Celebrity Paedogeddon (now feat. other celeb sex offences) Page 103

  • Page

    of 147 First / Last

  • Cappy 6 Feb 2014 20:45:07 12,466 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Noel Edmonds Multi-Coloured Cum Swap Shop.
  • brokenkey 6 Feb 2014 23:20:42 7,506 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Stickman wrote:
    Sure I remember seeing Reaper Edmonds kill someone live on telly as well. Has he offed more than the one?
    False memory, implanted by reading about it so much. Do you remember being raped by William Roache as well?

    BACK ON TOPIC!!!!

    Edited by brokenkey at 23:21:16 06-02-2014
  • localnotail 6 Feb 2014 23:28:39 23,084 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Stickman wrote:
    Sure I remember seeing Reaper Edmonds kill someone live on telly as well. Has he offed more than the one?
    :(
  • b0rk 6 Feb 2014 23:36:30 4,778 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    :D
  • macmurphy 13 Feb 2014 14:25:54 1,002 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The hairy cornflake seems to have styled it out.
  • Psychotext 13 Feb 2014 14:27:41 57,659 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    These prosecutions are all starting to look a bit sketchy.
  • Fab4 13 Feb 2014 14:28:33 6,790 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Who is still left? Rolf?
  • CosmicFuzz 13 Feb 2014 14:39:10 29,051 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Well in Scotland there's the Moorov doctrine, which is where enough people come forward about the same thing, they corroborate the crime. Dunno if that's in England.

    But yeah, the CPS should never have brought half of these cases forward. Pure public policy thinking, without any consideration of whether or not it was feasible to secure a prosecution.
  • RichDC 13 Feb 2014 14:41:30 6,137 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It's a bit of a no win situation for the cps. Take them to court on flimsy evidence and get accused of witch hunting. Don't take them to court because of flimsy evidence and get accused of failing victims.
  • Load_2.0 13 Feb 2014 14:43:59 21,086 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    These prosecutions are all starting to look a bit sketchy.
    Waste of a perfectly good Rolf Harris pun there.
  • macmurphy 13 Feb 2014 14:46:38 1,002 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I think Fred the weatherman and Freddie Starr are still under the cosh.

    But yeah, I think all the investigations might tail off now. It's quite hard to retrospectively jail people for activities that happened so long ago. I also genuinely feel that whilst their actions were probably pretty abhorrent, that seem to have been much more commonplace and acceptable than they are now. It's a bit like women that had to put up with sexual harassment in the fifties. They could probably sue or seek legal redress for a lot of the mauling they had to endure back in the day, but if they did that half the octogenarians still alive would be in the dock.

    And to be clear before anyone goes off, I'm not talking about rape or offences against children. And I am very glad these guys can't get away with lechery these days. But back then it seems to have been rather endemic, and that coupled with the burden of proof probably makes convictions hard.
  • brokenkey 13 Feb 2014 14:50:08 7,506 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    I wonder if Stuart Hall is regretting pleading guilty?
  • Load_2.0 13 Feb 2014 14:50:40 21,086 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I would guess the Police knew exactly how difficult it is to get a conviction these cases. Witness get pressed for exact details from something that happened 10 - 15 years ago, get the details wrong and it's all over. One person's word against another.

    Pressure forces them to push forward with these no-win cases, they lose but the baying mobs and press are placated, at least temporarily.
  • RichDC 13 Feb 2014 14:53:29 6,137 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Problem is unfortunately the baying mob carries a lot of weight these days. (however wrong it may be)
  • thelzdking 13 Feb 2014 15:01:07 4,667 posts
    Seen 3 weeks ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Yeah, Rolf had pictures, so presumably they have some physical evidence.
  • GiarcYekrub 13 Feb 2014 15:01:31 4,633 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Deckard1 wrote:
    Isn't rolf accused of making indecent images as well? Could be harder to get away with. Unless he just drew a picture of a baby with an erection or something.
    Its probably that portrait of the Queen he did
  • nickthegun 13 Feb 2014 15:06:51 64,492 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I suppose the problem is that one the one hand, you had at least 13 people independently saying 'DLT touched me up' and on the other hand you have absolutely no evidence of it.

    I would think you are obliged to take that seriously, even to court, even if there is a small chance of a conviction.
  • Youthist 13 Feb 2014 15:28:47 10,788 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    brokenkey wrote:
    I wonder if Stuart Hall is regretting pleading guilty?
    Unless, you know, he was guilty, and the others were innocent.

    Also my understanding is that there was some shock by those in the know that he pleaded guilty under advisement from his team. But generally there were too many consistent stories from too many disconnected people for him to reasonably expect to "get away with it".

    I am sure he can play on the fact many have been found not guilty upon his release however. Unless he does himself in before that.
  • Whizzo 13 Feb 2014 15:34:13 44,029 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Dave Lee Travis is guilty of having a silly nickname though.

    /puts on black cap

    "Take him away!"
  • Spong 13 Feb 2014 15:38:12 525 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Can't believe DLT isn't a nonce.
  • brokenkey 13 Feb 2014 15:46:44 7,506 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Youthist wrote:
    brokenkey wrote:
    I wonder if Stuart Hall is regretting pleading guilty?
    Unless, you know, he was guilty, and the others were innocent.

    Also my understanding is that there was some shock by those in the know that he pleaded guilty under advisement from his team. But generally there were too many consistent stories from too many disconnected people for him to reasonably expect to "get away with it".

    Yeah, but how many people claim to have watched Noel Edmonds kill the same man on live tv. Actually, that's a cracking defense for everything. Up there with the Chewbacca defense.
  • Dougs 13 Feb 2014 21:36:38 72,956 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Whizzo wrote:
    Dave Lee Travis is guilty of having a silly nickname though.

    /puts on black cap

    "Take him away!"
    'where he be hung. Until he be dead' Call Noris McWhirter

    Edited by Dougs at 21:37:15 13-02-2014
  • senso-ji 24 Feb 2014 10:29:39 6,500 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    DLT to face a retrial for two sex offence allegations
  • Deleted user 24 February 2014 11:02:38
    Spong wrote:
    Can't believe DLT isn't a nonce.
    I know. This whole Yewtree thing is genuinely tainting my childhood memories. DLT not a nonce? Pull the other one, he was a BBC DJ, so it was on the job description - hell, even St John Peel was a nonce. #don'ttakemynoncesawayfromme
  • brokenkey 24 Feb 2014 12:01:03 7,506 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    I like the way that Jimmy Saville is now a pariah, but John Peel's still a hero. Jimmy raised fortunes for charities. Peel played some Smiths records.
  • Deleted user 24 February 2014 12:10:19
    brokenkey wrote:
    I like the way that Jimmy Saville is now a pariah, but John Peel's still a hero. Jimmy raised fortunes for charities. Peel played some Smiths records.
    It's a reasonable point that I've seen pop up a few places.

    I think a direct comparison between the two is probably a bit unfair, as even in the context of the unacceptable "customs" of the time, what Savile was getting up to was off the scale of right and wrong.

    But yes, it's pretty amazing that the BBC has a wing named after John Peel given how much damage the Savile thing has done them.
  • nickthegun 24 Feb 2014 12:19:48 64,492 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    As far as I can tell, the main difference is that peel wasnt worried about asking to see birth certificates and would take whatever was thrown at him.

    Saville, on the other hand, was the one doing the throwing.

    One was a serial nonce, the other was someone of very low moral fortitude.
  • Deleted user 24 February 2014 13:55:05
    Having just read up on the Peel situation, (I was totally ignorant of it), it doesn't appear that the proven accusations against Saville who was a serial paedophile who deliberately targeted very young (and in some cases disabled) children over years and unproven accusations against Peel are in quite the same category...

    Firstly, Peel had this accusation from the Daily Mail in 2012 which read... "A woman has claimed she may have become pregnant by DJ John Peel during a three-month affair when she was a 15-year-old schoolgirl."

    From what I've seen, there has been no confirmation of this nor any other action since then and you will notice the word "may" in the above. This Mail story has been quoted in various online sources since, but has never been proven (that I've found) and no other sources have been provided and as I say, no further action has been taken as a result. Again, if I've missed something, then feel free to point it out, because I've not seen anything.

    There is also a quote byJulie Burchill which says "Peel told the Guardian in 1975. "Girls," he said to the Sunday Correspondent in 1989, "used to queue up outside oral sex they were particularly keen on, I remember one of my regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older.". You can see in the article that Julie can't stand and never has liked Peel and that she has made up at least one other thing in that article(the School girl of the Year competition - he didn't hold one, he appeared in a calendar dressed as "school girl of the year"), so not exactly unbiased or accurate reporting. Again, there is no source for this source. I can't find the original Guardian article anyway (if it was 1975 or 1995 as I assume (or even 2005)). I did find a very similar quote in the Mail which did not have the "girls, some as young as 13" part in quotes. If this happened, its repulsive and illegal, but its not proven as there is no source for that quote.

    Finally Peel married a 15 year old in America after her parents and her lied about her age. He was 26 at the time. This is documented in his autobiography. The authorities also thought she was older - hence sanctioning the marriage.

    So, although Peel has had accusations made against him there is no actual proof (or at least none I can find) and also a paedophile is someone who has a sexual interest in pre-pubescent children... that doesn't not appear to be Peel even if the accusations are correct. What Peel "may" have done is had sex with groupies posing as older than they actually were. "If" he did, then its illegal yes, (assuming he had sex with the ones who were under 16 and were pretending to be older), but its not proven and its not Saville.

    Oh and I can't stand John Peel myself. Always thought his program was boring and he was sanctimonious.

    I also didn't know that Priscilla Presley was 14 when Elvis started dating her (with her parent's permission) and that Bill Wyman apparently seduced Mandy Smith at the age of 13 when he was 34 years older than her.

    Edited by PhoenixGleam at 13:56:22 24-02-2014

    Edited by PhoenixGleam at 13:57:29 24-02-2014
  • Page

    of 147 First / Last

Log in or register to reply