True and the test which will be applied is 'did he honestly and genuinely think that the female consented to sexual intercourse'? The CPS does not seem to have backed the charges with the alternatives of unlawful sexual intercourse (ie intercourse with under an under16 year old where he may have genuinely believed consent may have been given) so at this stage at least the CPS is alleging sexual intercourse with no genuine belief the female consented.
We will now all have to wait until the trial starts to see what the evidence provides and, as has been said so many times before on this site, he is innocent until and unless proven guilty.
True and the test which will be applied is 'did he honestly and genuinely think that the female consented to sexual intercourse'? The CPS does not seem to have backed the charges with the alternatives of unlawful sexual intercourse (ie intercourse with under an under16 year old where he may have genuinely believed consent may have been given) so at this stage at least the CPS is alleging sexual intercourse with no genuine belief the female consented.
We will now all have to wait until the trial starts to see what the evidence provides and, as has been said so many times before on this site, he is innocent until and unless proven guilty.
Won't he be tried under the law as it was in 1967 though?
We had a physco woman teacher at our school who basically knocked seven bells out of you,and used blackboard rulers to hit children with.I wonder what my chances of a claim are? This was mid 70s I should be in with a chance??
Was she famous? If not then you've got no chance, think that's how it works.
Yes BFR. My comments have been predicated on the 1967 Act. The 2003 Act introduced the concept of objective (ie the common man) 'reasonable belief' which is not the same as (personal) 'genuine' belief. In other words you may genuinely believe something which normal people would not. I really don't want to get into a long and boring discussion about the difference but if anyone really wishes to inbox me (and let's face it you would really have to be sad to want to do so) then i will respond. And free of charge!!!
Slight correction. Not the 1967 Act which dealt with homosexuality but the relevant legislation at the time of the allegation was the 1956 Act. Now it really is time to get my coat...........
We had a physco woman teacher at our school who basically knocked seven bells out of you,and used blackboard rulers to hit children with.I wonder what my chances of a claim are? This was mid 70s I should be in with a chance??
Was she famous? If not then you've got no chance, think that's how it works.
That's right they only look at famous people under Op Yewtree don't they. Like that bloke David Smith. You know, David Smith. The BBC driver, he's well famous him...
Does it not occur that part of reason these were not reported at the time and are only coming out now is because they were famous?
So which of the mods is a huge Rolf Harris fan? My thread lasted no time before being closed yet it's open season on Bill. Maybe a mod could explain this blatent double standard.
Just searched your thread. It wasn't closed it was sunk. Like most unsavoury topics are especially when people start arguing amongst themselves.
This one will no doubt get sunk in time but don't take it personality eh, they have lives they need to be getting on with before they get a chance to do the admin.
We had a physco woman teacher at our school who basically knocked seven bells out of you,and used blackboard rulers to hit children with.I wonder what my chances of a claim are? This was mid 70s I should be in with a chance??
Was she famous? If not then you've got no chance, think that's how it works.
That's right they only look at famous people under Op Yewtree don't they. Like that bloke David Smith. You know, David Smith. The BBC driver, he's well famous him...
Does it not occur that part of reason these were not reported at the time and are only coming out now is because they were famous?
Does it not occur? If you mean does it not occur to me then no it doesn't. "I've been abused but I won't report it because he does such a good job on Corrie." Get real.
We had a physco woman teacher at our school who basically knocked seven bells out of you,and used blackboard rulers to hit children with.I wonder what my chances of a claim are? This was mid 70s I should be in with a chance??
Was she famous? If not then you've got no chance, think that's how it works.
That's right they only look at famous people under Op Yewtree don't they. Like that bloke David Smith. You know, David Smith. The BBC driver, he's well famous him...
Does it not occur that part of reason these were not reported at the time and are only coming out now is because they were famous?
Does it not occur? If you mean does it not occur to me then no it doesn't. "I've been abused but I won't report it because he does such a good job on Corrie." Get real.
We had a physco woman teacher at our school who basically knocked seven bells out of you,and used blackboard rulers to hit children with.I wonder what my chances of a claim are? This was mid 70s I should be in with a chance??
Was she famous? If not then you've got no chance, think that's how it works.
That's right they only look at famous people under Op Yewtree don't they. Like that bloke David Smith. You know, David Smith. The BBC driver, he's well famous him...
Does it not occur that part of reason these were not reported at the time and are only coming out now is because they were famous?
Does it not occur? If you mean does it not occur to me then no it doesn't. "I've been abused but I won't report it because he does such a good job on Corrie." Get real.
These were young kids or vulnerable women faced with making an extremely serious allegation against someone considerably older, well connected, wealthy, popular and respected by the public. Many of the victims are on record as saying they said nothing as they felt they would not be believed.
This was allegedly mostly taking place in the 60's & 70's where society was likely to be more judgemental about the victim than should be the case in today. It's no surprise to me that they were afraid to come forward at the time and point the finger at people they saw on the tv or in the papers every week.
These were young kids or vulnerable women faced with making an extremely serious allegation against someone considerably older, well connected, wealthy, popular and respected by the public. Many of the victims are on record as saying they said nothing as they felt they would not be believed.
This was allegedly mostly taking place in the 60's & 70's where society was likely to be more judgemental about the victim than should be the case in today. It's no surprise to me that they were afraid to come forward at the time and point the finger at people they saw on the tv or in the papers every week.
Even if that was the case which I don't believe it is, it's inconceivable to me that not one single person came forward and they all shared the same "I won't be believed" thought. It's like those who say the moon landing was faked - the biggest counter to that is that no way would so many people have been able to keep quiet this long.
That's right they only look at famous people under Op Yewtree don't they. Like that bloke David Smith. You know, David Smith. The BBC driver, he's well famous him...
Does it not occur that part of reason these were not reported at the time and are only coming out now is because they were famous?
Does it not occur? If you mean does it not occur to me then no it doesn't. "I've been abused but I won't report it because he does such a good job on Corrie." Get real.
No, it's "I've been abused but he's famous and everyone thinks he's such a good bloke that no-one will believe me, and they'll assume that I'm some sort of groupie who chose to sleep with him cos I was starstruck, or wanted to sell my story to the papers. And if I do report him, he's rich enough to hire a really expensive lawyer who can hire private investigators to dig into my past and then try and make me look like a slut, and humiliate me in court. And what he did to me will be on the front pages of the papers, and he'll probably get off anyway and then there'll be all the usual suspects ranting about girls crying rape when I'm NOT, and all I really want to do is forget it ever happened!"
Do I understand what? I understand your idea, I don't necessarily believe it to be the case. Apart from anything else your idea only relates to a specific type of 'victim'. What about boys or children who were allegedly abused?
I'm not saying every celebrity mentioned is innocent. And I'm not saying every accuser is making it up. But you're deluded if you cannot appreciate the sheer ludicrousity of Operation Yewtree and the way it's being carried out.
I'm not saying every celebrity mentioned is innocent. And I'm not saying every accuser is making it up. But you're deluded if you cannot appreciate the sheer ludicrousity of Operation Yewtree and the way it's being carried out.
Specifically in your opinion what is wrong with it?
It's quite evident that there are serious claims against a number of people. The likes of Bill Roache and Stuart Hall are accused of commiting serious offences for which there is no statute of limitations. That means the police must investigate and if there is sufficient evidence then the CPS wil prosecute and then it's up to a jury to decide.
Having a close relationship with a young woman who was raped when she was 16 I can assure you that her desire to avoid having to relive it again was much greater than her desire for justice or any punishment to the rapist.
All she wanted to do was just forget it ever happened and I'd go as far as to suggest that she wanted to 'pretend' it never happened at all.
Maybe in a few decades time she will feel differently and if so I wouldn't have any problem with her contacting the Police, who have already put significant pressure on her to make an official complaint.
Having a close relationship with a young woman who was raped when she was 16 I can assure you that her desire to avoid having to relive it again was much greater than her desire for justice or any punishment to the rapist.
All she wanted to do was just forget it ever happened and I'd go as far as to suggest that she wanted to 'pretend' it never happened at all.
Maybe in a few decades time she will feel differently and if so I wouldn't have any problem with her contacting the Police, who have already put significant pressure on her to make an official complaint.
Well said Kings Hill Addick, and thanks for bringing some real insight and experience to the discussion - rather than speculation.
Similar to your experiences, a few years ago I helped a girl of a similar age - and to say she wasn't keen on going to the police is a huge understatement. It was no reflection on her views of the police; but simply the way in which she didn't want to concede that it had happened. In fact, any time she did acknowledge it - she would take some very peculiar stances on the situation.
She still had nightmares and it had still shattered much of her mental health - just because she didnt want to couldn't manage to go to the police doesn't reflect on whether or not it happened to her, or the circumstances surrounding it.
In fact, to cut a long story short, but after nearly a year of seeing this vibrant and colourful girl deteriorate in to a complete wreck - I was the one who had to explain the situation to her family. Why? Sadly because she was undergoing an emergency psychiatric assessment as it had hit her that bad.
Yet if she managed to pick herself up and one day manage to find the courage to go and pursue the one who was responsible - it would be 'just another rape victim decides to come out after a few years'. Arguably, with the severity of the effect it had on her, it's actually perfectly feasible that it could take a long time for her to deal with it and make that step.
There is a story behind every story so to speak.
Edit: To clarify - this was to try and shed some light on why it is feasible for a victim to come out after so long. In no way was I casting a judgement that Bill Roache is guilty or comparing him to the despicable piece of shit responsible for the above.
Even if that was the case which I don't believe it is, it's inconceivable to me that not one single person came forward and they all shared the same "I won't be believed" thought. It's like those who say the moon landing was faked - the biggest counter to that is that no way would so many people have been able to keep quiet this long.
But in the Saville case, people did come forward but their cases were dropped by the Police/CPS in several different areas. We don't know whether the complainants (thanks Legaladdick :-) ) in the cases of the others that have been arrested have come forward before, or if they are fresh allegations. One reason why Operation Yewtree is this massive unwieldy thing is that they're basically trying to deal with allegations that took place over the whole country over a huge time period.
Do I understand what? I understand your idea, I don't necessarily believe it to be the case. Apart from anything else your idea only relates to a specific type of 'victim'. What about boys or children who were allegedly abused?
With boys you have added "everyone will think I'm gay", and abused children often don't report for years because they are ashamed and their abuser has made them feel like the abuse was their fault. Those things don't go away just because the person who abused them was famous, but are compounded by the additional problems that being abused by someone famous brings.
I'm not saying that all/any of the celebrities arrested are guilty, but in this country we have a shit record for achieving convictions for rape. ( I suspect child abuse too, but I don't know the stats for that). People going on about witch-hunts and implying that they're just making allegations in order to get compensation, just contribute to the atmosphere that makes it difficult for victims of rape and abuse to get justice in the first place. Let the process run its course, and hope that the right result is achieved in the end.
Do I understand what? I understand your idea, I don't necessarily believe it to be the case. Apart from anything else your idea only relates to a specific type of 'victim'. What about boys or children who were allegedly abused?
I'm not saying every celebrity mentioned is innocent. And I'm not saying every accuser is making it up. But you're deluded if you cannot appreciate the sheer ludicrousity of Operation Yewtree and the way it's being carried out.
I shouldn't really be saying this and I won't go into details not yet anyway. I am due in court in a couple of weeks (as a witness) with someone very close to me (as a victimn) in a very huge trial (non-celebrity) of historical abuse. This is a man was a boy and was abused as were many other victimns of the same person some haven't still had the courage to come forward. Most only admitted what happened after he was arrested, as each one of these men (boys) never believed that they would have enough to convict alone. Operation yewtree and other historical abuse cases is giving people the courage to come forward after years of mental/emotional torment, what is so 'ludicrous' about that?
Neither has Jim Davidson, and he was arrested back in January.
Bill Roache, however, has just been charged within 12 hours..?! That's pretty quick and it makes you wonder about the differences in the cases. Roache obviously got nicked AFTER they had a sufficient case, either that or he's put his hands up and said he's done it.
I personally can't see anyone admitting guilt to an offence 46 years ago where there would likely be no evidence*. Nor can I see the kind of representation that Roache's bank balance could afford advising him to give in without a fight.
*Although, in the CPS statement they point out that there obviously is sufficient evidence - so short of a confession god knows what that would be after 46 years. I doubt word-of-mouth is 'sufficient evidence' otherwise Harris and Davidson would both have been charged; a long with every other person they've nabbed.
Yet for this offence 40 years ago - the accused has got charged within 12 hours. Now compare this to Davidson and Harris and the others have all been bailed for months whilst investigations are carried out.
It makes you wonder what kind of investigations could take months after such a long period of time:
- Forensics, CCTV etc: Going to be minimal, if any. - People: Either too young, too old/dead, or simply unable to recall the events of a given time 40 odd years ago..!
Doesn't mean a thing though really. A perfect example being the Dave Jones case i mentioned yesterday, people probably thought at the time "oh they must have a good case otherwise they wouldn't be charging him and it wouldn't be going to court". Case turned out to be a complete sham and was thrown out in the first week.
The validity of the operation can only be proven by the results of trials
If people are found to be guilty in a court of law then and only then can yewtree be deemed a success
Right now it seems to be fire enough shit at enough old men and see what sticks
I see your point but I don't agree. Unfortunately by the very nature of such a massive investigation of historical events, getting them into court AND then getting a conviction cannot be the only yardstick of success.
There's a lot of hurdles before then, most beyond the control of those involved in Yewtree, and the real success can only be judged by the victims of Savile and anyone else involved. If they think it was worth it then it was worth it.
We've done the abuse discussion on here before. As I've said before, unless you were abused as a child, you cannot possibly know how it feels, either at the time or later in life. I suggest that you therefore shut the fuck up about it, as its marginally upsetting for those who were abused to have the legitimacy of their reaction to it questioned. Once again, for the hard of understanding, everyone deals with abuse in different ways. Much of the time, this won't make much sense to you - it often doesn't make sense to the victim either.
We've done the abuse discussion on here before. As I've said before, unless you were abused as a child, you cannot possibly know how it feels, either at the time or later in life. I suggest that you therefore shut the fuck up about it, as its marginally upsetting for those who were abused to have the legitimacy of their reaction to it questioned. Once again, for the hard of understanding, everyone deals with abuse in different ways. Much of the time, this won't make much sense to you - it often doesn't make sense to the victim either.
I'm still waiting for someone to type "I have little or no comprehension of how it feels to be abused or the thought processes the victim would go through, so I am unable to comment" Guess it's going to be a long wait!
Comments
We will now all have to wait until the trial starts to see what the evidence provides and, as has been said so many times before on this site, he is innocent until and unless proven guilty.
And not the more recent Sexual Offences Act 2003?
Does it not occur that part of reason these were not reported at the time and are only coming out now is because they were famous?
This one will no doubt get sunk in time but don't take it personality eh, they have lives they need to be getting on with before they get a chance to do the admin.
This was allegedly mostly taking place in the 60's & 70's where society was likely to be more judgemental about the victim than should be the case in today. It's no surprise to me that they were afraid to come forward at the time and point the finger at people they saw on the tv or in the papers every week.
NOW do you understand?
I'm not saying every celebrity mentioned is innocent. And I'm not saying every accuser is making it up. But you're deluded if you cannot appreciate the sheer ludicrousity of Operation Yewtree and the way it's being carried out.
I'm not saying every celebrity mentioned is innocent. And I'm not saying every accuser is making it up. But you're deluded if you cannot appreciate the sheer ludicrousity of Operation Yewtree and the way it's being carried out.
Specifically in your opinion what is wrong with it?
It's quite evident that there are serious claims against a number of people. The likes of Bill Roache and Stuart Hall are accused of commiting serious offences for which there is no statute of limitations. That means the police must investigate and if there is sufficient evidence then the CPS wil prosecute and then it's up to a jury to decide.
All she wanted to do was just forget it ever happened and I'd go as far as to suggest that she wanted to 'pretend' it never happened at all.
Maybe in a few decades time she will feel differently and if so I wouldn't have any problem with her contacting the Police, who have already put significant pressure on her to make an official complaint.
Similar to your experiences, a few years ago I helped a girl of a similar age - and to say she wasn't keen on going to the police is a huge understatement. It was no reflection on her views of the police; but simply the way in which she didn't want to concede that it had happened. In fact, any time she did acknowledge it - she would take some very peculiar stances on the situation.
She still had nightmares and it had still shattered much of her mental health - just because she
didnt want tocouldn't manage to go to the police doesn't reflect on whether or not it happened to her, or the circumstances surrounding it.In fact, to cut a long story short, but after nearly a year of seeing this vibrant and colourful girl deteriorate in to a complete wreck - I was the one who had to explain the situation to her family. Why? Sadly because she was undergoing an emergency psychiatric assessment as it had hit her that bad.
Yet if she managed to pick herself up and one day manage to find the courage to go and pursue the one who was responsible - it would be 'just another rape victim decides to come out after a few years'. Arguably, with the severity of the effect it had on her, it's actually perfectly feasible that it could take a long time for her to deal with it and make that step.
There is a story behind every story so to speak.
Edit: To clarify - this was to try and shed some light on why it is feasible for a victim to come out after so long. In no way was I casting a judgement that Bill Roache is guilty or comparing him to the despicable piece of shit responsible for the above.
I'm not saying that all/any of the celebrities arrested are guilty, but in this country we have a shit record for achieving convictions for rape. ( I suspect child abuse too, but I don't know the stats for that). People going on about witch-hunts and implying that they're just making allegations in order to get compensation, just contribute to the atmosphere that makes it difficult for victims of rape and abuse to get justice in the first place. Let the process run its course, and hope that the right result is achieved in the end.
If people are found to be guilty in a court of law then and only then can yewtree be deemed a success
Right now it seems to be fire enough shit at enough old men and see what sticks
Doesn't mean a thing though really. A perfect example being the Dave Jones case i mentioned yesterday, people probably thought at the time "oh they must have a good case otherwise they wouldn't be charging him and it wouldn't be going to court". Case turned out to be a complete sham and was thrown out in the first week.
There's a lot of hurdles before then, most beyond the control of those involved in Yewtree, and the real success can only be judged by the victims of Savile and anyone else involved. If they think it was worth it then it was worth it.