Weve got Southwark Crown Court. Weve got Rosina Cottage. The Rolls Royce has been wheeled out. Wonder when the Octopus will turn up??

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:


I think it is incredibly rude to keep calling us sycophants, Robbie. Especially when I havent seen any evidence of it.
It is not about fame. It is about (very often) innocent people who are sent to jail without actual evidence of wrong doing.

Mr King's case is of special interest because the first disastrous trial was one of the first we became aware of.
Please shove kajagoogoo up your arse!

What would you accept as evidence in a case of historic sex abuse? There is never going to be forensic or video evidence so all they can go on is testimonies from the accusers. If the reports are very similar and represent a pattern of behaviour the the jury have to decide that the accused is guilty or not. I would never want anyone to go to prison who wasn't guilty, and in the case of jk certainly I wish him luck in his trial.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
robbiex wrote:

Thanks Robbiex for high lighting the BBC report. Details on this trial seem very scare indeed.

Yes I know that a lot of sychophants on here think that Johnathan King is as big as John Lennon or Elvis, but the reality is, that he is on the same level as an ex-member of Kajagoogoo. My personal belief is that these historic cases should be left in history, if you weren't that distressed about it to report it at the time, the fact that the media tell you should be ruined by these incidents shouldn't affect the situation. Lets move on and stop applying todays morals and opinions to how we lived in the past.

I think it is incredibly rude to keep calling us sycophants, Robbie. Especially when I havent seen any evidence of it.
It is not about fame. It is about (very often) innocent people who are sent to jail without actual evidence of wrong doing.

Mr King's case is of special interest because the first disastrous trial was one of the first we became aware of.
Please shove kajagoogoo up your arse!

Robbie has a long history of having to pull fading pop groups out of his arse,as he has a long history of making the occasional stupid post....nice one Honey

giles2008 wrote:
Weve got Southwark Crown Court. Weve got Rosina Cottage. The Rolls Royce has been wheeled out. Wonder when the Octopus will turn up??

Rosina nailed Max Clifford

robbiex wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:


I think it is incredibly rude to keep calling us sycophants, Robbie. Especially when I havent seen any evidence of it.
It is not about fame. It is about (very often) innocent people who are sent to jail without actual evidence of wrong doing.

Mr King's case is of special interest because the first disastrous trial was one of the first we became aware of.
Please shove kajagoogoo up your arse!

What would you accept as evidence in a case of historic sex abuse? There is never going to be forensic or video evidence so all they can go on is testimonies from the accusers. If the reports are very similar and represent a pattern of behaviour the the jury have to decide that the accused is guilty or not. I would never want anyone to go to prison who wasn't guilty, and in the case of jk certainly I wish him luck in his trial.

"accept as evidence" - In line with "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond all reasonable doubt" standard which I think maybe in the human rights legislation. Will need to re look to be absolutely certain and in any case it is the standard set in the UK, and the prosecutor is not suppose to proceed unless they have "reliable" evidence NOT just credible sounding evidence only which means almost all historic sex abuse trials are a "non started" and to proceed means the trial is contrary to the law. Have explained previously in this post that there are a very circumstances recorded at the time evidence is available simply because the the alleged historic abuse was reported at the time and recorded and agreed upon at the time.
Perhaps if you Robbiex were to think of the current emergency calls for a fire. The fireman knows the call was real when they get to the reported site and there is a fire (even an historical fire report will have evidence that a happened or it did not) . So the call is not a lie. It does not explain who started the fire may of been the caller. With historic sexual abuse in most cases (this can be a report after a few days even) there is no evidence and no way to know if a crime ever took place that is the individual reporting may well be lying. That is no crime at all. In fact clearly in the false claim the claimant is the criminal. To have a trial and to encourage all to report and pay them to do so is lunacy and borders on a criminal approach in itself. Totally irresponsible. And yes there are people and has always been the case getting away with the crime. Now we have claimants, defense council, prosecution, police, judges even MP's all contributing, or not at least questioning, perverting the course of justice.

Evidence that is reliable and can be assessed by an objective group as such. Not stories like this current trial where the prosecutor quotes something about Samantha Fox who is actually pictured in JK's book which as presented puts a question mark to the reliability of the witness (Not saying they are right or wrong but such evidence also points to the likelihood of the witness researching information for a claim,) so what would be better is a recorded exchange from the time of the person not giving consent etc. (recorders did exist then) N/A then reliable does not exist so then no basis.

"so all they can go on is testimonies from the accusers. If the reports are very similar and represent a pattern of behaviour the the jury have to decide that the accused is guilty or not. "
Unfortunately a jury unknown to themselves are often put into a position they should never be put in. They are suppose to be given reliable evidence not a collection of stories. The prosecution in these cases even has the opportunity to select a sub set of the most similar sounding stories. How is that fair. Simple answer is that a trial should never take place unless there is reliable evidence and that is what normal citizens expect to happen and even assume that is the case else why would a trial take place?

Silent Minority wrote:
giles2008 wrote:
Weve got Southwark Crown Court. Weve got Rosina Cottage. The Rolls Royce has been wheeled out. Wonder when the Octopus will turn up??

Rosina nailed Max Clifford
Yes, but more to the point she hoodwinked the jury. The police never researched the claimant stories for reliability. Yes she did a great job in creating pictures and of interest the jury agreed with the more convincingly told story which were no more reliable than the less credible sounding stories. Yes, Max got beaten at his own game but it still does not make for an honest justice system. At the time I couldn't understand the lack of investigation. But have since learned they were on the policy of "believe the claimant" no investigation needed. Now finally there is a small start in questioning the reliability of this illegal approach.

It seems that, in many cases, the prosecution only need to consider one question - "Can we get away with it?"
As Alison Saunders used to repeat like a crooked spell, "Is there a realistic prospect of conviction", as opposed to "Is it the right thing to do?"

The direction given in Woolmington v DPP should still apply ...

"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to... the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."

unfortunately, although English Law is well written, it is so often badly applied, on the most flimsy excuses.

andrew wrote:
That's my point Honey.

King should of stuck with dating Sandie Shaw. (despite being both terrible singers)



"King"???

robbiex wrote:


If the story about Sam Fox is obtained from more than one of the accusers and they could prove that they were completely independent and had never met or communicated with each other then that is quite damning,


Someone could have been inspired to mention the Sam Fox stuff merely by perusing JK's autobiography. Or read a few stories online. The courts these days seem not to have quite worked out what impact that weird thing 'The Internet' has actually had.

Jack wrote:
andrew wrote:
That's my point Honey.

King should of stuck with dating Sandie Shaw. (despite being both terrible singers)



"King"???

I think Andrew meant to say "Mr King". He has dyslexia and sometimes misses words out. You dont notice after a while.

Jack wrote:
robbiex wrote:


If the story about Sam Fox is obtained from more than one of the accusers and they could prove that they were completely independent and had never met or communicated with each other then that is quite damning,


Someone could have been inspired to mention the Sam Fox stuff merely by perusing JK's autobiography. Or read a few stories online. The courts these days seem not to have quite worked out what impact that weird thing 'The Internet' has actually had.

It sounds like an almost exact copy of the first trial, unfortunately.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5866801...ed-14-year-old-Clari

It seems strange to me that somebody could be raped on two seperate occasions. The boy in this story says he was raped, but then went back to King's house. If you were raped by someone, they I would have thought you wouldn't go back for more. If you have sex with someone and then regret it, that isn't rape, or if you have sex with someone because you feel that you ought to, that isn't rape either.