Freddie Starr – Charging decisions
The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that Freddie Starr should not be prosecuted for any offence.
Baljit Ubhey, the Chief Crown Prosecutor of CPS London, said:
“Having carefully reviewed this case, we have decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute Freddie Starr in relation to allegations of sexual offences made by 13 individuals. Each allegation was considered on its own merits and we have concluded that the available evidence does not offer a realistic prospect of conviction for any of the alleged offences.
“In relation to one further complainant, we have decided that although there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, according to the Code for Crown Prosecutors, a prosecution would not be in the public interest. It must be remembered that a determination by a prosecutor that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute under the Code does not mean that the suspect is guilty of the offence. Prosecutors have to consider whether there is enough evidence to bring a case to trial but deciding whether an offence has been committed is entirely a matter for courts and juries and every suspect is innocent until proven guilty.
“All of these decisions have been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and our guidance for prosecutors on cases of sexual offences. The complainants have been informed and we will be writing to them to more fully explain our decision.”
The CPS received initial material from the Metropolitan Police Service regarding these allegations in December 2012. Investigative advice was provided to the police throughout 2013 and the final evidence was submitted to the CPS in March 2014.
- John Galt
May 6, 2014 at 10:59 am -
Good for Freddy, he can get back to a peaceful retirement.
Maybe the CPS have realised that most of these cases are at best weak and more commonly utterly without merit, although it’s more likely that they are abstaining because of the political blow-back from earlier losses.
As Windsor Davies would say “Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.”
- sally stevens
May 6, 2014 at 7:33 pm -
He doesn’t want to retire, he wants to work. This put his career into a nose-dive. Hopefully he can get some bookings for next year. Good for you, Freddie!
- John Galt
May 7, 2014 at 7:48 am -
I think those days are over, he looked very frail standing with his solicitor the other day and the solicitor said he’d been forced to use a wheelchair. I think the days of him bouncing around a stage in front of a live audience are passed.
Equally, you know how it is with these sort of allegations, even though the CPS has said it will not proceed with any cases against him, they didn’t in any way seek to exonerate him, merely stating that “the available evidence does not offer a realistic prospect of conviction for any of the alleged offences”, whereas what they should be saying is that the accusations didn’t stand-up to scrutiny.
Equally the comment that “In relation to one further complainant, we have decided that although there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, according to the Code for Crown Prosecutors, a prosecution would not be in the public interest” is the typical mealy mouthed response that we’ve come to expect from the CPS – exactly what “public interest” is being served here? I suspect it’s actually got more to do with the fact that the CPS doesn’t want to risk getting egg all over its face by losing yet another “Celebrity Witch-hunt” case.
- John Galt
- sally stevens
- Truthsoutthere
May 6, 2014 at 11:08 am -
Wonder how this will impact on the libel case that Freddie Starr is perusing against Karin Ward. Someone should have done their homework before taking on a person that exaggerated or fabricated a story to sell a book. I suppose it was her statement that started the ball rolling and now nothing to back up her story , not even a pending court case against Freddie Starr.
- Moor Larkin
May 6, 2014 at 11:48 am -
- rabbitaway
May 6, 2014 at 12:40 pm -
Bloody hell, Moor, I’d forgotten about Jenni – well done !
- rabbitaway
- erichardcastle
May 6, 2014 at 3:10 pm -
I have a feeling that Starr may drop the libel case for no other reason that it’s stressful and Ward has already thumbed her nose and mocked him by claiming she is potless.
- sally stevens
May 6, 2014 at 7:35 pm -
He wants a public apology and a public admission that she lied in her book. That would put everything she has written down in serious jeopardy, and could actually get the British public to understand the depth of the deception that has been foisted on them by Meirion Jones, MWT, and all the rest of them. Go for it Freddie! He wants to expose the whole Yewtree fiasco and I hope he does! More power to his elbow, as they say!
- Truthsoutthere
May 7, 2014 at 8:47 am -
OMG that bloody book has a lot to answer for.
- Truthsoutthere
- sally stevens
- Moor Larkin
- rabbitaway
May 6, 2014 at 11:10 am -
How’s Susan doing Anna ?
- Wendi
May 6, 2014 at 11:14 am -
Nice one Freddie!
However, I would have thought he should be compensated for the angst this witch hunt has caused him and his family and the legal costs involved somehow. Are there defamation suits in the UK? Were the States he could no doubt sue for major bucks – and rightly so!
Let’s hope the CPS also drops anything in the mix against Rolf Harris as well, stop all the BS and concentrate on chasing REAL crime.
- Margaret Jervis
May 6, 2014 at 11:23 am -
Rolf Harris trial starts today. Starr decision released – burying embarrassing news under a pile of speculative courtroom titillation?
- Jonathan Mason
May 6, 2014 at 11:34 am -
One is tempted to wish Harris the best of British, but not having heard the case against him (if any), I guess one should wait and see before taking sides.
- Eddy
May 6, 2014 at 11:56 am -
Having seen some of the other cases I have no hesitation in wishing him the best of British and Australian luck.
- erichardcastle
May 6, 2014 at 3:25 pm -
You can read much of the Harris claims in the Australian media where two claimants have sold their stories several times . Ironically they had an agent named Max Markson who modeled himself on Max Clifford.
Sadly for the 2 claimants they now say Max hasn’t paid them but it didn’t stop one who i saw on a tabloid TV show excitedly say- and I do not exaggerate- ” oh the police are going to fly me to London and put me in a hotel.!”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/rolf-harris-trial-witness-tonya-lee-says-celebrity-agent-max-markson-shortchanged-her-on-paid-media-interviews/story-fni0cx12-1226813414568
Former NSW director of public prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery, QC, said the publication of the allegations had the potential to prejudice a hearing if the investigation ever reached that stage and that any trial may have to be adjourned for up to 12 months.
”I think if this woman has already given her story to authorities as a witness then it’s even more morally indefensible the course she has taken,”
http://www.theage.com.au/national/paid-interview-may-prejudice-harris-case-20130513-2jiem.html#ixzz30wurLV1m- Ian B
May 6, 2014 at 4:18 pm -
“Ms Lee alleges Harris inappropriately touched her while they sat with the group at a table”
Oh, good grief.
- Ian B
- Eddy
- Jonathan Mason
- Jonathan Mason
May 6, 2014 at 11:29 am -
British justice is becoming the laughing stock of the world, if it wasn’t already after the Roach, LeVell, Shah, Travis, and Clifford cases. If your judicial code says that to bring charges of historical sex abuse, you need no evidence other than an assertion by a victim that it was so, and you have thirteen such people, and the more the merrier, then why one earth would you not charge and try to demonstrate that each allegation shows a common modus operandi, such as that Starr (an avid Everton fan) wore red feathers and a huly-huly skirt or spoke with a Scouse accent?
And if you have a fourteenth case in which you DO have evidence to support the assertion, why on earth would it not be in the public interest to prosecute? Surely case number fourteen cannot possibly be the Karin Ward case for which a libel trial is pending, because that seems to already have been comprehensively debunked in spades.
What kind of message is this sending to the thirteen women who had the courage to come forward? Will they now break their anonymity to sell their stories to the tabloids? Oh, wait a minute, who will broker the stories now?
Perhaps the present press release is the outcome of the High Court Review that Starr had applied for. As is usual under the secretive Khmer-Ron regime in the UK, the hearing will have been heard in secret with a superinjunction in place on reporting. Under the Khmer-Ron regime, it has become commonplace for opponents of the regime–even dead ones– to be smeared with sex charges and it is not unknown for the graves of dead litigants to be desecrated. Little is known about daily life inside this isolated country, and there is even some controversy as to whether the government supports the resurrectionist “Xian” religion which holds that at the Last Trump all supporters and opponents of the regime (known in the UK as ‘sheep’ and ‘goats’) will be resurrected and brought before the Crown Prosecution Service for final judgment.
- erichardcastle
May 7, 2014 at 4:21 am -
And the hysteria has spread to Australia and shocked me although I guess with such similar antecedents it was inevitable. When I first arrived here I lived in Sydney for one year with a ‘left-wing’ government at war with the above mentioned DPP Nicholas Cowdery QC who fiercely defended the accused’s rights whilst impeccably enforcing prosecutions.
With a fixed term the Labor government tried every trick int eh book to remove him whilst removing the accused’s right to bail etc,
With the demise of that government a right wing government came in and installed a prominent new Attorney General more to their liking but alas, he was also determined to ensure the rights of the accused. He was recently sacked.
Both sides of politics have played a tough on Law & Order” game to the point it’s now referred to as Laura Norder by saner journalists whenever the subject comes up. All driven by the Murdoch dominated media.
Melbourne is very similar and I dread to imagine what Perth is like with around 40% of citizens being British born.
- erichardcastle
- The Slog
May 6, 2014 at 12:00 pm -
The problem is, the wording of the cps statement is so riddled with “eez guiltee but we couldn’t make it stick” hypocrisy, the fame junkies, bounty hunters and Feministas will merely continue to be encouraged in the belief of needing “just one more heave”.
Meanwhile, the 90% mainstream or real child abuse/sexually predatory behaviour will continue (and be ignored) involving as it does a 100% celeb deficiency.- Margaret Jervis
May 6, 2014 at 12:50 pm -
@the slog That’s standard police/cps/social services etc fare. – ‘just ‘one more heave’ indeed – but 13 alleged heaves didn’t even make the grade in combo. He’s been exonerated. Speak out!
- erichardcastle
May 7, 2014 at 4:24 am -
Not only sexual abuse but abuse but the majority of abuse which is forgotten : by physical assault, by neglect, by mental abuse and so on.
Sexual abuse of children is around 17% of cases.Oh and of course the NSPCC’s abuse : “feeling ignored by your parents” (when they are at work i guess)
- Margaret Jervis
- Ian B
May 6, 2014 at 12:03 pm -
I like the “but he’s actually guilty, we just aren’t going to pursue it” line with the supposed “one complainant with sufficient evidence for a conviction”. Disgraceful.
- Jim Bates
May 6, 2014 at 12:35 pm -
I think this line (of all of them) sums up the CPS attitude completely. Who the hell do they think they are!
This amounts to a ‘verdict’ of guilty without trial or jury. Is no one accountable for such statements?- Margaret Jervis
May 6, 2014 at 12:53 pm -
@Jim – don’t let the bastard words grind you down! He’s been exonerated. And what a smoking gun may be there if a 13 comps combo couldn’t reach the threshold of prosecution.
- Jim Bates
May 6, 2014 at 3:39 pm -
Thanks Margaret – I wouldn’t let them grind me down.
The statement reminded me of a case I was involved in some years ago. After the defendant was acquitted of charges of downloading indecent images of children, the local police were on TV outside the court saying, “We are not looking for anyone else in relation to these charges.”.
It seems to me that this has exactly the same intent. Leaving uninformed people to assume that he was really guilty but the court and/or jury were too stupid to see it. i.e. It’s not our fault he got off.- erichardcastle
May 7, 2014 at 4:30 am -
interesting that the Harris charge of 4 “child” images may be dropped because the age cannot be proved and the claim Rolf had a lot of porn on his comp which they must have trawled through.
If they drop that charge the damage is still done.- Moor Larkin
May 7, 2014 at 8:04 am -
The age cannot be proved? The images could easily have been of folk over-18 then? What sort of scummy police and CPS have we ended up with post-Starmer. Jesus wept…..
- Jim Bates
May 7, 2014 at 9:14 am -
@Moor – Not just post-Starmer, long before him. In a case where thousands of erotic and pornographic images were found, the police investigator decided there were around 80 or so that appeared underage.
Diligent research for the defence eventually identified around 70 which, by reference to the relevant agents, could be proven as over 18. A statement was obtained from one of the porn-stars involved (American – petite, figure like an ironing-board) and she indicated that she was 26 years old when the pictures were taken and she was willing to attend court as a witness. When the CPS were given this evidence they promptly removed the relevant pictures from the indictment and attempted to continue with the remaining charges. I believe the defendant was acquitted.
There are some pictures where there is no doubt that the participants are underage, with all the rest there is doubt. Sometimes the doubt can be dispelled by research, context etc., sometimes it remains. How the CPS handle such cases seems to be a prime indicator of their motives.- Ian B
May 7, 2014 at 1:08 pm -
It’s a classic case of the law deliberately gone awry to satisfy an ideological end. The prosecution are not required to prove that an image is underage, or that the defendant knew it was; leaving the defendant to try to prove himself innocent.
This is very much a minority view, but this is why I don’t think there should be a possession offence at all; the focus should be on creators of said images, legally, who are the ones doing the actual harmful thing. The sale of such images could easily be then an “accessory” crime as could (cautiously) egregious republication, but mere possession should not be.
- Curmudgeon
May 10, 2014 at 5:48 pm -
Actually, they are charged with ‘creating’ an image. When the law was framed this referred to actually taking a photograph with a film camera, but in the digital age simply downloading an image is interpreted now as ‘creating’.
- Ian B
May 12, 2014 at 7:44 am -
Curmudgeon-
Indeed. But in practical terms, it’s a possession offence.
The irony of course is that if this intepretation of “creating” were generally applied, all copyright law would cease to function in the internet realm, since merely viewing a downloaded (legally purchased) image, movie etc would also be an act of creation, and thus violation of the copyright.
- Ian B
- Curmudgeon
- Ian B
- Jim Bates
May 7, 2014 at 9:16 am -
Oooops – forgot the most important bit. Anna, please pass on my warmest good wishes to Freddie. Get well soon and continue the fight.
- Jim Bates
- Moor Larkin
- erichardcastle
- Jim Bates
- Margaret Jervis
- Jim Bates
- Fat Steve
May 6, 2014 at 12:31 pm -
Freddy Starr is alive (if sadly through this nonsense unwell) and kicking and that means he can fight so he is not an easy target —and my best guess had the prosecution gone ahead it would have destroyed many of the accusations made against Savile (and possibly others)—not just a not guilty but a clearly innocent —so better not risk the wheels coming of the bandwagon , better leave the acrid smoke in the air than have it blown away and let the game continue.
Pass my congrats to Freddie Starr Anna and I hope others who visit the blog will ask the same of you —life will probably never be the same for him but a lot of support for him will possibly give him vindication which the CPS statement clearly does not. - Paul Sullivan
May 6, 2014 at 1:02 pm -
I am pleased that the allegations against Freddie have been shown to be evidenceless, just as they were for the other ‘celebs’ and I include Max Clifford in that too. Unfortunately the vast majority of men who are subject to these allegations do not have the money or celebrity to stand a chance and many are convicted on nothing more than an empty allegation and a nod from the judge. These men are now being put on punishment regimes in prisons because they won’t lie and pretend they did it. This country’s injustice system stinks and needs a total rethink. Too late for many men and their families though.
- Frankie
May 6, 2014 at 10:22 pm -
Clifford virtually wished a guilty verdict upon himself with his antics at court and his (incorrect) assumption that he was untouchable…
I have no doubt that he was guilty as charged. These celebs can’t all be innocent, surely and, on the grounds of probability the guys at Yewtree have to score a goal occasionally if they keep kicking balls in the direction of the net.
- Frankie
- BashStreetKidz
May 6, 2014 at 1:04 pm -
“Home Truths” from another streetwize Scouser, the late great D.J. and iconic broadcaster John Peel from his last interview last lines, in The Independent On Sunday 29 August 2004:
“ Rupert Murdoch has destroyed most of what was good about this country. ”
- Margaret Jervis
May 6, 2014 at 1:32 pm -
@bash Hmmm don’t know about that. Always found Peel charmless.
Prefer Hockney’s dictum re the social engineers “…the mean-spirited and dreary people who seem to have taken over England.”
– note his prescient comment re the BBC http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2007/may/15/art.smoking
- Moor Larkin
May 7, 2014 at 8:25 pm -
He skedaddled pdq too when his young assistant died mysteriously recently.
- Moor Larkin
- erichardcastle
May 7, 2014 at 4:32 am -
yes and did here in Australia as well.
- Margaret Jervis
- M
May 6, 2014 at 1:59 pm -
Congratulations Freddie to you and your family, I shed a few tears for you today. M xxx
- Ian B
May 6, 2014 at 2:15 pm -
Bit off topic, but I cannot help but wonder if some of the gleeful loathing at Savile (and others of his “class” of entertainer) is about charity. In the Smashie and Nicey era (which played its part in reducing that generation of DJs et al to an image of creepy has-beens) they made great fun of them doing “charidee” work. I wonder if there is some subterranean angst at the fact that Savile etc did “real” charity. They raised money, and used it to help people, giving it to hospitals, institutions etc.
This is quite at odds with the “progressive” view of a charity, which is basically as a front group to promote some “social change” agenda such as feminism, environmentalism, temperance, public health regulations, and so on. Maybe the fact that the average progressive charity-wallah has an ulterior motive makes them incapable of believing that anyone else could just do pure charity, i.e. selflessly helping people.
Just a thought.
- Duncan Disorderly
May 6, 2014 at 3:05 pm -
Current cod-psychology theorises that charities are the last refuge of psychopaths, because it supposedly allows them cover for their nefarious deeds. This lends credence to the idea of Savile being a prolific child molester.
- johnS
May 6, 2014 at 10:36 pm -
Duncan Disorderly May 6, 2014 at 3:05 pm
Current cod-psychology theorises that charities are the last refuge of psychopaths, because it supposedly allows them cover for their nefarious deeds. This lends credence to the idea of Savile being a prolific child molester.
————————————————-Right, because being a hospital porter or running charity marathons gives you greater access to girls than being a famous disc jockey and TV presenter!
As I’ve said elsewhere its as absurd as accusing the owner of a boiled sweet factory of taking a job in a cafe in order to feed his sugar addiction. - Ian
May 6, 2014 at 11:01 pm -
Spiked writer Frank Furedi sees a common mindset in NSPCC and PIE – see http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/what-pie-and-the-nspcc-have-in-common/14763#.U2loDfldWZA
And I’m sure I remember certain NSPCC officials being had up for child sex offences in the 70s.
- johnS
- Margaret Jervis
May 6, 2014 at 3:15 pm -
@Ian B think the buzz word is ‘social entrepreneurs’
- erichardcastle
May 7, 2014 at 4:34 am -
lot to be said there ..an accurate observation. I reached a point of total suspicion about every charity.
- Mr Wray
May 7, 2014 at 6:06 pm -
You are not wrong but there is also the social aspect. Many of the people charged have been working class lads who ‘done good.’ They are not overly liked by the ‘elite’, progressive or otherwise. The reason is simply, they are achievers who got what they have by their own efforts and not because Daddy went to school with Squiffy.
- Duncan Disorderly
- SpectrumIsGreen
May 6, 2014 at 2:49 pm -
No news on Gary Glitter yet though. I imagine that the CPS will be very reluctant to admit that they don’t have enough evidence against him!
- Moor Larkin
May 6, 2014 at 3:01 pm -
There has never been any news about Gary – full stop -……
- erichardcastle
May 7, 2014 at 4:41 am -
I have visited Cambodia many times on business. Lovely people and country but I stay in my hotel, eat there, travel with a hired driver and get out asap.
The country is a minefield of hundreds of dodgy Eurpoean NGOs, some former criminals, some former UK & Oz cops and many with dangerous agendas ie : get as many Western men arrested on sex charges for financial gain. Often the same ‘vicitim’ is used over and over.It is unlike any other Asian country I travel to where I happily mix with locals. Cambodia is riven with corruption particularly the police, local solicitors and courts. I rarely believe much of any convictions obtained there and remember : GG’s more serious were dropped upon legal payment to the claimants, brokered by the court.
He has never been accused since or before (except for the failed NoTW travesty) .
- erichardcastle
- Moor Larkin
- Moor Larkin
May 6, 2014 at 2:59 pm -
There has never been any news about Gary – full stop -……
- Duncan Disorderly
May 6, 2014 at 3:14 pm -
The BBC’s Dominic Casciani is in no doubt about the Victim status of the Complainant:
“Why did the CPS decide that Freddie Starr should not face trial despite having sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of a conviction in relation to one complainant?
Prosecutors came to this conclusion after assessing the case against the “Full Code Test” – a set of rules used to work out which trials should go ahead.
There has never been a rule that every crime is automatically prosecuted because there are sometimes good reasons why someone should not end up in court.
So prosecutors consider questions including the seriousness of the case, the harm inflicted, the vulnerability and age of the victim and the nature of the offender.
For instance, some first-time offenders aren’t prosecuted if the offence is minor and it’s clear they will never break the law again.
Another factor is whether a prosecution could adversely affect the victim.”
- Margaret Jervis
May 6, 2014 at 4:11 pm -
@Duncan “whether a prosecution could adversely affect the victim” – could they mean that it’s simply unbelievable?
- erichardcastle
May 7, 2014 at 4:42 am -
also a possible avenue for a libel action against the CPS but I guess poor Freddie has enough on his plate.
- Margaret Jervis
- Carol42
May 6, 2014 at 3:33 pm -
I was horrified to see how ill Freddie Starr looked today, if this is a result of this case hanging over him for so long I hope he succeeds in his libel case. It is a disgrace the way they say no further action but can’t resist adding that that at least in one case they believed they had enough evidence to have a chance of conviction. This is loathsome leaving a question mark and they call this justice!
- Dioclese
May 6, 2014 at 3:49 pm -
“not in the public interest”? This bit of the public is very interested…!
- Carol42
May 6, 2014 at 4:12 pm -
I forgot to tick the box again!
- Ian B
May 6, 2014 at 5:59 pm -
I wish more people said that. GP’s for instance. A telephone conversation last week with one of the GPs from my shiny new “healthfulwellbeingness centre” (you ring them up to plead for an appointment, they ring you back to tell you if you’ve won one).
“Hello Mr B, what’s the problem then?”
“I have blood in my urine”.
“Oh. Very much?”
“Yes, it’s bright red”.
“Oh, you’d better come in then. [appointment time] By the way do you smoke?
“I’m sorry?”
“Do you smoke?”
“Why?”
“Well, we’re running a smokefreeness smokey free stop smoking campaign at the moment. Free patches and a gold star if you attend”.
“Sorry, I’m not really interested right now”.
“Oh, can I put down why?”
“Because my piss looks like Heinz ketchup and I’m more focussed on that at the moment”.
Etc.
- Duncan Disorderly
May 6, 2014 at 6:18 pm -
I hope your surgery had a system in place to prevent themselves getting sued when their triage specialist (translation: unqualified, unintelligent, asocial medical receptionist) makes an uncharicteristic error.
http://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/england-factsheets/triage-protocol-for-non-clinical-staff
- Duncan Disorderly
- Ian B
- rabbitaway
May 6, 2014 at 4:22 pm -
Eric Hardcastle is taking the word to Aussie while Lix Dux’ chums head this way BTW, was Lizzie representing any claims against Freddie I wonder !!
http://hardcastleintel.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/more-on-jimmy-savile.html
- Chris
May 6, 2014 at 5:12 pm -
I’m glad this part of the nightmare is over for Freddie – and hope he can find his way back to good health, first and foremost.
- Eddy
May 6, 2014 at 5:52 pm -
I agree with your sentiments and I wish him well in his libel case.
- Eddy
- Joe Public
May 6, 2014 at 5:17 pm -
- JimmyGiro
May 6, 2014 at 5:51 pm -
“…not be in the public interest.”
I wonder which public they are referring to, Roundheads or Cavaliers? Should Justice even be popular, let alone in the political sphere?
I’m pleased for Freddie, and hope he makes a good recovery; but as for the state of our ‘Justice system’, I fear it has sold its credibility to the Babylonian whore of public relations.
- Jonathan Mason
May 6, 2014 at 6:40 pm -
The more I think about it, the more remarkable this Starr decision seems. Whatever happened to the fiercely held notion within the CPS that it did not really matter if the complaints were plausible so long as a voice was given to the victims?
Someone at a very high level must have intervened after Regina vs Roach and said “Enough is enough. No more historic sex trials without credible witnesses, no matter how numerous they be.”
- Ian B
May 6, 2014 at 7:09 pm -
I think it’s more pragmatic after they got their collective face slapped with unexpected acquittals. They marched into this expecting a string of open and shut cases and a universal round of applause for saving us all from 1970s light entertainment, remember.
- Ian B
- Ian B
May 6, 2014 at 7:07 pm -
From the Telegraph-
“Mr Dunham claimed that a charging decision was made in the case last month, but the CPS delayed making it public because of the ongoing trial of publicist Max Clifford.”
Jesus Christ. They stayed silent to avoid the Clifford jury of knowing about another case that was without merit. These people are beyond bastards.
- Ho Hum
May 6, 2014 at 7:44 pm -
I’d seen that too. Bit that stank most. I didn’t have quite as good a summary of it, though
- rabbitaway
May 6, 2014 at 11:32 pm -
Well said, Ian ! I tweeted your comment – hope u don’t mind !
- Ian B
May 7, 2014 at 2:09 am -
Not at all, though I admit to being a bit Web 1.0 and this “twittering” is somewhat beyond me.
- Ian B
- Ho Hum
- CF
May 6, 2014 at 7:26 pm -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10806464/The-stark-truth-of-Peter-Sellers-sidekick.html
is another article full of salacious details about a late entertainer. The girl in question is described as “a minor” and the article notes that “It says a lot about the Sixties that no one thought to go to the police” but I wondered whether she probably was 16, which was or seemed to be true of some of the individuals in some of the other cases. If so, the police in the Sixties would be unlikely to be interested because in the absence of duress, there seemed to be no crime. Does the “age of consent” still mean anything?
Indeed there is the recent one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10805832/Deputy-head-of-top-public-school-quits-over-affair-with-former-pupil.html, where the young woman in question is 19, and there was no real evidence of impropriety during her time at the school. At which time now do people finally become “consenting adults”? If it’s not the age of majority (18 in the UK), when is it?
- John Galt
May 7, 2014 at 8:32 am -
Since this is not a legal matter it doesn’t really come into it, he resigned because he admitted an error of judgement in getting involved with a former pupil. As a private institution they are free to determine what the rules of behaviour are for the staff and this one resigned, he was not fired.
No comparison with the CPS cases under discussion.
- CF
May 7, 2014 at 5:54 pm -
You’re right, the connection is not very clear as I wrote it, but I think this is what I had in mind: I think that quite apart from just wanting to win cases, the CPS is also reflecting or simply using several changes in society opinion: redefining “child” to extend much further than previously (especially decades ago); contradictory views of “consent” and the age and circumstances in which that can be given; actions that certainly decades ago, though rude/caddish/ill-mannered, would not have been prosecuted now being treated as serious sexual assault according to modern criteria; and the notion of “taking advantage of a position of authority” now applied in a far more general way than previously, to extend beyond the period of actual authority, and to include some notional authority that goes with being a popular or charismatic figure (indeed, I think there were recent proposals to include that in sentencing guidelines, if not the actual law). That’s one reason that innuendo works well for the CPS, and why there are relatively few supporters prepared to go public with their own doubts (I see for instance that newspapers are criticising those who testified in Clifford’s defence).
- CF
- Mr Wray
May 7, 2014 at 6:18 pm -
I think that this is one of those cases of morality not criminality. The teacher’s code states that ‘thou shall not shag your pupils nor former pupils, no matter how old they are.’
- John Galt
- Debbieq1966
May 6, 2014 at 8:28 pm -
Good for you Freddie. I hope you’re soon back in the best of health after this nightmare.
Why anyone ever dreamed of pursuing this fabrication is beyond me!
Freddie Starr only had to snap his fingers and any number of consenting women would fall at his feet. He had no need to force himself on anyone.
- Matt
May 6, 2014 at 8:30 pm -
All this obscene nonsense is a muslim plot to discredit the English judicial system, not that it needs much help. In time people will be receptive to the introduction of Sharia.
Maybe they have some key personnel in place already.
There would be fewer compo bandwaggon jumping wimmin if the punishment for allowing a DJ or pop star to fondle them (allegedly -even 40 years ago) was a quick gang rape followed by an over-arm stoning. Bring it on.
Let’s see –who else can I gratuitously offend with my surreal effusions.- John Galt
May 7, 2014 at 8:34 am - erichardcastle
May 7, 2014 at 10:30 am -
No need for Muslims, Brits doing it all by themselves.
- John Galt
- Ian
May 6, 2014 at 8:49 pm -
When there are no more elderly white celebrities left to frame, what else will the authorities do to take our minds off moslem grooming? How about framing little boys at nursery school, their alleged victims coached by Yiewtree-trained counsellors to “remember” ferocious rapes?
- John Galt
May 7, 2014 at 8:38 am -
Maybe it’s time for a reprisal of the old satanic ritual abuse cases of the last century, those were always good for lurid headlines even though the were 100% weapons grade bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations#United_Kingdom
- erichardcastle
May 7, 2014 at 10:48 am -
Don’t worry it’s on the way with Liz Mulliner and her Heal For Life now approaching the UK with a local branch coming to near you soon Liz, a former theatrical agent is an expert in ‘recovered memory’ and had an epiphany while visiting a psychic who told her she had been abused as a child but had repressed the memory, gave up show biz and opened a retreat (with many millions$$ in donations).
Liz Mulliner swears there is Satanic Abuse Cult operating int eh Hunter Valley (maybe amongst the splendid vineyards there) and is very persuasive in convincing residents they are victims of satanic abuse,
The abuser turned out to be her late father- according to Liz, a top doctor at a Guys Hospital. Liz featured in the recent conviction of former Oz soap actor Robert Hughes with his main accuser a former soap actor from the same show he was on who also happened to be a resident at Heal For Life.
Hughes; jury were apparently dismissed the fact witnesses and complainants had met repeatedly and given collective tabloid & TV interviews.
Emails between the main complainant and her own show-biz agent were introduced as evidence as she & he discussed how to boost sales of her tale : she eventually got $85,000 ( and more to come from future interviews) as she discussed with the agent how she could be presented in the best light- and as a ‘survivor’ not a victim as she wanted to use Hughes’ conviction to launch a show-bis career in the USA
I suppose if she hadn’t succeeded in getting Hughes jailed, she could have always said The Devil made me do it.- Moor Larkin
May 7, 2014 at 11:12 am -
Spindler, the Yewtree Cop, was taking Met coppers on Satanic Abuse courses as recently as 2004.
“The Metropolitan Police Force has been criticised for sending its officers on a course which helps identify the satanic ritual abuse of children……. Mr Spindler defended the decision to go on the course, saying: “If survivors of abuse are telling us that this is the type of thing they have experienced in the past, then we need to be open minded.”
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/darkness-of-mind.html
- Moor Larkin
- Ian B
May 7, 2014 at 6:53 pm -
This whole thing is a continuation of SRA, which was just the kick-off of the Paedohysteria. When the “Satanic Ritual” part was found to be too fruity for general tastes, they simply dropped that and carried on with the rest of the mythology of organised rings of paedos. The word “grooming” itself came from the SRA lexicon, and so did the general model of it all. SRA just changed its image to a more moderate form, like the student revolutionary communist who transforms into a democratic progressive socialist to get elected. In both cases, for some reason society complies with a strange reluctance to discuss what they used to be.
- erichardcastle
- John Galt
- James Masterton
May 6, 2014 at 11:23 pm -
On a related topic, has anyone else wondered about the fact that the list of charges for which Rolf Harris is about to go on trial does not seem to include the counts of making indecent images which were tacked on to his original list of alleged misdemeanours?
Now either these have been quietly dropped without announcement or it has been decided to try him separately for those. If the latter then that will mean reporting restrictions on his assault trial, much to the chagrin of the assembled press.
- CF
May 7, 2014 at 12:53 am -
Yes. The timing of the supposed downloading of images was interesting since it was reported as being after the original questioning was public which, if so, made me wonder if he’d been tricked into (say) clicking a link in email that lodged some images in his local cache (easy to do). Otherwise it seemed insane: “I’ve just been questioned, quick, I’d better download some illegal images to help them along!”
- CF
- Jonathan Mason
May 7, 2014 at 1:22 am -
Each allegation was considered on its own merits and we have concluded that the available evidence does not offer a realistic prospect of conviction for any of the alleged offences…
The complainants have been informed and we will be writing to them to more fully explain our decision.
Does this then mean that each of the complainants will be given an individualized account of why their case would not stand up in court on its own merits? This would be dynamite if any of the recipients decide to sell their letters.
- stephen lewis
May 7, 2014 at 7:48 am -
What I do find curious is that on all the sites I googled (and I didn’t spend hours) comments were all disabled .. so you can’t get a feel for how the “world at large” feels about the situation ref Freddie Starr.
- winston smith
May 8, 2014 at 12:27 pm -
Did anyone notice that the accusers are now referred to as complainants and not as “victims”?
- winston smith
- stephen lewis
- Wizwag
May 7, 2014 at 8:19 am -
It only takes another ghoul to come out of the woodwork and they could come after him again. We’ve seen it with DLT. Nobody is safe from this.
I fear for Freddie having seen his condition yesterday. I hope he gets the right sort of medical and psychological support to give him a chance of recovery.
- Ho Hum
May 7, 2014 at 9:05 am -
The CPS and claims lawyers will be running adverts in SAGA any time soon….
- rabbitaway
May 7, 2014 at 10:11 am -
Beside the; “pay for your funeral now” (while u still can) ads !!
- rabbitaway
- Ho Hum
- GildasTheMonk
May 7, 2014 at 8:54 am -
Another example of colossal amounts of time and public money being wasted on a witch hunt.
- Ms Mildred
May 7, 2014 at 10:13 am -
Get well soon Mr Starr, and keep on fighting if you can. I so dislike all this mega b*llsh*t and the slimy goings on in legal places all around the country. All related news items bunched close together. I wonder who slimed that one up and for what reason? Why do we have to put up with older men being terrorised and bullied when they made us laugh and entertained us over many years? We sorrowed over those who did not live to be old enough to torture. Now it looks like they were the lucky ones.
- Moor Larkin
May 7, 2014 at 3:03 pm -
Just struck me that the CPS used his stage name, in their media output. They didn’t talk about ‘Ken Barlow’ did they.
- Alan Douglas
May 7, 2014 at 4:46 pm -
That CPS statement is a disgrace. Whoever made it should be dismissed immediately, for it effectively says that Starr IS guilty. We used to have this weird notion that you were innocent until PROVED guilty. Seems the CPS know better.
Alan Douglas
- Matt
May 7, 2014 at 8:05 pm -
Would this obsessive, money-no-object, single-minded,witch-hunt against exclusively elderly white men have taken place if the CPS was run by exclusively elderly white men. What secret underground currents and forces are driving the hidden agenda here? What is the make-up and background, education, and affiliations of the people pulling the strings? I think we should be told before I develop strange ideas about freedom of speech, freedom from state persecution, freedom of information, feminism, islamism, agenda 21, and the rosicrucians ,whoever they are.
Do some people know a lot more than they are letting on about what is going on here? The whole thing stinks to hell. It is being orchestrated for a purpose. It is more than just troughing lawyers and coppers addicted to overtime and publicity. It is a sickening spectacle. Is the rest of the world laughing at us—nothing new there I suppose. I hate this feeling of impotent rage.
- Ian B
May 8, 2014 at 6:18 am -
Off topic (but on Savile topic) Anna, Moor and you other stalwarts here, have these allegations been discussed here and looked at?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21750548
It’s the police internal investigation that there were multiple complaints against Savile, including that in 1964(?!) he visited an “address used by absconders from Duncroft” (the Daily Mirror refers to that as a “paedophile brothel in Battersea”. Do we know anything about these?
Sorry, I’ve just kind of lost track of where information might be.
- Jonathan Mason
May 9, 2014 at 5:23 pm -
You will serve up to one half of your sentence in custody before you are
released on licence…This is what the judge said to Max Clifford in his sentencing remarks. Can anyone explain why this means “at least half”? Is this a special legal use of language? To me the words as stated mean no more than one half, not at least one half, but the press has unanimously reported that he must serve at least half.
- Mr Ecks
May 10, 2014 at 6:17 pm -
Just read in my local paper a short account of the persecutor’s opening statement in Rolf’s show trial–“The girls were too intimidated and over-awed to complain about their treatment at his hands–Rolf Harris was too powerful a figure for their accounts to be believed”–Rolf Harris…. ROLF HARRIS????— powerful-????–a man who sings a bit and paints with(rather well) in non-drip gloss for Christ’s sake–the world is becoming a madhouse. Also, even the scum of the local press only report the CPS tripe–what the defence has to say you will never get to read. (I have some experience of local journalists–apart from old soaks they are mostly young snot-nose marxistic little pukes, trying to accumulate a portfolio of PC bollocks so they can migrate to the nationals. The sooner the dead-tree gang are out of business the better). Too powerful—for the love of Christ–it is enraging watching these liars peddling their tripe and not being able to do anything to put a spoke in their lies.
- Ian B
May 10, 2014 at 11:24 pm -
Indeed. Apparently, cabinet ministers, police officers, top businessmen and even the deputy governor of the bank of England were fair game for public ruin in the media, but the bloke who sang Two Little Boys was beyond reach. The remarkable thing is that people are now so deep in the bullshit that they believe it.
- Moor Larkin
May 11, 2014 at 9:04 am -
The refusal to let go of the Savile lie means you just have to keep lying. It makes sense.
- Moor Larkin
- Moor Larkin
May 11, 2014 at 9:24 am -
… marxistic little pukes…
There does seem a fundamental problem with the reality-view of journalists. Maybe Murdoch had a point about the 8,000 BBC jokers. It does seem that practically every TV journalist of national note in the UK has worked for the BBC at some point in their career. I guess the rest have been graduatin via Media Studies courses, sucking on the conspiranoid teat of the likes of Nick Davies and his paedos in the closet articles of the 1990’s. “Fleet street Bubble” seems as apposite as “Westminster Bubble”.
- Ian B
- Ian B
May 9, 2014 at 2:43 pm -
“Is he the fellow who plays popular “beat” tunes from the hit parade on the wireless?”
Just reading the entry again, it seems to me there are three “coloured gentlemen”, one of whom got two years imprisonment for living off immoral earnings, one disappeared abroad and one was acquitted.
If so, that doesn’t make any of them pimps; as the law stands simply being financially connected to a woman on the game is guilty, and was used to send men to jail.
{ 150 comments… read them below or add one }