www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236258...nce-broker-boss.html

The tide has turned,and 2 years will act as a deterrent.

Innocent Accused wrote:
The tide has turned,and 2 years will act as a deterrent.

Maybe, IA ... certainly a step in the right direction, but I would like to see balance - where the false accuser would get the same sentence as the accused if found guilty.

In The Know wrote:
Innocent Accused wrote:
The tide has turned,and 2 years will act as a deterrent.

Maybe, IA ... certainly a step in the right direction, but I would like to see balance - where the false accuser would get the same sentence as the accused if found guilty.

I agree ITK,but the likes of Jackboot Jackie,HarmingMen Harlot etc still hold too much sway for that as yet...maybe after Saville?

I have a big problem with stiffer sentences - it could stop people admitting their lies - currently the only way to prove ones innocence.

JK2006 wrote:
I have a big problem with stiffer sentences - it could stop people admitting their lies - currently the only way to prove ones innocence.

How many do you know who have admitted their lies?

Judging by the Safari monthly lists of false accuser convictions, I'd say a majority, for one reason or other.

Can I suggest a return to the old standard of proof in which a single witness testimony is considered insufficient. Then no need for stiffer sentences.

Reading the story, I thoroughly believe this is much of what probably happened to the Savile. He boasted many one night stands...but the women were not too happy with a one night stand. Women that think having a long time relationship, with a celebrity, could be very rewarding in the future.

In the Savile case, it's like he died, but many women think they are owed something.

Does that sound plausible (although, very dishonest by these women)?

This early day stuff, about Mr Savile, paying off families to keep quiet, doesn't ring true...as when he'd just started out in the clubs in the 50s, he wouldn't of had much money, would he? (Less he got compensation, for the mine accident, & I doubt that in those days). Maybe his Radio Luxembourg shows, would of given him a bit of money, but that wouldn't of been to the early 60s & wouldn't of made him, that rich, even then. Shouldn't of thought he'd of even made a million, until his TV days, surely?

Thanks BH,

All that is irrelevant. The man is dead. Observe how mad we have become. The police are now investigating a dead man.

And last yesterday they commenced the investigation of a second: Cyril Smith.

Does it have no limits?

Best Wishes,
Jim