IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Freddie Starr to sue woman who claimed he groped her at age 14
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
hedda |
robbiex wrote:
Anon wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Indeed. Or a world where anyone can successfully have anybody they have ever been alone with prosecuted for molestation, and get away with it because there are no other witnesses.
I think it is fairly common to forget who you worked with thirty-five years ago, and underage girls had to be chaperoned at the BBC so it cant possibly have been commonplace.
Thank you honey!oh sugar sugar, for calling a spade a spade 
I tend to forget even what I did a fortnight ago and i'm sure i'm nowhere near as busy as Freddie Starr would have been back then and am not even half his age.
Ms Ward has also compromised her defense with many inaccuracies in her stories, some that just appear to be blatant and willful lies...
If you were on prime time tv in front of millions of people early on in your career when this was not common, then you wouldn't forget about it. Also Starr said that he hadn't been on the show, not that he couldn't remember been on the show.
Starr will never win this case because he can't prove that he didn't molest her after the show. He can prove that she wasn't 14, but the main argument is the molestation. Equally she can't prove that he did molest her so the whole case can be thrown out. If every accusation was reversed and turned into a libel case if there wasn't enough proof, then nowone would ever make a rape claim ever again, or report a mugging, or assault. Crime would be rife because people would be too scared of counter claims of libel.
Robbiex :
Freddie Starr does not have to "prove that he didn't molest her"..indeed in any court case you are not required to "prove innocence"..it is up to others to prove guilt.
But in a libel matter most especially..the accused ( Ward) must prove that Starr did what she claims...he isn't required to prove he didn't do it.
Otherwise anyone could make extraordinary claims about anyone...including Robbiex..they could say Robbiex did the foulest things to them and then claim it's up to Robbiex to prove he didn't.
And Starr's age is of no consequence ...the last libel case I was involved in acting as a conduit between her lawyers and an 82 year old lady accused of theft by her fellow Bridge club members...the judge ruled against the accused libeler's lawyer when he suggested that at her age the damage to reputation was minimal...the judge said..."no the opposite is true...at her great age with an unblemished record she is entitled to enjoy every day of her life defamation free no matter if the remaining of it is 30 years or 30 days"
that case was settled by agreement with the accusers apologising and by them writing to every person they had defamed her to and stating their claims were false.
She asked for no damages and was awarded none. But she got costs. Last time I heard the defendants had a bill of about 160,000 pounds.
## this is going to be treacherous waters for all involved...and no more so than a certain ex-copper. If it comes out he has coached or encouraged the accused libeler he could be in the frame for a lawsuit himself.
Starr is doing the right thing and inadvertently he may assist many others. I think people are forgetting the facts about the Lord McAlpine case : the media, the blogosphere, the Twitter Twats went haywire in the hysteria of the Savile claims and thought they could say anything
But I believe this will be settled confidentially with Ward apologising and retracting. |
|
andrew |
bh wrote:
Anon wrote:
robbiex wrote:
[b]If you were on prime time tv in front of millions of people early on in your career when this was not common, then you wouldn't forget about it. Also Starr said that he hadn't been on the show, not that he couldn't remember been on the show.
Starr will never win this case because he can't prove that he didn't molest her after the show. He can prove that she wasn't 14, but the main argument is the molestation. Equally she can't prove that he did molest her so the whole case can be thrown out. If every accusation was reversed and turned into a libel case if there wasn't enough proof, then nowone would ever make a rape claim ever again, or report a mugging, or assault. Crime would be rife because people would be too scared of counter claims of libel.
I for one do not believe a word of Karin Ward, i've read the passage of her book concerning her Clunk Click visits and I believe her Gary Glitter tale is utter bs too.
I hope it does go well for Freddie.
And too for robbiex, as Freddie was on TV all the time & countless shows, how was he expected to remember even being on a minor show, such as "Clunk Click" for a few minutes, 38 years earlier? Clunk Click was hardly a ratings spinner. I didn't even remember it at all, until the JS Tribute show in December 2011. An, on/off programme in a kids slot in 73/74 around 5.30pm. I doubt hardly anyone, remembers being a guest on it. Not exactly nailbiting stuff, was it?
Earliest memory of Freddie Starr I have is when he was on a Des O'Conner show ITV but my Dad had most of the live shows on VHS which most people know but I was not allowed to watch them. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
bh wrote:
Anon wrote:
robbiex wrote:
[b]If you were on prime time tv in front of millions of people early on in your career when this was not common, then you wouldn't forget about it. Also Starr said that he hadn't been on the show, not that he couldn't remember been on the show.
Starr will never win this case because he can't prove that he didn't molest her after the show. He can prove that she wasn't 14, but the main argument is the molestation. Equally she can't prove that he did molest her so the whole case can be thrown out. If every accusation was reversed and turned into a libel case if there wasn't enough proof, then nowone would ever make a rape claim ever again, or report a mugging, or assault. Crime would be rife because people would be too scared of counter claims of libel.
I for one do not believe a word of Karin Ward, i've read the passage of her book concerning her Clunk Click visits and I believe her Gary Glitter tale is utter bs too.
I hope it does go well for Freddie.
And too for robbiex, as Freddie was on TV all the time & countless shows, how was he expected to remember even being on a minor show, such as "Clunk Click" for a few minutes, 38 years earlier? Clunk Click was hardly a ratings spinner. I didn't even remember it at all, until the JS Tribute show in December 2011. An, on/off programme in a kids slot in 73/74 around 5.30pm. I doubt hardly anyone, remembers being a guest on it. Not exactly nailbiting stuff, was it?
Exactly. I think people imagine TV appearances are glamorous but for a busy performer it is just routine.
Nobody would expect a plumber to remember every house they worked in thirty-five years ago, would they? |
|
bh |
Anon wrote:
robbiex wrote:
[b]If you were on prime time tv in front of millions of people early on in your career when this was not common, then you wouldn't forget about it. Also Starr said that he hadn't been on the show, not that he couldn't remember been on the show.
Starr will never win this case because he can't prove that he didn't molest her after the show. He can prove that she wasn't 14, but the main argument is the molestation. Equally she can't prove that he did molest her so the whole case can be thrown out. If every accusation was reversed and turned into a libel case if there wasn't enough proof, then nowone would ever make a rape claim ever again, or report a mugging, or assault. Crime would be rife because people would be too scared of counter claims of libel.
I for one do not believe a word of Karin Ward, i've read the passage of her book concerning her Clunk Click visits and I believe her Gary Glitter tale is utter bs too.
I hope it does go well for Freddie.
And too for robbiex, as Freddie was on TV all the time & countless shows, how was he expected to remember even being on a minor show, such as "Clunk Click" for a few minutes, 38 years earlier? Clunk Click was hardly a ratings spinner. I didn't even remember it at all, until the JS Tribute show in December 2011. An, on/off programme in a kids slot in 73/74 around 5.30pm. I doubt hardly anyone, remembers being a guest on it. Not exactly nailbiting stuff, was it? |
|
Anon |
robbiex wrote:
[b]If you were on prime time tv in front of millions of people early on in your career when this was not common, then you wouldn't forget about it. Also Starr said that he hadn't been on the show, not that he couldn't remember been on the show.
Starr will never win this case because he can't prove that he didn't molest her after the show. He can prove that she wasn't 14, but the main argument is the molestation. Equally she can't prove that he did molest her so the whole case can be thrown out. If every accusation was reversed and turned into a libel case if there wasn't enough proof, then nowone would ever make a rape claim ever again, or report a mugging, or assault. Crime would be rife because people would be too scared of counter claims of libel.
I for one do not believe a word of Karin Ward, i've read the passage of her book concerning her Clunk Click visits and I believe her Gary Glitter tale is utter bs too.
I hope it does go well for Freddie. |
|
|
|
|
