Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Today's News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-05-2013, 08:33 PM   #64641
iustitia
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 5
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...ld_cruelty_i_2
iustitia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 08:34 PM   #64642
bossman10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 973
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Scallywag Magazine

The Owen Oyston Conspiracy
13-Jun-95

There are two irrefutable facts to this sorry saga:

Flamboyant Northern businessman, Owen Oyston has, quite provably, been subject of a 12-15-year insidious dirty tricks campaign which has damaged him considerably and which was hatched by some powerful political dark forces.

Owen Oyston is presently facing four serious sex charges, including rape and procurement, based on a very dodgy prosecution case just as (i) he is about to pull off a significant property project in the North West, and (ii) he is continuing with a complex libel action against two of the conspirators. Owen just happens to also be the labour party's largest personal backer.

Are these two facts connected?

The circumstances of both are curiously linked by a series of bizarre happenings which were not so cleverly organised by two MP's, plus a Tory millionaire with a grudge and a Walter Mitty- style fish and chip shop owner who had become obsessed. An intriguing cocktail.

Because the fish and chip shop owner, Michael Murrin was also somewhat paranoiac he eventually became a turncoat and provided the irrefutable evidence of the dirty tricks and then the cover up. These consisted in the main of full records of more than 40-hours of telephone interviews in which all the conspirators quite hopelessly compromised themselves. We have now read and fully digested the hundredweight of transcripts and had the voices properly identified.

They make for intriguing listening as at first Murrin skilfully turns a 'sneaking suspicion' into a working reality, which in his head becomes fact, as he manages to convince the others. Then, as the allegations begin to tumble out of lack of credibility, Murrin slips into the next phase. In fact, because of Murrin's false accusations, Owen Oyston has been fully investigated by just about every agency, including tax, customs and excise, banks and the stock exchange and not a shred of evidence was ever forthcoming.

In all, over a ten year period, at least £100,000 provably changed hands in used notes. A lot more might have been ultimately involved.

The campaign was largely successful. Over this period tens of millions of pounds were wiped off the value of virtually all the companies Oyston had a stake in.

The timing of the above sex allegations and accusations suddenly appeared relevant as Oyston took two of the conspirators to court for libel - just as one of them, ambitious Tory MP Robert Atkins, had become Minister for the Environment.

If Oyston won - and with the tapes he easily might - Atkins' tenuous career would be shredded overnight. Oyston had to be stopped. At all costs. It also came just as Oyston had launched a £130 million bid to build a huge Astrodome in Blackpool - the former constituency of another conspirator, now Lord Blaker.

The third conspirator, Bill Harrison, who funded the campaign from the beginning, is a long time business rival of Oyston who held an eccentric grudge against him over an road accident some 15 years ago. The nitty-gritty of the curious beginnings to what has become a genuine cause celebre was after questions were raised about the police handling of an accident in which Mrs. Harrison ran down two females one night. Local papers asked questions as to how the police enquiry had been conducted and Harrison became wrongly convinced Oyston was masterminding it all. This obsession by Harrison has fed his desire for revenge for fifteen long and tortuous years.

Suddenly, out of the blue, an old associate of Oyston's, Peter Martin, was arrested on a large number of prostitution and procurement counts. This include dealing in pornographic videos and number well over 100 charges. Some ten years ago, when Oyston had the major interest in the Miss World title and was wishing to exploit it, he hired Martin for a short while as a consultant.

They never went into business together, not did they particularly socialise. As the owner of Miss World, Oyston at the time was fully enjoying all the trappings of the glamour world and perhaps a dozen or so of the girls working for Martin's agency, went out with him and at the time, seemed proud to do so.

Confident that the evidence they had against Martin was sufficient for a conviction, they arrested him after a lengthy and involved investigation. Only after they had done so did the idea come up that Oyston may have been involved. Harrison had always tried to purport that it was Oyston who had made the original suggestions that somehow Harrison had managed to persuade the police to be lenient with the facts when it came to his wife's accident - a clear case of police corruption if proved true. Harrison remains a big wig in Preston's political, social and business life. He regularly hob-nobs with top policemen at his country club. There is a very great deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that Harrison had a quiet word in someone's ear and, out of the blue, their investigation took on another turn.

We cannot name the girls involved for legal reasons, but at the committal proceedings various things came to light which were of great interest to the Oyston camp. Firstly, the girls had never been once questioned about Oyston until after Marten's arrest. When the police did go back, to dozens if not hundreds of girls, all but five could not "remember" anything incriminating about Oyston. Of the five, one is an incurable heroin addict and has been so since she was 13, Under cross examination she contradicted herself several times.

Another had a lasting relationship with Oyston - she even proposed marriage to him but got a chip on her shoulder when the businessman re-married his first wife.

None of them could remember times, dates, or sometimes even places. Now that charges of rape do not need corroborating evidence, then it is simply her word against his, however long after the supposed event took place. None of the five girls (two were quickly thrown out of court) had ever mentioned the rape either after it was supposed to have happened, or since, until the police knocked on their door and suggested it.

The police also lured them with offers of cash - legitimately through the Injuries Compensation Board, who will award them £7,500 each if there is a successful prosecution. On top of this, with the involvement of Oyston, various Fleet Street newspapers were prying around with fat cheque books. The girls had nothing to lose, and a lot to gain. The conspirators had everything to gain for while Oyston was pre-occupied with the criminal proceedings, he had very little time to pursue the libel action. And if, of course, he is found guilty the libel action will fly right out of the window for it will be decreed that Oyston does not have a reputation which can be defamed.

Nor do the police. Even if Oyston is able through his team of top lawyers to completely debunk the evidence in court and have the case dismissed entirely, then he has had to endure more than a year (to say nothing of the expense) of intense personal anxiety, bringing, as that state always does, family problems, public humiliation, and ridicule.

Also, he has had to neglect his business and while such serious charges are hanging over him, he is unable to go ahead with his lucrative Blackpool Astradome deal. The very deal Lord Blacker was determined to thwart.

Oyston has never denied he likes a lot of fun and is sexually active. "But," he says. "I never needed to rape anyone. I just didn't NEED to." He admits he was rarely without a girl on his arm and there was a lot of partying.

But, back to the original conspiracy.

The tapes themselves reveal Murrin to be a complex man quite capable of both lying and creating his own false information. His favourite trick was to persuade one of the authorities, Inland Revenue for example, that he had evidence if tax evasion against one of Oyston's companies. The allegations never came to anything but as soon as they had been made, Murrin would boast that the IR were holding a "major investigation" and the damage would be done.

At one stage he did this and circulated the libel just as another company were about to takeover the Oyston Estate agencies for £30 million. In fact Murrin bought a handful of shares and revealed it at the very AGM when the deal would go through. It very, very nearly came unstuck.

On this and dozens of more occasions, Murrin reported to Harrison and/or Atkins and Blaker. To a man they encouraged him and eventually paid him large sums of money to "keep up the good work"

For a long time Oyston knew something insidious was going on - but he didn't know where it was coming from. Not until Murrin supplied his "files" to the Sunday Times who, without checking them with Oyston himself, published them in good faith.

In a celebrated libel action Oyston walked away with a million pounds and got an unprecedented grovelling front page apology. In terms of column inches, the biggest the ST had ever published. The action was a double win for Oyston for he had now flushed out the main source of the conspiracy - Michael Murrin.

Even as the tatty little dirty tricks were about to be fully unfolded, the conspirators, still recorded, first began to panic and then try and disassociate themselves from Murrin. Not before, however, they were heard trying to get Murrin to hoax Oyston into bribing him.

By the time the two men finally met in a country house pub for lunch, Murrin had lost is bottle and revealed that the whole conspiracy had been taped. He offered to sell Oyston the whole lot for £10,000 for his "time and trouble". It was a far transaction under the circumstances and a day later all the original tapes were delivered to an Oyston office where they were immediately transcribed.

Oyston could hardly believe it when he saw and heard the conspiracy unfold in black and white before him and he quickly fixed it up to see Peter Carter-Ruck, the libel lawyer, who issued writs against Harrison, Blaker and Atkinson. The "other side" managed to have a stay of execution based on a legal technicality, but an appeal is pending on this. When Atkins and Co. realised this they quite became desperate. Losing the libel action would lose them both their budding careers.

In February of this year 40 opposition MP's tabled an Early Day Motion calling basically for an apology from Atkins and Baker for lying to the House. They were armed with the tapes which clearly implicated the two politicians. A World in Action programme had accused them of dirty tricks and they had emphatically denied to the House that they had anything at all to do with the Oyston conspiracy and hardly knew Murrin. At time of writing, the motion has produced only a deafening silence from them. Lying to the House carries a sentence of instant resignation. Both men are hiding behind the fact that there is a court case pending.

This might, of course, drag on even until there is a new government. And whatever their answer to the House eventually is you can bet your life they will not admit that they had anything at all to do with what appears to be (from the committals) quite clearly trumped up charges.


http://wayback.archive.org/web/20020...ags/scallywag/
bossman10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 08:34 PM   #64643
kindred1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 171
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazg View Post
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...sex-offenders#

Sign it please guys, and share it.
Petition to the Gov. to enforce chemical castration of these sick bastards.
Signed and the one about the puppy
kindred1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 09:53 PM   #64644
harry_brown
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 183
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Sorry if this has been posted, just caught my eye:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013...-savile-report

"The two Newsnight journalists responsible for the BBC's aborted Jimmy Savile investigation have been nominated for the London Press Club's scoop of the year – despite the report never being broadcast.

Liz Mackean and Meirion Jones make the shortlist for the prize, announced on Friday, along with Mark Williams-Thomas, whose documentary for ITV's Exposure revealed the truth about the disgraced presenter and plunged the BBC into crisis."




Just keep awarding themselves prizes for "their" work on this don't they? Scoop? Revealed the truth? Hardly.



"The panel of judges for this year's awards included Nick Pollard, the former head of Sky News who oversaw a £2m report into the Savile saga, attempting to unravel why the Newsnight programme never aired."

Last edited by harry_brown; 03-05-2013 at 09:56 PM.
harry_brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:00 PM   #64645
consciously worried
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 85
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Even plants know

News tomorrow notes that plants who are played Black Sabbath thrive and plants who are played Cliff Richard die!!

Shame he can't be in the news for anything serious eh.
consciously worried is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:00 PM   #64646
oonalu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: blowing in from north west
Posts: 2,664
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Just keeping the liar in the forefront

Tony Blair's faith charity pays six figure salaries to top officials




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...officials.html




Charity's are a cash cow , be suspicious of when the are founded by slebs and politicians, study who's who on the board th same names always crop up.
__________________
I can see the wood
oonalu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:05 PM   #64647
oonalu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: blowing in from north west
Posts: 2,664
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Thumbs down









The duke's daughters Beatrice and Eugenie
An NSPCC spokeswoman said the duke was asked to be the campaign's chairman because of his "energy, commitment and passion" and because he is a parent.

The duke, 39, has two daughters, Princess Beatrice, 10, and Princess Eugenie, nine on Tuesday.

His aunt, Princess Margaret, remains the charity president, but the duke said there would be no "lines of interference".

"Princess Margaret will still be in charge day-to-day and will campaign in the regions while I'm in London," he said.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/300854.stm
__________________
I can see the wood
oonalu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:11 PM   #64648
harry_brown
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 183
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oonalu View Post
Tony Blair's faith charity pays six figure salaries to top officials




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...officials.html




Charity's are a cash cow , be suspicious of when the are founded by slebs and politicians, study who's who on the board th same names always crop up.

And a useful tool for nonces.

The other infuriating thing is there are some genuine charitable organisations out there doing fantastic work who struggle to raise every penny whilst huge sums get channeled into things like this - Businesses that parade as charity.

There's a hospice in my area, they have a fantastic reputation, get sod all from the local authority and despite a number of slebs living nearby, not one has given a shit about putting their name to it to raise the profile. Maybe because they don't deal with anyone under 16???
harry_brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:31 PM   #64649
buster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 473
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default From the Steeple times

http://thesteepletimes.com/today/lin...ways-than-one/
buster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:35 PM   #64650
iwantthetruth
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 616
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

I have been posting up-dates on my charity fund-raising forum. How about this for feedback and a new idea?


"We have been talking about the MP's involved and feel it will come out from one of the so called 'stars'....if they are going to name me then I will name who else was there so to speak...they cannot keep running round the houses its just a matter of time before the roof is off.

Of course because SH has taken the brunt of it he will be given a nice smooth passage and be kept in the custom he is used to >

Its a pity we cant have a car sticker made supporting the cause



We have leafleted, put up posters.... but what about the idea about having car stickers made?
  • Do we have any printer contacts?
  • Can anyone design a car sticker which is 'sharp' and to the point?

I am amazed that others we make contact with are now suggesting how we get the information out to the wider public.

If we can get car stickers made for about 10p each (plus P&P), I could buy 500 and distribute to at least 20 people... and if they are willing to distribute 10 to everyone they chat to...... this could go nationwide!

Last edited by iwantthetruth; 03-05-2013 at 10:40 PM.
iwantthetruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:36 PM   #64651
oonalu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: blowing in from north west
Posts: 2,664
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry_brown View Post
And a useful tool for nonces.

The other infuriating thing is there are some genuine charitable organisations out there doing fantastic work who struggle to raise every penny whilst huge sums get channeled into things like this - Businesses that parade as charity.

There's a hospice in my area, they have a fantastic reputation, get sod all from the local authority and despite a number of slebs living nearby, not one has given a shit about putting their name to it to raise the profile. Maybe because they don't deal with anyone under 16???
Exactly Harry..... I support my local hospice run by a small group of local people , every penny is poured into the hospice ,no big fat overinflated look at me I care money grabbers there.
The more I read of these huge salary pay outs the more I get
Have you noticed too not many of these look at me's support the aged in society? Esther has jumped on that bandwagon, and as my lovely mum has dementia i would not let my mum anywhere near Rancid.
__________________
I can see the wood

Last edited by oonalu; 03-05-2013 at 10:38 PM.
oonalu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:39 PM   #64652
magoo22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 196
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Sly bastard rapist paedo scum

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-fortune.html


BBC predator Stuart Hall's £2million home is handed over to wife 'to protect his fortune'
  • Shamed presenter handed over Cheshire mansion to wife Hazel
  • It was claimed it could be an example of 'asset stripping' by presenter
  • Solicitors representing more than 50 of his victims taking legal action
magoo22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:40 PM   #64653
buster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 473
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

)

Six more women have contacted solicitors to claim they were abused by Stuart Hall with victims lining up to sue the disgraced presenter and one MP calling for him to be stripped of his OBE.

Alan Collins, a partner at law firm Pannone and a specialist in sexual abuse cases, said while new claims were still to be investigated, he expected they would be the first of many.

“We had a number of calls and six women phone us with allegations. It is early days and we have to meet them, but it looks like the effect of Hall pleading guilty,” he said. He added that he had already been instructed by some of the victims to sue the former It’s A Knockout presenter.

Rob Wilson, the Reading East MP, led the way in saying the former football pundit, commentator and television presenter should now be stripped of his OBE, which was awarded to him last year for services to charity and broadcasting by the Queen.

He said: “It is right that he should lose his OBE. He was using his celebrity status to act as a paedophile. We should not be rewarding that type of behaviour.”

The developments came as the BBC faced questions about its conduct. Several victims of the 83-year-old - who on Thursday admitted 14 offences involving 13 victims dating back to the late 1960s, including an assault on a nine-year-old girl - claimed that they were assaulted at the corporation’s Manchester studios.

The Independent reported yesterday how police first investigated Hall after one of his victims wrote to the newspaper, claiming: “Stuart took me to his dressing room, where he gave me plenty of champagne before having sex with me (In his dressing room, in the BBC studios).”

After the Jimmy Savile sex assault scandal, the BBC instructed Dame Janet Smith to conduct an independent review of the culture and practices at the corporation during the years he worked there. That review may now be widened to hear from Hall’s victims.

Separately it is understood there are at least three BBC employees are still currently the subject of police investigations.

The corporation said that, so far, it had found no written record of complaints of a sexual nature being made against Stuart Hall but it would pass any allegations to police or the Dame Janet Smith Review.

Liz Dux, of Slater and Gordon, which is representing dozens of Savile victims suing the BBC, said Hall was “very forceful” in his denial of the charges at first, but more women coming forward after he was named had helped the conviction.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is currently revising guidance on naming suspects so that none are named at the point of arrest, but Ms Dux said the Hall and Savile cases showed police must publish names.

“We accept suspects have rights but they have the criminal justice system and there is a high burden of proof to bring an investigation,” she said, “But we have to come down on the side of the victims.”

An ACPO spokesman said: “The accepted guidance should be not to name on arrest unless there’s a reason to do so, to prevent or deter crime. A decision to name could be taken if there’s a benefit in naming the person.”

The new guidance will be voted on eventually by a debated by a College of Police committee before a committee of chief constables debate on the plans later this Summer.

Sourse

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ll-8603428.htm
buster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:42 PM   #64654
northernlass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 823
Likes: 140 (82 Posts)
Default

they really pushing old brucie on all channels tonight, reminds me of the rolf harris overload of programmes for a couple of months till he got named
northernlass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:44 PM   #64655
buster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 473
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Twenty current BBC staff are facing internal allegations of sexual misconduct following the Jimmy Savile revelations, the corporation said today.The BBC, Savile’s estate and five other institutions including Stoke Mandeville hospital have also been informed that they face legal action from 43 victims seeking damages for alleged sexual abuse.

The claimants include a woman who was eight years when she claimed that she was molested by Savile when she was recovering from surgery at Stoke Mandeville.

Slater and Gordon, which is acting for 36 people who were aged from eight to 23 when they were abused, has sent letters before action to the BBC, Leeds General Infirmary, Stoke Mandeville and Broadmoor hospitals, and the executors of Savile’s estate.

Another law firm Pannone is acting on behalf of seven potential victims and has sent letters of claim to Savile’s estate. One claim has also been made against the BBC.

Mark Thompson, the former BBC Director-General, who was told about Newsnight journalists’ concerns over the scrapping of the Savile expose last year, faced further questions about his response.

Mr Thompson, who is due to become chief executive of The New York Times next week, told the paper that he had been assured that the report had been dropped for journalistic reasons.

“I wasn’t told any specific lines of inquiry and certainly not anything related to the BBC,” he said. “It didn’t occur to me that there was a contemporary corporate interest to defend. You can say it’s a lack of imagination


Sourse

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...s-8282829.html
buster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:53 PM   #64656
harry_brown
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 183
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oonalu View Post
Exactly Harry..... I support my local hospice run by a small group of local people , every penny is poured into the hospice ,no big fat overinflated look at me I care money grabbers there.
The more I read of these huge salary pay outs the more I get
Have you noticed too , not many of these look at me's support the aged in society? Esther has jumped on that bandwagon, and as my lovely mum has dementia i would not let my mum anywhere near Rancid.

Goes hand-in-hand with the gradual decline in attitudes toward caring for the elderly though doesn't it? Like many things, that hasn't come about by accident - it's all part of the agenda. People didn't just suddenly decide it's far better to just let the elderly - once proud and hard-working people who contributed to society, paid their way etc - rot away in homes where some staff treat them as objects. That way of thinking was created.

Yes, not many high profile people seem to get involved in that area, not genuine ones anyway. Rancid - still not 100% what the agenda is there, but I know there is one. Did she jump on the elderly as a distraction from her involvement with children or is she seizing an opportunity with another of society's vulnerable groups? Or both? Hey, if there's money in it... Perhaps she's paving the way for others? A pioneer is Rancid

Dementia is something close to my heart too, I understand that only too well.

Last edited by harry_brown; 03-05-2013 at 10:55 PM.
harry_brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 10:53 PM   #64657
oonalu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: blowing in from north west
Posts: 2,664
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

http://www.cumbriacrack.com/2012/08/...ce-in-cumbria/
__________________
I can see the wood
oonalu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 11:00 PM   #64658
buster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 473
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Witches never look quite like you imagine. The latest "victim" of what has been called a "celebrity witch-hunt" is an elderly, baffled-looking man. He is Stuart Hall aged 83. It turns out he is not a victim at all. He is a perpetrator who has pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting 13 young girls, the youngest of whom was nine. Yes, nine years old.

I want to emphasise this because, ever since the Savile scandal broke, there has been a rumbling discussion about the culture of the 70s, "permissiveness" and a haze of confusion about what constitutes consent. Sexual abuse and rape by men who were supposedly trusted and revered by the public has resulted in massive displacement, a smog of guilt – why didn't we know, or did we know and ignore it? – meaning all kinds of justifications have been made. Some have tried to turn this into a story about the evils of the BBC or of the Leveson inquiry, because in some ways that is easier to deal with than the banality of "light entertainment" being the home of sordid abuse.

At first, remember Savile was regarded as an eccentric, merely doing what "the talent" at the time did. When the full extent of his wickedness was revealed, we put him in a box marked "monster". As he was conveniently dead, that box was then moved, for fear of desecration. Savile, we saw, was a vile predator, and yet given access to already damaged and institutionalised girls.

The whole "groupie" excuse did not wash. Instead we learned of the seedy reality of the tracksuit bottoms whipped off, and serious sexual assault on a 10-year-old boy. We shuddered, looked away and assigned it to the past.

Well, some of us did. From the moment I started writing about Savile in early October, I began to receive letters and emails from women detailing their own abuse, often by a family "friend" and often, horribly enough, with their parents knowing. Thankfully the writer Yasmin Alibhai-Brown received one such letter from a woman Hall had assaulted. Yasmin is such a concerned and persistent person that she took it to the police. That started the inquiries rolling, for which we must thank her.

The common themes of many of the missives I received were that women who have been abused feel guilty, responsible and so ashamed that they have never spoken about it. The Savile case was churning up terrible memories. This experience was not completely new to me.

Once, when I was teaching an MA course, an extremely competent and mature student came to see me after a film I had shown triggered all sorts of memories for her about abuse. Apart from referring her to organisations that deal with "survivors", I found myself shocked to see someone so knocked sideways by things that had happened so many years earlier.

This feeling is now there again, but this time collectively. We still do not know how to deal with abuse. We are reeling from these revelations in denial, disbelief and distress.

For instance, there are those who criticise Operation Yewtree (set up post-Savile) on the grounds that we cannot apply today's attitudes to the sex crimes of yesteryear. There also exists the feeling that perhaps the police are themselves indulging in some retrospective guilt trip: as they did not act during the Savile era, despite complaints being made very early on in his career, they have now gone into overdrive, hanging out innocent men to dry. The list grows: Max Clifford, Rolf Harris, Dave Lee Travis, Jim Davidson, Bill Roache and Freddie Starr have all had serious allegations made against them.

The piecing together of historical evidence, as there is no physical or forensic evidence, is what will make or break these cases. Once again a different, murky time is demarcated for these alleged crimes: the blur of the late 60s and 70s, which we are told was both a more "innocent" time and also a time of great promiscuity. Promiscuity for whom remains the crucial question.

As each of these "family" entertainers is arrested, I hear people – often men – saying, "Is all my childhood going to be destroyed?" Which is unfortunate, because yes, that's exactly what abuse does. I don't share this nostalgia for these "wholesome" presenters – they were always a bit creepy – and the new details of their extraordinary behaviour bear this out. The immunity that protects celebrities was clearly in play 40 years ago. Was it really OK that when Hall turned up at a school in Cheshire in 1967 to hand out school prizes, he insisted on kissing the young schoolgirls? Was it OK that, as Linda McDougall recalls, he occupied the medical room at the Look North studios for his dalliances with "lady friends" or that "he was one of those people who had his hands all over you and all over any female that came in". Was it OK when, eight years ago, he told Radio 5 listeners, "Your average 10-year-old can instruct you in oral and anal sex"? These remarks were dismissed as satirical banter.

Anyone my age knows how some men did behave in the workplace, and you got as far away from them as fast as possible. But there were always girls who didn't or couldn't. For the 70s was pre-Aids, a time when we were expected to be free and easy. What did not exist then was the idea that one could be sexually harassed, and could complain and be taken seriously.

This is why today, when I hear the voices of Hall's victims, I would argue that naming the suspects (which enabled some women to come forward) remains powerful. Some of these women have been silent for a very long time. When Susan Harrison, whom Hall plied with alcohol then assaulted, told her father after returning home in tears, he said: "He is famous and we are nobodies. Nobody is going to believe you if you tell." Unless victims waive their right to anonymity, the victims do indeed remain nobodies. Harrison felt guilty, worrying that Hall may go on to abuse others, which he did. She later suffered from depression.

Kim Wright, another of Hall's victims, was watching the news about Savile when she decided to make a formal complaint. She is a policewoman who has worked in child protection. "I've always felt what Stuart Hall did to me is not something he'd do once, that it was part of some kind of modus operandi." Wright felt that if the police could tell other victims they were not the only one, they would have the courage to come forward. And she was right. "When he picked on me," she said, "he picked on the wrong person."

Indeed. Though surely sex without consent is always picking on the wrong person. We can now choose to recognise that or not. We worry about our young, about "sexualisation", about access to porn, and yet we are still – some of us – hazy about consent. Girls are still deemed to be "asking for it" if they are out late or wearing the wrong clothes.

It is much easier to assign all these horrible stories to a different time. But is it really so much better now? Are young women believed when they speak up today?

These men, who now look old and pathetic, clearly at the time felt immune and able to damage who they liked. Those who criticise Operation Yewtree should listen to the calls coming into Childline for a few nights. Abuse didn't stop with the arrest of a few sad DJs. I see Peter McKay in the Daily Mail quoting Thomas Macaulay: "We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality."

Maybe so, but what culture thinks it's all right to sexually assault a nine-year-old? None that I want any part of. Now let the victims' voices come to the fore. They were pushing off Hall and Savile. They were saying no. They were crying. They were gagging. They were bleeding. They were hurting. Child abuse and sexual assault has not suddenly stopped, but if we cannot speak about the past, we cannot speak about the present. Now we need to listen.


Sourse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...victims-voices
buster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 11:11 PM   #64659
harry_brown
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 183
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by magoo22 View Post
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-fortune.html


BBC predator Stuart Hall's £2million home is handed over to wife 'to protect his fortune'
  • Shamed presenter handed over Cheshire mansion to wife Hazel
  • It was claimed it could be an example of 'asset stripping' by presenter
  • Solicitors representing more than 50 of his victims taking legal action

And cue the apologists:

"Aah! So it's all about money is it?"


Surely there should be some piece of legislation similar to when people go bankrupt and carry out a deliberate/deceptive disposal of assets prior to the event? It's possible in those cases for such assets to then be reclaimed.

Sod it! Sue him then make the bastard bankrupt. He's willfully/knowingly disposed of assets to avoid a debt.

Nice to see his family sticking "rock solid" behind him as well.
harry_brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2013, 11:12 PM   #64660
buster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 473
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default From Gojams blog

http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2...-plea-bargain/
buster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:09 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.