I have to say I think it is absolutely disgusting that the CPS has decided to spend my personal tax money on this case when I would prefer it to be spent sending nurses and doctors to Africa to save the lives of Ebola victims.

But for those who do not consider British judicial system broken, vindictive and wicked - here's a link to today's delightful "evidence".

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29076833

And, incidentally, a message to those pressing charges in the hope that they will get big stories in the tabloids in a few weeks time (nicely paid and bylined) - every day of this trial at Southwark Crown Court costs the lives of several innocent African women and children dying from the Ebola virus because there is no money to send drugs and doctors to save them.

"My tits were groped by Vile DJ" should earn you nicely whilst small kids are dying in agony. Be proud. Be very proud.

Here, the clear and simple question is - is he guilty of a crime?

Just like us all. If he is, he should be punished.

Groping these days is totally unacceptable.

His alleged crimes must be judged by out current legal system - what else?


But not by the 'wink-wink' standards of the 70/80's office culture.

Rubbish Ross; nobody should have actions of yesterday judged by the laws and morals of today. A huge and major problem with society today.

ROSS1938 wrote:
Here, the clear and simple question is - is he guilty of a crime?

Just like us all. If he is, he should be punished.

Groping these days is totally unacceptable.

His alleged crimes must be judged by out current legal system - what else?


But not by the 'wink-wink' standards of the 70/80's office culture.






Groping was always a crime,but it couldn't be verified at the last trial,and seems pointless to try again.

I don't get this crap about "better standards today" either - switch on the telly and watch umpteen crap reality showbizzy-bollocks shows featuring groping, fornication, drugs and worse - go amongst 'ver kids' now and you'll find the same.
The only difference is there is also a nonsensical and highly hypocritical brainwashing at play alongside this promiscuous hedonism - and a very real belief amongst the young ladies that they can have it all, and they can change their minds at any given later date if that suits too. So all the young men giving these girls what they want will all be at risk of going to jail for it at any point in their rather pointless lives.
It's perhaps just as well they have as much sex appeal as they do common sense.

Good point Chris - The Only Way Is The Old Bailey.

Solihull Exile wrote:
pointless to try again


Even if he's guilty?

Would you say that if he felt up your wife and/or daughter?

No.....

I think "The Only Way is Newgate" scans better...

If he'd done that he should have been prosecuted or at least punished then and there. Complaints should and would have been made. He could and would have defended himself or denied it or apologised or whatever. But years later? No, sorry.

No comment needed

In Britain, there is no Statute of Limitations for serious sexual crimes - and few are saying that there should be.

The only way to change this - is to campaign/lobby for the law to be changed. And then to vote appropriately.

But then JK, you have no interest or desire to vote on anything...

Indeed no Statute of Limitations - not for murder either, but nobody would stand trial for killing someone just because somebody said so, with not one other piece of evidence.

Murder is a totally different subject.

Sexual/indecent assault is often perpetrated in private - where one person commits an offence on/to another.

It's a coward's crime. A weak target - with no witnesses. His word against hers.

It is because of this 'out of sight' factor - that alleged victims must be heard.

To do otherwise would be very wrong and ignore the real claims of legitimate victims - by giving us a gropers' charter....

I would agree with you if everybody told the truth. But since we both know they don't the current situation can lead to incredible injustice.

I accept that - but, what's the alternative?

To let them walk, by refusing to prosecute?

I think not, although the current system is certainly less than perfect.

But, like democracy, its just the best option we have...

ROSS1938 wrote:
Here, the clear and simple question is - is he guilty of a crime?

Just like us all. If he is, he should be punished.

Groping these days is totally unacceptable.

His alleged crimes must be judged by out current legal system - what else?


But not by the 'wink-wink' standards of the 70/80's office culture.



then Rupert Murdoch, his editors , photographers, publishers, newsagents and the millions of readers who bought The Sun should also be judged up until 2003 for disseminating child pornography in the Page 3 (now) under aged photos.
That will be a lot of trials.

# I'm now pleased I was never a sort of tactile person..but I know some how are..who cuddle you on meeting and hug. Now can be accused of all manner of things.

Chris Retro wrote:
I don't get this crap about "better standards today" either - switch on the telly and watch umpteen crap reality showbizzy-bollocks shows featuring groping, fornication, drugs and worse - go amongst 'ver kids' now and you'll find the same.
The only difference is there is also a nonsensical and highly hypocritical brainwashing at play alongside this promiscuous hedonism - and a very real belief amongst the young ladies that they can have it all, and they can change their minds at any given later date if that suits too. So all the young men giving these girls what they want will all be at risk of going to jail for it at any point in their rather pointless lives.
It's perhaps just as well they have as much sex appeal as they do common sense.

indeed Mr Retro..recall the claims of "snuff movies" and whether they really existed or not.

Now can be viewed on the internet courtesy of ISIS.

ROSS1938 wrote:
I accept that - but, what's the alternative?

To let them walk, by refusing to prosecute?

I think not, although the current system is certainly less than perfect.

But, like democracy, its just the best option we have...




A conviction without evidence is just one word against the other.Comes down to who is the best actor/actress.Is that democratic?

hedda wrote:

then Rupert Murdoch

Hedda - why do you continue to be obsessed with this yesterday's old man?