ForumGarden

BREAKING NEWS: Coronation Street star Bill Roache, 81, arrested over claims he raped a 15-year-old girl in 1967 | Mail Online



1967 !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh please.

If true, the victims are still living with the emotional pain, why shouldn't they see the person that took advantage getting their comeuppance?

Is there a statute of limitations when it comes to rape of a minor? The evidence should be more than "he said, she said", shouldn't it?

Betty Boop;1425779 wrote: If true, the victims are still living with the emotional pain, why shouldn't they see the person that took advantage getting their comeuppance?


Get their comeuppance ???

I understand that since the Savile Investigation, more victims would feel they had more chance of being believed now than they were years ago. I get that.

When Gary Glitter was arrested, you can understand that, he has form. But seriously, Rolph Harris, Max Clifford and William Roache all In the space of two weeks. All family men, all married for years with children. All big earners. That to me Is more than coIncidence. I don't believe the allegations are true for one minute and It will be Interesting to see If police actually bring charges.

I heard today that police are to announce the arrest of another well known comedian In his 70's.

I do believe there are woman out there on the back of the Savile Inquiry looking for compensation and god help any celeb now who was ever alone In a room with a woman 50 years ago.

These are three men who unlike Gary Glitter don't have a stain on record, not one blemish and now suddenly, unless these women have witness's to the rape and seual assault, It's their word against theirs but In the process, possibly destroy their families, ruin their careers, affect their Income and have them labelled In public.

eta... Throughout by the way, the women will remain anonymous while the celebs are labelled for the rest of their lives.... It stinks.

Betty Boop;1425779 wrote: If true, the victims are still living with the emotional pain, why shouldn't they see the person that took advantage getting their comeuppance?


What is the evidence against him?

Bryn Mawr;1425801 wrote: What is the evidence against him?


Dunnooo, not following any of the cases, just fed up with a view that the victims must all be after money, no doubt some are but not necessarily all. It's a fine line to walk to ensure victims still come forward without fear of being accused of being after money. Also don't see the point of claiming people are family men and therefore they wouldn't do such things.

Betty Boop;1425804 wrote: Dunnooo, not following any of the cases, just fed up with a view that the victims must all be after money, no doubt some are but not necessarily all. It's a fine line to walk to ensure victims still come forward without fear of being accused of being after money. Also don't see the point of claiming people are family men and therefore they wouldn't do such things.


After forty five years I'd suggest it is very tenuous.

Bryn Mawr;1425805 wrote: After forty five years I'd suggest it is very tenuous.


Is it? I know of two people abused as children who never spoke out about what happened until one was well into their thirties and one in their forties. Teachers have been in court around here when they're well past retirement age having been found guilty of fiddling with the children they taught way back in the past. A friends son is one that gave evidence in court against one teacher to something that happened 30 years previously and it was the first time he had admitted anything had happened to him. I've not followed the ins and outs of all these cases but I do know it is not unusual for a person to just not 'face' what happened at the time.

Only time will tell, I don't sit here thinking any of the accused are guilty, it was after all, Bill Roache who spoke out not so long ago about celebrities being named before it had been decided if there was a case to answer, he's innocent until proven guilty.

I totally disagree.

You speak as though we have been living In the dark ages and victims have only just been given the confidence to come forward because of the Savile case. That Is not true.

Policing has come a long way over the past 25 years with specialised rape and counselling units within each force.

' Get their comeuppance' Is revenge talk and at this time after nearly 50 years they are also destroying the lives of their wives, children and grandchildren In the process.

It stinks.

oscar;1425813 wrote: I totally disagree.

You speak as though we have been living In the dark ages and victims have only just been given the confidence to come forward because of the Savile case. That Is not true.

Policing has come a long way over the past 25 years with specialised rape and counselling units within each force.

' Get their comeuppance' Is revenge talk and at this time after nearly 50 years they are also destroying the lives of their wives, children and grandchildren In the process.

It stinks.


You choose to omit my 'if guilty' and you also forget I agree with Bill that people should remain anonymous until charges are actually brought forward.

In australia "there is no time limit within which to report these crimes. In Australia, criminal offences are prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and there is a legal maxim "nullum tempus occurrit regi" (time does not run against the Crown). So, the Crown (usually represented by a State) can initiate a criminal prosecution against anyone for such crimes at any time they like."

for major CRIMES like rape and indecent assault, there is NO statute of limitations period. Therefore the police will always be interested in a major crime report no matter how long ago it happened (within practical limits obviously).

The relevant statute of limitations does apply to civil claims, i.e. personal injury suits or actions per quod, and there are special rules when the action is against a parent or guardian upon the injury or death of a minor. E.g. in NSW, this is found in s50E of the Limitations Act 1969:

(1) If a cause of action is founded on the death of or injury to a person ( "the victim") who was a minor at the time of the act or omission alleged to have resulted in that death or injury and the cause of action is against a person who at that time was a parent or guardian of the victim or a close associate of a parent or guardian of the victim:

(a) the cause of action is for the purposes of this Division discoverable by the victim when the victim turns 25 years of age or when the cause of action is actually discoverable by the victim, whichever is the later, and

(b) the 12 year long-stop limitation period for the cause of action is a period of 12 years running from when the victim turns 25 years of age.

Subsection 1 triggers the short-stop period of 3 years in s50C

Source(s):

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/c¦ "

Statute of limitations is only applicable in civil cases for instance when people are claiming damages. ....and could be one of the reasons that the Catholic church 'payed people to keep their mouths closed and victims signed a statment to never disclose the crimes. Unfortunetly for the Catholic church and other organisations their signed statments make no difference in the royal commision at the moment. HA HA HA HA HA!!!



I know a woman who reported her rapes and sexual assaults two days after her mother funeral. She reported only after her parents were both dead because she believed it would distress her parents too much in their final years . Yes she got an outcome from the case 50 years after the crime. Everyone is entitled to justice. Even when the limitations run out (which are only there for the criminal who is also entitled to a speedy account of justice.

Oh BTW the British police are here (australia) to investigate the Rolf Harris investigation further.

Stuart Hall has pleaded guilty.

BBC News - Broadcaster Stuart Hall admits indecent assaults

"We prosecuted Stuart Hall because the evidence of the victims clearly established a pattern of behaviour that was unlawful and for which no innocent explanation could be offered," he said.

"His victims did not know each other and almost two decades separated the first and last assaults but almost all of the victims, including one who was only nine at the time of the assault, provided strikingly similar accounts.


At the time of the offences it would have been the victims word against that of a celebrity. You still get people who think there was no child abuse in the past simply because it was a taboo subject.

One has pleaded guilty. The others are protesting their Innocence. You can not hang every one of them because one has pleaded guilty.

I do believe that some of the cases are not about getting justice.

Ask yourself this... would an abuse victim come forward after 46 years If there abuser was a nobody unknown to the public with no money?

My feelings on this are that the ultimate way to resolve painful experiences from the past is to accept the pain within oneself and then to let it go. I suppose if part of the process is to publicly expose the perpetrators, then fair enough...so long as no one believes that this alone will put an end to the pain.

I do think that both the accuser and the accused should be allowed to remain anonymous.

Well I heard last week that a well known comedian In his 70's was about to be arrested....

Jimmy Tarbuck arrested in child sex abuse inquiry | UK news | guardian.co.uk

oscar;1425880 wrote: One has pleaded guilty. The others are protesting their Innocence. You can not hang every one of them because one has pleaded guilty.

I do believe that some of the cases are not about getting justice.

Ask yourself this... would an abuse victim come forward after 46 years If there abuser was a nobody unknown to the public with no money?


You're inconsistent. In one thread you rant on about how the police ignored complaints from girls in bradford because Muslims are involved (and also quite frankly because the police viewed the girls as being the type that were asking for it) now you are complaining the victims are only coming forward because they are after the money. Basically so far as you are concerned anyone coming forward after a number of years is a chancer and not to be taken seriously. Presumably if they had complained at the time you would have been amongst those calling them liars and just after financial gain.

What about all those who were abused when they were in care are they also just doing it for the financial compensation. No wonder they didn't complain at the time even now people think they are lying what chance would they have had back then?

gmc;1426299 wrote: You're inconsistent. In one thread you rant on about how the police ignored complaints from girls in bradford because Muslims are involved (and also quite frankly because the police viewed the girls as being the type that were asking for it) now you are complaining the victims are only coming forward because they are after the money. Basically so far as you are concerned anyone coming forward after a number of years is a chancer and not to be taken seriously. Presumably if they had complained at the time you would have been amongst those calling them liars and just after financial gain.

What about all those who were abused when they were in care are they also just doing it for the financial compensation. No wonder they didn't complain at the time even now people think they are lying what chance would they have had back then?


There Is a world of difference between the Asian Grooming scandal and Operation yewtree.

What started with the Savile Inquiry, It was made very very public and on national news almost every night. Thus I stand by what I said. that some, may off the back of all that publicity see a way to earn some compo. Especially when some of the events took place 46 years ago.

The Muslim grooming scandal was not national news nor even local news. It wasn't even spoken about and unless you were Involved In nationalist movements, you would never have known why Nick Griffin and Mark Collett stood trial for ' Inciting Racial Hatred' of which both were found not guilty. They were arrested and charged because they were warning parents In the Rochdale area what was happening simply because they could not get news sources to report on It. Thus, unlike the Savile scandal which was national news Including that the BBC was to pay out compo to the victims, the girls In the Muslim grooming scandals had no bandwagon to jump on. Most cases where Muslims are now standing trial In contrast to the celebs we see facing charges now, are recent, within the last few years.

So, No, I am not being Inconsistent. there are major differences between Operation Yewtree and the Muslim Grooming.

I would like to think every single victim of rape and child sexual abuse gets compensated and the more compensation the merrier if some rich guy has used his money to stave off a conviction ............go for the throat I say !!!!

Now this is exactly why people don't come forward ................"Thus I stand by what I said. that some, may off the back of all that publicity see a way to earn some compo. Especially when some of the events took place 46 years ago."...................

which ones are you going to pick out to accuse Oscar? Are you going to go through all their statements? And who are you to have an opinion on what should happen to a sexually abused child as an adult?

fuzzywuzzy;1426359 wrote: I would like to think every single victim of rape and child sexual abuse gets compensated and the more compensation the merrier if some rich guy has used his money to stave off a conviction ............go for the throat I say !!!!

Now this is exactly why people don't come forward ................"Thus I stand by what I said. that some, may off the back of all that publicity see a way to earn some compo. Especially when some of the events took place 46 years ago."...................

which ones are you going to pick out to accuse Oscar? Are you going to go through all their statements? And who are you to have an opinion on what should happen to a sexually abused child as an adult?


The evidence will come out In the trials of the celebs pleading not guilty then thankfully a jury will decide their guilt or lack of guilt not you.

I like many women are more entitled to have an opinion as any one else. If my opinion doesn't agree with yours... tough.

Having an opinion and having an Insight Is entirely different.

When I was 14 years old, i worked In a local hotel evenings for extra pocket money. One early evening, the owner who was around 40 at the time asked me to go down to the bottom of the grounds because he thought there was an animal In the swimming pool. There wasn't. As soon as we were out of sight, he pounced on me. I managed to get away from him, ran home and never went back.

I never told anyone and not because I thought I wouldn't be believed. I knew my parents would not doubt me for a minute but although my Father was a very mild mannered man, I was In no doubt he'd kill him.

What made It worse was being a small town I had to bump into that revolting piece of s.hit every now and then. Only when he had sold up and moved away with his family did I tell my family.

Unlike some of these ' victims' who can only tell police ' oh I think It was between February and July of that year' 40 years on, I can tell you what date my attack happened, what he was wearing, what other staff were on, what he smelt lie and even what the weather was like. True victims of se abuse can do that as I can.

I harboured much anger for that man for some years but as I got older, It passed. I came to realise that a piece of crap like that was not going to have a hold over my life and I let It go.

Even now, I could go to the police and If he's still alive have him charged but frankly, my only motive would be revenge and It would achieve absolutely nothing.

oscar;1426364 wrote: The evidence will come out In the trials of the celebs pleading not guilty then thankfully a jury will decide their guilt or lack of guilt not you.

I like many women are more entitled to have an opinion as any one else. If my opinion doesn't agree with yours... tough.

Having an opinion and having an Insight Is entirely different.




Thank god it will be a jury making the decision, you have already labelled possible victims of abuse as gold diggers by starting this thread.

How can you attack someone else's opposing views just because you think you are justified. You can bet that most woman have had the threat of attack, fended off unwanted advances or have been placed in frightening positions by the actions of another human being, it doesn't make you the only authority on insight because it also happened to you.

If there has been abuse then what is so wrong about compensation, it won't take it away, it won't make anyone mentally 'better' and it certainly won't wipe out the original sin but it may make someones life more comfortable.

Betty Boop;1426371 wrote: Thank god it will be a jury making the decision, you have already labelled possible victims of abuse as gold diggers by starting this thread.

How can you attack someone else's opposing views just because you think you are justified. You can bet that most woman have had the threat of attack, fended off unwanted advances or have been placed in frightening positions by the actions of another human being, it doesn't make you the only authority on insight because it also happened to you.

If there has been abuse then what is so wrong about compensation, it won't take it away, it won't make anyone mentally 'better' and it certainly won't wipe out the original sin but it may make someones life more comfortable. I believe there Is a possibility that some are after compensation off the back of the Savile case.

What I refuse to believe unlike those who are so quick to judge Is that every celeb arrested Is guilty before they have even been heard In court.

It's like I said earlier... with those like Gary Glitter, then yes, It's fair to jump to conclusions because he has a history and has form. yet when you have people like Max Clifford, Rolph Harris and William Roache who have got to the age of 70 without a blemish, then rather condemn them all as guilty child abusers, I'll reserve judgement until a court of law hears ALL evidence and not just what the rabid public and tabloids want to hear.

oscar;1426373 wrote: I believe there Is a possibility that some are after compensation off the back of the Savile case.

What I refuse to believe unlike those who are so quick to judge Is that every celeb arrested Is guilty before they have even been heard In court.

It's like I said earlier... with those like Gary Glitter, then yes, It's fair to jump to conclusions because he has a history and has form. yet when you have people like Max Clifford, Rolph Harris and William Roache who have got to the age of 70 without a blemish, then rather condemn them all as guilty child abusers, I'll reserve judgement until a court of law hears ALL evidence and not just what the rabid public and tabloids want to hear.


Is that really fair? An attitude of 'well, he must be guilty then'.

I don't think the same generlisation should apply because someone is un-blemished and a doting family member.

I've always been careful to state IF any of those recently accused is found to be guilty they must be punished, I don't make assumptions they must or must not be guilty.

oscar;1426364 wrote: The evidence will come out In the trials of the celebs pleading not guilty then thankfully a jury will decide their guilt or lack of guilt not you.

I like many women are more entitled to have an opinion as any one else. If my opinion doesn't agree with yours... tough.

Having an opinion and having an Insight Is entirely different.

When I was 14 years old, i worked In a local hotel evenings for extra pocket money. One early evening, the owner who was around 40 at the time asked me to go down to the bottom of the grounds because he thought there was an animal In the swimming pool. There wasn't. As soon as we were out of sight, he pounced on me. I managed to get away from him, ran home and never went back.

I never told anyone and not because I thought I wouldn't be believed. I knew my parents would not doubt me for a minute but although my Father was a very mild mannered man, I was In no doubt he'd kill him.

What made It worse was being a small town I had to bump into that revolting piece of s.hit every now and then. Only when he had sold up and moved away with his family did I tell my family.

Unlike some of these ' victims' who can only tell police ' oh I think It was between February and July of that year' 40 years on, I can tell you what date my attack happened, what he was wearing, what other staff were on, what he smelt lie and even what the weather was like. True victims of se abuse can do that as I can.

I harboured much anger for that man for some years but as I got older, It passed. I came to realise that a piece of crap like that was not going to have a hold over my life and I let It go.

Even now, I could go to the police and If he's still alive have him charged but frankly, my only motive would be revenge and It would achieve absolutely nothing.


Now listen here woman!!! I have been through this **** ...and there were people inclined like you to think that maybe i was after compo .....or some kind of vengence ...Some thought I was trying to protect others and some again thought i was just making the whole thing up for ...wait for it!!!! Cover my own sins....nobody wants to be called a liar in court reliving and telling all over again the horrors of anothers actions just so they can recieve compensation . NO one would go through that kind of hell just for a bit of money !!! And for your info even though he was eventually found not guilty (through 'charges not proven' because of the time lapse ) doesn't mean anyone would want to see what I saw and experienced in the courts on this very kind of case.

If you feel you don't have the gumption to do what I and others have done and it sits well with you then fine.

But never ever in my presence say that I or any other woman or man is doing something like bringing charges against someone just for money . Most are asked to come forward to corroberate and supply police with evidence to legitimise a case.

Oh and btw the 'state' compensated myself and others involved. And you know what it effing feels like to take that money? ......like you whored yourself a second time but this time for the good of the community.....it's dirty effing filthy money!!!! by the time it comes to you . And you end up hating everything it represents .

And for your info just because someone cannot name an effing date but can describe an area or room to a tee or what they were wearing because it means it's either winter or summer doesn't diminish the fact that they were there and something happened to them.

Does my perp have a hold over my life ? No he does not . But people with attitudes like you do and right now reading your garbage makes me wonder how I would react toward you if I was standing in the same room . Others have and have discovered my wrath on this very topic directed toward them. You sicken me with your stupid and selfish sense of rightiousness. You wouldn't know **** !!!

Then of course there is the question why did you agree to go down to the bottom of the grounds weren't you leading him on? (Let's me show you the animal in the woods!!, come off it oscar) Were you wearing a mini skirt what did you do to make him think you would be willing? Course if you were from a council housing estate you were probably well aware of what his intentions were. Your parents might have believed you but you can just bet some would have just dismissed the accusation out of hand and you as a little slut that was asking for it. Wonder how many girls that hotel owner successfully attacked?

Where do you get the notion this is an easy way to make money? They wont get anything from the criminal compensation board and they can only sue if they are actually found guilty then it's a long process. Stuart Hall has already transferred all his assets into hos wife's name to protect them. If you said attention seeking (maybe to sell their stories) you might have a point but none if the victims have been named.

fuzzywuzzy;1426384 wrote: Now listen here woman!!! I have been through this **** ...and there were people inclined like you to think that maybe i was after compo .....or some kind of vengence ...Some thought I was trying to protect others and some again thought i was just making the whole thing up for ...wait for it!!!! Cover my own sins....nobody wants to be called a liar in court reliving and telling all over again the horrors of anothers actions just so they can recieve compensation . NO one would go through that kind of hell just for a bit of money !!! And for your info even though he was eventually found not guilty (through 'charges not proven' because of the time lapse ) doesn't mean anyone would want to see what I saw and experienced in the courts on this very kind of case.

If you feel you don't have the gumption to do what I and others have done and it sits well with you then fine.

But never ever in my presence say that I or any other woman or man is doing something like bringing charges against someone just for money . Most are asked to come forward to corroberate and supply police with evidence to legitimise a case.

Oh and btw the 'state' compensated myself and others involved. And you know what it effing feels like to take that money? ......like you whored yourself a second time but this time for the good of the community.....it's dirty effing filthy money!!!! by the time it comes to you . And you end up hating everything it represents .

And for your info just because someone cannot name an effing date but can describe an area or room to a tee or what they were wearing because it means it's either winter or summer doesn't diminish the fact that they were there and something happened to them.

Does my perp have a hold over my life ? No he does not . But people with attitudes like you do and right now reading your garbage makes me wonder how I would react toward you if I was standing in the same room . Others have and have discovered my wrath on this very topic directed toward them. You sicken me with your stupid and selfish sense of rightiousness. You wouldn't know **** !!!


It wasn't a case of having the gumption to report him. It was weighing up the options and possible future scenario's and asking ' Is he worth the grief' ? For me, No, he wasn't worth the grief. I chose Instead to let It go along with any anger I had because even at that young age, I knew unless I let the anger go, I'd be middle aged like you screaming and ranting and raving on a forum one day because I saw things differently to the way some other women may appear to see them.

As you said to me In your post prior, being the result of a sexual assault no more makes you an expert than anyone else. It can give you an Insight but then, not all women are the same and deal with that ' shi.t happens ' differently.

As for reading my garbage, you are ranting dear. You say your perb doesn't have a hold over you but your ranting tells a very different story and If you felt ' whored up ' getting compo, It's quite simple... you didn't have to take It.

It's actually women like you who hinder Investigations such as the Savile case. Any good defence lawyer would look at your post so full of hatred and revenge and put It to a court that the victim was seeking revenge Instead of Justice.

However, what is fact Is that as the Savile Inquiry was drawing to a close the police had victim figures that suddenly rose over night when the BBC announced on national TV that they were paying compo. there are now over 1,300 victims, and you are In no position to say weather every single one of them Is genuine. It's people like you who sicken me who It appears wants every man and his dog accused to be guilty before hearing any evidence. You were not present during their Interviews, you haven't seen statements but your ego based on your own experience, you believe. makes you an authority on the subject.

Only time and Jury's will tell If everyone accused is guilty or not but thank god we have a justice system of Innocent until proven guilty. You remind me of those shrieking harridens screaming for blood at 18th century public executions.

eta... Sorry but how can the State compensate you If he was found not guilty? Even If he was found guilty toward others, you surely would not be Included In that If your case was not proven. that's the way the justice system works here.

gmc;1426397 wrote: Then of course there is the question why did you agree to go down to the bottom of the grounds weren't you leading him on? (Let's me show you the animal in the woods!!, come off it oscar) Were you wearing a mini skirt what did you do to make him think you would be willing? Course if you were from a council housing estate you were probably well aware of what his intentions were. Your parents might have believed you but you can just bet some would have just dismissed the accusation out of hand and you as a little slut that was asking for it. Wonder how many girls that hotel owner successfully attacked?

Where do you get the notion this is an easy way to make money? They wont get anything from the criminal compensation board and they can only sue if they are actually found guilty then it's a long process. Stuart Hall has already transferred all his assets into hos wife's name to protect them. If you said attention seeking (maybe to sell their stories) you might have a point but none if the victims have been named.


No... no mini skirt... I worked In the kitchen so I was wearing those chequered chef's trousers and a white shirt. He no doubt knew that It was the one thing that would get me to go to the bottom end because we had wildlife fall In the swimming pool once before. I'd been working there for a while and thought I knew him well enough and trusted him.

That was obviously something that occured to me... had he done It before and would he do It again but In hindsight, as a young kid, I wasn't responsible for safe guarding the entire town. I know that sounds selfish but then no-one warned me what he was like did they? Some women may have done things differently but for me It was about MY life not his and my self preservation. I am sure I am a better person for letting It go as ' s,hit happens' than to hang on to it hating the world.

As It happens, I believe those genuine victims should get his money. All I am saying Is that with over 1,300 claims, a few may have jumped on the band wagon. Unfortunately I think many of the cases bearing In mind they will all be heard seperately, will not be proven. They do not pay compo then.

eta.... besides... you didn't know my Father ! Mini Skirt ? I wish !

WOW!!!! just WOW!!! my mother always told me it's not he men of the world that will hate you it will be the older women . Now I know what she meant.

As for reading my garbage, you are ranting dear. You say your perb doesn't have a hold over you but your ranting tells a very different story and If you felt ' whored up ' getting compo, It's quite simple... you didn't have to take It.

It's actually women like you who hinder Investigations such as the Savile case. Any good defence lawyer would look at your post so full of hatred and revenge and put It to a court that the victim was seeking revenge Instead of Justice.




You're a horrible human being oscar..... and I don't pray for you ..I honestly have despair for you . So basically you think that a victim that has resentment, has anger, she should not proceed? that usually is the ultimate of why that victim proceeds. because sometimes she knows it won't stop at her ..and when she finds out later it didn't ...my god you are the defence teams dream..... I love to hear from people like you .

Age of consent should be lowered to 13 to stop persecution of old men and sex assault victims SHOULDN'T get anonymity, says leading barrister | Mail Online

Very Interesting article this morning from a leading barrister. I agree with some of her points but lowering the age of consent I don't believe Is the answer. I feel the Savile case has woken the UK up In regard that this country has not had a system In place where young people feel they can report abuse as It happens.

If we are going to continue with this witch hunt of some celebs then how about the tabloids print what they are charged with exactly ?

The case against Dave Lee Travis I read elsewhere at the time of his arrest Is apparently grabbing a girls boob once 30 years ago. Yet, as this Barrister says, the public Is treating him on the same level as the Ealing Vicarage rapists.

I do believe that In cases where a child has been raped or seriously sexually assaulted with force against her will, then charges should be brought however long ago they occurred but to ruin a mans life for grabbing someone's boob 30 years ago shows a vindictive side to this whole affair that I believe has gone way too far.

and then you flick..........as we call it here. that's the ultimate coward......thats the english for ya

fuzzywuzzy;1426486 wrote: WOW!!!! just WOW!!! my mother always told me it's not he men of the world that will hate you it will be the older women . Now I know what she meant.



You're a horrible human being oscar..... and I don't pray for you ..I honestly have despair for you . So basically you think that a victim that has resentment, has anger, she should not proceed? that usually is the ultimate of why that victim proceeds. because sometimes she knows it won't stop at her ..and when she finds out later it didn't ...my god you are the defence teams dream..... I love to hear from people like you .


As always with you, It comes back to personal Insults when the world doesn't lap up every Incoherant, rambling diatribe you write so let's address that shall we?

First of all, this forum Is full of older women but let's not gild the lily here Fuzzy, you are no spring chicken yourself. you are a middle aged woman.

I have made many mistakes In my life but If It turns out I am wrong on this, then I will admit It and say so here.

You were once married to a traffic cop and from that you believed you were the expert on the law and every trial that was posted. Now, you are the expert on child abuse. You are no more an expert than anyone else. Half of the celebs arrested following the Savile Inquiry, you wouldn't know from Adam yet here you are screaming and shouting about their guilt. If you think anyone hates you because they happen to have a different opinion to you, then you are giving yourself way too much credit.

Noone needs to hate you, it appears quite obvious from your threads and posts that you do that yourself and you turn your anger Instead on subjects like this because you think you are the expert without knowing all the facts.

Your threads are full of hatred. You seem to lurch from one crisis to another spewing bile and hatred against your nephew, your ex husband, your neighbours, whatever.

You are middle aged with grown children yet recently you are posting that you are about to be thrown out In the street. So please excuse me If I don't think the example of your life Is an Indication of someone who knows what they are talking about. Yet you think wrongly In my case, that if you scream and shout, make vieled threats of what you'd do If you were face to face with me, throw Insults around all because we have different views, then i will back out of the arguement..... That's a forum bully. You scream and shriek like some demented parrot with tourette's while offering nothing In debate.

The Irony Is, that when you posted you were about to be evicted, my first thought was to offer to mail you some money. That thought was quickly replaced by ' what's the point, three months down the line, It'll be another crisis'. So no, there's no hate here, just a difference of opinion.

I have made many mistakes In my life and there are things I could have done better but making accusations that someone ' hates you ' because they happen to think you are talking gibberish and making a fool of yourself Is the ultimate get out when you have nothing to offer the subject in hand.

Besides all else, you are so busy squawking because you think If you shout the loudest, that will make your rambling more Intelligent than any other post here, that you can not even see what Is being actually said here.

You said In a prior post that no woman would put herself through all that to get a bit of compo. When I said that there are over 1,300 victims of Savile and there's a possibility a few may have jumped on the band wagon, then those few would be Inventing a sexual assault In the hope of getting a payout. If they have Indeed Invented a case, then they are not putting themselves through anything are they? Because It never happened In the first place.

Yet you are so busy being angry that you fail to grasp the logic of It.

My stance on this entire subject Is that If a child has been the victim of rape or a serious sexual assault with force, then the celeb should Indeed be prosecuted and pay compo to his victims. But so I think a 70 year old man should have his life ruined because he grabbed a teenagers boob once 30 years ago ? No, I don't. Do I think a few of the 1,300 victims of savile have jumped on the bandwagon for cash? Yes, possibly.... time will tell when all evidence Is heard In court. Until then, thank goodness public flogging by shrieking harridens has been abolished.

Just out of Interest here... how did you get awarded compo If your perb was found not guilty?

Not so veiled.

Now this THREAD is getting beyond ridiculous.



Carry on and it will be closed. Up to you.

Betty Boop;1426491 wrote: Now this THREAD is getting beyond ridiculous.



Carry on and it will be closed. Up to you. Right so I get personally attacked. Other members message me about threats made, vieled or not vieled on how you view them, and I can't respond? Oh I see.

Getting back to topic... this article does Indeed throw doubt on one of the victims of savile

Jimmy Savile scandal: Fake letter that cast doubt on victim's claims and played key role in BBC decision | Mail Online

oscar;1426492 wrote: Right so I get personally attacked. Other members message me about threats made, vieled or not vieled on how you view them, and I can't respond? Oh I see.


At this point I am not passing judgement on anyone.

I am requesting it stops now before it escalates to more nastiness.

The choice is down to a couple of you to leave it alone and get back to the topic, stop throwing about personal insults and pulling one another apart.

Which I note, you have done.

Sorry Betty, I'll behave.

Betty Boop;1426494 wrote: At this point I am not passing judgement on anyone.

I am requesting it stops now before it escalates to more nastiness.

The choice is down to a couple of you to leave it alone and get back to the topic, stop throwing about personal insults and pulling one another apart.

Which I note, you have done. I tried to get the thread back on topic with the link about the fake letter and now this post.

oscar;1426497 wrote: I tried to get the thread back on topic with the link about the fake letter and now this post.


Sometimes, you are such hard work, look at the timeline, I posted, in the meantime you posted back on topic, I went back and acknowledged that fact in my post.

Betty Boop;1426498 wrote: Sometimes, you are such hard work, look at the timeline, I posted, in the meantime you posted back on topic, I went back and acknowledged that fact in my post. No problem....

Dear Abby:

I'm no goody-two-shoes but I can honestly say I like everyone here on ForumGarden. Well, not always sure about halfway but only because I can't tell whether he is actually stating what he feels or is being sarcastic. Is something wrong with me?

Confused,

AB

AnneBoleyn;1426524 wrote: Dear Abby:

I'm no goody-two-shoes but I can honestly say I like everyone here on ForumGarden. Well, not always sure about halfway but only because I can't tell whether he is actually stating what he feels or is being sarcastic. Is something wrong with me?

Confused,

AB


Dear Confused:

Yes.

And on It trundles. Operation Yewtree.

First of all from this mornings news.... more on Jim Davidson

Now Jimmy Savile detectives probe claims that Jim Davidson assaulted woman in Falklands | Mail Online

The critics are saying:

Critics claim the inquiry has become a runaway train, with an ‘arrest first, gather evidence later’ policy ruining the lives of celebrities

I agree.... some arrested months ago have no charges as yet brought against them. Worse, as In the case of Max Clifford, no details of what he Is being charged with, If he Is ever charged, have been publicised yet the printing of his arrest only fuels the rabid who believe any arrest must mean they are violent child rapists on par with the Ealing Vicarage rapists.

Next this morning, 5 more are facing arrest.

Savile police widen their investigation into celebrities: Five more household names under scrutiny following flood of new complaints | Mail Online

Some of these allegations apparently go back 50 years.

Is It right or ' In the public Interest' to name these celebs without printing what has been alleged to whip the public up Into a baying mob and ruin careers without giving us the full facts until they have actually been convicted?

I can speak from experience. When I was arrested, no Investigation had taken place. It was say so that ultimately proved In court not to be the way the arresting officer believed It to be. That's why my Judge absolutely Insisted my ' victim' was not to recieve the compensation he sought adding ' Not one penny' .The assumption often Is that It's going to be a quick caution down the Nick and another notch on the targets for the officer. When the Officer doesn't get the quick caution, they then have to find a case which In my case, we and many others believed to be a bungled Investigation.

At last, some sense.

Britain's most senior police chief is backing controversial rules to ensure that all arrests, including those involving high-profile figures, are carried out in secret.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has insisted that new guidelines being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers are as draconian as possible.

It follows Lord Justice Leveson’s call in his report on the media for a blanket ban on naming suspects.

Under the new rules, police will be banned from confirming suspects’ names, even when journalists know their identity.

Without confirmation, the legal risks of incorrect identification will prevent the media publishing suspects’ names.



Read more: Britain's top police chief backs law to keep courts secret - even when journalists know the suspects | Mail Online

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

oscar;1426770 wrote: At last, some sense.

Britain's most senior police chief is backing controversial rules to ensure that all arrests, including those involving high-profile figures, are carried out in secret.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has insisted that new guidelines being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers are as draconian as possible.

It follows Lord Justice Leveson’s call in his report on the media for a blanket ban on naming suspects.

Under the new rules, police will be banned from confirming suspects’ names, even when journalists know their identity.

Without confirmation, the legal risks of incorrect identification will prevent the media publishing suspects’ names.



Read more: Britain's top police chief backs law to keep courts secret - even when journalists know the suspects | Mail Online

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Given that being arrested does not imply being charged, let alone being guilty but is reported in such a way as to be taken as such by the general public, I see this something that should have been done long ago.

Bryn Mawr;1426808 wrote: Given that being arrested does not imply being charged, let alone being guilty but is reported in such a way as to be taken as such by the general public, I see this something that should have been done long ago. Yes It should.

Sorry to bang on again but as an example of this.

After my arrest, I was arrested again a week later and accused of punching another lad In the stomach during the Incident. I always admitted I grabbed the ring leader by the collar and threw his bike In the road so this came as a total shock. I may be many things and I may be hot headed but punching a 14 year old ? Trust me, It never happened.

The very next morning I was front page news and the story that I had punched a 14 year old without any evidence being heard. The source came from the police and we knew who. We were told by the paper. It was a breach of Sub Judice law. I believe It was a deliberate attempt to discredit me because of gathering support and appeared to be of a vindictive nature... anyway.

I was also charged with a section 5 and criminal damage. The arresting officer offered us a deal. Plead guilty to the two assaults and we'll drop the criminal damage and section 5. As Lord Sugar said, Over my ******* dead body.

My lawyer did his own Investigation and a teacher at the school confirmed the 14 year old was being bullyed by the group and he was desperate to get In with this older crowd.

The whole Incident on the day lasted about 10 to 15 minutes and the police produced two Independant adult witness's who had witnessed the entire event from start to finish. They saw me arrive and they saw me drive away as did my defence witness's.

So during the trial, you have four Independant witness's who saw the entire thing testifying that It never happened.

Even worse, the youths who testified about me grabbing the ring leader and throwing his bike In the road also testified they had seen nothing of the sort.

When the 14 year old gave his evidence, he couldn't even name or describe other youths or details from the day.

I was found not guilty quite rightly but even to this day, there are people out there who believe what they read In the newspaper.

So Yes, the very nasty practice of police talking to press before a conviction Is sealed and all evidence Is heard In a court of law needs to be stopped.

The latest...

Rolf Harris abused me in my teens, says woman in Australia | Mail Online

Rolph Harris was arrested two whole months ago... as yet, no charges have been brought by Scotland Yard Police as Is the case with Max Clifford and Dave Lee Travis. We don't even have any Idea what this alleged sexual assault was. These days It can be pinching a girls bum.

Yet according to the article, friends of Rolph Harris say he has taken the accusation so badly that they are fear he will take his own life.

The man In his 70's and his life Is ruined because the tabloids have printed this before he Is even charged or any evidence heard In court let alone been convicted.

I would also Imagine his wife and family must also be suffering.

A disgusting media circus as Bill Roache arrives to plead without any evidence being heard.

Coronation Street actor Bill Roache arrives at court to face charge of raping 15-year-old girl | Mail Online

The latest and It now goes from ridiculous to absurd.

A 4 th Coronation street name aged 70 years has been accused of flashing a girl 50 years ago that he claims he has never met.

Coronation Street star Neville Buswell denies allegations he flashed underage girl | Mail Online

Taken from the article,



Was it, perhaps, the prospect of a fat pay day if he was convicted? The BBC muddied the waters when it announced that it would pay compensation to anyone assaulted by Savile or Hall on its premises.

As I wrote at the time: ‘How long before every woman with a signed photograph of either man, or a 40-year-old ticket stub from Top of The Pops or It’s A Knockout, slaps in a claim?

‘It’s not so much a matter of how they could ever prove it. How could you ever prove they were lying? Easier to write the cheque.’

This week, it was reported that the BBC had agreed to pay £33,000 each to 120 of Savile’s alleged victims, at a cost to licence-payers of £4‰million.

How many of the women who claimed to have been assaulted by Jim Davidson thought they might be in line for a nice little drink if they said it happened while he was presenting the Generation Game or Big Break?

We shall never know, but the implications for justice are disturbing. In the fevered atmosphere stirred up by Yewtree in the wake of the Savile affair, anyone in the public eye is fair game.

Dave Lee Travis (pictured) is awaiting trial and maintaining his innocence. Others such as Jimmy Tarbuck and Rolf Harris are in legal limbo, neither charged nor able to clear their names

Dave Lee Travis (pictured) is awaiting trial and maintaining his innocence. Others such as Jimmy Tarbuck and Rolf Harris are in legal limbo, neither charged nor able to clear their names

Stuart Hall admitted his guilt. Dave Lee Travis is awaiting trial and maintaining his innocence. Others such as Jimmy Tarbuck and Rolf Harris are in legal limbo, neither charged nor able to clear their names.



Read more: RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Jim Davidson and a deranged witch hunt that's turned British justice on its head | Mail Online

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Comedian Freddie Starr, 70, is suing the woman who claimed he molested her in a BBC dressing room when she was 14 | Mail Online

Never been a fan of his but well done Freddie.

Women like that jeopardise the true victims.