I don't like the sound of this; it reeks of false allegations to me but then I don't know all the details (sadly neither do the jury or judge, under current UK law).

Short clip of a police interview with Colin Gregg: www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2017-03-30/co...hile-finally-jailed/

Some articles on the case:
www.chroniclelive.co.uk/all-about/colin-gregg-trial

'We will believe you': Police urge sex abuse victims to come forward in wake of Colin Gregg case

"Now police have urged victims of sexual abuse to come forward, telling them - ‘you will be believed’. ...

“You will be treated with dignity and sensitivity by our dedicated and specially trained officers. We will ensure you are fully supported.”

Det Sgt Wilson urged people to contact independent agencies if they do not feel comfortable reporting abuse to the police."

Giving the green light to chancers everywhere that they can run their lies past someone other than the police or just go straight to them and play them for suckers. Must be a great feeling for those with criminal records and perhaps those without.

Interesting Jo; thanks for the link. What Gregg did not dare say in the clip (because he couldn't prove it) is that, in many cases, officers assist the claimants either intentionally or unintentionally by providing them, in the questions, with the answers they need to give. "Was he driving a Rolls Royce?". "Was it coloured blue?". These similarities are then used in court as evidence that the crimes took place although they have nothing to do with the actual crimes claimed. And then they go further (see Vile Pervert; The Musical). "Was he circumcised?".

www.VilePervert.com

I would have thought assistance would be more likely to be intentional if the police are trained in how to interview crime victims/suspects. If it was unintentional perhaps it would be more likely to appear on the record such as in recorded interviews or phone calls that the defence could (presumably?) access? If it's clear that a person has lied about their abuse story, yet their story shares crucial details of another person's story in the same case, surely the only conclusion could be that they either both copied the same story or colluded or were helped by a third party in contact with them both. If there is no same story available with the same details and they had no contact with each other, that leaves the third party.

You might think that Jo; I couldn't possibly comment. Police have gotten away with intentional assistance by claiming it never happened or, if you can prove it did, that it was unintentional. But even if clearly shown (as in my case when an officer swore on oath that she had never discussed compensation with a false accuser when he had earlier stated, on oath, without her knowledge, that she had) jurors just shrug their shoulders, say quite rightly that it doesn't prove they are lying about something else, and find innocent people guilty of crimes that never took place. As, essentially, they want to get home for dinner.

Incomprehsible that they would just dismiss that. Surely if someone is a proven liar, how can you believe their story about anything else beyond reasonable doubt (whatever that means, but I would assume that lying would cause some doubt)?

Regarding the Colin Gregg case, it seems to be in the Newcastle area and being dealt with by Northumbria Police. That isn't far from the location of the Medomsley boys' detention centre historic abuse allegations, investigated by Durham Constabulary, which appears to be separate from Northumbria police, that have apparently topped 1000. I wonder if there's any overlap of claims.

Talk about easy pickings.

I generally agree with the comments above.

The sentence seems very heavy for events which, as reported, aren't anywhere near the worse end of the scale.

And isn't it time Judges were struck off if they allow media coverage and such things as the wealth or fame of the defendant to influence their sentences? It really is getting beyond a joke.

The history of this prosecution also gives rise to concern.

If I recall correctly, he was previously tried and completely acquitted several years ago. This latest trial went through three (?) attempts, with the first two being stopped or abandoned because of legal problems. And now the trial where he was recently convicted raises all the usual problems we've gone over time and again here. Surely such fits and starts hint at 1) a misconceived prosecution that needed a lot of jiggery-pokery to pass due process muster and 2) a long-term effort to target the man and get something, anything, to stick on him.

decades ago I got caught up in my flatmate's case when she was arrested on Portobello Road for "interfering with police" after she was charged with pulling open a police van door after they slung in a French clown for busking (the little kids he was entertaining were in tears )

What a saga..it reached the Appeal Court as we all trooped into Knighstbridge and it was the first time I saw a clever barrister dimantle the police who were blatantly lying..as he led two officers after each other down a long path of questions were both admitted the police van door had always been opened.

Friend & French Clown found Not Guilty and she got 76 pounds for her trouble.

How much did the whole ridiculous sage cost?

Colin Gregg is applying to appeal against his conviction

www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-...astle-fight-13949485