Are the tables being turned , hope so
t.co/gYqhLhJ0Uz

This could be VERY interesting. Wonder whether I should sue the liars in my SECOND trial (at which I was acquitted on all charges)?

Hooray!
Surely if it is proven that this woman lied then people will start to question the whole Savile farce?

Sadly it will never be proved one way or the other and, in every other kind of law, one person's word against another's is NOT proof. Only in sex offences/criminal trials can it be considered evidence.

JK2006 wrote:
Sadly it will never be proved one way or the other and, in every other kind of law, one person's word against another's is NOT proof. Only in sex offences/criminal trials can it be considered evidence.
Speaking in general, it might be possible to prove that there was a conspiracy to defraud, maybe by online communication or letter? or if they found false documents.
Or maybe there is proof that the people involved could not have had contact with each other?

Freddie Starr has already compromised his defence. He originally claimed that he had never been on the Jimmy Saville Clunk-click show, until clips emerged showing him on it. I could quite believe that Freddie Starr groped Karen Ward when she was 14, there were lots of groupies in the 70s, and little regard was paid to whether they were just above or just below the age of consent.

I don't know how else you could carry out a sex offence case other than believing one person's word against another. The incident is hardly going to be filmed or have other witnesses. Lawyers are trained to cross-examine witnesses and hopefully bring out the truth. Also surely there is a statute of limitations over groping.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where any criminal or thug could assault you physically or sexually and get away with it because there are no other witnesses.

good on him and I think he may have a lot of support and yes JK should have sued his liars as well.

After all these people are evil through and through.

Freddie Starr should have the NSPCC etc and that ludicrous MWT coming out in support...as false accusations damage everyone but I bet the gutless swines stay silent.

crikey I just saw who it was he was suing...could bring the whole house of cards tumbling down.

Good on you Freddie.

Though they can prove that she wasn't 14 in 1974. So, surely that must mean something? 16 in March 1974 & a visit to births, deaths & marriages.

Yes, very interesting, and promising too.

Defamation/libel/slander can be claimed by Freddie Starr

a) when loss in trade or profession is caused - yup

or b) when comments are made which would cause a reasonable person to think worse of him - yup

There are three defences available. Firstly, Karin Ward can attempt to prove the veracity of the statements. Note that the burden of proof lies on her to do this, and grin as the boot is now on the other foot

Secondly, there is the defence of fair comment ie criticism that a reasonable person might have made. This isn't really available because it applies to critiques of conduct in the public sphere.

Lastly, the alleged defamation may be protected by privilege. Comments made in parliament or under oath are protected. The latter doesn't apply to Karin Ward because her comments were made through the media, I believe. However, this might be an issue for JK having a crack at his false accusers because they may have made witness statements under oath. However, I'm not sure if this privilege then extends to subsequent reiteration in the media.

I think Freddie has a good case and I wish him every success.

Something else has come to mind here. Coincidently, Karin Ward was on that Panorama Savile slander...So, Freddie could also take the BBC to count. Shame she didn't do it on ITV!

JK2006 wrote:
Sadly it will never be proved one way or the other and, in every other kind of law, one person's word against another's is NOT proof. Only in sex offences/criminal trials can it be considered evidence.

I think you are wrong in that- Starr is suing for libel and the woman would have to prove it is true.

Her dodgy 'internet book' will be used to show she is a fantasist. Starr is doing a great service.

Imagine what will come out : the fact that the complainants- especially the Exposure mob- had been liasing for years. Conspiracy ?

and that is why one of them has gone to ground and is terrified as Anna Raccoon says.

Hopefully it will bring the Duncroft mob to count & Gary Glitter could also sue. Now what a turn up for the Press, that really would be!

How can you prove that Karen Ward's allegations have caused damage to his career. When was the last time that you saw Freddie Starr working on tv before Operation Yewtree? This has probably gained him more work than ever, appearing on This tv shows defending himself. His career has been in decline for about 20 years, mainly because his style of comedy is out of fashion.

What does he need to work for anyway, he's a multi-millionnaire and 70 years old.

Go Freddie!

She's not got a leg to stand on!

Finally, good for him!

robbiex wrote:
Freddie Starr has already compromised his defence. He originally claimed that he had never been on the Jimmy Saville Clunk-click show, until clips emerged showing him on it. I could quite believe that Freddie Starr groped Karen Ward when she was 14, there were lots of groupies in the 70s, and little regard was paid to whether they were just above or just below the age of consent.

I don't know how else you could carry out a sex offence case other than believing one person's word against another. The incident is hardly going to be filmed or have other witnesses. Lawyers are trained to cross-examine witnesses and hopefully bring out the truth. Also surely there is a statute of limitations over groping.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where any criminal or thug could assault you physically or sexually and get away with it because there are no other witnesses.

Whatever happened on that show (and frankly I think Freddie Starr was so good looking back then he was probably fighting them off with a stick and didn't have to go about taking liberties), Karin Ward was born on the 25/03/58, the show was aired on 27th April 1974 and probably filmed April 1974 - so she was NOT '14 years old' at the filming of that show, she would have be SIXTEEN - simple mathematics - what is her and the media's excuse for not getting this simple fact straight before they started peddling their tripe...?

robbiex wrote:
Freddie Starr has already compromised his defence. He originally claimed that he had never been on the Jimmy Saville Clunk-click show, until clips emerged showing him on it. I could quite believe that Freddie Starr groped Karen Ward when she was 14, there were lots of groupies in the 70s, and little regard was paid to whether they were just above or just below the age of consent.

I don't know how else you could carry out a sex offence case other than believing one person's word against another. The incident is hardly going to be filmed or have other witnesses. Lawyers are trained to cross-examine witnesses and hopefully bring out the truth. Also surely there is a statute of limitations over groping.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where any criminal or thug could assault you physically or sexually and get away with it because there are no other witnesses.

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.

robbiex wrote:
How can you prove that Karen Ward's allegations have caused damage to his career. When was the last time that you saw Freddie Starr working on tv before Operation Yewtree? This has probably gained him more work than ever, appearing on This tv shows defending himself. His career has been in decline for about 20 years, mainly because his style of comedy is out of fashion.

What does he need to work for anyway, he's a multi-millionnaire and 70 years old.
The amount in losses on stage in many a British theatre for Freddie is collosal. He was always touring until last November & pulled big audiences all over the country. Can't be compared to TV today.

bh wrote:
Hopefully it will bring the Duncroft mob to count & Gary Glitter could also sue. Now what a turn up for the Press, that really would be!

What could Gary Glitter sue for?. Defamation of character. I don't think that you could say anything about Gary Glitter that would make his reputation even worse than it is already. He's never going to work again, he's already been convicted twice (once for downloading images and once for sexual assault of a 10 year old in Vietnam).

robbiex wrote:
How can you prove that Karen Ward's allegations have caused damage to his career. When was the last time that you saw Freddie Starr working on tv before Operation Yewtree? This has probably gained him more work than ever, appearing on This tv shows defending himself. His career has been in decline for about 20 years, mainly because his style of comedy is out of fashion.

What does he need to work for anyway, he's a multi-millionnaire and 70 years old.

good grief of course he can sue for libel and he will win.
He would have been advised of that by a barrister.

you simply cannot make such serious false allegations and here is a clue : hedda sued the NoTW 30 years ago when they mistook the poor thing for someone else in respect of a project.

NoTW settled within a fortnight with substantial damages and a High Court apology and someone else mentioned in the same article received the same.

I've been involved in a number of libel cases (as a witness)..this matter will be settled before it reaches a conclusion in the courts but this is the strategy :

this woman won't have a penny to her name and will lose and probably made bankrupt. But it's all the others who will follow : Panorama, the Dail Snail..every other newspaper and media outlet that repeated the falsehood and they will be queuing to settle.

Has no-one taken note of how Lord McAlpine conducted his case ?..every Twitterer was pursued.

However and this is the very dangerous part...for the ex-Duncroft lot... the whole shebang could come tumbling down.

Remember they set the whole circus underway. Now individual people coming forth after the Duncroft lot and claiming Savile abused them are not in danger..one person;s word against another (who cannot answer back)

But there could be serious charges if it's found a group of woman got together (as they did on the internet) and conspired to make false claims.

Jimcannotfixthis has brilliantly exposed how this lot created a false scenario such as all claiming they had been abused in the wrong building.

## GG will not be able to sue for libel as it will be claimed he has no reputation to damage. But imagine this : if it's found that he has been falsely accused because of a conspiracy..arrest and so on...he may have the right to claim criminal compensation as a victim.

and that is why Freddie Starr is doing a great service to all the falsely accused.