7ryMJjyBMgowKMZdQ~~_7.JPG "cee-dee"){kind=avatar}
70soghuBMoj(ld!L!~~_7.JPG "merehazle"){kind=avatar}
My exact comments on the William Roache thread also apply here.
(A thread which you started, Lola, with exactly the same opening words, and a thread to which you never returned, incidentally). Just an observation . . .
@right-then-petal wrote:
thats 3 free and 1 jailed
The only reason he was jailed was he pleaded Guilty..
@right-then-petal wrote:
who,s next
May be Tony Blackburn or Cliff Richard or Tony Blair.. who knows ..watch this space..
@right-then-petal wrote:
who,s next
Rolf Harris is the only one left awaiting trial AFAIK, Petal and Jimmy Tarbuck, Paul Gambaccini and someone else are still waiting to find out if they are going to be charged.
#5 (A thread which you started, Lola, with exactly the same opening words, and a thread to which you never returned, incidentally)
And?
#6 I just cannot see why people would say that he did things to them if he did not!!!!
Who knows, Rose but bandwagon springs to my mind sadly 
@:rose2008-2008 wrote:Sorry,,,,,,,,,,,,, dont believe hes innocent. There is another mighty hand at work here somewhere. I just cannot see why people would say that he did things to them if he did not!!!!.
'There is another Mighty hand at work here somewhere.' And if Rose says that, that's the way it is. Ahem..................
Well now you have told everyone Rose.
Well here he is if you want to STRETCH a point.
@tommy.irene wrote:
@right-then-petal wrote:
who,s next
May be Tony Blackburn or Cliff Richard or Tony Blair.. who knows ..watch this space..
I forgot about Max C.
@sir_arthur_strebe-grebling wrote:As with Roache, the Police and CPS piled together as many charges as they could, hoping they could smear the defendant and make people assume he must be guilty.
Thankfully, the jury, in both cases, saw through this ploy, and found that the 'evidence' was insufficient to convict Roache and Travis.
As with Roache, the police and CPS gathered as much evidence as they could, confident they could rightly accuse the defendant and rightly charge said defendant with horrid crimes, yet they were foiled by a lawyer who was more adept in finding loopholes (possibly someone like Nick Freeman??)
Sadly, the jury, in both cases, were duped by the extremely adept, incredibly highly-paid lawyer (hired by the defendants, obviously, who have more money and can afford to do so), and found that the evidence was (tragically) insufficient to reach the justified verdict.
Reading some of the responses I wouldn't like to face a jury comprised of some of the respondents either (as opposed to my views, obviously) 
