Evil Sid Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Their ain't no sanity clause Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 Get ready - it could be Santa next! Â You will be surprised who the next one is - very surprised indeed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 11, 2012 Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 You will be surprised who the next one is - very surprised indeed! Â Â and living in Egypt you have a hotline to the Met Police team? or are you just sensationalising for effect? Â So far a few high profile people have been questioned with none charged...... so one has to ask; is there any substance to the allegations or are the allegations being brought by bitter and twisted people or spurned ex lovers or wannabes who have found the ideal way for payback? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila_P Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 and living in Egypt you have a hotline to the Met Police team? or are you just sensationalising for effect? Â So far a few high profile people have been questioned with none charged...... so one has to ask; is there any substance to the allegations or are the allegations being brought by bitter and twisted people or spurned ex lovers or wannabes who have found the ideal way for payback? Â Â Actually, Stuart Hall has been charged. Â As for the others, with the exception of Jimmy Savile, there is a lot of truth in what you say. Â I'm keen to see the people who protected Savile brought to justice. Â I don't see how the cases against the others, should they be brought to court, would stand up. It would surely be one person's word against another's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Bingo Sheila! One person's word against another, unless there are other independent witnesses to the actual alleged deed OR DNA evidence from 40 years ago. The whole thing is a complete waste of money and police resources imo; due to wannabee claimants, who can't move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 tum te tum te tum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Sorry... I forgot about Stuart Hall..... but even so, being charged and being convicted are two completely different things! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila_P Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Bingo Sheila! One person's word against another, unless there are other independent witnesses to the actual alleged deed OR DNA evidence from 40 years ago. The whole thing is a complete waste of money and police resources imo; due to wannabee claimants, who can't move on. Â I can't imagine there would be any DNA, unless any crime was reported to the Police at the time. It will be interesting to see if any of the cases make it to court, with the exception of Stuart Hall. Â The Savile situation is different, in that he was said to have procured vulnerable children, with no-one close enough to them to fight their corner, or protect them. That, in my book, is reprehensible. That situation shouldn't be allowed to slide because people were covering for him and 'enabling' him. They need to be weedled out and dealt with if it can be proven. Â I agree that there will be a percentage of 'wagon jumpers', who should be charged with wasting police time, if that turned out to be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Given, that it's one person's word against another; if one is deceased; sounds like an ideal opportunity to make an allegation and a claim against their estate? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 The whole thing is a complete waste of money and police resources imo; due to wannabee claimants, who can't move on. Â And you know that how? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 199 crimes in 17 counties according to operation Yewtree. Sky News.com  No smoke without fire, and I agree with Sheila_ P. It's those who aided and abetted who need sorting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Given, that it's one person's word against another; if one is deceased; sounds like an ideal opportunity to make an allegation and a claim against their estate? Â These complaints were being made when one was still alive and the said one was investigated but the CPS failed to give permission for the cases to proceed to the courts. Why? Maybe they were all in the same funny handshake club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 12, 2012 Report Share Posted December 12, 2012 Why? Cos the DPP at the time considered the so-called "witnesses" (complainants) as unreliable, and thus unable to secure a conviction. That rational still applies imo. Fortunately, our legal system operates (or should operate) on the basis of PROOF not hearsay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 So if someone is raped and reports it to the police it's hearsay? The police must have been confident that he had done the dirty deed to take it to the CPS in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 But the PPS wern't confident, and it's their job to prosecute. In cases of rape, IF it's reported immediatley to the police, DNA evidence will be gathered that will secure a conviction, not hearsay - evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 214 criminal offences now recorded against him but it's believed the true figure could be much higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 And as expected the real reason is coming to light, as some of them are going for his estate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Sheesh Kije were you sat there waiting and ready to type?  So what if some of them are going for compensation? They desrve it after being abused by the UK's most prolific known paedophile. Were I one of them I would want compensation to and i rather suspect, if you were honest, so would you. I hope they all get many thousands each. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 I agree they would be due compensation if their had been a conviction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Well you can blame the CPS for the fact that he was not convicted in his lifetime. He could have been charged and brought to justice in 2009 according to reports. Anyway he has been convicted in his absence now! Dead or alive the authorities are convinced of his guilt no matter what you or I may think and claims for compensation will proceed and insha allah will be successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Has he been convicted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 He won't be paying (no money in shrouds!); but the tax-payer might - through claims against the NHS Hospitals and BBC etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 Has he been convicted? Â Â Yes, by more than 12 men good and true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 He won't be paying (no money in shrouds!); but the tax-payer might - through claims against the NHS Hospitals and BBC etc. Â In a way he will because apparantly the compensation will be taken from his estate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted January 13, 2013 Report Share Posted January 13, 2013 By who? 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.