Marks last post sounded 10 days ago with his lack lustre reply to the Mail on Sunday report on his antics.
After the footballer Paul Gascoin news that he is up for a one charge of sexual assault this is the plumb pie that Mark always tweets about and normally if it's a sport person he has some kid of regret of tweeting also the 'out'rugby player who was assaulted this would be prime time Williams-Thomas.
Any ideas out there ?

Maybe Mark has taken a vow of silence. Or perhaps he's under investigation and all his digital devices have been confiscated. Probably too much to hope for.

Gazza's tweets are a bit garbled but it looks as if the accuser might have asked him for a selfie.

Paul Gascoigne breaks silence after he's charged with sexual assault

"Another, signed 'Gazza', said he was 'crying his eyes out', while a final post seemed to suggest he had let a woman kiss him on the cheek when she asked for a selfie and stuck up for her."

I met Paul in a charity shop in Westbourne where I live last year. He was with his lovely little dog and I was with my lovely parrot Prince. Paul came over and admired Prince and we had a great chat. In my opinion I believe Paul's protestations. Just another woman after publicity and attention and FILTHY LUCRE.

I couldn't quite get my head around the justification for tweeting Rolf Harris's name at such an early stage in the investigation and at a time when the newspapers weren't printing it. If I have read the response correctly, it seems that what is being said is that it was OK to have revealed Rolf's name at such an early stage because he was later found guilty.

Tweeting Rolf's name so early meant that any financially challenged, drink-sozzled, fantasising women who wanted to jump on the bandwagon had a lot more time to get their act together. Let's not forget his 'youngest victim', who he was found guilty of assaulting even though he'd never set foot in the community centre where it supposedly happened, with the conviction subsequently being overturned (something the tabloids like to forget, as he is still accused from time to time of 'assaulting girls [plural] as young as seven'). I wonder if she's had to pay back her £22,000 compo? I doubt it somehow.

I have never quite understood why he was able to reveal Rolf's name in the way he did, with impunity.

Yes Mark has somehow gotten away with a great deal; perhaps he had friends in high places. Though possibly some of those friends may now not be taking his calls. Which would cause anybody to fall silent.

Christopher wrote:
I met Paul in a charity shop in Westbourne where I live last year. He was with his lovely little dog and I was with my lovely parrot Prince. Paul came over and admired Prince and we had a great chat. In my opinion I believe Paul's protestations. Just another woman after publicity and attention and FILTHY LUCRE.

Sorry, I know I am missing the point, but are you saying you walk round with your parrot? Like a dog?
I am in awe.

Sheba Bear wrote:
I couldn't quite get my head around the justification for tweeting Rolf Harris's name at such an early stage in the investigation and at a time when the newspapers weren't printing it. If I have read the response correctly, it seems that what is being said is that it was OK to have revealed Rolf's name at such an early stage because he was later found guilty.

Tweeting Rolf's name so early meant that any financially challenged, drink-sozzled, fantasising women who wanted to jump on the bandwagon had a lot more time to get their act together. Let's not forget his 'youngest victim', who he was found guilty of assaulting even though he'd never set foot in the community centre where it supposedly happened, with the conviction subsequently being overturned (something the tabloids like to forget, as he is still accused from time to time of 'assaulting girls [plural] as young as seven'). I wonder if she's had to pay back her £22,000 compo? I doubt it somehow.

I have never quite understood why he was able to reveal Rolf's name in the way he did, with impunity.
I agree entirely and can't understand either how he got away with it and continues to do so. The tweet was never removed from Twitter, which the police could surely have done if they were concerned it could pull in false accusers. It doesn't look as if his original defence team did anything about it either. The fact that MWT was able to tweet police activity "currently" ("Breaking : Rolf Harris currently being interviewed under caution at police station as part of #Savile other #sexual offences" source) suggests that he had very close contact with Operation Yewtree, so the police could hardly have been unaware of it. It makes me wonder if he put out the tweet, with that wording, which looks as if it's dropping hints with those hash-tagged words, at someone's suggestion and/or with their blessing. It was retweeted hundreds of times (nearer 900 times when I first saw it), and must have generated chatter off Twitter too, so it seems entirely possible that accusers could have seen it and been prompted to come up with a Savile-style sexual offence allegation. It also went out first thing on the day the Leveson report was published, which of course said “I think that it should be made abundantly clear that save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances, the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press nor the public”.

Jo,

They were encouraging more victims to come forward - albeit a desperate attempt. Yes, they needed more fantasists so MWT could groom them into playing the crocodile tears routine. I think it isd time we aere all told if MWT was desperate to fit the so-called pedophile connection to Jill Dando. Somewhere along the way, he may have changed his course. That would have been when he came across Gerry Coulter.

Here is something else.....

Levi Bellfield was apparently caught for murder (not Milly Dowlers) during operation Weeting. Guess which Police force was at the center of it all?
Yep. MWT old haunt. Surrey police. Then the London Police were involved (I am guessing The Met).

Then there is...
MWT/ Underhill and Op Weeting/Milly Dowler/ Sarah Payne.
Underhill claims his phone was hacked whilst he was on Sarah Payne case. He was accused of inappropriate conduct with a female whilst on duty. The alleged woman was Sarah Paynes Mother.
Has somebody been deciding outcomes by dick dowsing?
Hmmm.
The Argus ran a story on it but was later told to retract the story. Underhill just walks out of his job at Sussex Police.
One has to feel slightly sorry for Dorset plod in a way.

I dread to think how many are in jail who probably shouldn't be there.

H, it sounds as if there's a certain amount of dirty laundry that needs to be aired.

Perhaps there's nothing to this, especially as it's not clear who's behind the Twitter account, but this might explain why MWT has been silent - busy fending off another article:
twitter.com/Anti__injustice/status/1065010868960849921?p=v

I wouldn't hold your breath for another article just yet. No I suspect silence means his fingers cannot type because they are crossed that a lot does not come out. MWT is toast; the only remaining possibility is legal action against him.

Shame, had thought there might be material for another article. Have just been reading some scurrilous gossip... Almost feeling sorry for him ... but not quite. Being metaphorical toast is perhaps a taste of what those burned at the stake through malicious allegations felt like.

Sheba Bear wrote:
I couldn't quite get my head around the justification for tweeting Rolf Harris's name at such an early stage in the investigation and at a time when the newspapers weren't printing it. If I have read the response correctly, it seems that what is being said is that it was OK to have revealed Rolf's name at such an early stage because he was later found guilty.

Tweeting Rolf's name so early meant that any financially challenged, drink-sozzled, fantasising women who wanted to jump on the bandwagon had a lot more time to get their act together. Let's not forget his 'youngest victim', who he was found guilty of assaulting even though he'd never set foot in the community centre where it supposedly happened, with the conviction subsequently being overturned (something the tabloids like to forget, as he is still accused from time to time of 'assaulting girls [plural] as young as seven'). I wonder if she's had to pay back her £22,000 compo? I doubt it somehow.

I have never quite understood why he was able to reveal Rolf's name in the way he did, with impunity.

I met Rolf maybe 15 years ago and he was lovely..and he's 'tactile' person..held my hand as we shook and then my elbow as he listened intently to what I was saying.

Why do I recall he's physical action? Because I'm not a tactile person and sightly prudish ( I know I know) so I remembered.

Rolf was just being Rolf listening to some geezer ramble on...a polite and nice man and all his pals say the same that he puts his arm around them & loves to hug (men and women)...I can imagine some ghastly dames (with a large electricity bill) who he did likewise in his really friendly approach decided "that was an assault !!!!..2o Grand than you very much !"

Have Surrey Police done a welfare check yet?

I sure do, everywhere I go, Prince Goes. He is well accepted everywhere and people that have got to know him over the years often come up to us in the street just to say 'Hi Prince'. He loves bus rides and always entertains people who cannot believe the beauty they are seeing, he shares himself and will sit on everyone's shoulder on a bus trip and people say it has made their day. No one forgets him. Someone came up to us the other day and remembered his name and said they had first met him in another town miles away. My late partner loved him more than life itself, as indeed I do. This is a recent photograph of us together with Prince and I wearing the same winter jumper.
www.facebook.com/100945967075947/photos/.../?type=3&theater


honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Christopher wrote:
I met Paul in a charity shop in Westbourne where I live last year. He was with his lovely little dog and I was with my lovely parrot Prince. Paul came over and admired Prince and we had a great chat. In my opinion I believe Paul's protestations. Just another woman after publicity and attention and FILTHY LUCRE.

Sorry, I know I am missing the point, but are you saying you walk round with your parrot? Like a dog?
I am in awe.

Just finished reading a book : The Most Dangerous Detective by Steve Bishop.
independentaustralia.net/australia/austr...erous-detective,8318

Superbly researched and all about a very bent (with numerous others) cop / detective in Queensland ( they used to call it The Deep North) during the 50 / 60 /70s.

Boy was it corrupt there but this one seems to have deliberately set up an innocent man to be hanged in South Australia before they abolished the death sentence and possibly murdered someone.

And then of course the really weird Lutheran New Zealander Sir Joh Belke Peterson came along as Premiere for 20 years in gerrymandered elections and refined bent cops so that even the Police Commissioner (a Pom eventually extricated from the UK to face trial) was on the take from brothels, bank robberies etc and if you arrived at the Premier's office with a brown paper bag of cash any ghastly development was approved...to the point the most beautiful beach in the world..Surfer's Paradise with it's glorious sea mist that comes in the afternoon .... the sun is sadly obliterated by mega story buildings that shade the beach from 4pm onward.

The point was...the author examined nearly 200 cases in the USA where dedicated lawyers got prisoners serving life declared innocent in re-trials after proving with the DNA evidence they couldn't possibly have committed the crime..

But in nearly every case...they plead guilty and signed confessions !!

How many more? How many executed or died in jail?

How many in Britain's jails?..especially after just watching Rillington PLace and poor Timothy Evans- executed

Intriguing. Queensland must have been a wild place.

Hedda 2 wrote:
The point was...the author examined nearly 200 cases in the USA where dedicated lawyers got prisoners serving life declared innocent in re-trials after proving with the DNA evidence they couldn't possibly have committed the crime..

But in nearly every case...they plead guilty and signed confessions !!
Makes you wonder what kind of techniques the police applied, or perhaps lawyers advised them to confess.