personally like.
To my knowledge, none of the evidence gathered by the police in this investigation has yet been tested in front of a jury in a court of law. To that end, the fact that characters are being questioned and reputations destroyed in the absence of any evidence, let alone a trial or conviction (and in some cases, even a charge), is quite depressing. From a legal perspective, I'm very interested to see what evidence is presented to support a case from 20/30 years ago and how somebody is supposed to defend against that evidence. The Police seem keen to be seen to be doing something, but I'm curious to see how strong the evidence in these cases is quite honestly.
*YES* Unequivocally 100% Yewtree stinks to high heaven.
Why..?
When it comes to the 'Haves' in society, you got many different groups. There are politicians, senior civil servants, senior police officers, judges, high end members within the legal establishment, upper echelon NHS, teaching, teaching, probation..and so on. Then there's the reams of wealthy business people who run top companies, keep the economy afloat. Then all of the close friends of the aforementioned.
Then you have 'showbiz' people.
Popular..? Well of course. But 'highly important' in the greater scheme of things..? I think not. Now none of us know just who is guilty, or who has maybe been wrongly caught up in all this, and it's right not to speculate - at least as far as that's concerned.
Instead, I speculate on this. Think of all the different stratas of high society mentioned...and much more I've missed. Think of each strata as a number in the Euromillions - 'showbiz folk' being just one number of...let's say 50 different types of public eye/non-public eye - but powerful or important - numbers.
What would be the odds of the same number being drawn (were it one ball) week after week, report after report...and presto that same number always ended up the 'showbiz ball...?'
Anyone unable to see clearly that this is a stage managed..badly...attempt at trying to convince the public that justice is in motion for *ANYONE* involved in, alleged to be part of or just suspected of the offences which so far have seen so many arrests from 'one number'..Well, they would have to be blind, or one crazy sonofa...you get the idea.
It's not even a well thought out cover up. The fact that those running the country, would struggle to run a tap without help was/is perhaps their achilles heel, because they assume everyone is as malleable to their 'show of force' as they'd like us to believe.
The corruption of evidence and truth is definitely a firm wall though. Minions have to be sacrificed, and celebs are the bottom piece on the puzzle - but conviently well known to the masses. Good that isn't it..? To pander to our 'knowledge' and hence indignation, in the vain hope we'll be stupid enough to fail to recognise it for the farcical cover up it really is.
Justice should be sought and administered to those guilty of course - irrespective of what 'number' they were when spewn forth from Camelot.
Unfortuneately, I think we have been served just one number, and hopefully (for those orchestrating all this) will spend years focusing on that one as our suspicions erode and are semi-forgotten over time.
Not an eloquent piece admittedly. But it's bloody well the truth of the matter.
I also feel very uncomfortable with Yewtree for the following reasons.
The two groups of people most implicated by the lack of standards in the media hacking case so far have been the journos themselves and various police officers or detectives taking fees for information.
And the group who were most implicated in the JS abuse, must be the police who seem to have failed to investigate properly any complaints made at the time of any assualts.
And yet the police are still tipping journos off about who is going to be spoken to, or announcing in advance who they are going to turn up to en masse in the early hours of the morning so that a film crew can be there.
Both the police and the journos have other agendas here. For the police it seems to be: "look how much effort is going in - this is high profile, we won't let any of these celebs get away with it." as if to assuage their guilty consciences.
For the journos, it absolutely suits their agendas to have stories about celebs which they claim would be hidden away with privacy laws - "look at what they don't want you to know".
Having said all that, whilst I feel uncomfortable, if complaints have been made, they should be investigated. It would perhaps be better if two of the key groups involved, police and journos, weren't so desperate to prove something for the various reasons outlined above, and if they could keep away from speculation.
I am inclined to agree. It almost feels like they are pursuing any avenue, just a a show for the general public.
I thought that as soon as the Saville accusations came out though and the way that all politicians and media jumped on it was all for political gain.
None of it has sat comfortably with me at all. Certainly not the way it has been publically handled.
Do very much agree with you.
Seems like Saville was almost an 'open secret' at the BBC and left that way for financial reasons.
Now it is being thrashed about for political gain and as a general means of personal publicity by so many individuals
As for the BBC they seem to be trying to appear to be doing the responsible thing to save face (very publicly) rather than any real desire to have the whole horrible matter investigated properly.
Following the morning's news about Rolf Harris, combined with all the other raids and arrests since Operation Yewtree, I find there is something about the whole exercise that makes me very, very uneasy in terms of a form of justice seeking.
I never really trusted it anyway, partly because it seemed to come about with real haste due to the embarrassment of Jimmy Savile's crimes getting outed but also because I suspected from the start it was witch-hunt based more than anything more concrete and honest.
Has anyone else just had a bad feeling about this from the start?
My concern is the way the press - or should I say, certain sections of the press like the Sun, the Star or the People deal with this, that they adjudge people accused as automatically guilty in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
They are the ones that drive the whole "OH NOES KIL THA PEEDOS LOL ROFL XOXO" agenda.
Op Yewtree also needs to investigate why & how ex-PM Tony Blair (& Harriet Harmen) issued a 'D' notice to protect those (in Cabinet at the time) caught in the Op Ore way back in 2003/4
Come on Tony - name and shame them!
If they have done wrong, then THEY need to face punishment!
When I was a kid in the 60s/70's there was always talk about Jimmy Saville and his caravan. There was a phrase used back then,"dirty old man" and you grew up knowing to avoid men like that.
Now it seems that phrase has completely disappeared. Some of those celebrity types back then were actually prolific paedophlies and yet they could do no wrong.
I am glad that they are being called up to question even though they are elderly men now. It is easy for them to forget what they did, not so easy for the victims.
But let's not ignore all the other non-famous 2dirty old men" who were in powerful positions ie. priests or teachers because they are not being called to question.
Complain all you like about what they did to you and when you were a child and no one is much interested even if they believe you.
Comments
Well only dead politicos get named so I expect Donald Dewar to be next up for a mention.;)
Thanks for posting that informative link . His lawyers tried to put the frighteners on newspapers and a website threatening them with expensive damages .
Something though must be done about these media organisations linking all suspects to Savile . Even DS gets it wrong with their headline Rolf Harris in Savile police probe when in fact his arrest has nothing to do with Savile but come under the stupid category of 'other'. "He was held under the "others" strand of Scotland Yard's investigation, which was launched during the Jimmy Savile scandal, and the allegations against Harris do not relate to Savile."
I blame the police for making this almighty blunder . Cases such as Harris and DLT should not have been linked to Savile under 'other'. There should just be NO link .
I think so too. The poster seems to have a big chip on their shoulder regarding those working in the industry, almost like there's something personal in it.
Well said! I always cringe when someone automatically links "odd" with "potential rapist/murderer/etc"...it's a perfect example of hard-of-thinking lynch mob type stuff. Awful.
But that's whats happening. The press are linking people like Rolf Harris with pedophilia and you said they should "take the rough with the smooth".
Innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way round. If you disagree with someone saying a person is innocent, it's a bit cheeky to insist they provide the evidence ... you're supposed to.
Jimmy Savile was an extreme example of a predatory paedophile, whose activities went right on until shortly before his death.
The problem with the likes of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall, say, is that the alleged assaults are so long ago, that it's almost pointless bothering, as no hard evidence will remain to support the allegations. Plus, these guys are still alive and will contest the assertions vigorously, with well briefed and experienced barristers. They'll almost certainly be acquitted.
So yes, I'm inclined to agree that it's a bit of a witch-hunt.
What makes you say that there is even a possibility that only one woman has made an allegation?
How do you know that complaints weren't made at the time and ignored, as in Saville's case? Or that there wasn't an 'everybody knew' environment ditto?
I suppose all sex crimes could have the 'might or might not have occurred' label attached to them at some level - should we stop investigating sex crime altogether? I can think of only one group who would be pleased about that.
Or that the complainants are indeed female? There is also the possibility that the complainant(s) are family members.
But if they had to take on these possibilities, how could they continue to perpetuate the myth that the world is full of greedy, money-grabbing slappers?
I agree.
FWIW I follow, and enjoy following, zillions of celebs on twitter of every conceivable description. I love interacting with those who are up for it. I've never been blocked and I've never trolled or even unfollowed a single one...even those who moan about the 'haters' but (predictably) never object to their sycophantic followers.
Yes, I did say that.
I don't know really what to believe as I can't imagine some of these people could actually do that, but I agree names shouldn't be released until they are actually found guilty[/QUOTE]
Ah now you see that's one of the worst ways to think. Because you can't imagine it does not mean they are ok. Bad way to think.
How many times have you heard 'I would never have expected it of xyz'
Anyone is capable of being something very different to what people think
Clearly true, but does it have anything to do with whether suspects' (or even those accused) should have their names released?
That's what it said on BBC news yesterday.
And here,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311476/Rolf-Harris-arrest-Veteran-entertainer-outed-historic-sex-abuse-suspect-quizzed-Jimmy-Savile-detectives.html
If that is the case, it will be very difficult to justify charges, unless there is some strong corroborative evidence.
Why..?
When it comes to the 'Haves' in society, you got many different groups. There are politicians, senior civil servants, senior police officers, judges, high end members within the legal establishment, upper echelon NHS, teaching, teaching, probation..and so on. Then there's the reams of wealthy business people who run top companies, keep the economy afloat. Then all of the close friends of the aforementioned.
Then you have 'showbiz' people.
Popular..? Well of course. But 'highly important' in the greater scheme of things..? I think not. Now none of us know just who is guilty, or who has maybe been wrongly caught up in all this, and it's right not to speculate - at least as far as that's concerned.
Instead, I speculate on this. Think of all the different stratas of high society mentioned...and much more I've missed. Think of each strata as a number in the Euromillions - 'showbiz folk' being just one number of...let's say 50 different types of public eye/non-public eye - but powerful or important - numbers.
What would be the odds of the same number being drawn (were it one ball) week after week, report after report...and presto that same number always ended up the 'showbiz ball...?'
Anyone unable to see clearly that this is a stage managed..badly...attempt at trying to convince the public that justice is in motion for *ANYONE* involved in, alleged to be part of or just suspected of the offences which so far have seen so many arrests from 'one number'..Well, they would have to be blind, or one crazy sonofa...you get the idea.
It's not even a well thought out cover up. The fact that those running the country, would struggle to run a tap without help was/is perhaps their achilles heel, because they assume everyone is as malleable to their 'show of force' as they'd like us to believe.
The corruption of evidence and truth is definitely a firm wall though. Minions have to be sacrificed, and celebs are the bottom piece on the puzzle - but conviently well known to the masses. Good that isn't it..? To pander to our 'knowledge' and hence indignation, in the vain hope we'll be stupid enough to fail to recognise it for the farcical cover up it really is.
Justice should be sought and administered to those guilty of course - irrespective of what 'number' they were when spewn forth from Camelot.
Unfortuneately, I think we have been served just one number, and hopefully (for those orchestrating all this) will spend years focusing on that one as our suspicions erode and are semi-forgotten over time.
Not an eloquent piece admittedly. But it's bloody well the truth of the matter.
The two groups of people most implicated by the lack of standards in the media hacking case so far have been the journos themselves and various police officers or detectives taking fees for information.
And the group who were most implicated in the JS abuse, must be the police who seem to have failed to investigate properly any complaints made at the time of any assualts.
And yet the police are still tipping journos off about who is going to be spoken to, or announcing in advance who they are going to turn up to en masse in the early hours of the morning so that a film crew can be there.
Both the police and the journos have other agendas here. For the police it seems to be: "look how much effort is going in - this is high profile, we won't let any of these celebs get away with it." as if to assuage their guilty consciences.
For the journos, it absolutely suits their agendas to have stories about celebs which they claim would be hidden away with privacy laws - "look at what they don't want you to know".
Having said all that, whilst I feel uncomfortable, if complaints have been made, they should be investigated. It would perhaps be better if two of the key groups involved, police and journos, weren't so desperate to prove something for the various reasons outlined above, and if they could keep away from speculation.
Do very much agree with you.
Seems like Saville was almost an 'open secret' at the BBC and left that way for financial reasons.
Now it is being thrashed about for political gain and as a general means of personal publicity by so many individuals
As for the BBC they seem to be trying to appear to be doing the responsible thing to save face (very publicly) rather than any real desire to have the whole horrible matter investigated properly.
My concern is the way the press - or should I say, certain sections of the press like the Sun, the Star or the People deal with this, that they adjudge people accused as automatically guilty in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
They are the ones that drive the whole "OH NOES KIL THA PEEDOS LOL ROFL XOXO" agenda.
Come on Tony - name and shame them!
If they have done wrong, then THEY need to face punishment!
Now it seems that phrase has completely disappeared. Some of those celebrity types back then were actually prolific paedophlies and yet they could do no wrong.
I am glad that they are being called up to question even though they are elderly men now. It is easy for them to forget what they did, not so easy for the victims.
But let's not ignore all the other non-famous 2dirty old men" who were in powerful positions ie. priests or teachers because they are not being called to question.
Complain all you like about what they did to you and when you were a child and no one is much interested even if they believe you.