General Chat

DNA evidence is irrelevant to cases where the victim did not report the offence at the time it occurred so doesnt applies to these cases and only became relevant in the late 1980's when it was first used as evidence

Roy

When I started work aged 17, I had a boss who delighted in putting his hand up my skirt.
It was a well known fact among the staff that when he said he was going to "have you on the carpet" he meant it quite literally.
That was in the early 60s.
It would be a bit late now to bring it up, however many witnesses I may have.
It wasn´t until all this started coming out about the celebs that I actually remembered.

Nolls, things can be proven from years ago, for instance in the case of a sex allegation, it could be DNA evidence, if there were swabs taken at the time, or perhaps if there the victim describes something that couldn't be known by anyone else.

Feel the same a s Gwynne on naming.

In the case of a recent conviction several other victims came forward when it was in the press that this individual had been arrested. There was only one allegation at first.

After others came forward a gulty plea was entered.

That's why names should be released.

On the other hand the lives of innocent people can be destroyed by false allegations.

That's why names shouldn't be released.

On balance I go with releasing the names in case there are other victims.

It's wrong to publish the names of suspects until proven guilty , what's happened to Innocent until proven Guilty ? How can they now prove/disprove what happened 40/50 years ago , someone tell me where's that cave ... I want to go too.

I am not in favour of the publishing of names, these people have been arrested only on "suspicion" of having committed an offence.

The reason they have been arrested is so that the "alleged" offence can be the subject of an investigation and also so that they can be advised of their rights, that's the way the system more or less works.

If there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an offence has, with considerable certainty, been committed, they will be charged.

If it is decided, with considerable certainty, that there is insufficient evidence that an offence was committed, they will be de-arrested. However, if their name has been made public, although they may be innocent, their life and that of their family will have been left in tatters as a result of that.

Thank you, Kitty.

The police do not name the alleged perpetrators. The media does name them, yet public comments are not allowed on their articles online due to legal reasons; doesn't make sense.

unfortunately it can take a very long time to prove or disprove whether an offence has taken place - if there is more than one alleged victim, then every case will have to be investigated to see if there is a link between them all - can take well over a year, if not more - I speak from experience here by the way

There was always the danger when the Saville scandal was uncovered that only the guilty but the innocent would have fingers pointed at them.

I cannot believe Tarby - no way.

Good point Joy............their lives and any of their alleged victims will be horrible until decisions or verdicts are made one way or the other.

:-(

I think that alleged perpetrators should be given as much anonymity as the alleged victims. Several of those alleged people were arrested about six months ago and have not been charged yet. I believe they deserve to be tried or released without charge after all this time.

I do agree with those who have said that the publishing of names is wrong until allegations are proven to be true.

I have sympathy for the victims if their story is true, but do wonder if they bragged about it at the time, or were too frightened to say anything to anyone.

I remember when 'Pop Stars' visited our local town in the 60's, I also know of some girls who would have/did go back to their hotel. If any of those who bragged about what they had done at the time, now shouted 'rape' I would testify against them, but it is the men & not these girls that are being named.

It is the families of the named people that I feel sorry for, most of these men are now Grandfathers.

I do think it is unfair to discuss individuals untill they are charged perhaps even until they are convicted because mud sticks. Whenever these investigations hit the headlines along with the genuine victims who find the courage to come forward, there is always the risk of false claims also being made for all sorts of reasons.

Personally I think it's just the tip of the iceberg, mostly it seems to be people with connections to the BBC being investigated at the moment.

Imagine if they start on pop stars, how many would have asked teenage groupies for proof of I.D. before leaping into the back of the tour bus?

Mayfield

And that is exactly why potentially innocent people, celebrity or not should be granted anonimity.

I am in no way taking away my utmost sympathy for the alleged victims, but there seems to be an air of assumed guilt placed on everyone so far named.

That's not accurate Linda, either scientifically or in law.

Linda, That would have been before they invented artificial smoke

Roy

Every alleged victim that has gone to the police needs and deserve anonimity, I have absolutely no problem with that.

But..........celebrity or not I wish the alleged perpetrators were given complete anonimity unless their guilt is proven.

If even one celebrity named so far is proved innocent, their lives will never be the same again..............so why are they being named?

*joins Kemp in the cave*

My old dad always said no smoke without fire :-S :-S :-S

I am just looking forward to the good news that a leading star of the 60's and 70's has had no accusations of child abuse levelled against him or her.

My thought process in last few weeks. You always thought there was something odd about Jimmy Saville. But at least the Liverpool comedian with the whacky neurotic style would be safe with young people.

Now the whacky neurotic Scouser has been arrested, at least we have the cuddly and friendly Australian 83 year old - nothing strange about him.

Now the friendly 83 year old Australian has been arrested, at least we can trust in the stars of Coronation St.

Now the stars of Coronation St have been arrested, we can at least have faith in a lovely family man and popular Liverpool comedian with a brilliant daughter.

Now the lovely family man of father of the famous has been arrested, at least we can have faith in............ :-S :-S :-S

no way