See England take on the best at the 2017 Rugby League World Cup

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Futtocks

Operation Yewtree

60 posts in this topic

The one last week was named widely on the internet, but the police refused to confirm or deny anything (using leveson as the reason). Apparently today they are happily telling everyone of Max Clifford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, didn't see that coming. He might need some PR people to help out.

And another one Stuart Hall Arrested

Who or what next?

Not arrested: he's been charged with the abuse of three women aged between 8 and 17 in the 1970s and 1980s.

And I'm not sure there's anything else to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently today they are happily telling everyone of Max Clifford.

Can't think why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one last week was named widely on the internet, but the police refused to confirm or deny anything (using leveson as the reason). Apparently today they are happily telling everyone of Max Clifford.

The one last week was released without charge. If the same happens with Clifford, then questions need to be asked about Police consistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not arrested: he's been charged with the abuse of three women aged between 8 and 17 in the 1970s and 1980s.

And I'm not sure there's anything else to say.

Said arrested on the news and in the linked BBC article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questions need to be asked about Police consistency.

They will be asked until we're told we have to believe a police notebook over an MP who we think is a bit of a ######.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been reminded on twitter of the classic letter to Viz, "If Max Clifford is so good at PR, why does everybody think he's a **** ?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good God, this is getting tedious now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good God, this is getting tedious now

My exact thoughts upon seeing this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good God, this is getting tedious now

What is? The discoveries or us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see how, short of retained evidence that can now be checked for DNA, how the Police / CPA can prove guilt of an alleged sex crime that was committed nearly forty years ago.

If there had been any concrete evidence, it would have been proved at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there had been any concrete evidence, it would have been proved at the time.

Really? We lived in a different country back then, as all these cases sadly show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there had been any concrete evidence, it would have been proved at the time.

Cos the guilty never get away with anything, do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cos the guilty never get away with anything, do they?

And the police always catch the right people, don't they. Except in all those cases where they don't. :dry:

What worries me about all this is the manner in which an accusation or an arrest is now taken almost as instant proof of guilt by the court of public opinion before any trial has taken place. Innocent until proven guilty seems such an antiquated concept right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Clifford's solicitor who put his name in the public domain according to last nights BBC News report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
arrest is now taken almost as instant proof of guilt by the court of public opinion before any trial has taken place

This has always been the case. Especially in cases with high 'emotional' meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the police always catch the right people, don't they. Except in all those cases where they don't. :dry:

What worries me about all this is the manner in which an accusation or an arrest is now taken almost as instant proof of guilt by the court of public opinion before any trial has taken place. Innocent until proven guilty seems such an antiquated concept right now.

And in the case of previous offenders like Gary Glitter, he's already been proven guilty once so we don't need to bother again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Clifford's solicitor who put his name in the public domain according to last nights BBC News report.

So Max Clifford really does believe there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It puzzles me as to why people should come forward after 40 years and make such allegations if there was no truth in them, exposing themselves needlessly to the harrowing experience of cross examination in a court of law.  It also puzzles me why someone like Bill Roache, who presumably at the time had women throwing themselves at him would need to rape someone.  There's something very fishy about the whole thing.  

There were rumours about Savile which were ignored until after his death.  Were there similar rumours about Roache?  Did the police go on a fishing expedition in light of the Savile case? Given the flaws in the women's evidence (like the Rolls-Royce) why did the police proceed?

I know it's sounds far fetched, but could these offences have been committed by someone pretending to be Roache? Like the Peter Hain bank robbery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It puzzles me as to why people should come forward after 40 years and make such allegations if there was no truth in them, exposing themselves needlessly to the harrowing experience of cross examination in a court of law. It also puzzles me why someone like Bill Roache, who presumably at the time had women throwing themselves at him would need to rape someone. There's something very fishy about the whole thing.

There were rumours about Savile which were ignored until after his death. Were there similar rumours about Roache? Did the police go on a fishing expedition in light of the Savile case? Given the flaws in the women's evidence (like the Rolls-Royce) why did the police proceed?

I know it's sounds far fetched, but could these offences have been committed by someone pretending to be Roache? Like the Peter Hain bank robbery?

I think the Savile case was a bit more than rumoured. There are allegations of police collusion - certainly in Leeds. I've been wondering if the fishing trip that Yewtree is appearing to be is an attempt to dilute the Savile case and take the focus off any police involvement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.