Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Freddie Starr and false allegations
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
hedda wrote:
We have the claims about the late Sir James Savile OBE.
Reportedly over 1000 were made and the police accepted around 120 to make the claim that Jimmy "groomed a nation"
Does that mean around 80% of the claims were fabricated, obviously false or unprovable?
But then not one has been investigated so it may indicate that the rejected 900 claims were just simply too bizarre :" Savile raped me when I was dead in my coffin and in an Alien space ship"
somehow I know that this whole charabanc is going to fall apart. When though?
I cant wait for someone to claim that they were raped by somebody famous in a space-ship to see if they are believed or not. 
On the other hand, the tale of Jimmy Savile attacking someone in a Satanic ritual while wearing a mask wasn't that far off! |
|
hedda |
We have the claims about the late Sir James Savile OBE.
Reportedly over 1000 were made and the police accepted around 120 to make the claim that Jimmy "groomed a nation"
Does that mean around 80% of the claims were fabricated, obviously false or unprovable?
But then not one has been investigated so it may indicate that the rejected 900 claims were just simply too bizarre :" Savile raped me when I was dead in my coffin and in an Alien space ship"
somehow I know that this whole charabanc is going to fall apart. When though? |
|
Pru |
If there's one simple thing that all journalists who think of themselves as fair and decent can do it's to pick up on that 'you will be believed' remark. All the police should do is say 'You will be listened to'. It's hardly complicated! That's one of the things that's so maddening about the coverage - they can't even highlight this very basic mistake. |
|
JK2006 |
In days gone by, the hundreds of "released without charge" - let alone the "police failed to follow through" - victims would hide their heads. The horror of simply being accused was so awful; put it all behind me, was the feeling.
A personal example - Matthew Kelly, who was falsely accused (by co-incidence, just as my appeal was due to be heard; no proof so cannot make any accusations) and not charged of crimes that never took place.
But these days it has become so ludicrous, and people like Freddie won't accept a simple apology (he's suing his false accuser in civil court) that it cannot be too long (Rolf?) before a defendant insists on subpoena-ing Chief Constables and CPS officials to outline the most recent absurd examples of false allegations made to police (and Editors for similar media stories).
Sounds ridiculous - police and CPS being key defence witnesses - but if a defendant claims that the current climate ("You will be believed") encouraged his accusers, he or she has every right to present evidence of that climate.
A recent judge said in his summing up "pay no attention to recent acquittals" when the defendant had said a crucial part of his defence was that the current climate encouraged false allegations. I would have thought this was not a wise judicial remark but, then, I'm no legal expert.
If a judge wants to tell the jury to ignore a defendant's defence, I'm sure he's entitled to do so. After all, why bother with juries at all?
So ten key Chief Constables and ten top CPS officials get trooped into the dock to read out, say, ten recent examples each of ludicrous and abandoned claims.
"I was raped" followed by "the victim turned out to be asleep in bed at home and not in the park at all". That sort of thing.
Unless, of course, there ARE no such regular absurd cases. But these days (individual accountability), if there were, they would have to be recited. Why risk life and career by lying about such things as "they were NOT believed"?
And I'll bet many acquitted celebrities (like Starr, Tarbuck, Davidson - let alone Le Vell, Roache, Lancel, DLT…) would agree to testify with delight about the ludicrous allegations made against them.
It would, of course, extend the length of the trial, but such things don't appear to bother the public purse.
What else could they be spending our tax monies on? Quite enough goes to health, education, benefits - doesn't it? (Innocent face). |
|
|
|
