observer Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 Seems the LibDums are in turmoil over allegations of "inappropriate touching" by a major donor. The police and an independent inquiry don't appear to believe there's a legal case to answer. So is this yet another example of the trivial nature of today's political aspirants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 It's not that the police or independant bods don't believe he did it Obs, it seems more a case that it could not be proved beyond “reasonable doubt” that he had..... in the same respect they can't prove beyond "reasonable doubt" that he hadn't either. But maybe that's just the papers talking...... and Clegg said as long as he says sorry he can rejoin the party. Hang on, If you haven't actually done anything though why on earth would you say sorry as that would mean you had. Weird lot eh ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 Maybe not, he might be saying sorry he hadn't done it in the hope that he may be able to do it in future without further repercussions rather than sorry that he had done it. If there is no legal case to answer and the police cannot prove or disprove the allegations then surely "benefit of the doubt" must come into play and thus as such he didn't do it so should not have to apologise on that basis. yes it is wierd but..... No weirder than blaming all the floods on gay marriages like a ukip member has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 If "inappropriate behaviour" occurred; then why wasn't it challenged at the time? Either verbally or with a smack across his chops or a knee in his nuts? Or was it the case, that these wannabee politicians didn't want to upset a guy who was expected to get them on the political career ladder - and he didn't, hence these delayed sour grapes? These are the people we expect to address the serious and fundemental issues of the day; instead all we get is the petty and superficial; arising from career ambition - no wonder we're in a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 If "inappropriate behaviour" occurred; then why wasn't it challenged at the time? Either verbally or with a smack across his chops or a knee in his nuts? Or was it the case, that these wannabee politicians didn't want to upset a guy who was expected to get them on the political career ladder - and he didn't, hence these delayed sour grapes? These are the people we expect to address the serious and fundemental issues of the day; instead all we get is the petty and superficial; arising from career ambition - no wonder we're in a mess. But you can say that about a lot of these sexual harassment cases obs.... Jimmy Saville is now believed to have molested up to a 1000 over decades... why didn't anyone come forward before he died? DLT, Rolf Harris etc. are all being accused decades after they are supposed to have committed the crimes.... One of the lawyers at the trial of Bill Roache asked a girl (now 62) to describe the layout of Roaches house.... I mean come on you aren't telling me that a grown woman would not have said something before she reached her 60's if a famous actor had raped her in the 60's??? I think a lot of these cases could well be motivated by money, compensation etc..... yes there will be genuine ones, but it strange that it is only coming to light now so long after the event..... not every child molester can guarantee that their victims will be a meek and mild, say nothing kind of person when they reach their older years so personally I am just not convinced by all this at the moment 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 Well I didn't want to expand into that Baz, but I agree. EG: if a young girl is raped in a celebs house, why would she go back again for more; even if she didn't report it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 Leaving out the kiddie fiddling, I reckon if the truth be know, most men during the course of their lives have at some point had some kind of casual sexual experiences that could later be used against them if they became rich, famous or influential. Unlike some I know, I've never been a womanizer but it's not always the bloke who's the instigator in these matters it's just that as men we find it hard to say no when it's on offer. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 Hope I never get to be famous then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 Would have thought, that any defence Barrister worth his/her pay, would have a field day with most of these cases? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 You are innocent until proven guilty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 Not really in these type of cases: even if aquited, the mud of publicity sticks. That's why imo, it's grossly unfair to provide the accusers with anonymity and not the accused. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 You are innocent until proven guilty Has Jimmy Saville been "proven" to be guilty? because all of your posts on the subject seem to indicate that you know that he is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Think you are getting me mixed up Baz, I have always said innocent until proven guilty in a court of Law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 Think you are getting me mixed up Baz, I have always said innocent until proven guilty in a court of Law so is Jimmy Savile guilty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 No, in the eyes of the law he is not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Why not ? Is that because he's dead ?If that is the case then will he ever be ' guilty in the eyes of the law' as seems from all the investigations so far that he most definately is/was ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 I guess because all we have had so far is trial by media Dizzy.... Saville can't defend himself and those accusing him cannot have their testimony tested in law. Don't forget there have been many cases over the years where people have been arrested and at trial they have found to be not guilty or have got off on a technicality (but still classed as innocent under law) Personally I would say Saville was certainly guilty; but I have come to that conclusion - as has everyone else, by what I have read in the papers etc. No doubt there is far more compelling evidence that would have come to light if he were still alive and able to go before a court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 I guess people will never know the real truth either way Baz and will just draw their own conclusions either way. Makes me wonder what the point of it all is though and why they are continuing with it in that case and what they want to achieve if there is no possible conclusion........ and yes I know that sounds bad but couldn't think of a nicer way to say it. Sorry if that offends anyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Think it's something to do with compen?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 I think Obs might have a point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 I'll stand corrected by any legally trained poster; but I think they may be able to take out a civil action against the Saville estate or any institution where alleged offences took place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 29, 2014 Report Share Posted January 29, 2014 Haven't we all been here before ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.