woodster
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 12:30 PM |
|
|
celebrity arrests
Over the last few months a number of 'lets say 70s celebrities' have been arrested for alledged historical sexual offences, some are very
well known names ... surely it can't be right that as soon as the old bill makes an arrest the poor bloke gets named in the News and has his
name all over the papers, it doesn't seem to matter anymore that some of them are dead and can't defend themselves ... what happened to
'innocent until proven guilty'? .... a lot of the allegations are at least 30 years old, it doesn't seem right to me that the person
making the allegations remains anonymous and the accused has his reputation and career damaged for the rest of his life, most of these won't go
to court so they won't get a chance to defend themselves .... it must be time the law changed to keep both parties anonymous until a conviction
..... one poor bloke of 82 had the boys in blue banging on his door at 6am? he was named on the News at 9am, that can't be right.
|
|
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
AFAIAC, if the perps are guilty, they should be brought to justice. HOWEVER: it should be stipulated from the onset that no compensation would be paid
to the 'victims'. They've managed to stay schtum for 30 years so cash won't change anything. There's already been
several allegations that have fallen to pieces when the facts have been analysed, including a girl who claimed to have been assaulted in a childrens
home four years before it was built..... The alledged perpetrator was still named and shamed and no doubt will never lead a 'normal' life
again.
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
AdrianH
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
It is called trial by media.
It could be argued that this is in public interest, but I think it is also wrong to smear and would like to think innocent until proven otherwise.
Not sure how one would fight against a 30 year old allegation I always thought the burden of guilt had to be substantial before arrest, but may be
wrong on that.
Adrian
[Edited on 3-1-13 by AdrianH]
Why do I have to make the tools to finish the job? More time then money.
|
|
|
motorcycle_mayhem
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 12:46 PM |
|
|
Yep, that's the way it is on the Septic Isle. Unfortunately those who both create and are above the law (i.e. politicians) only react to the
current laws when it affects them, so we have to wait for that to happen in this case. After seeing that Bliar can evade and invade anything and
everything, what residues I have of any belief that the political class look beyond their own trough are gone. Acuse Clegg or Scameron of peadophilia
and I'm sure we'll see a change in legislation over confidentiality in such matters.
To change the law and society the only option may be to R1oT.
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 12:58 PM |
|
|
The problem is though this comes from the bottom rather than the top, the kind of people who would have a riot about this are the kind of people who
cause and fuel this (I don't like to make generalisations but I really do believe that). The claims should be investigated but I agree it should
be kept secret who is being questioned until such time that we actually know.
One of the big problems though with this current witch hunt, and alot of people have said this, is that alot of it is applying modern day thinking to
things that happened in the 70's when it wasn't considered wrong. Obviously I'm not talking about child abuse, more the sort of
'sexual assault' that was by all acounts rampant at the time and you only have to watch films or tv from the period to see that.
A few months ago I told my mate that the 90's were coming back, then what happens, Paedophile witch hunts, school shootings, false apocalypses,
furbies and trouble in NI. Sometimes I do think I've gone back in time, but noone ever seems to learn from these things.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
jossey
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 01:42 PM |
|
|
Guilty til l proven innocent but the media loses interest so we only know about the guilty bit.
Police are supposed to gather evidence to present to the cps but it seems they over look certain things when investigating.
I'm sure not always but many many occasions they don't seem to act impartial whilst gathering evidence
Thanks
David Johnson
Building my tiger avon slowly but surely.
|
|
|
woodster
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 03:01 PM |
|
|
I'm not saying it makes any of the allegations acceptable but the 70s were very different times, over the xmas break i watched the film
'Holiday on the buses' it was on one afternoon, the way women were treated was quite frankly shocking, it was so sexist you quite rightly
couldn't get away with it to day, 3 older blokes leering looking up a womans short skirt as she climbed the bus stairs, ... i laughed more at
how un PC it was than the plot  ... i think to illustrate just how much things have changed try watching 'Love Thy Neighbour' if your
under 35 it'll be a right eye opener
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 03:01 PM |
|
|
Sticking to the Jimmy Saville case there is no doubt Saville was a creep, and pervert who used girls and committed a large number of fairly serious
sexual assaults or worse but..... I would estimate a fair percentage of those who have now complained were up for it at the time or were trying to
use Saville to gain access to more desirable figures in the pop world: in in other words "groupies" some of whom are now after
financial gain.
My real sympathy is for those victims who had put their experience of Saville behind them only to have dragged back into the their lives..... some
time sleeping dogs should be left to fester in peace.
[Edited on 3/1/13 by britishtrident]
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
motorcycle_mayhem
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 07:57 PM |
|
|
Someone mentioned Furbies.
|
|
|
woodster
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 09:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Sticking to the Jimmy Saville case there is no doubt Saville was a creep, and pervert who used girls and committed a large number of fairly serious
sexual assaults or worse but..... I would estimate a fair percentage of those who have now complained were up for it at the time or were trying to
use Saville to gain access to more desirable figures in the pop world: in in other words "groupies" some of whom are now after
financial gain.
My real sympathy is for those victims who had put their experience of Saville behind them only to have dragged back into the their lives..... some
time sleeping dogs should be left to fester in peace.
[Edited on 3/1/13 by britishtrident]
I think this makes my point, as far as I know Jimmy Saville has NEVER been convicted of any crime and I'm guessing like most people you've
formed your opinions about him by what you've read in the paper and heard on the TV ?
|
|
|
woodster
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 09:36 PM |
|
|
Remember Len Fairclough ??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-95683/Streets-shamed-Len-Fairclough-dies.html
Very sad story ,again lost everything and he was found not guilty
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 09:39 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by woodster
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Sticking to the Jimmy Saville case there is no doubt Saville was a creep, and pervert who used girls and committed a large number of fairly serious
sexual assaults or worse but..... I would estimate a fair percentage of those who have now complained were up for it at the time or were trying to
use Saville to gain access to more desirable figures in the pop world: in in other words "groupies" some of whom are now after
financial gain.
My real sympathy is for those victims who had put their experience of Saville behind them only to have dragged back into the their lives..... some
time sleeping dogs should be left to fester in peace.
[Edited on 3/1/13 by britishtrident]
I think this makes my point, as far as I know Jimmy Saville has NEVER been convicted of any crime and I'm guessing like most people you've
formed your opinions about him by what you've read in the paper and heard on the TV ?
Bear in mind a criminal conviction is only 12 people being given the facts and deciding the truth of the matter - any jury in the land would convict
if 450 witnesses made similar allegations. The police have said that, if he were alive, he would have faced a trial. Obviously you cant convict after
death.
On the flip side, whats occured with Saville makes me think that Michael Jackson probably was innocent, as, to my knowledge, no one has made any
allegations following his death.
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
woodster
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 09:49 PM |
|
|
Jimmy Saville if he where alive couldn't get a fair trial now,to much demonisation in the press , where were the 450 when he was alive ? To go
back to my original point the only way to stop trial by media is to give the accused the same rights as the person making the complaint !!
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 10:51 PM |
|
|
Were the age laws the same in the 70s?
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 3/1/13 at 10:59 PM |
|
|
Pretty much, apart from man on man action had a higher age limit.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
woodster
|
| posted on 4/1/13 at 09:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by morcus
Pretty much, apart from man on man action had a higher age limit.
..... And in the 70s you could quite happily go queer bashing and call them puffs and homos, gay celebrities had to hide their private life's
or the papers would out them ...... All quite rightly totally unacceptable in 2013
|
|
|
