Nigel Evans MP is not Dead; Nigel Evans MP is Gay!
Blimey! If we ever doubted the veracity of the two statements in my headline, we have only to take a quick run through the media today. Even the various pictures of Nigel Evans MP that are selected by the different thundering organs of Canary Wharf tell a story.
Nigel Evans MP has been arrested and accused of various sexual offences concerning ‘vulnerable victims’. Not one paper describes him as ‘creepy’, nor goes on to interview a talking head discussing the ‘rumours which have circulated for years’. Instead a raft of the great and the good have been interviewed at length to tell us what a charming, delightful, ‘good, decent man’ he is. I’m sure he his.
The Sunday Times went with a ‘studio’ portrait of a youthful and blushing Nigel, holding his copy of the Green Book with the portcullis prominently displayed to emphasise his establishment position. They still managed a sly ‘Deputy Speaker in rape arrest’ to tickle the fancy of the conspiriloons breathlessly waiting for news of arrests in the ‘Top Tory Paedophile ring’ that they lust after, before going onto to point out that this is an allegation of Gay rape.
The Sunday Times failed to mention that Evans was interviewed by the then Chief Opposition Whip, Patrick McLoughlin, now Transport Secretary, over claims of ‘inappropriate sexual behaviour’ in 2009, coincidentally the starting date of the offences of which he is now accused. Allegations which were dealt with without being referred to Police. Why ever would that be? The Sunday Times has been a forerunner in the ‘he could have been stopped earlier’ articles regarding Savile. Ah, but Nigel Evans is alive and well! Fully entitled to a decent hearing to clear his name of heinous allegations. This is no time for ‘premature adjudication’, says the legal department. Possibly why the ‘comments’ are permanently closed.
The Sun claims ‘an exclusive’ – despite the Mirror having broken the story, and the Police confining themselves to a discrete “A 55-year-old man from Pendleton in Lancashire, arrested on suspicion of rape and sexual assault has today, May 4, 2013, been released on police bail until June 19, 2013.”
They go for the full house: Tory+Deputy Speaker+Gay+Rape. Helpfully adding a picture of Nigel with David Cameron to emphasise his connections, though in Savile’s case, they were only too keen to show pictures of Savile with Margaret Thatcher or the Pope in order to emphasise how ‘protected’ he had been. No such suggestion in Nigel Evans’ case – they have given him column space to point out that his accusers ‘know each other’…
Mr Evans said: “Yesterday, I was interviewed by the police concerning two complaints, one of which dates back four years, made by two people who are well known to each other and until yesterday, I regarded as friends. “The complaints are completely false and I cannot understand why they have been made, especially as I have continued to socialise with one as recently as last week.
The Sun also hedges its bet by including pictures of Our Nige with Ed Miliband, and two scantily clad young ladies (not all in the same picture regrettably…!).
The Mirror, which originally broke this story, must take the prize for the most bizarre sideways wipe at poor Nige, with their headline of “Rape accused Tory uses make-up to disguise forehead bruise as he faces cameras to deny claims” – accompanied by a close up shot of said bruise, but no explanation, even speculative, in the accompanying article. I guess you don’t need to lead with the ‘Gay rape’ line when you’ve pointed out that Nigel is using make-up? Was he beaten up by the Police? Spent the night banging his head on the head board? We need to know!
They do give space to fellow MP Mark Pritchard.
Mark Pritchard, Conservative MP for The Wrekin, Shropshire, said: “Nigel Evans is a very popular MP and has established himself as a first-rate Deputy Speaker. “These are shocking allegations – but they are allegations and not proven. Time will tell if they stand up to proper legal scrutiny.”
The Telegraph use exactly the same photo as the Mirror, credited to Reuters, but without the bizarre ‘make-up’ claim – but then are the only paper to dig into their memory bank and reveal that Nigel was questioned by Parliamentary staff in 2009 over ‘inappropriate sexual behaviour’, which was apparently, a misunderstanding and was never referred to Police. They also helpfully hint that Nigel had been threatened with blackmail in the past over his sexuality. Comments are not open, any more than they were in the Mirror. Are they not interested in what their readers think of this latest development in the war against ‘inappropriate sexual behaviour’? Seems not.
Nigel Evans feet had not ‘touched the ground’ after his arrest before there were calls for him to stand down as Deputy Speaker – presumably the sight of him in the Speaker’s chair would have potentially traumatised other vulnerable victims, had they been one of the handful of people that actually watch Prime Minister’s Question Time. Not that ‘feet not touching the ground’ has been a handicap to sitting in the Speaker’s Chair in recent times…
The Guardian, who surprisingly, go for the most flattering and youthful picture of Nigel, with just a hint of a fey blush to his cheeks, find an MP who is ‘disturbed’ by news of the arrest:
Brian Binley, Tory MP for Northampton South and a friend of Evans, said: “I was just deeply disturbed and shocked.
“I’ve known him ever since I’ve been in parliament and I came in in 2005. I consider him to be a very good friend. I know him to be caring, compassionate and in no way would he inflict himself violently on any other person”.
Not a single word of empathy with the alleged ‘vulnerable victims’…no in-depth articles regarding the difficulties of ‘coming forward’ or ‘being believed’, not one.
Nor is anybody ‘giving a victims a voice’ via publishing an ‘anonymised’ account from a brave ‘victim’ who has come forward to spell out the details of the allegations against Mr Evans.
Nobody has even mentioned Savile, or ‘Savile Police’ not even in an html link. I checked!
Indeed, although Mr Evans has been bailed until the 19th June, ‘he hopes that these matters will have been cleared up long before then’. He has not been charged with any offence as yet.
A quite remarkable show of unified and dignified responsible reportage.
What could be the reason for the main stream media coming over all coy between the last celebrity arrest and the arrest of Nigel Evans MP?
May 9, 2013 at 17:29
-
Moor Larkin,
Re: “It also shows the “power” of the Legal Elite. One lady barrister
outweighs the combined wisdom of any raccoon colony any day of the week…………
Icke the Pycke has been trying to tell us this for many years………..
”
I noticed that, if i’d set up a blog an expressed those comments no one
would have even batted an eyelid or noticed, it is obviously because of her
profession that people have paid attention and feel threatened so have felt
the need to make an example of her in the papers, perhaps to serve as a
warning to others too, any other barristers getting any ideas about voicing
such opinions will meet the same fate.
Probably a little different to Icke’s points.
Your not starting to believe him are you? lol
- May 9, 2013 at 17:37
-
As Anna pointed out the other day, I voted for him once
- May 9, 2013 at 13:36
-
Out of interest, does anyone understand why the date sequencing on some of
these comments seems to have gone agley? It makes for some apparent non
sequiturs
-
May 9, 2013 at 13:39
-
@Ho Hum
Absolutely no idea, and I agree! It usually means that I can revisit a
blog after several days and read posts that I never saw before. Added
value.
- May 9, 2013 at 13:53
-
Hoo Hum – it does after a certain number of comments – and I can’t cure
it!
That is why I close the comments after a few days, so that people are
always on the latest post – we don’t do ‘historic commenting’ around
here…..
- May 9, 2013 at 14:01
-
Thanks Ms R
I’d chucked in my tuppenceworth on the Hewson article here early this
morning and wondered why it had just disappeared upstream somewhere. Was
wondering why I had bothered. Bit like this has too
Your ‘early close down’ is a great idea, though.
- May 9, 2013 at 13:20
-
@Lucozade
I was quite taken with her ‘treating adult women like children’ view. Upon
reading it I was struck almost anew by the absurdity of having the NSPCC
aboard on this.
- May 9, 2013 at 09:31
-
And this shows the sort of idiocy that the developed western world can
achieve
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11bar.html?_r=0
Even allowing for US variable age consent provisions, any law is too stupid
for words if it can result in ‘That means, Mr. Allender wrote, based on
studies of teenage sexual activity, that “nearly half of the teenagers in
North Carolina and Virginia are felons.”’
As someone who maintained virginity till I married at 30, it was hard
enough as a teenager then, and under no circumstances that I can imagine,
would I condemn any teenager for not being able to do likewise now
- May 9, 2013 at 09:19
-
There’s another angle to Hewson’s article that is worth a thought
I think that she probably included the age of consent comment more as a
contribution to the ongoing discussion on the Savile issues which have already
been aired in Spiked, and also as a means of countering the impact of the
‘moralists’ agenda, which if followed to its logical conclusion would bring us
into the sort of territory evidenced in this case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia
As someone said on another thread here, where the US goes, or has recently
been, we tend to follow. The type of ‘therapeutic’ based law she is concerned
about lends itself well to prosecutors who are ambitious, or driven by their
personal agendas, to take us down that sort of road. The real danger is not
that of a few old pervs getting some jollies for free, it’s the risk that we
start tangibly criminalising children’s activities in a way that is now
tacitly ‘overlooked’, but sure as hell won’t be in the moralistic future of
tomorrow that we seem to be drifting towards
- May 9, 2013 at 09:41
-
@hohum # the risk that we start tangibly criminalising children’s
activities in a way that is now tacitly ‘overlooked’ #
The Age of Consent was dreamt up I suppose as a way to give young females
a way of having the “whip-hand” over any male in court proceedings. I don’t
think even the Victorians envisaged it as a method for the State to control
what the post-pubescent female chose to do. It is not just children. In the
cases of some of those “abused” by Savile there are attempts to convince us
that even females of 22 were unable to exercise adequate personal discretion
of their own, and now they require police oversight.
- May 9, 2013 at 07:57
-
@ Moor Larkin
I must confess that the part about lowering the age of
consent, which is literally the last few words of the article, actually passed
me by on my first reading. So I was a bit puzzled by the ‘outrage’ until I
revisited it. What a shame that she included that, even though it was more of
a footnote than anything, and shouldn’t have detracted from the main issue she
was talking about.
Sadly that part is all that the majority of commentators
have picked up on and even her chambers have acted to distance themselves from
her views. The Unbearable One is now going to be even more insufferable.
- May 8, 2013 at 20:16
-
http://news.sky.com/story/1088447/savile-case-lead-to-persecution-lawyer-says
Naturally, the NSPCC aren’t as approving of Barbara Hewson’s article as we
are………. but at least its made the MSM and might widen the debate.
- May 8, 2013 at 19:51
-
@Anna – thank you for the correction – the pdf page is cut in parts and it
just says ‘children’ at SM ….!! anyways check out the other piece from 2011
when Jim was still the apple of the nation’s eye !!
- May 8, 2013 at 19:44
-
MWT exposed ……
I finally found something VERY interesting on this guy …..he was told about
J King 5 years before he was hauled in but did nothing ……..read this ….
NB this is from NOVEMBER 2011……..!!!
-
May 8, 2013 at 20:04
-
@rabbitaway.
Now you’re finally getting it. This is exactly what I’ve been referring
to in my not infrequent comments and questions about why everyone seems
happy to perpetuate his false CV in which he asserts he was involved in JK’s
prosecution. You read the Meirion Jones transcript from Pollard, so you will
have noted that MJ was sufficiently taken in by it to mention it in
justification for hiring him.
- May 8, 2013 at 19:30
-
Help, Nigel Sex conspiracy!
I’m really scared that our country is being threatened by sexual
shennanigans from an evil, secretive conspiracy of Nigels. First there was
Nigel Farage going on about lap dancers, then he screwed the Conservatives in
the elections (painful), then Nigel Evans with the male rape thing, then Nigel
Lawson saying how the EU will screw us (and didn’t he almost screw Maggie’s
chances during the ERM row?), and now Nigel Kennedy (who screwed record labels
out of millions) revealing stuff about pervy music teachers.
Is there NO ONE left in public life who isn’t a perv and isn’t a Nigel?
It’s at times like this that you really miss David Icke, bless him.
- May 8, 2013 at 19:35
- May 8, 2013 at 19:01
-
I’m pasting the next paragraph of Gittos’ piece …..here ’tis
Starmer set up a panel to investigate the failings in the Rochdale case.
This was at the same time that he asked Alison Levitt, his chief legal
adviser, to re-examine complaints made against Savile following the
broadcasting of an ITV documentary, and also to investigate historic claims
against the liberal MP Cyril Smith. The decision to reinvestigate the
complaints against Smith was unprecedented, given that Smith was dead and the
complaints were 30 years old. Never before had the Crown Prosecution Service
undertaken a review of a decision which would have no practical
consequence.
- May 8, 2013 at 18:56
-
@Mina Field – your link to spiked took me to Luke Gittos’ article on
Yewtree – I found this paragraph quite disturbing ……
START Luke Gittos – Spiked 8th May 2013 ‘Is this Justice or naming and
shaming ‘
In March, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Keir Starmer, made a
speech which reveals much of the impetus behind Operation Yewtree. It is clear
on reading Starmer’s account of the CPS’s treatment of Yewtree’s findings that
its roots lay not with Savile or any of the individuals associated with him –
the elusive ‘others’ – but with the botched child-sex investigation which
became known as the ‘Rochdale case’.
The Rochdale case involved the systematic abuse of underage girls by
Pakistani men in Manchester. The original lawyer for the Crown had decided
that the complainant would not be seen as reliable by a jury, and so the
original complaint was dropped. When the extent of the abuse was uncovered,
and nine men were convicted of various offences ranging from rape to sexual
assault, the operation was seen as a catastrophic failure on behalf of the
Crown to deal properly with complaints made by young women.
WHAT AM I READING HERE ???
- May 8, 2013 at 17:23
-
I think I’ve tracked down evidence of Nigel’s reported inappropriate
behaviour, in 2009….
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/09/26/article-1216392-06983684000005DC-26_468x572.jpg
-
May 8, 2013 at 17:51
-
Isn’t that the Amateur Swimming Association award ceremony?
I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that the WHOLE sexual abuse thing is
a scam. I read somewhere that in the Stuart Hall 9-year-old leg thing, there
was a brother in the room too and Hall came to read the kids a story and the
girl was pretending to be asleep, and he tickled here, possibly touching her
leg. If this is evenly remotely true then the whole thing is a scam from
beginning to end. Where is the sexual arousal, did he whip out his penis,
did he ejaculate over her? WTF?
And as for Savile, he was the worst serial rapist in British history and
the worst paedophile too, yet 99% of the evidence is held in secret. I
understand that the accusers are entitled to be anonymous as far as the
press and public are concerned (though not I think to the court) but I want
to see every one of those hundreds of sworn statements in the public realm,
and I want to know if there are any other accusers other than Keri/Karin who
have any kind of police record for dishonesty. Perhaps eventually some MP
will take up the matter, because I really doubt whether the press is up to
the job.
-
May 8, 2013 at 18:58
-
@Jonathan Mason.
Yes you have that correct. He did indeed go to the
bedroom in which both the girl and her brother awaited his reading of the
bedtime story. The girl playfully pretended to be asleep and he (so it
seems to me) therefore went to tickle her into giving the game
away.
I’m also pretty unhappy with the way that the media has spun the
‘the parents knew and had a word’ myth. That to me sounds like a very easy
assertion to make to a journalist when in fact one’s parents are now
deceased.
Sadly SH has done everyone something of a bad turn with his
capitulation, although I can’t blame him for doing what he felt he must
do. Its definitely every man for himself right now.
- May 8, 2013 at 19:19
-
No, I don’t blame him, but if this offence, which is virtually
nothing, is the worst offence he is confessing to, then he may not even
get a custodial sentence–a great deal if he is getting rape charges
dropped in exchange for the plea. I guess it all depends on the other
charges. Kissing a girl of 13 on the mouth might be a worse offence, but
still not much, and the sentencing goes down as the age of the girl goes
up to 13. But tickling, a kiss on the mouth (one time), a feel of a
breast–this is barely actionable. Show me the erect penis!
-
May 8, 2013 at 19:15
-
Jonathan Mason,
I think poor Jimmy Savile has been set up royally.
It stands to reason that with a big trawl and witch hunt like this
which is targeting many elderly tv personalities and putting them out
there in the hope people will make complaints against them (Mark Williams
Thomas himself has said that is why they are publicly named (often with a
brief summay of what they’ve been accused of – nudge nudge wink wink
), that it is going to attract a few genuine complaints against some
individuals along with many many bogus ones, and even some of the
‘genuine’ ones could be grossly exaggerated.
Are these guys, Mark Williams Thomas, the media, even some of the
police, for real that they think the few genuine complaints that *might*
come along during this huge advertising and trawling campaign justify the
many many bogus or grossly exaggerated to the point of no recognition
ones? I can not agree with them.
We now have a situation were by if a man IS guilty of trying to snog a
14 year old say, he now has to be put out there publicly and face the very
grave risk of facing all manner of bogus accusations that could be
anywhere from leg squeezing, sodomy to child rape, and disproving these
could be an absolute NIGHTMARE, but he must be guilty of those other
crimes because he tried to kiss a 14 year old once (the allegations
‘corroborate’ one another apparently) and even if he is innocent of even
the first offence he is accused of, if more come foward as a result of the
publicity and trawling – they are still quite probably going to be
****ed.
This seems like lunacy to me. There are other ways to try and encourage
people who may have suffered or are suffering abuse not to suffer in
silence and report it without this farce. Advertising campaigns, posters,
tv, radio saying something like ‘if your being abused don’t keep it to
yourself, report it to the police or call this number and we’ll help’ and
they could maybe teach in schools that certain treatment is unacceptable
and if it happens to you or you see it happening you should report it. But
no, they’ve got to go through this ridiculous farce of targeting old tv
personalities and setting them up publicly in the hope that not only with
all their past skeletons come out the closest, but a whole load of bogus
accusers will come forward to to add weight to the ‘case’, and if they are
no longer required and the damage is done, no matter how serious the
accusation, they can just withdraw their statement and slip away
quietly….
In the real world I always thought ‘withdrawing’ you statement meant
saying you were *lying* (whether you actually were or not), otherwise, if
they decide to take it to court, you are obliged by law to go, if cited,
whether you want to or not, it’s not you decision anymore – but that
doesn’t appear to be the case here?
How is any of this nonsense stoping abuse happening in the here and
now? Ok it draws publicity to the issue, but I think there are plenty
other ways to do that and that this celebrity witch hunt is wholly
unnecessary.
And if this is it starting to spread to America I will scream:
….
- May 8, 2013 at 19:23
-
This seems like lunacy to me.
It is lunacy. One day this will be recognized.
-
May 8, 2013 at 19:25
-
@Luco – read this – note how he accuses JS of having sex with 17 and
18 year olds ……..hardly child abuse …..spot the other deliberate
mistakes …..surely the 2009 investigation was form the Dunny gals not
patients at SMand’ …
http://williams-thomas.co.uk/?q=system/files/Sunday%20Times%20-%20News%20Review.pdf
- May 8, 2013 at
19:34
- May 8, 2013 at 22:01
-
Anna, you may be interested to discover that alleged Savile victim
‘Angie’, who was featured on MWT’s ‘Exposure’ as being independent of
Duncroft, actually went there as well.
On page 12/176 of Appendix 12 of the Pollard Review is a letter
from the producer of ‘Exposure’ sent to George Entwistle.
The letter makes clear that the person identified as [R15] was
‘Angie’, who was allegedly raped by Savile a number of times in 1968
in a Top of the Pops dressing room. And on page 12/23, we have the
claim ‘Some girls won’t even acknowledge that they went to the school.
[R15] for example…’
‘Val’ is [R14], but I have not found another reference to her in
the report (yet). However, I will wager money on her going to Duncroft
as well.
As an aside, on page 12/22, Fiona said [R15] was convicted of
murder!
- May 8, 2013 at 10:10
-
The govt needs to put a stop to all this naming/shaming nonsense – again
where are the civil rights groups etc. Either the names are released by the
police or they are not and forget this discretionary – in the public interest
nonsense. If someone is a danger, lock them up. If not bloody let them be
until the evidence is heard. I’m only talking about child abuse claims here –
‘Jimmy’s Law’ if you will.
- May 8, 2013 at 09:50
-
Surrey police are busy again rounding up music teachers ….! – a ‘pool of
offenders’ no less
http://news.sky.com/story/1088135/pool-of-offenders-in-music-school-abuse
- May 8, 2013 at 09:22
-
Re Nigel Evans, why do the media pretend they don’t know who tipped them
off so they could be in position to capture the moment of his arrest?
In this case could it not be an important factor, worth ‘investigating’ by
the media?
It seems the criminal press (phone hacking and corrupt payments) are
demanding they should be the gatekeepers deciding who to name when they have
been arrested. Yet petty things like a ‘close friend’ or ‘a source’ providing
details a celeb couple having a row is go unamed as if it’s a state secret,
maybe the media should be more open about some of their sources?
In a sex case would the police out of keeping the ‘victim’ informed tell
them of an immenient arrest?
- May 7, 2013 at 19:35
-
But – wait a minute this is not the first time is it Nige’ ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/28/childprotection.schools
So WHY was this not investigated in 2003 ???
And why not bring it up in 2011 ……
- May 7, 2013 at 19:27
-
So what was the lead story in tonights Ch 4 news – was it the Tia Sharp
murder trial ? NO, was it the escape from captivity of 2 women held by
kidnappers for 10 years ? No was it the murder trial of April Jones ? NO, it
was Nigel Kennedy’s old music school. I’ve just sat through a mini version of
Exposure with a woman recounting how she had sex with her teacher – she was 17
at the time ! Why do I not give a flying banana ??
- May 7, 2013 at 19:42
-
Rabbitaway,
I love the way they nudge real important stories of human interest out
the way in exchange for piffle like that. Do we need to know about her sex
life when there are children being murdered and people being kidnapped the
world….?
-
May 7, 2013 at 19:52
-
@Luco – I’ve found out more since – but my comment is in moderation –
apparently, Nigel Kennedy spoke out about his school in 2003 but nothing
appears to have come of that …….
- May 7, 2013 at 22:09
-
Funny you should mention Nigel. He had a small column devoted to him
and his teenage career and how Yehudi Menuhin got him going, but that it
was Stephane Grapelli who liberated his artistic soul…………. no mention of
Jimmy Savile though……
According to many obituaries of Savile in 2011, Nigel Kennedy
appeared on “Jim’ll Fix it” aged 11…..
but this is impossible because
Nigel was 11 in 1967……….
Strange, how journalists propagate something that could never have
been true and blatantly obviously so………
Or
maybe these are their private fraternal little jokes…..
- May 7,
2013 at 22:52
-
@Moor – I came across a book about the late Ray Moore in a charity
shop and bought it thinking it would give me a bit more gen on the
world of the BBC etc etc. What a lovely man – so sad he died so young
anyways – here he is with our Tel and other Radio 2 DJ’s for children
in need …..happy days ….!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVk_IAthyOA
- May 7, 2013 at 23:08
-
“….. taller in the charts than Paul McCartney and just underneath
Cliff Richard………… ”
titters from audience……
- May 7, 2013 at 18:04
-
Here we go ….. the dash for the cash is on
- May 7, 2013 at 17:49
-
I used to know someone who reckoned she’d been abused as a child by her own
father. When asked what he used to do to her, she would always reply, “Well,
of course I don’t know, because I’ve blocked it out.” I always used to be a
bit suspicious of this, since I’d met other abuse victims who could never
block out what had happened to them. That was the problem! If only they could
be so lucky to block it out….
My acquaintance had suffered severe mental illness for many years and had
been in hospital many times and I grew to realise that she hinged the reasons
for her illness on being abused. To her, it made every sense. She must have
been abused, otherwise, why else was she so ill?
- May 7, 2013 at 19:49
-
Suspcious,
You can be ‘abused’ in many ways, not just sexual or neglected, or
sometimes, just have really unfortunate luck I suppose….
-
May 7, 2013 at 17:14
-
I would laugh if it wasn’t so awful, although I am entirely unsure of for
whom it is the most awful. For the moment I am settling for near hysteria. Me,
that is. The Media are so much better at full on, mass hysteria than I could
ever be.
- May 7, 2013 at 16:05
-
It really annoyed me to see the media, and even MPs, say he should be
allowed to carry on as if nothing happened. While I don’t disagree with that
in principle, I would put a £ to a penny on their baying for blood if he were
a public sector worker, and whoever it was wouldn’t get to midday before being
suspended.
- May 7, 2013 at 16:24
-
Nor would it have happened if he’d been heterosexual and accused of
raping two women…..
-
May 7, 2013 at 16:40
-
Have THEY added homosexual M.P’s accused of sex crimes to the list of
people we are not allowed to hate – YET ?
- May 7, 2013 at 17:12
-
@rabbitaway
I don’t think you’ve been paying attention……
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97850/easy-read-hate-crime-action-plan.pdf
My
name is Lynne Featherstone and I am the Minister for Equalities.
All
crime is wrong.
But crime that happens because of someone’s race,
religion or belief, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability or
anything else is very wrong.
The “anything else” I find especially intriguing………
- May 7,
2013 at 17:50
-
@Moor – if they were to bring back hanging I might murder someone
myself ….;)
- May 7, 2013 at 20:10
-
1. “It really annoyed me to see the media, and even MPs, say he should be
allowed to carry on as if nothing happened.”
2. “I don’t disagree with
that in principle”
Does not really compute, unless your saying that unless a principle is
followed 100% of the time it must be ignored. Surely you can’t be meaning
that an accusation is really all you need. That’s GDR territory there.
- May 7, 2013 at 20:27
-
It is GDR territory if politicians and the media are allowed to protect
their own, whilst sanctimoniously promoting summary action be taken, on
the basis of mere accusation, against those that aren’t part of the
nomenklatura.
Unless you think that doesn’t happen, I think you may have
misunderstood me?
-
May 7, 2013 at 20:33
-
Could you cite an example?
-
May 7, 2013 at 22:43
-
You may not like this one, but if you read the whole story, you’ll
see that the media and the politicians had a field day and just why
the Courts cut them down to size
Otherwise, here’s another story that has more than a whiff of
interference from above.
- May 7, 2013 at 14:56
-
That should be ‘Jimmy Savile falls into the same category as someone who
has pleaded guilty..’
- May 7, 2013 at 14:52
-
Then you read it properly and see that, whilst others are ‘innocent’ until
proven Jimmy and Stuart Hall fall into the ‘guilty’ column – oh – I’m deflated
now !
- May 7, 2013 at 14:44
-
Dear me SYNCHRONICITY or what I CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT I’VE JUST READ ……
Are we indeed seeing a light at the end ……???
- May 7, 2013 at 14:56
-
He’s a bit schizophrenic, or should I say two-faced, on the matter of
naming and shaming. He say’s he’s against high-profile arrests, but then
goes on to say that he is against anonymity for the accused. He is obviously
quite happy for trawling to continue.
- May 7, 2013 at 15:05
-
@ He is obviously quite happy for trawling to continue. @
He’s a journalist………….
- May 7, 2013 at 13:11
-
@Lucozade – good point about the Birmingham six – I remember it well – we
used to take exactly the same journey (boat train) to Belfast from New Street
Station Brum – and so could easily have been picked up and had boxes of bryant
matches rubbed into our finger nails. Dear me that bloody journey was bad
enough without being swept away to the cells beaten and kicked to bugger
-
May 7, 2013 at 12:54
-
@Rabbit. When this all first kicked off I tried to voice concerns about
what The Media were doing. But The Media didn’t want to know, and I couldn’t
get a Comment posted for love nor money. And then they discovered that Red
Arrows were much more fun for the brain dead millions, which is why I started
The Red Arrow Club, of which some of those here are members.
Since then I
have discovered that some of these allegations are in fact Untrue, and that
some of the wider Media have been Fabricating Evidence. But there is never
going to be a Trial of Jimmy Savile, which was the original point that I was
trying to make. The only people who are now going to lose out are The
Charities Jimmy Savile worked so hard to help.
The rest of them will have to take their chances. But at least one of them
will be found innocent. Not that this will make any difference to the brain
dead millions. Britain has got precisely The Media that it deserves. But some
of the brain dead millions are one day going to wish that they hadn’t.
-
May 7, 2013 at 13:12
-
@Elena ….’The Red Arrow Club’ I like it …..who wants to be popular
…..look where it gets you
- May 7, 2013 at 13:59
-
It’s quite easy to join. Just say something half intelligent on The
Daily Mail. Any subject will do.
-
May 7, 2013 at 14:35
-
@Elena’ I’ll pass on the Daily Mail lot – what is it they say about
pissing in the wind
- May 7, 2013 at 15:26
-
Just step smartly to one side, and then say something entirely
opposite next time.
I am going to have a go at being a Creationist in a minute, but I
might need some help with this one as I get a bit confused with all
the begetting. Now there’s some Paedophilia and Incest for you.
PS. Who was the major rock idol of the time? And don’t say Jacob.
We all know he was into child abuse.
-
May 7, 2013 at 15:38
-
Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and
pipes
(Genesis 4 v 21)
-
May 7, 2013 at 15:45
-
And you do Jacob an injustice. He worked for 7 years before
marrying Leah, and another 7 years before marrying Rachel. But I guess
that might now be counted as be child abuse if they were below the age
of consent when he started working for the privilege?
-
May 7, 2013 at 14:35
-
The other game you can play there is to see how many Green Arrows you
can get by writing something that is so preposterous that no same human
being could believe it
-
May 7, 2013 at 14:36
-
no SANE human being…
- May 7, 2013 at 15:05
-
Tried that, and you are so right. But, I save that for when I’m
really bored, and when I’m not giving different coloured arrows to
double posts.
- May 7, 2013 at 15:07
-
Presumably for those commenting on the Satanic Dancing articles,
it’s all a bit too late anyway……..
- May 7, 2013 at 12:18
-
There again someone could try out the Independent on Sunday who are looking
for the ‘falsely accused’ – Thanks to Moor for providing earlier link ….
http://www.false-allegations.org.uk/press-releases.html
-
May 7, 2013 at 11:43
-
I still think Jimmy Savile is innocent. And I am not going to change my
mind until someone proves otherwise. Not that my opinion will make any
difference, other than to label me a paedo lover. But I don’t care about
that.
- May 7, 2013 at 11:45
-
@Elena
Jimmy is convicted and filed so far as the world is concerned. Things
have moved on. Somebody described him as “the stalking horse” on my blogroll
someplace. I think that person pinned the tail on the donkey.
- May 7, 2013 at 11:50
-
When y’all have a spare 20 minutes listen to this – then you may have
more understanding as to what this is all this bullshit is about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppgg_vF3Z-0
-
May 7, 2013 at 11:51
-
@Moor – Jimmy ‘convicted and filed’ absolutely 100 % wrong.
- May 7, 2013 at 11:59
-
Yer, me too. That’s what I think, Rabbit. And I think I might be on a
winner here. No one is ever going to prove it actually.
- May 7, 2013 at 12:06
-
@Elena
The only way the public will become interested in Savile again is
if some of the higher-profile Allegations are shown to have been
provably untrue, and that furthermore, some of the media-jockeys
promoting them are demonstrated to have deliberately fabricated the
“evidence”.
I have endeavoured to unpick the “Exposure” programme” but there is
very little interest anyplace else and it seems now to be a bookies
favourite to receive a BAFTA….
- May 7,
2013 at 12:14
-
@Elena – No one will bother trying to prove or disprove anything if
WE let them get away with it. Moor Larkin has raised the idea that JS
has been found guilty in the eyes of the world and people have moved
on (I’m sure this was tongue in cheek). This is not the feeling that I
am getting from the response to my comments to the MSM. The only way
that Sir Jimmy will get a fair crack of the whip will be when enough
voices are raised to question the mass media’s version of events forty
odd years ago etc
Check out the dissenting voices here and the recci’s received
- May 7, 2013 at 12:23
-
..and how horribly topical is this today?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaUkt59vY1Q
-
May 7, 2013 at 12:29
-
That may have well been me, Moor, I’ve used the term elsewhere on
another blog.
The question we now face, where is all this going, and when will it
stop? Is it only me that find’s it ridiculous and pointless, charging
someone with sexual assault for touching a girl’s leg decades ago? How on
earth can anyone defend themselves against an accusation like that, there
was no proof then, and there’s obviously no proof now, either for or
against.
Is it the beginning of some Stalinesque purge of “incorrect thinkers”?
Now the mechanism for prosecuting decades-old trivial charges is in place,
perhaps the targets will become more political. Who is the political force
behind this, as surely the police can’t be spending all this money without
some authorisation from higher up. Never mind high-level paedophile rings,
who is the high-up witchfinder, and what is their agenda?
- May 7, 2013 at 12:39
-
Other than Max Clifford – who is in the mix in part from ‘knowing too
much’ and in part the teacher being overthrown by his pupils – all the
allegations tend to be directed at unfashionable people of a ‘slightly
grumpy right wing’ stance, which should beg questions in itself. Rolf
Harris is an experimental push into ‘better thought of’ territory, if
they feel that can get pulled off (if you pardon the disgraceful
double-entndre) that will go further and ultimately target more ‘popular
stars’.
No “Labour Men” have been picked off. This might be
irrelevant of course.
- May 7, 2013 at 12:48
-
@ perhaps the targets will become more political @
They already are. I noticed a clear divergence in forums when the
whole shenanigan started with Savile, in terms of the objectivity with
which people wanted to view the evidence, and that related to my knowing
the person’s overall “political view” of the world.
But this was nothing new, the wave of victim-feeling built to a
crescendo with the Hillsborough revisionism already accepted by the
government and the new Inquests now due next year – nearly thirty years
after the events. Back just a few months ago, it was being suggested
policemen and ambulance-men were likely to ultimately take some blame
and might even face prosecution, for deaths that could gave been
averted. The fact that all that misery derived really from putting the
public in iron cages has been completely forgotten. For several years
before that we all had to weep and wail as dead soldiers were paraded
through country villages. The nation has been weaned into facebook-style
caring about the lives of others.
- May 7,
2013 at 13:19
-
@Moor – I think you’ll find that the police were largely to blame
for the Hillsborough tragedy. Yes the fences were there and had indeed
been there for decades. It was a police decision to herd so many into
so small an area and then to hush things up after – disgrace. I’m
talking about the officer in charge that day as I’m sure alot of the
boys in blue did the best they could after the event. I believe that
there are those in Liverpool who will still spit at the thought of THE
SUN newspaper for its atrocious attacks on the fans.
- May 7, 2013 at 13:34
-
@ the fences were there and had indeed been there for decades @
The first fences didn’t go up until about 1974 or so. They were an
abomination. If the police made mistakes, the consequences were only
what they became, because they had been turned into zoo-keepers. Funny
that Anna Raccoon has only today posted about “Soccer”.
- May 7, 2013 at 13:48
-
Watch YouTube footage of the Valley Parade disaster of 1985. 56
people died, but imagine what would have happened if there had been
perimeter fencing around the stadium. Even accounting for the large
number of fools and nutters that went to football in the 80′s, how
could anybody think that perimeter fences were a good idea after
that?
- May 7, 2013 at 14:19
-
@Moor: re crowd control
But presumably the police had assumed responsibility for crowd
control at this football match, as opposed to the stewards or some
contracted security company, and presumably the FA had contracted with
the police to provide a certain number of officers with a certain
level of crowd control expertise and to carry out certain functions.
Hence it is reasonable to assume that the police did not carry out
their crowd control responsibilities in an effective manner.
- May 7, 2013 at 15:04
-
@ Hence it is reasonable to assume that the police did not carry
out their crowd control responsibilities in an effective manner. @
That’s what Lord Justice Taylor concluded in his Report as long ago
as 1989, as the Hillsborough “campaigners” themselves seem to fully
acknowledge:
“Taylor very clearly laid the blame for the disaster at the door of
the police but in so doing he effectively ‘let off the hook’ those
other agencies involved. ”
http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/history/taylor.shtm
- May 7, 2013 at 19:33
-
Elena ‘andcart,
Re: Jimmy Savile
I think he’s innocent too or at least no more guilty than the next person
(Mark Williams Thomas included).
I don’t believe any of the recent allegations against him anyway and
don’t think he was a paedophile….
- May 7, 2013 at 19:39
-
Join the Red Arrow Club.
If he was still alive, and if I was him, I would be bringing a case
against The BBC for Sexual Harassment.
-
May 7, 2013 at 19:46
-
Elena ‘andcart,
Why sexual harassment? lol
- May 8, 2013 at 09:37
-
What with all those teeny boppers throwing themselves at him, he
never got a moments peace. In this day and age, which is what we are
talking about, this is sexual harassment.
-
May 8, 2013 at 16:36
-
Elena ‘andcart,
True, and all the tabloids and even the police and tv programme
makers casting aspersions on his character and sex life with no
evidence other than someone they don’t know much abouts say so….
- May 8, 2013 at 17:02
-
@ What with all those teeny boppers throwing themselves at him, he
never got a moments peace. @
Daily Mirror 1971:
Jimmy, who has been called the ‘oldest
teenager in the business’ added: “Girls go to great lengths to find
out where you live, and then camp on your doorstep. Once a big sack
arrived at my home with ‘A Present for Jimmy’ marked on it. Well,
there was this chick inside it. She was just 17. We had a cup of tea
and whiled away an hour chatting.”
Fast-forward to 2012 and who on earth is going to believe THAT
story?! …..
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/exposition-pt6.html
- May 7, 2013 at 10:26
-
I see that MWT offered to ‘help round up 1980′s paedophile ring’ saying
that the victims at Elm guest house could contact him directly if they did not
want to talk to the police – he goes on to talk about making a documentary
about it IF the police investigation turned out to be UNSUCCESSFUL ….bloody
hell ….
MWT March 2012
Police reopen case from Independent Febuary 2012
- May 7, 2013 at 11:14
-
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/canalysis.html
So many people appear to have based their persona on Ellsworth Toohey
over the years – I can’t help but think of MWT now as Ellsworth.
He is
‘tweeting’ the goss on the Tia Sharpe trial from Court right now
-
May 7, 2013 at 11:45
-
He won’t be allowed to take his phone etc into court so he’ll miss half
the ‘action’ if he has to keep running out tweeting ….if he’s doing it
inside the court someone should report him…….you can’t even bring in a
bottle of water to the Old Bailey …..;)
- May 7, 2013 at 11:19
-
That Daily Mail piece is just a load of speculation. Everybody named in
the report as a potential abuser is a) gay, or reputed to be so, b) a wrong
un’, or reputed to be so, and c) dead. And all the convincing probative
evidence which existed has been destroyed, by corrupt Special Branch
police…
- May 7, 2013 at 11:34
-
@ all the convincing probative evidence which existed has been
destroyed @
I thought the Labour Elections Strategist had it all, and was meeting
regularly with HM Police?
http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2012/10/foi-request-to-metropolitan-police-service
-
May 7, 2013 at 11:36
-
@Duncan – I only provide the links to the newspapers as a point of
reference. The point that I was making is the fact that this guy appears
to be saying that even if the police find no evidence of wrong doing HE
will go ahead and make a documentary the case. Kind of similar in a way to
what he and his chums did to SJS. Now some might say, great, someone to
speak up for victims whilst others would suspect not only his motives but
the legal aspects of such endeavours. I wonder what the police themselves
make of the guy who encourages ‘victims’ to come to him rather than the
police. Perhaps we are heading towards a privatised police service !
- May 7, 2013 at 11:43
-
@rabbitaway
MWT believes the media can help the police catch criminals. It
appears that ACPO are in accord, so it is not “just him”.
The media business was in danger of being castrated by the
Celebrity/Leveson process, over fifty journalists have been arrested by
the police in the last year or so. What goes around, comes around and
now it is the forces of Celebrity who are under attack. The forces of
the law are grotesquely out of control just now [witness Plebgate], but
with “abused children” at stake, how can any politician speak up,
without howls of anguish from the Meeja?
In case that wasn’t enough., it’s now been made clear that they can
just as easily be the recipient of the next Allegation anyway.
- May 7,
2013 at 11:50
-
@Moor – again I say – HE is using his ex policeman persona to
‘investigate’ – I’m not bothered what other journo’s are up to. I’m
concerned that some people are being led to believe everything this
guy says because of his previous incarnation.
- May 7, 2013 at 12:19
-
@rabbitaway
If it wasn’t him it would be someone else. He tweets like a canary
and scratches in the media dust like a soup chicken. He’s a nobody
going nowhere except on late-night joke TV. There are far more serious
players involved in the mainstream media, for whatever reason of their
own – most of them probably just to be seen to be on the “right”
side.
- May 7, 2013 at 12:46
-
“He’s a nobody going nowhere except on late-night joke TV.”
I fear you are not correct in this assessment. His star is rising,
and unless he overplays his hand he will become a mainstream David
Icke.
- May 7, 2013 at 12:50
-
@ unless he overplays his hand he will become a mainstream David
Icke. @
Serves him right……….
- May 7, 2013 at 10:12
-
Hold on, the Mirror says that the arrest (in April) was the result of
information passed to N Yorks police from Scotland Yard (yewtree) ????
- May 7, 2013 at 09:59
-
It’s interesting that JT’s arrest is cited as not part of yewtree but a
‘seperate investigation’ – the offence/s dates back to the 70′s. I wonder if
the police are trawling their own records as well as trawling for victims
……
- May 7, 2013 at 09:55
-
So now it’s Jimmy Tarbuck
- May 7, 2013 at 10:03
-
At least Brucie can see the funny side:
“Before his marriage to Puerto Rican Wilnelia Merced, a former Miss
World, Bruce’s romantic history was chequered. With six children from three
marriages (one to his Generation Game hostess Anthea Redfern) and various
rumoured romances, does he think if he had met Wilnelia when he was younger,
they would have been quite as happy?
“If I had met her 30 years earlier, she would only have been about three
years old! I’ve never thought of that before, that’s terrible. You shouldn’t
have asked me that – what with everything that’s going on!”
And with that he hops up and introduces me to the beautiful Wilnelia
before walking me to the door. A freezing cold breeze greets us and again
Bruce looks out longingly at the golf course on his doorstep.”
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-04-20/bruce-forsyth-on-strictly-to-be-recognised-at-the-baftas-is-wonderful
- May 7, 2013 at 10:19
-
“Police have arrested Bruce Forsyth for paedophile offences, after he
allegedly admitted to having sex with a grown woman who was once three
years old, it has been revealed. A source close to the investigation
revealed that Forsyth had sex with the woman even though he knew she had
once been below the age of consent.”
-
May 7, 2013 at 11:33
-
In other news:
– man today arrested for having sex with a woman, thought to be his
wife, whom he met before she reached the age of consent
– in future legal developments, an amendment has been put forward to
the proposed Jimmy’s law – see
https://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/victims-rights-v-villains-rights/
to add a further, prefixed, clause as follows
‘Heterosexual conduct shall only be permitted if the following
conditions have been complied with. There shall be no similar
requirement in respect of non heterosexual acts’
Note – The impact of the proposed clause is that, as we address the
need to align UK law with the Napoleonic Code, homosexual conduct shall
be, unquestionably, legal but heterosexual conduct shall only be legal
if male participants have both, in written form, the prior consent to
all aspects of the behaviour(s) proposed and the post coital, or other
end outcome, approval of the female involved
- May 7, 2013 at 20:06
-
I know longer know what to think about the Hall case, can’t see why he
would plead guilty though. That said it is getting to absurd levels and I
wonder when they are going to start on the Rolling Stones and all the famous
pop groups of the 60s and 70s as clearly they would have had plenty of
underage girls throwing themselves at them. What a waste of police time and
money, as many have said there has to be something behind it all.
-
May 7, 2013 at 09:22
-
This new lot of trawling will come to an end when the police and CPS get
shown up by a disastrous trial. This is what happened with the David Jones
case in 2000, when a bunch of junkies who had met in jail decided to make
multiple false allegations against him for the compo. The police and certainly
the CPS must have known that the allegations were unfit for court, but went
for it anyway. Swines.
- May 7, 2013 at 09:43
-
@duncandisorderly
Somebody is going to have take them on, that’s for sure. Celebrities are
rich enough to make it a fairer fight. There seems to be strong reason to
believe that the entire area of law concerning historical allegations has
led to hundreds of normal people having been banged up for years, so the
“Law Establishment” has reason to fight this one to a bitter end too. There
will be blood.
http://www.false-allegations.org.uk/
- May 7, 2013 at 08:54
-
Oh, so it wasn’t even an allegation in the first place (JT) – it was the
acclaimed yewtree mob telling NYP that they might like to look at a Harrogate
venue and see if there was anything in it. So NYP went trawling and came up
with one willing claimant (might as well skip past the complainant>victim
stage and jump to the real status), but want/need more, hence the
publicity.
- May 7, 2013 at 08:38
-
If you have met a person however briefly and can confirm date and location
surely you can accuse them of assault.
Amongst a crowd ?..well he took you
to an alcove didn’t he which shows what a monster he really is.
We should
be demanding the Savile accusations are fully investigated.
- May 7, 2013 at 07:08
-
Interesting that its taken two weeks to release his name. Couldn’t possibly
be because the one and only allegation is going nowhere and they are therefore
needing more to ‘come forward’, can it. Surely not…..
- May 6, 2013 at 23:23
-
who is the “groomed”- the older buying the drinks or the younger batting
their eyelids ?
-
May 7, 2013 at 23:06
-
The mugs who end up picking up the tab years later
- May 7, 2013 at 23:09
-
Who was wearing the beer goggles I wonder…………
-
May 7, 2013 at 23:16
-
Dunno but he lost his knickers …….I’m waiting for the second part of
his memoirs that he wrote after the diagnosis ….I feel like I’ve missed
out on something his show was on bloody early bless him !
- May 6, 2013 at 23:22
-
I’s just too tedious for words. Someone told me that representatives are to
go to Australia to investigate the Rolf Harris allegations. Is this true and
if so how much money is this costing the taxpayers?
-
May 7, 2013 at 00:19
-
It seems nuts, but presumably the whole thing is politically motivated.
Presumably the government thinks this will help it win the female vote.
- May 7, 2013 at 01:13
-
Rolf Harris emigrated to this shithole when he was 21 – what they are
after in Oz Christ knows.
I see there has been another Yewtree arrest; does it fit the criteria?
Let’s see:
Known Tory supporter? TICK
70s? (Allegation & Age)
TICK
Fairly Wealthy? TICK
Unfashionable/Risible/Unknown to the Under
50s? TICK
Called Jimmy? TICK
Unable to ‘prove’ defence? TICK
- May 7, 2013 at 09:40
-
@chrisbarratt
They went to the land of OZ to interview a woman who says she
witnessed something once. The implication is that she was in England at
the time. I think she is said to be 43 or so now, putting the event into
the 1980′s [probably] [whatever it was]
- May 6, 2013 at 22:09
-
Do you think this latest arrest might just make people question the whole
business? When I read the story of Stuart Hall’s victim it was so much more
believable than any of the Savile stories and I am glad he finally admitted
his guilt. However I didn’t find any of the Savile stories very credible,
especially in the light of your revelations about Duncroft. I don’t find the
claims against Nigel convincing either, though who knows what the motivation
is and I will be very surprised if anything comes of it. If they claiments
have made it up for whatever reason I hope they will be charged. Of course I
could be wrong but it all seems very unlikely.
- May 6, 2013 at 22:32
-
@carol42
I have to say that the Stuart Hall letter victim (which is what I assume
you are referring to) was simply a copy of the same sort of “grooming
allegations” laid against Savile. So far as I could make out, even within
the context of her own letter, she was over 16, and repeatedly visited the
BBC to have sex with Hall. The description of “grooming” now seems to be
being identified with an older man, ascertaining a younger woman was
willing, and then engaging in consensual sex with her. That matter certainly
was not paedophilia, which after all remains the charge that “criminalised”
Savile in the eyes of the UK since his victims were alleged to be under the
age of consent. If all that had ever been said about Savile was that he had
sex with teenaged girls over the age of consent, at the very beginning,
there would have been a collective shrug of indifference I would have
thought.
There seems to be an attempt to shift public opinion further now than
ever, and that any sexual activity where there is a significant age
difference is de facto likely to be an assault, and certainly will be
investigated if an allegation is made by the younger party. I gather Nigel
Evans is 55 and he has been very friendly with 22 year-olds. How old was
that man when it began I suspect will be a crucial part of the “case”. The
rape charge will presumably be formulated on the same basis as the female
ones… the young man was “groomed” somehow.
-
May 7, 2013 at 00:04
-
Moor Larkin
Re: “even within the context of her own letter, she was over 16, and
repeatedly visited the BBC to have sex with Hall”
What was she 16? If so, why start a police ‘investigation’ into a man
on the back of something that is not even a crime?
I noticed she didn’t actually seem to specify her age in the example of
the letter printed in the Independent – if this was supposed to be the
basis for some sort of ‘investigation’ into illegal behavior, you’d have
thought a little something like her age might be an important detail
wouldn’t you?
I wasn’t convinced really, her bit about “there was a lot of blood” the
second time they had sex struck me as a gross exaggeration, if any of it
was genuine at all….
- May 7, 2013 at 09:36
-
@ Lucozade
@ I noticed she didn’t actually seem to specify her age in the
example of the letter printed in the Independent – if this was supposed
to be the basis for some sort of ‘investigation’ into illegal behavior,
you’d have thought a little something like her age might be an important
detail wouldn’t you? @
It may not have been explicitly “revealed” but this woman appears to
be telling the same story as the original anonymous letter.
“Susan Melville met Stuart Hall after he was hired for her school
prizegiving. She was just 15, but he used the encounter to groom and
eventually sexually assault her. ”
Having recently turned 16, Susan was too frightened to travel into
the city on her own. She wore a pale-blue suit with a knee-length skirt
considered ‘decent attire’ by her grandmother, and her father chaperoned
her before leaving her on the steps of the BBC. It was a cold and
blustery day and a nervous Susan arrived at reception just after 7.30pm
to be met by a man claiming to be a sound recordist, who took her down
to a dingy basement area. ‘He didn’t say anything to me, didn’t
introduce himself,’ she said. ‘I wasn’t made to feel welcome at all. It
was all very strange. I’ve realised since then it wasn’t a recording at
all. They had mocked it up. He had set it up to get me there and it is
possible that others were complicit. ”
-
May 7, 2013 at 14:54
-
Moor Larkin,
Re: Susan Melville, the Daily Mail article
” Just 20 minutes later the ‘recording’ ended and Hall asked Susan
if she wanted to go for a drink before he took her home in his car. In
my naivety I thought he meant lemonade and having done all that
singing I agreed,’ she said. But Hall drove the youngster to a nearby
pub. ‘I said, “I can’t go in there, I’m not old enough”,’ she said.
‘He said, “Don’t worry about it, leave it with me”. So he took me in.
I asked for a lemonade and he said, “No, no, have a proper drink,” so
I ordered a vodka and lime because that’s what my mother’s friend
drank. I hated it and I’ve never touched it since”
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Yeah alright, i’m sure this is the story she told or tells her
mate’s, if it even happend at all.
Were did she get her inspiration for this from – a scene in ‘Home
and Away’…..?
- May 7, 2013 at 00:10
-
The Hall charges are very strange. First of all there is very little
information available in the public domain. As far as I can piece together
from various sources in the case of the 9-year-old Hall was at a dinner
party at her parents house and came into her bedroom and read her a
bedtime story and at some point groped her leg, or possibly her genitalia.
That seems to be all that is known, never mind whether she screamed or
called her parents at the time or later, who these people were, how
well-known Hall was to the family, and so on.
It is easy to say that this sounds like a made up story. Why would this
guy who is such a great lothario and sleeps with hundreds of women have
the urge to grope a NINE year old WHEN HE IS A GUEST AT HER PARENTS’
HOUSE? Unbelievable unless he was such a compulsive paedophile that he
could not stop himself, or that he was drunk, or both.
However without knowing the whole story we can’t begin to challenge it,
or even know exactly what he is pleading guilty to. But it makes a huge
difference. If this is his WORST offence, it could be 2 years in prison if
it was genital groping, but none if it was just the leg, and there were no
other aggravating factors like ejaculation, exposing his penis, and so
on–which we just don’t know.
I assume that judges in the UK hand out concurrent sentences when there
are several charges, rather than consecutive sentences, so the matter of
what is the WORST thing that he has pleaded guilty to is significant from
the point of view of sentencing.
It all seems very bizarre to me and we know so little about the charges
that it is really difficult to imagine what the hell he was up to. It is
so hard to imagine that this man was a paedophile that you have to wonder
if he has some kind of intermittent mental illness–always assuming that
all the allegations are true.
-
May 7, 2013 at 01:40
-
Jonathan Mason,
The Independent says:
“One of them was aged only nine when in 1983 she was attacked whilst
Hall was enjoying a dinner party at her parents’ house.On that occasion,
the broadcaster crept into the child’s room under the pretext of going
to read her a story. She pretended to be asleep but he lifted the duvet
and her night dress before touching her on the upper leg and towards the
vaginal area”
and the Sun and other newspapers said:
“In the 1980s Hall molested a nine-year-old girl by putting his hand
up her clothing”
I couldn’t possibly know if this is true or not, but it strikes me as
quite a stroke of ‘luck’ (for want of a better phrase) for the police
‘uncovering’ all of this on the back of a dubious anonymous letter, by
someone claiming to have had a fling with him in her teens, but age not
specified.
From their ‘investigation’ the police mangaged to get this
allegation, the one of the forced kiss on the 13 year old, and the 17
year old complaining he touched her breast and tried to kiss her or
something. The rest came after the media publicity and a summary of
these accusations being published in the press – could be part of the
reason some of the accusations are claimed to be ‘strikingly
similar’.
What I would think is that, although Stuart Hall wasn’t part of
‘Operation Yewtree’, the prosecution would have been desperate to get
him to plead guilty in order to silence any critics, and probably had a
lot of pressure applied on him to do so, and he does appear to have been
offered some sort of deal i.e they are now not going to prosecute him
for the ‘rape’ charge and instead it will be left on file. Although i’ve
actually heard two versions of this in the media, one was that the
complainant had decided not to go a head with the prosecution now he’d
‘admitted’ to the other offences, and they didn’t see it as ‘in the
public interest to force her’, and the other was that *they* had went to
her and convinced her it was ‘not in the public interest’ to prosecute
him for it. Why I don’t know, but if it is the latter that would suggest
to me that they struck some kind of deal with him: ‘your going to get
convicted anyway, plead ‘guilty’ to all the other charges and we’ll drop
the ‘rape’ charge and you’ll get a shorter sentence for that and for
pleading guilty’.
Bear in mind that this man is 83 years old – any sentence could be a
life sentence, time is not on his side, and he would have been very worn
down.
Here’s another example of an accused person being offered a
‘deal’:
http://www.richardwebster.net/howthepolicetrawltheinnocent.html
and a few more I found reasonably interesting (you may have read them
yourself already):
http://www.richardwebster.net/trawlingnetstheinnocent.html
http://www.richardwebster.net/thecompensationfactor.html
….
- May 7, 2013 at 13:37
-
@Lucozade
Re: S Hall and the CPS decision re dropping the rape.
From reading the CPS statement it appears that it was the
complainant who did not wish to support the alleged rape prosecution,
and that they, the CPS, took the decision that it was not in the
public interest to persuade her to do so. After all, they opined, they
had got him on the other charges.
I don’t know how these things
work, but would dearly love to know whether the fragility of the rape
prosecution was disclosed to the defence BEFORE the guilty plea or
not.
-
May 7, 2013 at 20:42
-
Mina Field,
Re: “From reading the CPS statement it appears that it was the
complainant who did not wish to support the alleged rape
prosecution”
Then why did she bother making the complaint in the first place?
There’s a lot of this making serious complaints and then retracting
them here, funny how most of the rest of us don’t get out of it that
easy. It’s usually, you make a complaint, the decision is take to
prosecute and you are expected to do as you are told and show up
whether you want to or not. You can choose not to, but you will not
receive their approval….
- May 8, 2013 at 06:42
-
If I have the right person, I understand she was a police woman,
now works in child protection – and told her husband she thought she
should come forward to encourage others.
- May 8, 2013 at 18:45
-
@Anna Raccoon
No, you’re getting confused (and who wouldn’t), the ex police
woman was the one whose boob was allegedly touched. On a happy
note, the barrister, Barbara Hewson is very much on the case – see
her twitter timeline and her ‘Spiked’ article. She’s particularly
unimpressed with said ex police woman.
- May 8, 2013 at 19:12
-
You beat me to it – just read that article and it is
electrifying!
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13604/
- May 8, 2013 at
19:49
-
@Anna Raccoon
Her twitter comments on the CPS chap are positively
heartwarming.
She is connected to the Justice Gap too, as
is Kim Evans of the FOI requests to Surrey Police about MWT.
In fact I’m now starting to come across a growing number of
fairly well placed people who are declaring the investigation
of MWT to be their mission now.
- May 8, 2013 at
21:14
-
Yeah, I just looked at that article half an hour ago and
she is saying the same thing about Hall’s offences that I said
based on my knowledge of sex offending having worked in a sex
offenders institution. These things are trivia, they are not
the normal kind of sex offences that are prosecuted, and the
police and prosecutors MUST know this perfectly well. How many
people are serving time right now in the UK for groping a
teenager’s leg or kissing on the mouth? If I am a juror and
you want me to convict, show me the erect penis, preferably
with ejaculate!
- May 8, 2013 at
21:48
-
@Jonathan Mason
Its all kicking off now. Ms Hewson was contacted by NSPCC
who demanded she retract the article or else they would pass
it to the media, which of course they have now done. At the
same time they emailed it to their partner in crime, the
paedo-finder himself. He is now having a twitter hissy fit.
Ms Hewson is receiving abusive messages.
So much for free speech.
- May 9, 2013 at 07:24
-
I’d agree with all of it some of the time, some of it all
of the time, but lowering the age of consent still further I
would disagree with none of the time and I suspect she has
fatally holed her ship with that notion.
“The apparent and increasing hostility of the Tory
government of Margaret Thatcher towards “the promotion of
Homosexuality” can probably be traced back to the rise of an
apparent demand for Paedophilia to be recognised as an
acceptable sexual direction to take. The eventual prohibition
of this strange bastard son of the struggle for sexual freedom
was inevitable, but it would be foolish to try and pretend it
never happened.
The campaign to equalise the Age of Consent for gay sex,
first from 21 to 18 and then later from 18 to 16, would
naturally add to the notion that homosexual sex somehow was
related to the desire for sex with younger and younger
“children”. The ironies that gay men were congregating in
places such as Elm Guest House, and that this is now being
“investigated” all these years later, coupled with the
accepted gay “Rent Boy” phenomenon, as celebrated by songs
such as those by the Pet Shop Boys would only add to this
dangerous confusion in the minds of those uncomfortable with
the whole idea of “unnatural” sexual activity. This is a basic
societal attribute, as witnessed by the increasing problems
over the issue in many parts of the developing world, and some
of the newer democracies in eastern Europe.”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/sing-if-youre-glad-to-be-gay.html
It dos seem bizarre that Ms Hewson has been finally sparked
to write this following the case of a man who appears to have
confessed to a number of genuine child-sex complaints (some of
which would still have been under-age even under Ms. Hewson’s
proposed new regime) and yet she has sat still for all these
months while the life of Jimmy Savile, who appears far more
likely to be innocent, has left her unmoved. It must be
something to do with public persona.
- May 9, 2013 at 07:36
-
Pressing the send button before thoroughly re-reading, is
always a disaster….:-D
“lowering the age of consent still further I would
disagree with none of the time”
should have
read:
lowering the age of consent still further I would
AGREE with none of the time…..
Hope I don’t get quoted out of context……..
- May 9, 2013 at 08:09
-
@Moor – perhaps the reason Ms Hewson has been ‘sparked to
write this’ is BECAUSE Hall pleaded guilty ! We’ve been
questioning the possible reasoning behind his admissions.
Perhaps elements in the legal profession are concerned that
their lifeblood could slip away from them especially given
the cuts that spawned Ms Raccoon’s ‘flat pack barrister’
piece. I still say hurrah to Ms Hewson whatever her motives,
whilst accepting that I will possibly be disappointed
somewhere down the line. It’s got the child protection
(RACKET) brigades dander up – I’m happy with that !
- May 9, 2013 at 13:00
-
Moor Larkin,
Re: “It dos seem bizarre that Ms Hewson has been finally
sparked to write this following the case of a man who
appears to have confessed to a number of genuine child-sex
complaints (some of which would still have been under-age
even under Ms. Hewson’s proposed new regime) and yet she has
sat still for all these months while the life of Jimmy
Savile, who appears far more likely to be innocent, has left
her unmoved. It must be something to do with public
persona”
I think she perhaps hasn’t worded it brilliantly so her
point has been missed a little.
I think what she sort of seems to have a b in her bonnet
about is that she thinks that the way the media and CPS have
handled the Stuart Hall case and are now describing him e.g
‘opportunistic predator’ or ‘serial sex offender’ is
unprecedented for the sorts of crimes he is alleged to have
committed (they may be bad but don’t usually quite meet the
definition of those titles in her opinion/experience). I
think she was trying to give her professional opinion, but
maybe did it in a rather ham fisted way, perhaps not
realising the publicity it would receive. I doubt very much
she was trying to ‘justify’ (as some have suggested) such
actions.
I’m sure she never suggested, or meant to suggest, that
her reason for saying that she thinks that the the age of
concent should be lowered is so that the men arrested under
Operation Yewtree and those like them would not be punished.
Nearly all of those men (with the exception of Gary Glitter
as far as I know) stand accused of forced or unconsensual
behavior, so would still be in the position they are now if
the age of consent was lowered.
Dave lee Travis, Jim Davidson, Freddie Starr and
initially Max Clifford were arrested for alleged offences
towards girls over 16 anyway (I don’t know about the
others). I think she perhaps made the mistake of not
explaining her reason for thinking that (or perhaps just
keeping it for another article entirely), as it has come
across to some sort of like she was suggesting she wants the
age of consent to be lowered to ‘stop these ridiculous
prosecutions and to make the behavior of these dirty old men
legal’, which I am sure would not have been what she meant
at all and probably wouldn’t be the case anyway, under most
of the circumstances.
Bringing in a statue of limitations would protect them
perhaps, depending what the statue of limitations was. I
agree to some extent that there should be a statute of
limitations but not for really serious abuse e.g rape,
incest, or persistent, continual abuse, as opposed to ‘he
grabbed my boob or tried to kiss me once’ (I think there
should probably be a statue of limitations on those sorts of
complaints).
I also believe complainants *should* keep their
anonymity, I don’t see any benefit to them being named,
though perhaps, where possible, anonymity could be extended
to the accused as well.
I did think she was shooting herself in the foot a bit
not mentioning the accusation regarding the 9 year old, in
Stuart Hall’s case, or that there had been other younger
complainants, though we hadn’t been given much detail of
those, and I suppose I did have my own queries about the
accusation concerning the 9 year old. Just to have come
across as more balanced I think she should have perhaps
included them in what she wrote.
I think because of the way she has worded herself she has
come across as a bit unbalanced and heavily on the side of
the accused, but I don’t think that was her intention and I
rather enjoyed the way it was a bit like two fingers up to
Mark Williams Thomas, lol, who seems to have the cheek to
assume that his word is the be all and end all regarding
issues such as sex crime, child abuse, and what young
teenagers should be legally permitted to do, it’s as if he
thinks he runs the world and gets to dictate to everyone
else what is right and what is wrong and what opinions
people are permitted to hold (is it illegal to have an
*opinion*? Or voice it in a reasonable way?). I saw someone
comment on the Daily Mail “she holds perverse views, she
should be investigated”, so in other words she is not
allowed an opinion regarding the world she lives in that
goes against the grain (and is on a subject which is
debatable anyway)?
I totally agreed with her comment about how “adult
complainants are invited to act like children”. The Duncroft
women, especially at the beginning were invited to act like
children to such an extent that all their bad behavior,
including blantant lying about the actual events they were
supposed to be complaining about and a forged letter alleged
to be from Surrey police was blatantly swept under the
carpet and ignored. It was like ‘oh, that behavior is to be
expected, they are ‘victims’ of abuse (when we only really
have *their* word for that, and actually, none of us have
probably had it easy).
And the comment that “adults and law-enforcement agencies
must stop fetishising victimhood” struck a bit of a chord
with me, I feel that that is what has actually been
happening lately.
I think her main worry and main point of writing what she
wrote was the affect all this appears to be having on the
way the law works, she said:
“It is depressing, but true, that many reforms introduced
in the name of child protection involve sweeping attacks on
fundamental Anglo-American legal rights and safeguards, such
as the presumption of innocence. This has ominous
consequences for the rule of law, as US judge Arthur
Christean pointed out:
‘Therapeutic jurisprudence marks a major and in many ways
a truly radical shift in the historic function of courts of
law and the basic purpose for which they have been
established under our form of government. It also marks a
fundamental shift in judges’ loyalty away from principles of
due process and toward particular social policies. These
policies are less concerned with judicial impartiality and
fair hearings and more concerned with ACHIEVING PARTICULAR
RESULTS…’
’The therapeutic model has certain analogies with a
Soviet-style conception of justice, which emphasises
OUTCOMES OVER PROCESSES. It’s not difficult, then, to see
why some celebrity elderly defendants, thrust into the glare
of hostile publicity, including Dalek-style utterances from
the police (‘offenders have nowhere to hide’), may CONCLUDE
THAT RESISTANCE IS USELESS”.
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13604/
It’s a shame that this part of her argument doesn’t
appear to have made it’s way into many of the newspaper
reports I have read and none of them to much extent, though
the Telegraph does ever so slightly, and I have not read
them all. But it is a bit of a shame, as I think this may
have been the main point she was trying to make. But I
suppose if she had just written about that and not included
the bits about ‘reducing the age of consent to 13′,
‘removing complainant anonymity’ and describing the alleged
crimes of Stuart Hall as ‘low level misdemeanors’ it would
have been unlikely to have made the papers?
So if nothing else at least she has maybe drawn more
people’s attention to her other arguments and ‘Spiked
online’ – so at least it’s a bit of publicity for those with
a different opinion on the whole ‘Savile/Yewtree debacle,
than that of which the papers appear to be expressing at the
moment, which I haven’t agreed with….
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815
….
- May 9,
2013 at 13:05
-
I just read those charges against SH listed in the DM. The first
four charges on 16/17 year olds reminded me of being that age in the
early 1970s, I worked a variety of casual vacation jobs while studying
for A levels then university. Quite an education. Apparently by
current standards, two women now in their late 70s if still alive
should be charged with indecent assaults on a teenage boy once police
turn their attention beyond celebrities. A shock for me at the time
and not forgotten but hardly made me think victim then or now. Perhaps
being chased by a gang of skinheads wielding chains same year only
just making my escape had given me a sense of perspective on matters
like a kiss out of nowhere and a grab of genitals. Holier than thou
women who comment on the DM about men please take note obnoxious
gropers came in both sexes back then.
Since by current values I am also a ”victim’, I’ll use my voice to
say that, in my opinion, on the scale of being considerate to other
people, a woman who reported SH for touching her breast 40 years
earlier has committed a far more serious ‘crime’ than a perpetrator of
some daft inconsiderate fooling around incident long ago. The police
and lawyers should also consider their sense of priorities.
No comment on the charges involving younger girls as I’ve not read
what evidence there is concerning what actually happened.
-
May 7, 2013 at 09:41
-
Jonathan Mason,
Re: “or that he was drunk”
IF this incident happend, and something MUST have been done to
encourage these complaints after all this time, it is plausible that if
the girl was ‘pretending to sleep’ he may have made some attempt to wake
her up, and in the day’s before paedo hysteria was quite at it’s
currrent height, may have not thought twice about putting his hand on
her bare flesh to do so, and, if he had had a few to many to drink could
very well have been considerably more clumsy about it.
It said that he allegedly touched her “on the upper leg and *towards*
the vaginal area”, well, your upper leg is either towards you bum or
your ‘vaginal area’, thats just anatomy for you, but if this is the
*actual* allegation, then it would appear to me that he is actually
accused of touching her ‘UPPER LEG’ and NOT her ‘vaginal area’, though
she could actually probably make any allegation against him she wants
now and would be believed….
IF this was the *only* allegation made against an individual, I
actually think it would probably deserve the benefit of the doubt, but
that’s just me. It doesn’t strike me as *obviously* sexually motivated
and could well be interpreted as a clumsy accident and
misunderstanding.
To me it seems that BEFORE the ‘investigation’ into Stuart Hall was
made public in the media, and a brief summary of the accusations was
published, the *worst* accusation against him was the forced kiss with
tongue on the 13 year old, yes he was accused of trying to do the same
to the 17 year old and apparently touched her breast, but this is a
common thing that, unfortunately, happens to many women (and pehaps
men?), when there are drunken revelers about, and I he may well not have
known her age (though not sure if that would have made much difference)
– yes you *are* entitled to go to the police about this sort of
behavior, but most DO NOT, and if this happend to her at the hands of
Stuart Hall, I doubt it was the last time something like this happend to
her.
So, because of the young girls age and the context of the situation,
i’d say the WORST accusation against Stuart Hall, before all this was
made public nation wide, was the forced kiss with tounge on the 13 year
old. And I do wonder if anyone has ever been jailed or prosecuted over
something like this in the past?
I think that they needed stronger allegations, and stronger
allegations they got when his arrest (charge?) was made public nation
wide. Was this all that happened to increase allegations though I
wonder? Just because it does not make the news or the papers and the
police, CPS, and media do not choose to inform us of things does not
mean that things are not happening that we do not know about – of course
they are….
- May 7, 2013 at 09:48
-
@lucozade
Early reports stated the girl told her parents at the time that
“something” had happened and they challenged Hall about it. The
implication seemed to be that he had admitted it somehow and they then
“forgave” him, perhaps believing it may just have been a clumsy silly
misunderstanding. He has pleaded guilty to around 13 charges; he seems
certain to get jail, so why plead guilty anyway? If he wasn’t.
- May 7, 2013 at 11:51
-
@Moor
Yes, but would the sentences be consecutive or concurrent. If
concurrent, the worst case would be the most relevant one.
The sentencing guidelines say:
The starting points are for an adult offender, of previous good
character who was convicted after trial…
Type/nature of activity: Contact between part of offender’s body
(other than the genitalia) with part of the victim’s body (other than
the genitalia)
Starting points: 26 weeks custody if the victim is under
13
Sentencing ranges: 4 weeks – 18 months custody
Now, this is after a trial, so it would be less for a guilty plea.
The defendant in this case is of good character, and does not
represent an ongoing danger to the public.
A single touch does not seem like very much. Genital touching is
not usually just a single touch, but presumably some kind of
masturbation, an attempt to cause sexual arousal, and so on. A single
touch to the leg could not have much erotic significance, though
prolonged massage of the upper leg, hip, and inner thigh might cause
arousal.
During the course of my time working in a sex offenders treatment
center I was able to read dozens of sex offender case histories and
every single one of them related incidents more severe than those Hall
is accused of by a degree of some magnitude, for example the child
being taught to handle or suck the offender’s penis, intercourse
taking place, digital penetration, use of sex toys, etc.
Some of the worst cases involved babies, which is particularly
horrible, though I must admit that my seven month old daughter will
grab a finger or thumb and suck it, and have read of the Emperor
Claudius enjoying himself with unweaned children, so I can see where
this perversion might come in. There was a case recently in the news
where a baby died after choking on a condom. http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/blog/2012/09/21/jury-convicts-man-for-orally-raping-his-baby-to-death/index.html
Perhaps UK paedophiles are just very mild by comparison, but the UK
police should know.
- May 7, 2013 at 12:09
-
@ Jonathan
There are 13 other charges as well.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/02/article-2318348-1998EB84000005DC-791_634x525.jpg
you may need to adjust your screen-sizing
-
May 7, 2013 at 12:26
-
Moor Larkin,
Re: “He has pleaded guilty to around 13 charges; he seems certain
to get jail, so why plead guilty anyway? If he wasn’t”
Why did FOUR of the Birmingham six confess?
“Billy Power confessed while in Morcambe while Hugh Callaghan, John
Walker and Richard Mcilkenny confessed at Queens Road in Aston with
Paddy Hill and Gerry Hunter not signing any documents”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six
Or ALL of the Guilford four?
“After their arrest, all four defendants confessed to the bombing.
These statements were later retracted, but nonetheless formed the
basis of the case against them. They would later be alleged to be the
result of coercion by the police, ranging from intimidation to
torture—including threats against family members—as well as the
effects of drug withdrawal”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven
Or Tituba the slave at the start of the Salem witch trials?
“Tituba was the first person accused by Betty Parris and Abigail
Williams of witchcraft. She was also the first person to confess to
witchcraft in Salem Village. She at first denied that she had anything
to do with witchcraft. Samuel Parris beat her until she confessed
herself a witch, to having spoken with the Devil. John, her husband,
became, through fear, the accuser of others. Betty and Abigail then
went on to accuse the other two women, Sarah Good and Sarah
Osborne.
Other women and men from surrounding villages were accused of
witchcraft and arrested at the Salem witchcraft trials. Not only did
Tituba accuse others in her confession, but she talked about black
dogs, hogs, a yellow bird, red and black rats, cats, and a wolf.
Tituba talked about riding sticks to different places. Tituba
confessed that Sarah Osborne possessed a creature with the head of a
woman, two legs, and wings. By mixing the different views on
witchcraft, she unintentionally set Salem Village into chaos by
hinting that Satan was among them”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tituba
These things really happened, and the Birmingham six and Guilford
four, relatively recently.
I’d think it (hopefully) unlikely that Stuart Hall was beaten,
threatened with a gun or had his family threatened directly (though he
may have perceived a threat or some threats may perhaps have been
subtly implied). And he was MUCH OLDER than these other people i’ve
mentioned – a very old man of 83. What was his mental state? What had
his mental state been reduced to?
Anyway, I think a possible reason for him coughing up after being
so adament that he was innocent is that he realised, when the
accusations started coming in after the nation wide publicity,
whatever the truth of them, that he was probably going to be convicted
anyway, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was told that, but was also told
he would get a significantly shorter sentence if he plead ‘guilty’ to
the charges and they would also help make it shorter by getting the
‘rape’ charge ‘dropped’, which appears in a few articles to have been
the decision of the prosecution rather than the complainant her self,
but she, apparently, agreed to it:
“Prosecutor Peter Wright QC told the court yesterday the alleged
rape victim was aware that Hall had admitted a string of other sexual
assaults.
THE PROSECUTION DECIDED, with her approval, it was not in the
public interest to ask for a trial on the rape charge”
Very easy going. I thought it was about ‘justice’ for the ‘victims’
though? hmm….
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/stuart-hall-facing-last-years-1866811
They would have been desperate for him to plead guilty, to try and
make their case and actions seem more credible and persuade the
critics.
I think it is perfectly possible that by the time he plead ‘guilty’
to the charges he plead ‘guilty’ to, he was just fed up. He was 83
years old, any sentence could potentially be a ‘life’ sentence, he was
going down for these accusations anyway, but was offered a chance to
limit the ‘damage’ – not to his reputation, but that was shot to
pieces anyway and by this time he could well have possibly held his
persecutors in such contempt that he simply did not care what they
thought anyway – but to limit the number of years taken away from him,
so there might, possibly, at least be a chance that he would live to
see his release from prison and maybe spend time with those who do
care about him.
This is a theory of course, but not an impossible one or probably
one that is without precedent. And others have also remaked that they
find some of the allegations (as reported) strange and the current
string of, almost exclusively, elderly television personalities being
arrested in the wake of the so called ‘Savile scandal’ i.e ‘Savile’
rumors.
Here (as posted above) is an example of a man charged with physical
and sexual offences, who was offered a ‘deal’ and didn’t take it:
“ONE EVENING IN MAY of this year, Brian Johnson, a 43-year-old
former care worker from South Wales, telephoned me from a call box in
Cardiff. He had been charged on several counts of physical and sexual
abuse. But the prosecution had offered a DEAL. Good-humoured as
always, Johnson told me: ‘If I PLEAD GUILTY to the PHYSICAL CHARGES,
they are PREPARED TO DROP *ALL* THE *SEXUAL ALLEGATIONS* and I will
almost certainly walk out of court a free man. So what do I do?’
I didn’t really need to answer. Johnson had already made up his
mind. His legal team had collected substantial evidence that all the
allegations against him had been fabricated. ‘I’m going back
tomorrow,’ he said, ‘and I am going to tell them exactly where they
can stick their offer. I am going to fight.’
For some time, there was no news. Then I found out what had
happened. After a three-week trial, Brian Johnson had been found
guilty on several counts of sexual abuse. He was sentenced to 15 years
in prison. He was led from the court, shouting out that he was
innocent”
Assuming that this account is *true*, I wonder if he regrets the
decision he took now?
I’m also struck by how willing they were to DROP ALL the sexual
charges just in order to get him to ‘plead guilty’ to *something*. I
thought this was supposed to be about the ‘victims’? If those
allegations were true and just ‘dropped’ or dismissed like that – how
would they have felt about it?
http://www.richardwebster.net/howthepolicetrawltheinnocent.html
….
- May 7, 2013 at 12:34
-
@Moor.
Yes, but which is the signature offense and will the sentences be
concurrent? Also interesting that with one complainer he pled guilty
to one charge and denied another. Is she a truth teller or not?
- May 7, 2013 at 13:50
-
@ Why did FOUR of the Birmingham six confess? @
When first confronted Hall denied the “charges” and indeed called
them “pernicious” and he has not been subjected to incarceration and a
gun barrel used to smash all his teeth out, which Patrick Hill says
happened to him. So something made Hall radically change his mind.
Perhaps when he first heard “rape” he knew he was innocent because he
never felt he had “raped” anyone. Then, he realised what “rape”
actually meant in law. I would guess some of the other stuff he
genuinely didn’t really remember at first – the girl in the hotel
corridor for instance… just another celebrity day to him. Maybe it’s a
combination of his feeling guilty about some of his behaviour in
retrospect, and then realising he will be found guilty of some charges
anyway, because these things are decided by juries, without any other
evidence than listening to stories. Given his resources and that his
son is “of the law”, I would guess that if he genuinely believed that
some of the charges were completely made up, then he would have felt
able to mount a defence of some sort, based on basic stuff such as
whether he was even in the place described, to start with, etc..
- May 7, 2013 at 15:29
-
@Lucozade
I did not follow the case of the Guildford Four at all closely at
the time, so I had no particular opinion, but some years later I saw
the film In The Name Of The Father and I was not particularly
persuaded of their innocence based on what was shown in the film which
left it very ambigous, thought, although it did seem to me that the
prosecution had massaged the evidence to get a conviction.
With so much probably depending on secret intelligence and
information from informers that could not be used in court, it was
difficult to get a true picture. For example, in the case of Conlon,
it seemed that the story that the IRA had expelled him to England
because of his petty criminal activity might be true, but it would
also make a great cover story for an undercover operative. Might he
not have agreed to carry out the placement of a bomb prepared by
someone else as a way of getting back in favour of the IRA and being
allowed to return home?
(Also note that all four confessed and then later withdrew their
confessions. They might have been tortured or coerced by police, but
then again they might not, at least not to the extent of confessing to
mass murder.)
The film also apparently contained some fictional elements, such as
the father and son sharing a cell in prison.
I was once foreman of a jury and while it was not a high profile
case, it certainly made me aware that when a defendant decides to
plead not guilty, they may well concoct a defense that is lies from
start to finish. (In the case in which I was a juror, the woman drunk
driving defendant claimed she was a sound technician for CNN and had
come to town to film a professional boxing match at the city
fairgrounds. Shortly after the case, in which she was found guilty, I
discovered that the fight was put on by another TV network
(Telemundo), and that it was at another venue, not the fairground.
There had only been one professional boxing event in the town in
recent years.)
Justice is a dirty business and while TV shows like Perry Mason,
Matlock, Crown Court, and so on may have given the impression that
everything is always above board, and that the guilty always confess
when confronted with the evidence, it is often not so.
-
May 7, 2013 at 19:19
-
Jonathan Mason,
Re: The Guildford four
I think those responsible for the Balcombe Street Siege had claimed
that they were responsible for the Guildford pub bombings in 1977, but
it was sort of ignored and they were never tried for it after the
Guildford four were released. I think the fact that the police had
been shown to be dishonest with their evidence, they didn’t fit the
criteria for the IRA e.g criminal records for shoplifting etc, one had
parents who were in a mixed marriage (so not totally Catholic), one
was British – so not Northern Irish at all, so unlikely to be in the
IRA and a couple of them had good alibi’s that weren’t heard at the
trial, along with the fact that another group of people actually took
credit or admitted to it in 1977 makes me think that the Guildford
four probably weren’t responsible for the bombings.
I certainly thought the case against the Maguire seven looked
blatantly ridiculous as portrayed in the film anyway, lol….
-
May 7, 2013 at 00:17
-
Moor Larkin,
Re: “the young man was “groomed” somehow”
You could say you teachers are ‘grooming’ you for teaching you stuff
then, or your parents are ‘grooming’ you by forcing you to live a certain
way, or is it only relevant when it comes to sex?
- May 7, 2013 at 01:18
-
Every time I try and give any benefit of a doubt to any of these
cases it’s thrown back in my face.
The innocuous ‘crimes’ of Stuart Hall have already got another BBC
‘enquiry’ amidst claptrap about ‘webs of abuse’.
The interesting thing is 1) Hall is still presently alive (more’s the
pity for him)
and 2) Hall’s family – and in particular his son – do
not seem to be prepared to stand for any nonsense (or even Nonce-Sense)
so they will have to stitch him up somehow if they persist.
- May 7, 2013 at 09:38
-
@lucozade
It’s only relevant when sex is involved just now. Voting UKIP may be
waiting in the wings………
- May 6, 2013 at 20:43
-
Surely this is the result of the JS farce that most of us foresaw:
Lancashire police have shown themselves, with the SH episode, to be every bit
as credulous and gullible as the yewtree police, and its hardly surprising
that anyone without scruples and in want of a bit of compensation, who has
been a willing partner to someone in the public eye and not impecunious, might
now just go ahead and make a complaint. We all know the process now, whereby
an arrest is broadcast, more money grabbers come aboard with complaints, and
it gets harder if not impossible for the real victim – the accused – to prove
a negative.
As others have said, this particular arrest might at least make
people wake up to what is going on.
- May 6, 2013 at 22:12
-
But how will victims know who to accuse if the latest arrestee’s name
isn’t splashed across the media?
- May
6, 2013 at 19:54
-
400 yards east and 200 north and Nige would be my MP. Local buzz is that
the main alleger of these allegations (the most recent I suppose) is somebody
Mr. Evans was regularly socializing with until very recently.
Now I’ve
always been very sceptical about this male rape business because the only way
a man would get inside me is if he parted my cold, dead cheeks, but let us
supose this ‘rape’ did take place. Does it seem likely that the rape victim
would carry on socialising with the rapist afterwards?
A prank? Maybe?
A
gay pride publicity stunt? Quite unlikely.
The mother of all hissy fits
thown by a jilted lover? That’s where my fiver will be placed.
-
May 6, 2013 at 20:21
-
The mother of all hissy fits thown by a jilted lover? That’s where my
fiver will be placed.
How reprehensible to perpetuate stereotypes about effeminate homosexuals
throwing a hissy fit!
I am also extremely familiar with the Ribble Valley constituency, having
grown up nearby. There are a large number of sheep farmers in the area and
clearly these two young men who have courageously stepped forward to speak
truth to power are innocent young shepherd boys who were taken advantage of
by a powerful Member who descended from Parliament and blinded them with the
headlights of his white Volvo while they watched their flocks by night, all
seated on the ground, snatched their crooks, threw them against dry stone
walls, lifted their shepherd robes, and gave them a taste of the Tory whip
and some hot sausage, before riding off with a tally-ho.
Young people do not lie! Honi soit qui mal y pense.
-
May 6, 2013 at 20:38
-
Jonathan Mason,
I’m sure thats exactly what happend, lol….
- May 6, 2013 at 21:59
-
Smocks, that is what shepherds wear–smocks. Sorry for the omission
above.
- May 6, 2013 at 23:19
-
“innocent young shepherd boys” . Sure, tell that to the sheep.
-
May 6, 2013 at 18:24
-
Libel
- May 6, 2013 at 17:26
-
“What could be the reason for the main stream media coming over all coy
between the last celebrity arrest and the arrest of Nigel Evans MP?”
Media treatment is the acid test to distinguish between fame and power,
isn’t it?
- May 6, 2013 at 17:41
- May 6, 2013 at 16:22
-
My comment to press gazette crap
rabbitaway • 17 minutes ago
I cannot see why any of these individuals should have been nominated for
any awards. The calibre of the journalism presented in the program ‘Exposure’
is truly appalling. That such cowardly and ruthless attacks on the reputation
of a dead man by tv and magazine journalists is even considered for merit
leaves me almost speechless. I am sure that decency and justice will prevail
eventually, in the meantime please, someone, for all our sakes, show some
journalistic integrity and kick this rubbish into touch.
- May 6, 2013 at 16:10
-
So MWT, Jones, Liz MacKean and Miles Goslett – all part of the JS expose
are in line for more awards …….dear me ……here ’tis – comment if you will
..;)
- May 6,
2013 at 16:06
-
I do still actually subscribe to the principal of innocent until proven
guilty…
- May 6, 2013 at 14:59
-
@Kingbingo – I’m sure that your friend should have little to worry about if
he is innocent. Unlike some he will get the chance to plead his innocence and
will doubtless receive a great deal of support. When, and indeed if, these
allegations are disproved perhaps such an influential man might want to help
those less advantaged but in a similar position to the one he has found
himself in. He could, for example persuade his ‘friends’ to order an inquiry
into the injustice that is Yewtree. The allegations made against the late Sir
Jimmy Savile must be investigated properly. No one should be allowed to get
away with ruining the reputation of another and the dead should be afforded
some consideration, more in fact given that they are unable to defend
themselves.
- May 6, 2013 at 23:14
-
in France the dead can be libeled and that is good law.
- May 6, 2013 at 14:51
-
Anna Raccoon,
Re: “I know that when the Savile allegations were raging, anyone suggesting
that the people making the accusations were ‘a bunch of unhinged obsessive
nasty people’ would have been shouted down, and tarred and feathered, long
before I got time to answer your comment”
I think anyone who dared to suggest Jimmy Savile might have been a nice
person, with out throwing in that it was obviously all an act to get closer to
the ‘victims’, would have been either shouted down or ridiculed in the
papers….
- May 6, 2013 at 22:17
-
@lucozade
Janet Cope was headlined on about October 17 as “Is this the last person
in the UK who thinks Jimmy Savile was Innocent?”
A couple of weeks later
she was in Exposure Pt2.
- May 6, 2013 at 14:33
-
Re “A quite remarkable show of unified and dignified responsible
reportage.
What could be the reason for the main stream media coming over all coy
between the last celebrity arrest and the arrest of Nigel Evans MP?”
Because he truly does have ‘friends in high places’ – so they have to
behave themselves, lol.
- May 6, 2013 at 14:02
-
“What could be the reason for the main stream media coming over all coy
between the last celebrity arrest and the arrest of Nigel Evans MP?”
I think the difference is this.
With the large BBC pedo ring, rumours abounded for years about their
predaliction for young girls.
With Nigel he has been subject to blackmail attempts (as most gay MPs have
been) for years.
The press knows both of these facts.
- May 6, 2013 at 14:08
-
Rumours have abounded for years about the predilection of rock stars for
young girls – we don’t describe that in sinister terms as a
Rock-Paedo-Ring?
-
May 6, 2013 at 14:24
-
Maybe, but I intensely dislike the BBC.
- May 6, 2013 at 20:31
-
Yewtree is going for the oldest offenders first, before they all die
off. No doubt there are plans for several years worth of arrests. Expect
to seem more former rock stars moving overseas for “tax” reasons. This
will not end until we see members of the Royal family locked in the
Tower.
-
May 6, 2013 at 21:14
-
Human sacrifice is important to appease the gods.
Or maybe that’s the mob, never quite sure on that one. Oh well, at
least we are much more civilized then those barbaric Romans and their
Colosseum, we use the Daily Mail instead.
-
May 6, 2013 at 21:49
-
“…at least we are much more civilized then those barbaric
Romans…”
I’m afraid we’re not:- the “Bread & Circuses” bribery of
governments over the last 30-40-50-60 years, and surely the sudden
discovery of sex-crazed celebrities and the ensuing brouhaha is the
circus, and the benefits system is the bread.
“But what about those who work and support themselves?” you might
ask…
We get the bill!
-
May 6, 2013 at 21:54
-
PS
..and our ruling élite do little more than fiddle while Rome burns.
The parallels are quite amazing, really.
Now’s who’s for taking the denizens of No. 10 (and their cohorts)
to the lion enclosure at the zoo?
- May 6, 2013 at 14:37
-
Kingbingo,
There are also Tory ‘paedo ring’ rumors, and with the BBC those accused
of offences against adults have been dragged in and tagged alongside Jimmy
Savile too.
-
May 6, 2013 at 18:24
-
A fascinating exchange!
- May 6, 2013 at 13:52
-
Nigel is a personal friend of mine going back years, i first knew him as a
18yo ‘young conservative’ back in the days they still existed.
The first thing you need to know about Nigel is that he really is a
absolutely thoroughly blood good bloke. Nobody dislikes Nigel, even his
political enemies still count him as friend. Indeed I remember turning up at
his Westminster office many years ago and the doorman to the block of offices
used by MPs gave me a serious look and proceeded to explain what a really good
bloke he is. Most MPs barely notice the doorman, let alone have a great rapour
with them. That was endemic of Nigel, stand him in front of the Prime Minister
or the guy that empties the bins in the office and he treated them all the
same. He was amiable and always good humored. I know why hundreds of people
from his village, Westminster and the legions of people he has met and
impressed are now posting support on his facebook page; because he deserves
it.
On a couple of occasions as a younger man I would go drinking with Nigel
and a whole bunch of other political types, sometimes just us. Did he ever
‘try it on’? No, I knew he was gay, he knew I was straight, after that it was
like know each others respective eye colours, it was a thing that just was, no
comment needed. Yes I suppose he did not mind the company of an attractive
young man (if I do say so myself) but then again I often go drinking with the
pretty little lasses from my office, I’m no more of a predator in waiting for
those girls then Nigel is with young men. Now sure, {If I were single-caveat}
if that stunning little blonde girl from the admin department deiced to throw
herself at me and beg me to sleep with her……I would….in a heartbeat. But would
I rape her just because I like girls?- No…Obviously, I’m just not like that.
No matter how blind drunk she got with me I would not force myself. Likewise,
I know Nigel, the idea of him as a rapist is just absurd, it really is.
So when I heard these allegations I knew something is wrong. I know Nigel
has been targeted from some pretty nasty treatment in the past from what we
could call the ‘activist gay lobby’ a bunch of unhinged obsessive nasty people
that are always looking to pressurise gay men of influence to do X or Y for
the ‘gay movement’. These people think nothing of ruining a man if they think
it will help their ‘agenda’, think the shrillest part of the feminist
activists, or AGW activists, only much bitchier and with more of a penchant
for blackmail. These people think blackmail is a natural part of political
campaigning, they are just nasty shits. I bet you, any money, these
allegations get knocked on the head, and these young men who made the
complaints will be found to be part of one of these gay activists groups, or
at the very least connected to them and their dirty tricks.
- May 6, 2013 at 14:06
-
Kingbingo! I was just talking about you the other night, wondering where
you had got to.
Interesting points you make about Nigel – it sounds as though if you are
a popular, well liked person, the media will tread carefully – hence the
reticence in mentioning Rolf Harris.
If you are not a particularly likeable person – they throw the book at
you…
If that is so, it is worrying, it suggest that media cronies and media
enemies get different – and worse – treatment, and since that ‘worse
treatment’ amounts to ruining a man’s reputation for life, that is totally
wrong, and I might even come out in support of Leveson – and I thought Hell
would freeze over first!
I know that when the Savile allegations were raging, anyone suggesting
that the people making the accusations were ‘a bunch of unhinged obsessive
nasty people’ would have been shouted down, and tarred and feathered, long
before I got time to answer your comment.
What concerns me is that I agree with your conclusion – “these young men
who made the complaints will be found to be part of one of these gay
activists groups, or at the very least connected to them and their dirty
tricks” – but in other cases the media have singly ignored all evidence
which could have shown allegations to be vicious and untrue, and instead
stuck to the ‘brave little victims coming forward’ line.
Maybe there are different media rules where gay sex is concerned? – in
which case that is also wrong, there are some 9,000 male rapes every year,
every one just as traumatising as female rapes.
-
May 6, 2013 at 14:43
-
” it sounds as though if you are a popular, well liked person, the
media will tread carefully”
Hmmm, no I don’t think its really a case of treading carefully, I think
its a question of knowing the man and knowing how utterly implausible it
is that the man is a rapist. I wish I could introduce you to him, before
long you will go ‘yeah, OK I get it, he is no rapist’ he just really
is’nt, it is not in his nature. Most Journalist will know him and know
that its just not credible. He simply is a Gentle man as well as a
Gentleman.
He has been subject to a long line of blackmail attempts, smear
attempts and other such nasties by people who want something from him. Or
even just to discredit him. this happens ALL THE TIME if your in politics.
Some people naturally attempt to win you over with reason, others try to
get you to do what they wish with subversion, there really is so much of
that in politics. Something most people never see or hear about unless
they have worked in politics it was certainty enough to make me think ‘no
thank-you’ and so years ago I largely disengaged myself from the politics
scene.
I really don’t think there is some double treatment for gay-rape. I
think the reaction in this case is nothing to do with generalities but
everything to do with specifics, as in this specific man, any one who
knows him (including most journalist) also know how underhand and nasty
politics can be, and see straight through this.
“Kingbingo! I was just talking about you the other night, wondering
where you had got to.”
I spent a couple of years working for a big company that blocked
general web access, and i could never be bothered to blog around when I
finally got home. But just moved jobs to a smaller firm, so plan to read
more now, its just getting back in the habit of being a blogie.
P.S I hope it was all good what you were talking about
!
-
May 6, 2013 at 13:04
-
Aside from the implication that Mr Evans, who is still with us in the Land
of the Living, is hence able to sue for libel and one had better make sure all
one “knows” is absolutely true before one prints it, there’s always the
chance– “chance,” mind you, I’m not saying “likelihood”– this is all a
stitch-up. If one sticks solely to the facts, one finds that a certain elderly
TV presenter pleaded guilty very recently to charges of a sexual nature and
so, it’s Katy-bar-the-door as far as anything that can be printed about him–
the fact that he is now a known and adjudicated perv makes it a lot simpler to
print any old story about him, however far back in the past something may have
happened, as his reputation cannot be besmirched any worse than it already is,
and no libel suit is likely to result in damages being paid to him. In the
case of Mr Evans, of course one hasn’t this assurance yet. But what could
prompt an attack on Mr Evans? I suggest it may have to do with his stances on
some issues, and in addition, perhaps, personal animus on the part of those
with whom he has served on certain committees. (See Wikipedia for a
discussion.) This may be an attempt to discredit him in some way. And it may
be that he is exactly what they say he is and he deserves the full weight of
the law to land on him. If an MP, whose public stances already fly in the face
of many accepted positions within his Party, is so lamentably stupid as to
conduct his sexual life in such a way as to invite charges such as these, he
deserves to have this happen to him, for his sheer arrogance in thinking he
cannot be found out. I suggest, however, that this may not be the case here.
In any event, you cannot “rush to judgement” and print a story that, in the
last analysis, is anything but a report that says “he says/he says, coppers
looking into it.”
- May 6, 2013 at 13:55
-
” But what could prompt an attack on Mr Evans? I suggest it may have to
do with his stances on some issues, and in addition, perhaps, personal
animus on the part of those with whom he has served on certain committees.
(See Wikipedia for a discussion.) This may be an attempt to discredit him in
some way.”
I would bet my house on it being that. No word of a lie.
-
May 6, 2013 at 12:55
-
Anna, you haven’t been looking hard enough for dodgy innuendo. In the
Torygraph too!:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10039340/Nigel-Evans-Deputy-Speaker-accused-of-rape-was-interviewed-four-years-ago-about-inappropriate-sexual-behaviour.html
In Nigel Evans died today, the papers would decide he had raped every boy
in every care home in the whole country.
- May 6, 2013 at 13:41
-
Duncan, I did find that story and alluded to it. Interesting though, that
only the Torygraph was able to dig up that information isn’t it?
-
May 6, 2013 at 15:18
-
@Anna ……stranger by the second – that all my comments defending SJS
were removed by the guardian mods (to be fair because of other
commentators) but the torygraph has proved itself to be more amenable. I’m
also now in the former’s sin bin and ALL my future comms will be moderated
– so I just won’t bother ……left, right,left,right …….I’m not sure which is
which any more
-
May 6, 2013 at 12:36
-
Torys, ha, they’ve lost it. If he was a Kipper, the smitten rent boy would
have gushed ‘ he was hung like a donkey and did it seven times’.
- May 6, 2013 at 12:11
-
It’s looking like a planned, carefully-staged distraction – but from what
or whom?
- May 6, 2013 at 12:09
-
Might it be because the white haired gentleman in the nice suits that
normally handles the publicity in high profile cases is er… otherwise
distracted at the moment?
- May 6, 2013 at 10:12
-
I think mainly because apples are not pears.
- May 9, 2013 at 07:11
-
@Mina Field – Great stuff I hope Ms Hewson holds up ; )
- May 9, 2013 at 15:23
-
@ if nothing else at least she has maybe drawn more people’s attention to
her other arguments and ‘Spiked online’ – so at least it’s a bit of publicity
for those with a different opinion @
It also shows the “power” of the Legal Elite. One lady barrister outweighs
the combined wisdom of any raccoon colony any day of any week…………
Icke the Pycke has been trying to tell us this for many years………..
{ 195 comments }