Ghastly half hour on Breakfast TV promoting - oops allowing victims to be heard - their Harrods programme (which I haven't watched). All the women spoke about what a ghastly man he was (clearly correct - apart from anything else he hired Max Clifford). None spoke about actual sexual abuse or rape - the presenters had to read those claims out - the women could not bear to do it live to camera. The presenters explained that this was not to cause them "further distress". Oh yeah? The main point seemed to be to blame the current Harrods owners for Al Fayed's behaviour - I wonder why that was? You can be sure anybody still working there who worked when Al Fayed owned it will now be fired. Poor souls. But what's odd is that nobody, media or punters, seems to notice the odd aspects of this - as they did NOT over Jimmy Savile. I suspect lawyers, some of them quite bright, are well aware of this. Have groomed their clients in what to allege and what NOT to allege. Whilst talking sympathetically about closure and justice, their main concern is money. Compensation. But nobody notices. It's not a good story. I must watch the BBC show - the late Mr Al Fayed versus The False Allegations Industry.

Do you think the sex abuse claims were read out for legal reasons, so that the accusers didn't inadvertently say something to undermine the claims or contradict themselves?

Wasn't Harrods bought by Qatar? Plenty of oil money for compo claims.

Trebles all round !

I am going to have to move away from the consensus here on this one as more details come out.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8ejd9l00lo

The man had 25 PAs some aged 16. No one needs 25 PAs, let alone child ones. There are just too many witnesses (perhaps not to the alleged rapes but to the extensive operations that sustained it) all saying exactly the same things.

The requests for STI tests for female recruits is not in question and surely no one can have any serious doubt about his reasons for insisting on this. I have yet to read a claim from a male employee about having to undergo STI testing.


Yes I am sure some people - now he is dead - may chance their arm and/or exagerrate. But plenty complained when he was alive. I would remove the financial compensation if I ran the world as it distorts rather than rectifies (real) wrongs.

But Fayed - on any serious consideration of what is known - was a vile human being. And Harrods itself up to its neck in his shit.

Well it seems obvious Al Fayed was a ghastly man who used his position, like Harvey Weinstein, to get conquests. As a result an appalling boss. But it used not to be a crime to try to seduce people, if they were of a certain age and able to consent (or not). It appears the majority did NOT despite appalling pressure. I suspect a hefty minority were prepared to accept activities, most in return for large sums of money (and most of THEM are remaining quiet even now). The old goat was clearly what we used to call A LETCH. Just as Jimmy Savile was a groper and tweaker. I sincerely believe there were no rapes. Likewise no paternity claims (DNA would have proved them years ago).Media loves a good story and exaggerates. ENABLERS are more often lawyers and cops than executives and doctors who simply obey orders, knowing full well the old goat would TRY IT ON. I'm sure there were medical assessments (that's not a crime). I'm sure the stories are 95% true but the last 5% are either invented or genuinely believed but only emerging after an MWT type Exposure are simple exaggerations. Like Savile - there would have been several accusers whilst he was still alive over the past 10 years - since the Savile scandal. Max Clifford - in the few years when he was NOT accused himself - would have delighted in making millions after he left Al Fayed, before he too fell victim to claims. I was assured the claims against Clifford were true or I would not have pressurised response.

Yes Fayed was what we called a bit of a letch but he came from an era where not only was it considered OK to try and chat up women /girls (or men/boys) society was geared to it being a perfectly OK wink wink occupation.

As proof a 10000 pop songs are devoted to such activities such as "Your 16, you're beautiful and mine" or even "I wanna Hold Your Hand" which is what Rolf Harris did to me (while listening politely to my babble) yet women came out of the woodwork and claim "he put his hand on the small of my back and rubbed" which is now akin to rape.

Further proof of course is the last US president Donald Trump actually said on tape "when you're a celebrity you just grope them" or words to that effect.

Society went along with this all of this including the BBC

Getting to the actual truth of accusations is hard..people are told they must be victims because they shook hands with grubby old Fayed and even (the ghastly) Vanessa Feltz infers an invitation to "come upstairs" is a shock horror assault when the rotten women boasted about her Fayed connections after he died.

God only knows how young men get by these days when there are so many pitfalls..some real some exaggerated and some just made up. I pity them.

Young women as well..are they lust free suddenly?.

Well summed up Hedda!

I watched the BBC report last night where the women had short statements read out and didn't have the impression it would have been because they were lying and afraid of fluffing their lines. They seemed genuine to me.

Someone I used to know worked for six years at Harrods while Al Fayed was in charge, starting on a management training scheme. I've no idea what her experience was and was tempted to think that if she stayed for six years there couldn't have been a problem. Maybe there wasn't in her case. However, one of the women interviewed by the BBC, who said that Al Fayed had set her up in a flat, said that she had never told anyone about the abuse, only disclosed it to her family recently and had stayed for five years because Al Fayed had threatened her. I find that believable in this case, given that he was her boss and a billionnaire, as opposed to some random entertainer off the telly.

It was only the serious stuff the presenters read out - I'm sure all the complaints were 90% genuine - I simply do not know about the 10% but I do know the media and the public who all want a better story and are unwilling to doubt.

As ever. As soon as the media point at someone. Look at how Meghan Markle was treated and then how the majority of the public have nothing but disdain for her. And for what? And as for the BBC they have gotten hold of the Al Fayed story like an XL Bully on a toddler. Oops. Sorry XL Bullys. You see? I've been taken in by negative press too. lol.

I can sympathise with a lot of this but still think characterising a man who apparently kept an Empire sized harem of 25 PAs, at least one aged 16, and insisting that they have STI tests (not just health checks), is not consistent with a "lech" or "randy old sod" from an earlier era; the type who's hand would stray to any adjacent bum, and felt it was his God given duty to chat everyone up.

It sounds to me a lot more sinister and calculated than this.

(But no arguments that of course people will jump on the band wagon).