Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
observer

Touch and go !

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...