02-05-2013 11:11 AM
03-05-2013 6:18 PM
:|i had to google embryonic politicians 😞
03-05-2013 6:19 PM
I'm just glad to see that the level of lively banter from RT posters is making sure that the RT retains its happy, cheerful framework.
03-05-2013 6:58 PM
Here we go:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22406035
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.
03-05-2013 8:02 PM
Its about the money..
Here we go:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22406035
03-05-2013 8:47 PM
Its about the money..
Not sure that is a fair comment in this case - he has admitted his guilt so there is no doubt in this case that he committed the offences he was charged with.
That being the case then good luck to any of the victims who manage to sue for compensation.
03-05-2013 8:51 PM
Not all victims of crime are able to sue for compensation.
Is this just because he is perceived to be "of means"?
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.
03-05-2013 9:24 PM
Yes lets wait and see how much time he gets for his crime.. Then wait and see how many go after his money...
Its about the money..
Not sure that is a fair comment in this case - he has admitted his guilt so there is no doubt in this case that he committed the offences he was charged with.
That being the case then good luck to any of the victims who manage to sue for compensation.
03-05-2013 10:06 PM
I hope they manage to totally clean him out - would be poetic justice - if he'd been convicted when he first committed his crimes he wouldn't have earned the money he has.
03-05-2013 10:19 PM
If that was the rule, why aren't other criminals totally cleaned out?
Those criminals that have been "cleaned out" have been so to relieve them of "The proceeds of crime"?
We have people who have killed others and they've not been "cleaned out" so what's so different in this case?
If we're not careful..... some victims of a repeat criminal (who's not loaded) will start thinking along the lines that "if the previous victim had reported the crime, I wouldn't have been a victim so I think I should sue THEM".......
The whole compo-culture needs a brake put on it right now.
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.
03-05-2013 11:16 PM
Living here on the other side of the pond, I've never heard of this individual, but recently you had a scandal concerning the late Jimmy Saville. Is there something going on about show hosts???
03-05-2013 11:49 PM
😄 yes it looks that way,all of them well known on tv here
04-05-2013 7:25 AM
The whole compo-culture needs a brake put on it right now.
The compensation culture is largely a media invention and has been vastly overplayed, there is nothing a person can do now that they haven't always been able to do.
Would you have it that some people were not allowed to seek recompense for damage done to them by another?
04-05-2013 8:30 AM
Living here on the other side of the pond, I've never heard of this individual, but recently you had a scandal concerning the late Jimmy Saville. Is there something going on about show hosts???
A lot of this comes from the Police Investigation called
'Operation Yewtree', which is looking into the cases of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yewtree
-------------------
But also under way is
'Operation Palial',
looking into abuse of children in & from North Wales Care homes
(past inquiries, into this, have been branned cover ups, because of the power and Influence of some of the suspects and their friends in high places)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Wales_child_abuse_scandal
------------------------
But also running is the potentially Explosive,
'Operation Fernbridge' ,
it was originally 'Operation Fairbank' , set up to investigate, claims (by a Labour MP under 'Parliamentary Privilege' in the House) about a Paedophile ring that had been in operating among Parliamentarians (in the late70s/80s). When the evidence was looked at (the same evidence dismissed numerous times by the MET) , it was seen that it was worth Investigating further, but that the links went way beyond MPs etc, so a full Investigation was set up.
An inquiry that has taken Years to get going, this could be the really big one , that will dwarf the Savile scandal by orders of magnitude and reach high up into the upper echelons of British life, be it the Legal, Political, Police, Business, Pop, Acting, Civil Service and others. This also has connections to Europe and some of most evil abusers and traffickers in the World
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal
This scandal is so toxic, no British media outlet ever touched it, apart from the case of a few men ('nobodies') being found guilty of abuse at the Guest house, and even though news of frequent Investigations had been posted abroad that included names that will really shock the Public, major Stars, Judges, ex Cabinet politicians etc.
---------------
And what ever happened to the major Investigation into the Haut de la Garenne child abuse scandal in Jersey, another one where some men (nobodies) got done, but the Inquiry was nobbled , to keep the Rich, powerful & Famous out of it. By the Jersey Government.
Did you a major investigative Journalist was banned from entering the Channel Islands, by that Government.
04-05-2013 10:22 AM
BBC predator Stuart Hall's £2million home is handed over to wife 'to protect his fortune'Shamed presenter handed over Cheshire mansion to wife HazelIt was claimed it could be an example of 'asset stripping' by presenter Solicitors representing more than 50 of his victims taking legal action
Disgraced: Stuart Hall has been accused of giving his mansion to his wife to protect his fortune
Serial sex offender Stuart Hall has been accused of giving his mansion to his wife to protect his fortune from compensation claims made by his victims.
The former It’s A Knockout presenter is being sued by at least six women in relation to harm and injuries they suffered at his hands.
But the Daily Mail can reveal that in the weeks before he admitted his guilty plea the 83-year-old transferred the ownership of his £2million Cheshire mansion into the name of his wife.
Last night it was claimed the move could be an example of ‘asset stripping’ by the broadcaster to stop his victims from making claims against his fortune.
Alan Collins, a solicitor from Pannone is representing more than 50 victims of Jimmy Savile in their compensation claims against his estate and the BBC.
He is now representing six of Hall’s victims who want to sue him for compensation. Mr Collins is also considering taking action against the BBC on their behalf.
He said: ‘Hall’s admission of guilt means we will be able to pursue these cases expeditiously on behalf of our clients.
‘Victims often live with the memories of the abuse hidden away at the back of their minds for years and it is particularly brave of such victims to come forward and face those memories.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319212/Stuart-Hall-BBC-predators-2million-home-handed-wife-...
04-05-2013 10:31 AM
The compo-culture is not a media invention at all.
It's being driven by vultures Lawyers who have an eye on making money for themselves. You never used to see adverts for firms professing to be "real" Lawyers and the like. Now they're ramming com-pen-say-shun in to the face of everyone. OK, I know that at one time Lawyers were not allowed to advertise but it's driving people towards sue,sue SUE.
They're going after people in the hope that they'll settle rather than go on the Costa-Fortune to fight them.
Now, perhaps you'd consider and respond to my point which is something no-one seems to have thought of before?:-
If we're not careful..... some victims of a repeat criminal (who's not loaded) will start thinking along the lines that "if the previous victim had reported the crime, I wouldn't have been a victim so I think I should sue THEM".......
I'll add to that to illustrate with an example of what I mean.
15 year old Miss "A" is a victim of Mr "X" and she doesn't report it or mention it to anyone and just gets on with her life and goes on to forge a successful career and by age 50 is quite wealthy.
Mr "X" is finally exposed and his case publicised leading to twenty more victims coming forward because his last victim, Miss "U" was found in a distressed state and the public appeals by the cops for information finally identified Mr "X" after which, the other victims came forward after recognising the photo-fit and artists impression formulated by Miss "U".
After the case comes to Court and Miss "A" waving her right to anonymity, a bright spark Lawyer spies his chance and with his eye on loadsa-munny, persuades Miss "U" to sue Miss "A"...........
A work of fantasy? I wouldn't bet on that.
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.
04-05-2013 10:52 AM
If we're not careful..... some victims of a repeat criminal (who's not loaded) will start thinking along the lines that "if the previous victim had reported the crime, I wouldn't have been a victim so I think I should sue THEM".......
Although it seems a fantastic and unbelievable scenario now, who would ever have thought in the past that nowadays we would constantly receive ads/ mail/phone calls from firms telling us we are entitled to compensation for imaginary accidents and payback for things we never had.
04-05-2013 10:54 AM
......But why has it not been done by the yanks ..they know the tricks of the trade...and by the way lets see how many more start to claim against Stuart Hall now they know they can get money........
The compo-culture is not a media invention at all.
It's being driven by vultures Lawyers who have an eye on making money for themselves. You never used to see adverts for firms professing to be "real" Lawyers and the like. Now they're ramming com-pen-say-shun in to the face of everyone. OK, I know that at one time Lawyers were not allowed to advertise but it's driving people towards sue,sue SUE.
They're going after people in the hope that they'll settle rather than go on the Costa-Fortune to fight them.
Now, perhaps you'd consider and respond to my point which is something no-one seems to have thought of before?:-
If we're not careful..... some victims of a repeat criminal (who's not loaded) will start thinking along the lines that "if the previous victim had reported the crime, I wouldn't have been a victim so I think I should sue THEM".......
I'll add to that to illustrate with an example of what I mean.
15 year old Miss "A" is a victim of Mr "X" and she doesn't report it or mention it to anyone and just gets on with her life and goes on to forge a successful career and by age 50 is quite wealthy.
Mr "X" is finally exposed and his case publicised leading to twenty more victims coming forward because his last victim, Miss "U" was found in a distressed state and the public appeals by the cops for information finally identified Mr "X" after which, the other victims came forward after recognising the photo-fit and artists impression formulated by Miss "U".
After the case comes to Court and Miss "A" waving her right to anonymity, a bright spark Lawyer spies his chance and with his eye on loadsa-munny, persuades Miss "U" to sue Miss "A"...........
A work of fantasy? I wouldn't bet on that.
04-05-2013 10:59 AM
There isn't a chance of such an action being successful ot even being started, there is no duty on members of the public to report crimes also Miss "A" could not be expected to have reasonable grounds to be sure the offence would be repeated in the future and so could not be held responsible for the offender's actions.
Plus reporting it would be no guarantee the offence would not be repeated.
If I see a motorist jump a red light and do not report it, I cannot be held responsible if in the future they do it again and cause an accident.
04-05-2013 11:15 AM
The point was made because Lawyers will spot an opportunity and challenge someone in the hope they'll cough up.
It's life Jim, but not as WE know it.
Live long and prosper.
04-05-2013 11:43 AM
If we're not careful..... some victims of a repeat criminal (who's not loaded) will start thinking along the lines that "if the previous victim had reported the crime, I wouldn't have been a victim so I think I should sue THEM".......
Although it seems a fantastic and unbelievable scenario now, who would ever have thought in the past that nowadays we would constantly receive ads/ mail/phone calls from firms telling us we are entitled to compensation for imaginary accidents and payback for things we never had.
Yes, 'We are entitled to compensation for imaginary accidents and payback for things we never had.' Incitement to crime IMO. Sick to death of the sight and sound of them.
What they are saying really is ... if by the law of average some may be, but to hell with the incitement to crime.
No win no fee too? Our insurance premiums rise through the roof! That's where the FEE is X-(