Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Money for Nothing
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
I can see how in a "grooming" situation the aggressor would choose someone who is vulnerable, perhaps from a troubled background or involved with crime, and it is important that these people have the same right to justice as anyone else.
But how come when it is a celebrity groping people all over the place in public do they STILL appear to choose the vulnerable ones, when they couldn't possibly tell them from the rest of the crowd? |
|
Randall |
Sheba Bear wrote:
He denies 12 charges of perverting justice and one of fraud by falsely claiming £22,000 criminal injuries compensation.
As it was proven that Rolf Harris was never at the community centre (and therefore could not have attacked the woman), why wasn't she charged with fraud when the conviction was overturned? 
I believe criminal injuries compensation is awarded based on the balance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. This would account for some payouts to complainants where there was no conviction.
However in the case of Rolf Harris never being at the community centre, it now seems pretty well established - on the balance of probabilities - that he was never there and the incident didn't happen. Relentless feminist propaganda (unsupported by behavioural science literature) attempts to make us believe that failing to remember major details, getting others provably wrong and changing yet other details significantly is completely typical of victims of abuse. So that prooooooves they're telling the truth. It's a complete inversion, on ideological grounds, of the credibility of these witnesses.
If this lying witness were indeed to be prosecuted for fraudulently claiming compensation, I don't think claims of trauma interfering with memory would be enough to account for the incident apparently being completely fabricated. |
|
Stevie R |
Isn't this the same Leisha Brookes who was one of the leading knuckle draggers in the English Defence League? It's amazing how she's unable to pick up the phone or open the curtains, yet can confidently stride out on extreme right wing marches.
jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-35th-man.html |
|
Sheba Bear |
The Savile accuser appeared in court for not having a TV licence because she refused to pay money to the BBC. In this article the number of men who allegedly abused her has shot up to 35 and the time period has been reduced to two years. She doesn't state though whether she watches BBC programmes. My guess is that she does.
express.co.uk/news/uk/383143/Revenge-of-Jimmy-Savile-victim
There was a network of paedophiles at the BBC who abused me. I just can’t understand how so many of them could have been working under one roof.
Nor can I. |
|
Jo |
Sheba Bear wrote:
As it was proven that Rolf Harris was never at the community centre (and therefore could not have attacked the woman), why wasn't she charged with fraud when the conviction was overturned?
I'd like to know that too.
That's an interesting comment about the Savile accuser. Just incredible that she could have been taken seriously. She does seem rather similar to the Harris accuser, e.g. both supposedly autograph hunters and both complained the compo wasn't enough.
"Her five children were taken away from her and she was so volatile and vulnerable she was unable to hold down a job.
Leisha even spent time in prison in the mid 1990s after attacking the home of someone she became convinced had abused one of her own children."
Wonder what the real story is. |
|
|
|
