15-08-2014 8:00 PM
I read it was about something that happened at a Christian Rally with a boy..
17-08-2014 7:10 PM
Ever since Jimmy Savile, ..... the Police seem to pursue historic claims with unbridled enthusiasm. I know Hall, and Harris were ultimately found guilty, Tarbuck, Starr, Roache, and Davidson, to name, but a few, were not.
These men were found not guilty, however as the Trolls in online Chat, and Forums show, these same men were found guilty the minute they were named. At the very least they have been left with public opinion of them damaged.
Unfortunately you need look no further then the Round Table to find evidence that they were presumed guilty, and this is a small social media site compared to the likes of Twitter.
If you are a celebrity, (and even if you're not) the principle of innocent until proven guilty, is destroyed within minutes of being publicly named, as is the accused's reputation.
It now seems apparent that as soon as an allegation is made public, more allegations quickly follow, yet although the "compensation" word has been bandied about jokily, it is now getting harder to dismiss it, and it now deserves to be taken very seriously. If a guilty verdict is found to be the case, fixed compensation sums are automatically paid.
On the whole, historic allegations depend on who you believe, as hard evidence is usually non existent.
These historic cases now smack of a witch hunt, the likes of which have not been seen since the "McCarthyism" witch trials against alleged Communists in the 1950's.
Trial by Jury... Already convicted, and/or tarnished reputation by Media.
17-08-2014 7:36 PM
What with Savilism, Harrisism, and Hallism we have Richardism now then!!!
Operation Yew Tree,,,whats that all about then?. Think weve gone on to the Big Oak Trees now!!.
17-08-2014 8:53 PM
I think Cliff will come out of this unscathed. I'm only going on what I've seen of him in interviews. He says a lot but at the end he's said nothing that makes you any wiser of him. I think he's clever. He's also very wealthy and can afford the best legal representation money can buy. So I'm betting he'll walk out of court laughing.
17-08-2014 8:56 PM
Sorry. I should have said, if it goes to court.
18-08-2014 6:50 AM
18-08-2014 9:25 AM
@astrologica wrote:
Laughing? Even if he was charged and it went to court and he was found to be innocent, do you really think he would be laughing? I can't imagine that anyone would be laughing after having the label of 'sexual child abuser' stuck on them. Mud sticks, and even after being cleared in a court of law, there will always be people who, with a nudge and a wink, will think the accused is guilty. No smoke without fire etc. So... No... I don't think for one minute that he would be laughing. It would be very, very difficult to pull your shoulders back and hold your head up high with that heavy label on you.
If found not Guilty ..who pays your legal bill of £100,000 that you have to pay..
18-08-2014 9:25 AM
I suspect there are a number of people who have accepted a caution and have been put on the Sex Offenders Register simply to avoid the publicity of an investigation even though there may have been little or no chance of being convicted had it gone to court.
18-08-2014 11:30 AM
Having said all that. Lets not be hasty and lets do the British and let the law takes its course...If there is any thing to go that is.
18-08-2014 12:23 PM
@bankhaunter wrote:I suspect there are a number of people who have accepted a caution and have been put on the Sex Offenders Register simply to avoid the publicity of an investigation even though there may have been little or no chance of being convicted had it gone to court.
I hope NOT??!!. Why would they caution without taking them to court?,,and then put them on the Sex Offenders Register?. If their a Sex Offender they would have to have a court case?. Or am i missing something.?.
18-08-2014 12:41 PM
The Police, in this Country, have the power to "Caution" people under oath ( for offences deemed not serious enough to warrant going to court ). To facilitate this, the accused person has to plead guilty and as such; this can therefore mean they acquire a criminal record. Having pleaded guilty and been handed down a judgement ( caution ), they can then also be added to the register of sex offenders; for the prescribed period.
18-08-2014 2:39 PM
18-08-2014 2:42 PM
18-08-2014 3:34 PM
Remarkable that a casual comment about Webb should generate such a reaction amongst a few .
There have been many threads about numerous people on here, instantly judged, instantly sentenced, usually with little to no evidence offered, and often by the same critics, using the same media.
Now it's those making accusations against celebs who are instantly judged to be criminals, on the basis of, well;.... no evidence at all
So no hypocrisy there then.
Some of the public seem to adore and identify with their celebs, who simply must all be innocent!
Ignoring Harris, Hall, Ovenden, Watkins etc naturally.
Seems the whole judicial process is evaluated by reference to a few celeb cases alone.
The lengths some will go to, to preserve their TV history.
Fixed compensation sums - eh? gem methinks.
What you read in the Daily Blurb is down to it's proprietor in general.If you don't like it, don't read it, because they are unlikely to change if you don't. But I doubt that will happen, because where else would stories of other non-celebs emanate from, to instantly pronounce upon?
18-08-2014 4:03 PM
18-08-2014 5:08 PM
@evoman3957 wrote:The Police, in this Country, have the power to "Caution" people under oath ( for offences deemed not serious enough to warrant going to court ). To facilitate this, the accused person has to plead guilty and as such; this can therefore mean they acquire a criminal record. Having pleaded guilty and been handed down a judgement ( caution ), they can then also be added to the register of sex offenders; for the prescribed period.
The thought of all the negative publicity along with likely consequences of a drawn out investigation is a powerful persuader to make a person accept a caution albeit the evidence against them is extremely weak with no court appearance likely at the end of that investigation.
An easy way for the police to secure a conviction they might otherwise have been unable to.
19-08-2014 12:36 AM
''If a guilty verdict is found to be the case, fixed compensation sums are automatically paid.''
That is incorrect. If there has been a trial and a conviction, The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, quite rightly imo, will only open the public purse after all reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the money from the guilty party.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243480/9780108512117.pdf
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012
Page26 P.98
Deferring the determination of an application
98.
A claims officer may defer determination of an application in whole or in part:
(a)
in exceptional cases, until the end of any criminal proceedings relating to the
incident giving rise to the criminal injury
which the claims officer is satisfied
are material to the determination;
(b)
until the claims officer is satisfied that the applicant has taken all reasonable
steps to obtain any social security
benefits, insurance payments, damages
or compensation to which the applicant may be entitled in respect of the
same injury; or
(c)
in response to a request under paragraph 14
Yes there is a detailed tariff for criminal injuries, for anyone interested enough to persevere it starts at Page43, but payment is far from automatic.
You may be surprised to see that the average payment for r-a-p-e is only £11k, tariff for less serious offences is much reduced.
Don't know about ''compensation being'' bandied about jokily, the only ''joke'' is how some seriously think there are hoardes of women(and men)willing to endure the ordeal of disrupting their lives during an investigation and trial, for such a pittance...
unless the allegations were true and their motivation is not money, but justice.
19-08-2014 10:03 AM
I think you forget that to some people with next to nothing, £10k is an absolute fortune but for others, it's peanuts.
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.
19-08-2014 10:07 AM
http://news.sky.com/story/1320879/sir-cliff-richard-hires-high-profile-lawyer
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.
19-08-2014 10:17 AM
@cee-dee wrote:http://news.sky.com/story/1320879/sir-cliff-richard-hires-high-profile-lawyer
He can afford the best..
19-08-2014 10:55 AM
@ronnybabes wrote:
@j_uk643 wrote:
If you don't like it, don't read it,
How does that work then?
I think it means lets all just try and ignore it and it might go away!!!. Ermmm i dont think so!!.