• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Operation Yewtree & Other Historical Child-Abuse Allegations

Cochise

Cochise

Priest of the cult of the Dog with the Broken Paw
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
8,474
This thread has been extracted from the now closed Jimmy Savile threads, and is for discussion regarding the wider Yewtree investigation and trials. There is a dedicated Savile thread here. Stu.

---------------

Quote is a comment on the DM article regarding the Cyril Smith allegations:

Once again the high profile one is dead so to cover up they will probably charge a few lower ranking people with dodgy evidence who will be found not guilty and discredit the whole operation. Yet another method of having one big cover up for the active powerful people who were and no doubt ARE STILL involved. Savile is dead Cyril is dead, NO HIGH PROFILE person connected with the network who covered this up for them has been charged yet! just a few has been actors and DJ's with flimsy old evidence.
Click to expand...

I have to say it sums up very much how I feel. The behaviour of the abusers is beyond the pale, but one can at least put it down to a perverted and uncontrollable sexual drive. They may have known they were doing wrong but have been unable to stop themselves, just like a hard drug addict who is in the last stages of self-destruction.

Those who protected them did so for political or personal gain, and can only be described as completely amoral. They need to be exposed and removed from any public or responsible office they may hold. I don't talk about charges, I'm no judge, but I don't want people with such a flawed mentality making decisions that affect other people's lives.
 
The behaviour of the abusers is beyond the pale, but one can at least put it down to a perverted and uncontrollable sexual drive. They may have known they were doing wrong but have been unable to stop themselves, just like a hard drug addict who is in the last stages of self-destruction.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't buy this at all. They behaved badly because they wanted to and they thought they could get away with it. I really don't think that they were "uncontrollable" in any way, shape or form.
 
Quake42 said:
The behaviour of the abusers is beyond the pale, but one can at least put it down to a perverted and uncontrollable sexual drive. They may have known they were doing wrong but have been unable to stop themselves, just like a hard drug addict who is in the last stages of self-destruction.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't buy this at all. They behaved badly because they wanted to and they thought they could get away with it. I really don't think that they were "uncontrollable" in any way, shape or form.
Click to expand...

I did say 'may'. Goodness knows how they felt, I can't imagine, and I'm not trying to defend them.

The people we are discussing clearly manufactured for themselves positions of power in which they were able callously to satisfy their urges with complete disregard for their victims - personally I'd describe that as 'out of control'.

They could not have done that - particularly it seems in the Smith case - had people not gone along with it for reasons of power, personal ego politics, whatever. So to me those enablers are an ongoing threat as long as they can make decisions affecting others, for their judgement is clearly as self-centred and psychopathic as the offenders themselves.

Edited for minor spelling error that may have been confusing.
 
With all these stories now coming out and the evident political cover-ups going on to keep those with skeletons in their closet protected it makes you cast a new eye over certain other cases and the suggestions of conspiracy and cover-up that seemed so incredulous at the time.

Most notably my mind turns to the Hollie Greig case in Scotland and the claims about numerous figures in Scotland's police and political circles - and at national level too if you follow the online speculation/rumours.

Not going to name names obviously but if you Google her name and dig around you'll soon come across the connections and theories for yourself. There are equally as many sites and pages that claim her story is a hoax or a string of lies, but since all this about Saville and now Cyril Smith has come out would it really be so hard to believe her story?
 
McAvennie_ said:
With all these stories now coming out and the evident political cover-ups going on to keep those with skeletons in their closet protected it makes you cast a new eye over certain other cases and the suggestions of conspiracy and cover-up that seemed so incredulous at the time.

Most notably my mind turns to the Hollie Greig case in Scotland and the claims about numerous figures in Scotland's police and political circles - and at national level too if you follow the online speculation/rumours.

Not going to name names obviously but if you Google her name and dig around you'll soon come across the connections and theories for yourself. There are equally as many sites and pages that claim her story is a hoax or a string of lies, but since all this about Saville and now Cyril Smith has come out would it really be so hard to believe her story?
Click to expand...

Sometimes there is smoke without fire when it comes to sexual abuse allegations and sometimes the victim is telling the truth. I've read about some shocking cases when the accused was proven to be innocent. I don't envy the police and the Crown Prosecution Service having to make those decisions when considering which cases to take further. Sadly, there is no finite solution yet that makes this easy so we have to put all predjucices aside and only exam the evidence on each case.
 
As if we didn't suspect already, but it's not just the UK entertainment industry where this is seemingly rife.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi- ... 1084.story

Singer has had previous trouble with a lawsuit filed regarding the film 'Apt Pupil' where a 14-year-old extra made claims about being forced to do stuff on film he wasn't particularly happy to be doing.

Sadly it is not just the cohorts in the media who are complicit in covering up for their peers, the comments sections I've read regarding this story are full of claims that it is lies, that the accuser has waited too long to speak up and that it is just the work of a corrupt lawyer out to make a quick buck. That might be the case, but it might not be and that kind of reaction can only make it harder for victims to come forward.

Cannot imagine anything worse than having had something of this nature happen and know that even if you do speak up nobody will believe you and your attacker will be protected and lauded by society.
 
Sadly it is not just the cohorts in the media who are complicit in covering up for their peers, the comments sections I've read regarding this story are full of claims that it is lies, that the accuser has waited too long to speak up and that it is just the work of a corrupt lawyer out to make a quick buck. That might be the case, but it might not be and that kind of reaction can only make it harder for victims to come forward.
Click to expand...

I think people are understandably sceptical about claims which (a) are made many years after the alleged event and (b) involve the possibility of substantial amounts of money being awarded to the complainant. What the events of the last couple of years seem to have proved beyond doubt is that:

- there without doubt been quite a few pervs in the entertainment industry
- a number of the claims involving people in the public eye are dubious at best and downright fabrications at worst.

None of us have any idea whether the claim against Singer has any substance, but I wouldn't rush to condemn him on the basis of an allegation of this nature.
 
Nope, if it was randomly selected Actor X then, yes, I'd take it with a pinch of salt. However, given that even a just a cursory Google of Singer brings up one or two previous controversies shall we say it does make you wonder. Although, of course, the celebrity target could have been selected for that very reason.

In the real world a former girlfriend confided in me about something terrible that had happened to her about a decade ago, at the time, I urger her to report it but she wouldn't because she was convinced nobody would believe her and it would be more trouble for her than just trying to forget about it.

High profile cases like these where the victim is immediately doubted and treated with suspicion do nothing to help and I suspect there are a great many people out there feeling safe in the knowledge that they will never be brought to justice because their victim does not feel it is worth the pain and struggle to be believed.

There can be all sorts of reasons why people do not speak up at the time. If it takes 5 years, 10 years even 20 years for them to find the courage to report what happened then I don't think: "Sorry, too late. Probably making it up anyway..." is really the best attitude to have.
 
McAvennie_ said:
High profile cases like these where the victim is immediately doubted and treated with suspicion do nothing to help and I suspect there are a great many people out there feeling safe in the knowledge that they will never be brought to justice because their victim does not feel it is worth the pain and struggle to be believed.

There can be all sorts of reasons why people do not speak up at the time. If it takes 5 years, 10 years even 20 years for them to find the courage to report what happened then I don't think: "Sorry, too late. Probably making it up anyway..." is really the best attitude to have.
Click to expand...

I agree, I never think it should be considered too late. And I'd hate to think celebrities who already think of themselves as somehow above the law commit such crimes and a few months down the line think they've got away with it because nothing's happened. They should live in fear that it could ruin their lives years later. The problem of whether people doubt the accusers or assume the accused is guilty is a tricky one. People seem to feel the need to make such assumptions, even if they are not in a position to. For a victim, to put him or her self through such an ordeal only to be treated as a liar must be horrific. For an innocent but accused celebrity, a life is rolling down the pan because somebody has said something that's not true, a power we're all capable of wielding. Ideally, in a perfect world, these trials would be conducted without any press coverage, in total secrecy, so the public had no chance to form an opinion until a verdict had be arrived at. I can't see that happening any time soon.
 
It is all very difficult. I knew my late wife had been beaten up by her former boyfriend but had not told anyone. As it happened he ultimately attacked his GP and was sectioned, later committing suicide.

I had problems with sexual advances when I was young which I'm not comfortable discussing even now.

The thing is, I'm not sure the justice system and our modern mindset is entirely the right way to go about these things , although I don't know what is.

The whole circus atmosphere that is provided by the media I find very distasteful, but on the other hand I don't think the investigations are far reaching enough. And there of course is always the problem that you shouldn't convict anyone of anything on unsupported verbal evidence. So for once I really don't know what to think.
 
Lib Dems face 'questions' over Cyril Smith abuse claims

Liberal Democrat president Tim Farron says his party needs to answer "serious questions" about who knew that its former MP, Sir Cyril Smith, faced allegations of sexual assault.
Police are investigating allegations that the former MP for Rochdale, who died in 2010 aged 82, sexually abused boys at homes and hostels in the town.
Mr Farron said the police inquiry was the best way to deal with the claims.

The Crown Prosecution Service has said Sir Cyril should have been prosecuted.
It was alleged he raped boys at Knowl View residential school, which closed in 1992, and abused boys at the privately run Cambridge House children's care home, which closed in 1965.
He had a long association with Knowl View where he was on the management board when he was a councillor.

Sir Cyril was originally a Labour councillor in Rochdale, and later a Liberal then Liberal Democrat MP for the town from 1972 to 1992.
Mr Farron said: "The party absolutely, as the Labour Party must also... and indeed Rochdale civic society as a whole need to answer serious questions as to who knew what and when."

Last year, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg described the allegations against Sir Cyril as shocking and appalling, and said they must be investigated "to the bitter end".
Lawyers for those who have made allegations of abuse said they were considering taking legal action against the Lib Dems.

Sir Cyril's family have said he always denied such accusations made against him when he was alive and they were saddened that allegations were now being made when he could no longer defend himself.

Allegations against Sir Cyril have been made in a new book by the current Labour MP for Rochdale, Simon Danczuk.
He claimed Sir Cyril used his position of power to sexually abuse young boys and then escape prosecution.

Mr Danczuk said previously he asked police to re-examine the case after "a number of victims came to see me and raise concerns".
Mr Danczuk claimed in 2012 there was "little doubt" that Sir Cyril raped some of his victims.

The Smith family said it would continue to co-operate with any further investigations.

Allegations about Sir Cyril's conduct were first published in 1979.
An independent review into the way Knowl View was run is due to report to Rochdale Council next month.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27166442
 
rynner2 said:
Lib Dems face 'questions' over Cyril Smith abuse claims


Sir Cyril's family have said he always denied such accusations made against him when he was alive and they were saddened that allegations were now being made when he could no longer defend himself.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27166442
Click to expand...


Private Eye released details of Smith's acts as early as 1979 - while Cyril was still alive and able to respond. He didn't respond at the time and he didn't sue either.
Since the Eye has continued to release details of Cyril Smith's activities since then, I find it hard to believe there's anyone in the then Liberal Party or the LibDems who weren't aware of the allegations against him.
 
It's Max Clifford's "exciting" day in court today.

Edit:
He got 8 years in prison.
 
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving piece of shit. And that's being polite.
 
Suppose we'd better mention this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27294888

Entertainer Freddie Starr will not be prosecuted over sex offence allegations because of "insufficient evidence" on most claims, prosecutors have said.

The Crown Prosecution Service said there was "a realistic prospect of conviction" in one case but it was not in the public interest to prosecute.

Mr Starr has been on bail since being arrested by Operation Yewtree officers.

Mr Starr's lawyer accused police of a "flagrant breach" of his client's human rights due to delays in the case.

Mr Starr, 71, was first questioned in November 2012, and has always denied any wrongdoing...
Click to expand...

Wonder if he'll sue?
 
drbates said:
How does this work?

The crimes were decades ago - there can't be any evidence, or presumably any reliable witnesses.

How do you try something like that and how does the defendant defend themselves?

I just can't envisage how either side would even start to put a case/defence together.
Click to expand...

There have been a lot of these cases lately. How they've found any evidence I have no idea.
 
I've not read the entire thread as it's too long, so my apologies if this has been posted earlier.

My theory is that these minor celebrities have been exposed as deviants as a result of the Savile scandal in order to act as as a smokescreen, in that all these allegations are an ideal way to attract attention away from Savile and all the politicians and persons in the establishment whom he had very close associations with. I mean, other than Stuart Hall's admissions (I think he has been VERY poorly advised by his legal team) and one or two people from care homes with dubious credibility - what evidence do we have? How do we know that the anonymous accusers haven't simply been induced to lie by persons unknown?

Exactly HOW do you prove these allegations beyond all reasonable doubt?

We certainly aren't hearing about Mr Savile and his provably extensive 'connections' anymore are we?
 
drbates said:
How does this work?

The crimes were decades ago - there can't be any evidence, or presumably any reliable witnesses.

How do you try something like that and how does the defendant defend themselves?

I just can't envisage how either side would even start to put a case/defence together.
Click to expand...

It puzzles me as well.

The two cases I attempted to follow i.e. Dave Lee Travis & Max Clifford, seem to have had a long list of people making accusations, individually, each case prosecuted seemed to be quite thin & probably would have not stood on their own. But they were put through one after the other, seemingly hoping that they would provide substance to the other accusations. Or maybe in the hope that something would stick.

Tucked in with the main prosecutions, seems to have been other witnesses, who made similar claims, but which were not resulting in a prosecution. Again, giving a substance to the main cases being prosecuted.

The similarity of the witness statements proving the truth of the prosecutions case.

There have been however cases where the witnesses have been interviewed & have picked up clues as to what they are expected to say, possibly, with the hope that they can then sue for compensation!

OR! They are simply telling the truth, to the best of their ability. Don't forget the female students to certain university's, who in the last few days are suggesting sexual impropriety from their fellow students.
 
pornosonic1975 said:
We certainly aren't hearing about Mr Savile and his provably extensive 'connections' anymore are we?
Click to expand...

An interesting point may be that the woman who started the Savile ball rolling (er, so to speak) didn't mention him at all in her original allegations, nor Freddie Starr either, but was reputedly "persuaded" to by a group with a grudge. It's whether that grudge was legitimate is the most important thing, I suppose.
 
pornosonic1975 said:
I've not read the entire thread as it's too long, so my apologies if this has been posted earlier.

My theory is that these minor celebrities have been exposed as deviants as a result of the Savile scandal in order to act as as a smokescreen, in that all these allegations are an ideal way to attract attention away from Savile and all the politicians and persons in the establishment whom he had very close associations with. I mean, other than Stuart Hall's admissions (I think he has been VERY poorly advised by his legal team) and one or two people from care homes with dubious credibility - what evidence do we have? How do we know that the anonymous accusers haven't simply been induced to lie by persons unknown?

Exactly HOW do you prove these allegations beyond all reasonable doubt?

We certainly aren't hearing about Mr Savile and his provably extensive 'connections' anymore are we?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is basically what I have been thinking as well. There has been some discussion along those lines earlier. Although I'm more on the side of thinking the smokescreen is to cover the backsides of politicians and public servants who were involved with Savile - not necessarily in the crimes, but in allowing someone access to all sorts of places where he never would have been allowed if he wasn't a 'sleb' .
 
Maybe not so much of a smokescreen, more an embarrassed reaction from a police force which failed to catch Savile at the time. Sort of "OK, we missed him, but we'll find some famous bastard guilty, even if we have to ruin a dozen other lives to get there."
 
I don't know why this one bothers me in a way none of the others have... really really was hoping it was going to come to nothing, but now... it's really not looking so good.

Rolf Harris groomed and molested a friend of his daughter from the age of 13 onwards, a court has heard.

The children's entertainer denies 12 counts of indecently assaulting her and three other girls from 1968-86.

The court heard she used alcohol to cope from the age of 14 and was abused by Mr Harris until she was 29.

The prosecution told Southwark Crown Court Mr Harris, 84, was a "Jekyll and Hyde" character whose fame and reputation made him "untouchable".

His alleged victims were aged between seven or eight and 19 when the offences are said to have taken place.

Seven of the 12 counts are alleged to have been carried out on one victim - his daughter's friend - who lived near the Harris family in south London in the 1960s.
A court sketch of Rolf Harris Sasha Wass QC, prosecuting, said there was a "side" of Mr Harris that was attracted to young girls

The court was read a letter Mr Harris is said to have written to the victim's father in 1997 asking for his forgiveness.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

Concealed behind this charming and amicable children's entertainer lay a man who exploited the very children who were drawn to him”

Sasha Wass QC Prosecuting

The jury was told that, in the letter, Mr Harris said the woman had confronted him about the alleged abuse.

"[She] told me she had been terrified of me," he is said to have written. "I said why didn't you just say no? She said to me: 'How could I say no to the great television star Rolf Harris?'"

Prosecuting, Sasha Wass QC said the girl had been groomed like "a young puppy who had been trained to obey".

The court heard how the girl was abused while on holiday with the family as well as in her home and his.

Ms Wass said the assaults continued "when the opportunity arose" and that by the time she was 14 the girl was relying on alcohol to cope.

The jury was shown a school report which said the alleged victim had become "prone to tears and has been weeping about private/home matters".
Rolf Harris arriving at court Mr Harris and his family were greeted by photographers as they arrived at court

Ms Wass said that, on arrest, Mr Harris "categorically" denied having sexual contact with the girl while she was under 16, and said his letter to her father expressed regret because they had an affair later and he was a "married man".

She added: "The prosecution does not, for a minute, suggest that there is not a good, talented and kind side to Mr Harris.

"But concealed behind this charming and amicable children's entertainer lay a man who exploited the very children who were drawn to him."

She added there was "a side of him which is sexually attracted to children and under-age girls".
'Fame and reputation'

She told the jury "part of the excitement" for Mr Harris was touching "children and women alike in quite brazen circumstances".

Telling the jury about other alleged victims, Ms Wass said one was seven or eight years old when she queued to get an autograph from Mr Harris at a community centre in Portsmouth.

She said he signed an autograph for her then touched her inappropriately, leaving her "in shock".

In other alleged incidents, she said Mr Harris "started rubbing himself" against a 15-year-old girl at a pub in London, and touched a 24-year-old makeup artist in Australia, both in 1986.

Completing her opening statement, she said the evidence showed a "persistent pattern of sexual offending" and demonstrated Mr Harris "had a tendency to touch up females as if he was entitled".

Ms Wass said his fame meant that "no-one suspected or challenged his behaviour".

"Mr Harris was too famous, too powerful and his reputation made him untouchable," she added.

He arrived at court accompanied by his daughter Bindi, and his wife, Alwen Hughes.

He entered a not guilty plea at a hearing in January.

The Australian found fame in 1953 on BBC children's TV, a year after arriving in the UK, and has remained a well-known entertainer, musician and artist since then.

He had success with novelty pop hits and children's TV and variety shows as well as series about animals and art, and he painted a portrait of the Queen in 2005.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27340134
 
Sort of "OK, we missed him, but we'll find some famous bastard guilty, even if we have to ruin a dozen other lives to get there."
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!! No conspiracy as such, more a belated arse covering exercise
 
Sad sad sad. The only thing to bear in mind is that he hasn't been found guilty yet. There is for example the case of the girl who committed suicide as a result of 'internet bullying' who has now been found to have sent all the 'bullying' emails to herself.

Let's wait and see. One assumes he must have some grounds for defence or he has only made the situation worse by pleading not guilty.
 
I notice that Rolf Harris's normal Facebook page has gone, presumably because of a lot of people posting vitriol. It's been replaced with something fairly bland, with no comments from the public.
As Cochise says, he hasn't been found guilty (yet). His family seem to be sticking by him, which is a good sign, I think.
 
Doesn't look good for Rolf at all :cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top