Mean spirited, nasty piece in today's Mail... Freddie either will be charged in March or the charges will be dropped.

Either way I'm sure Karin Ward will, if it's not proceeded with, be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice unless he is tried and found guilty.

I hear the BBC are considering "paying off" false accusers - likewise, I hear a group of Licence Fee Payers would then sue the BBC for spending our money without taking the accusers to court to prove their claims are true.

The spineless BBC might capitulate but the Licence Fee Payers have firmer backbones.

Imagine the courtroom drama (hopefully televised). Anna Raccoon, Karin Ward, Mark W-T, police, barristers...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270248...low-key-wedding.html

There's a lady I contacted on Twitter after I noticed she had been attempting to reason with Tosspot about JS, explaining that she had been left alone with many times as a child, loved being around him, never saw or experienced him do anything "inapropropriate". TWT came back at her with "are you calling the victims liars?" and promptly blocked her, despite her being both polite and respectful.
She now KNOWS this is a nasty witch hunt based on lies, and is keen both to put her own experiences across and to defend SJS, but is being driven to distraction by the sheer amount of brainwashing going on and what a "closed shop" it is.

I've pointed her in the direction of a few places online were common sense gets an airing and she won't feel "alone", including this forum - and also have drawn her attention to that "Jim Cannot Fix This" blogsite highlighted on here the other day

JK2006 wrote:
Mean spirited, nasty piece in today's Mail... Freddie either will be charged in March or the charges will be dropped.

Either way I'm sure Karin Ward will, if it's not proceeded with, be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice unless he is tried and found guilty.

I hear the BBC are considering "paying off" false accusers - likewise, I hear a group of Licence Fee Payers would then sue the BBC for spending our money without taking the accusers to court to prove their claims are true.

The spineless BBC might capitulate but the Licence Fee Payers have firmer backbones.

Imagine the courtroom drama (hopefully televised). Anna Raccoon, Karin Ward, Mark W-T, police, barristers...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270248...low-key-wedding.html
Cor I loved to see that one.
Miss Ward (or whatever you were called then). You say you were 14 at the time of the alleged assault? By checking records, we found you to be just 3 days from your 16th birthday (on the day of recording).
You are also an ex-con, convicted of fraud. This doesn't look good, does it Miss Ward (or whatever your name is)?
Records show that you are also a fantasist & were a juvenile delinquent.
Therefore (after taking medical reports) we find you are not fit to be a witness in this case.
As there are no further witnesses, the case against the accused is void.
You (however) will be placed in a home for the mentally disturbed. Hopefully this time, no famous popstars or DJs, will be visiting you.

Sounds very good to me!

Chris Retro wrote:
There's a lady I contacted on Twitter after I noticed she had been attempting to reason with Tosspot about JS, explaining that she had been left alone with many times as a child, loved being around him, never saw or experienced him do anything "inapropropriate". TWT came back at her with "are you calling the victims liars?" and promptly blocked her, despite her being both polite and respectful.
She now KNOWS this is a nasty witch hunt based on lies, and is keen both to put her own experiences across and to defend SJS, but is being driven to distraction by the sheer amount of brainwashing going on and what a "closed shop" it is.

I've pointed her in the direction of a few places online were common sense gets an airing and she won't feel "alone", including this forum - and also have drawn her attention to that "Jim Cannot Fix This" blogsite highlighted on here the other day
I think Chris (that when you think about it), you could likely find tons of people that spent time with JS alone & nothing ever happened. So much, it would out weigh the nonsensical money hunters, that need a bit of extra cash, it the current, man-made climate, where daft apeths, just can not live, within their means. They are spend thrifts, that expect everyone else to pay for their own mistakes.

Good work Chris Retro.

And in courtrooms and in Parliament, the questions MUST be asked.

1. In 30-years why no full police checks on the validity of likely compo-chaser/complainants. Suspicious thousands of ALL LOW-INCOME 'alleged victims' of serious life-scarring past sex crimes ?

2. In 30-years why NOT ONE WEALTHY complainant EVER 'alleged victim' of serious life-scarring past sex crimes ?

bh..indeed there must be 100s who wish to tell their time spent with Savile was a pleasant and normal experience. They and so many celebs have been cowered into silence by a vicious and nasty media combined with MWT who is quite evil.

And in 5 years when mega millionaire ex-celebrity Justin Beiber is relaxing at home a writ may pop through the letter-box...from an ex-young fan who says her life was completely destroyed after Justin (accidently) brushed his hand against her breast and a photo of it was published by the Daily Vile for the entire world to gawp at.

JK2006 wrote:

I hear the BBC are considering "paying off" false accusers - likewise, I hear a group of Licence Fee Payers would then sue the BBC for spending our money without taking the accusers to court to prove their claims are true.

The spineless BBC might capitulate but the Licence Fee Payers have firmer backbones.



Absolute bollocks, and you know it. The LFP have nothing to lose. The BBC have a fortune to lose in legal fees. How brave of the LFP. You'll find all companies these days are scared stiff of the expense of dealing with any legal challenge, no matter how absurd it might be. And I think all of the nutters out there have realised this fact and are exploiting it. Cynically and ruthlessly. You go to any book publisher, question ANYTHING about a book they have out, and they will consult their lawyers and go crazy. Don't attack the BBC, attack the idiots who drag the BBC into these crazy situations. The BBC is damned one way or the other. It needs defending, not this kind of crap.

I think JK is proposing a scenario but there may be a case for license payers..as shareholders have... to sue the corporation for mismanagement.

I would like lots of people sued...all those ghastly celebs claiming they knew about Savile but didn't speak up, the police and so on.

It may end the madness.

Instead the madness grows ever stronger.

On the day the Yewtree report came out I posted a Facebook update to my friends expressing my anger at how such a tissue of lies was allowed to gain such currency and how I was proud to be a Savile fan still.

One colleague saw this and has complained (anonymously) to my bosses about my "vile" views with the result that next week I have to attend a meeting to explain my point of view so they can decide if I have broken any rules by er, having an opinion which differs from someone else's.

Orwellian much? I'm not sure, but I find it chilling to say the very least.

It makes one wonder how this tidal wave of compensation seekers are believed above their accused when self confessed subscriber to child pornography, Pete Townsend is courted by the BBC. We still await that most engrossing tome for which Mr Townsend was doing so much research...

itsamugsgame wrote:
It makes one wonder how this tidal wave of compensation seekers are believed above their accused when self confessed subscriber to child pornography, Pete Townsend is courted by the BBC. We still await that most engrossing tome for which Mr Townsend was doing so much research...

please be fair he was never charged or convicted and even then he was terrified into submission by dozens of cops raiding him.

It was also part of Operation Ore a thoroughly discredited investigation that destroyed hundreds of lives and caused many suicides which honest journalists like Duncan Campbell exposed.

Operation Ore flawed by fraud

This was a prime example of how anything using the inflammatory language of 'child protection' is used to silence critics.
But I agree that Pete has been able to pursue his life and quite right. But that is unusual in this world of corrupt media.

Under Pressure wrote:
Instead the madness grows ever stronger.

On the day the Yewtree report came out I posted a Facebook update to my friends expressing my anger at how such a tissue of lies was allowed to gain such currency and how I was proud to be a Savile fan still.

One colleague saw this and has complained (anonymously) to my bosses about my "vile" views with the result that next week I have to attend a meeting to explain my point of view so they can decide if I have broken any rules by er, having an opinion which differs from someone else's.

Orwellian much? I'm not sure, but I find it chilling to say the very least.

an amazing and frightening story.

Please keep all records of it. You may need them one day to sue.(I also believe you would have a defamation case against your accuser). "do they own a house outright?" as my lawyer always asks when I say I want to sue

It's no different to a child informing the SS that the next door neighbours are Jews...or the Stasi etc etc and so on.

I'm sure the Police and CPS are well aware that, if they decide to prosecute Freddie or anyone else, Karin Ward will be grilled in the witness box (whether she wants it or not; subpoena time); and one of the crucial examinations will be the Police conducting interviews etc.

The officers will be grilled about other meetings not recorded and other phone conversations (like, in MY trial, the witness saying he had discussed compensation at length with the officer who later, unaware of that evidence, then denied on oath any such conversation... knowing what I know now, she'd have been prosecuted no matter what the verdict).

Even in my case it became blindingly clear that Surrey Police did NOT want the original complainant against me in the witness box at ANY price; his evidence would seem so tainted (first approaching not a Doctor or Cop but Max Clifford) that I would be acquitted and, worse, the police might be prosecuted.

But that was then. This (Plebgate; Hillsborough; Leveson) is NOW.

Given the banning of JS & DLT, it was interesting to hear BBC4 broadcast Rod Stewart last night.
Could this be their (and his) official statement for Yewtree? Or is Rod too rich and too 'big in America' to face retrospective criticism?

Hot Legs, you're an alley cat
Hot legs, you scratch my back
Hot legs, bring your mother too
I love you, honey

Imagine how my daddy felt
In your jet black suspender belt
Seventeen years old, he's trudging sixty four
You got legs right up to your neck
You're makin' me a physical wreck
I'm talkin' to you
Hot legs in your satin shoes
Hot legs, are you still in school?
Hot legs, you're makin' me a fool
I love you, honey

Hot legs, you're makin' your mark
Hot legs, keep my pencil sharp
Hot legs, keep your hands to yourself
I love you, honey

Hot legs you're wearin' me out
Hot legs you can scream and shout
Hot legs, you're still in school
I Love You, Honey

Under Pressure wrote:
Instead the madness grows ever stronger.

On the day the Yewtree report came out I posted a Facebook update to my friends expressing my anger at how such a tissue of lies was allowed to gain such currency and how I was proud to be a Savile fan still.

One colleague saw this and has complained (anonymously) to my bosses about my "vile" views with the result that next week I have to attend a meeting to explain my point of view so they can decide if I have broken any rules by er, having an opinion which differs from someone else's.

Orwellian much? I'm not sure, but I find it chilling to say the very least.
Pray, what has a point of view, you've expressed on a corrupt site, such as Facebook, got to do with your Job, or employers? Have they got a lot of time on their hands, or are they just board. Do tell us the name of your employers. We would like to be there or to speak to them.

bh wrote:
Pray, what has a point of view, you've expressed on a corrupt site, such as Facebook, got to do with your Job, or employers? Have they got a lot of time on their hands, or are they just board. Do tell us the name of your employers. We would like to be there or to speak to them.

Like many employers these days they have a "social media policy" which is naturally designed to define parameters to ensure employees cannot disparage the company or its clients online, which is fair enough. However they seem to be keen to use it as a broad thought police weapon for controlling anything they choose. Hence when a group of football hooligans took offence at a comment I tweeted about one of their own, they tracked down my employer and complained that they could not believe someone with such disgraceful views was employed by them. I had to work hard to point out that it was a simple case of misconstruing my words as my initial defence of "what on earth has it got to do with you?" was rejected.

At that point (and following the hushed up Noel Fielding incident) I concurred with JKs view that Twitter is the work of the devil and ceased to participate.

However this time as the whinge has come internally and based on a private posting not visible to the public, I suspect it will come under Dignity At Work as my anonymous tormenter seems to think I should have guessed that the 'scandal' had affected a member of their family and thus should not be so insensitive as to have a different opinion.

Why pay off FALSE ACCUSERS?

They should be suing their arses off, since it's pretty clear now that that stuff Fiona and Karin Ward claimed happened after the Clunk Click shows never really happened...

Paying them off will only encourage them to make up more stories in the future.

When was the show recorded?

I think it was shown on the 27/4/74 (that looks like the date on the video clip shown on Panorama) and she was born on 25/3/58...

How far in advance was the show recorded?

Lol,

Have you noticed that it seems to be the chavier members of Jimmy Savile's family that have also made accusations against him?

E.g his ex jail bird nephew (with his far fetched story) and his great niece who was pregnant at 15 and sat grinning all the way through her interview on this morning when she was telling her 'story'.

The more well spoken, classier member's of his family just say things like "we always thought he was just a nice man", "I'm sorry for the victims" etc...

Anonymous wrote:
Lol,

Have you noticed that it seems to be the chavier members of Jimmy Savile's family that have also made accusations against him?

E.g his ex jail bird nephew (with his far fetched story) and his great niece who was pregnant at 15 and sat grinning all the way through her interview on this morning when she was telling her 'story'.

The more well spoken, classier member's of his family just say things like "we always thought he was just a nice man", "I'm sorry for the victims" etc...
Exactly. Good points there.

The Clunk Click show, whence Freddie Starr appeared must of been recorded on the Friday before. I believe the Gary Glitter one, was recorded on 22nd March 74. So, indeed Ms Ward was 16 on the Freddie Starr one. Whether she was present at the Gary Glitter appearance is not clear.