Jimmy Savile Discussion: "Dr" Fox cleared of all charges

Lagamorph wrote:Just went back and read the first page of the thread.
How things have changed.

I wonder if that HIGNFY transcript was real after all.

Anyone else find the connotations of the thread title strange? Lots of people getting arrested for things that they haven't been convicted for yet, all being put up there in association with Savile - who may well be the most evil example of any of this vile gooseberry fool

Skippy wrote:Anyone else find the connotations of the thread title strange? Lots of people getting arrested for things that they haven't been convicted for yet, all being put up there in association with Savile - who may well be the most evil example of any of this vile gooseberry fool

I was about to post something similar, but I guess it stems from the way the Yewtree investigation has been carried out. DLT was done by Yewtree, and there's no way his crime of groping a female colleague or two was anywhere near in the same league as Savile raping dying 12-year-olds.

Maybe we could change it to 'Yewtree' or 'Paedogeddon' discussion.

I think we probably ought, at least, to get rid of the Dr Fox bit, and stop updating the title every time a different celeb gets arrested, as it's dodgy ground, especially when they've not been charged.

Poser wrote: to get rid of the Dr Fox bit.

What happened to him in the end?

Not sure. he denied the allegations and wasn't charged, AFAIK.

Nothing as yet? The last report I saw was when he was arrested the second time in December.

Death's Head wrote:

Poser wrote: to get rid of the Dr Fox bit.

What happened to him in the end?

He got struck off.

Lucien wrote:If you aren't a real Dr and you put Dr in your name, something sinister is probably going on.

Sex crime suspects deserve anonymity, MPs say

There should be a statutory ban on the identification of people who are arrested for sexual offences in England and Wales, a committee of MPs has said.

The Home Affairs Select Committee said sexual offence suspects deserved the right to anonymity, unless they were charged or police needed to name them. There should be "zero tolerance" of their identities being leaked, unattributed, to the media, it added. But Jill Saward, a victim of rape, said the suggestions were "insulting". Ms Saward, who waived her own right to anonymity after being raped in order to campaign for other victims, told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme that making a special case for sex crime suspects "implies that victims are lying".

The MPs report said bail should also initially be limited to 28 days. The committee's report on police bail also said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) should apologise to broadcaster Paul Gambaccini after he was kept on bail for 12 months over an allegation of historical sexual abuse before the case against him was dropped.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31970034

Well, about time. But will politicians have the moral courage to take such a measure? And Mr Gambaccini is definitely owed an apology, imo. Offering the accused the same rights to anonymity as the alleged victim is perfectly reasonable in all but the most obvious or extreme cases. It is a scandal that the police have thus far been allowed to keep defendants in such cases on bail for such unreasonable lengths of time.

He's right. Until someone is actually found guilty they should be anonymous.

I think they should be anonymous until charged, not until found guilty. There are many cases where new facts wouldn't have come to light unless the identity of the suspect was known, so a blanket ban on releasing a name until found guilty is counter-productive. The fact is, though, that some people who claim they have been raped do lie, and allegations made which don't reach the evidence standard after the suspect is arrested can still tar lives tremendously, so I definitely believe in anonymity until the point that someone is charged. I have a real problem with the 'we should automatically believe everyone!' line of thinking, as it's nonsense. But if there is enough evidence to charge someone, then that's enough to release their name IMO.

I also think that the punishment for false allegations should be made much tougher, given the possible reputation damage to the real victim.

Eighthours wrote:I think they should be anonymous until charged, not until found guilty. There are many cases where new facts wouldn't have come to light unless the identity of the suspect was known. The fact is that some people who claim they have been raped do lie, and I have a problem with this 'we should automatically believe everyone!' line of thinking. But if there is enough to charge someone, then that's enough to release their name IMO.

Allegations made which don't reach the evidence standard after the suspect is arrested can still tar lives tremendously, so I definitely believe in anonymity until the point that someone is charged, and I also think that the sanction for false allegations should be made tougher.

Yes, anonymity until charged is what is being proposed, so I agree with you and with the Home Affairs Select Committee.

The Max Clifford and Gambacinni cases are very clear example of how blanket rules on anonymity are not the way forward. There are many unignorable pros and cons to anonymity.

This isn't black or white. Anyone who claims it is would to me seem quite unempathic with the victims on both sides.

mrspax wrote:The Max Clifford and Gambacinni cases are very clear example of how blanket rules on anonymity are not the way forward. There are many unignorable pros and cons to anonymity.

This isn't black or white. Anyone who claims it is would to me seem quite unempathic with the victims on both sides.

Complete nonsense. Once the accused is actually charged with an offence the police can safely go on their fishing trip for other victims to step forward. Providing anonymity until such time as the police and the CPS feel they have enough evidence to make an initial charge is absolutely fair. I cannot understand what reasonable objection there can be to this.

I agree with cal.....

I do too.

Cal wrote:

mrspax wrote:The Max Clifford and Gambacinni cases are very clear example of how blanket rules on anonymity are not the way forward. There are many unignorable pros and cons to anonymity.

This isn't black or white. Anyone who claims it is would to me seem quite unempathic with the victims on both sides.

Complete nonsense. Once the accused is actually charged with an offence the police can safely go on their fishing trip for other victims to step forward. Providing anonymity until such time as the police and the CPS feel they have enough evidence to make an initial charge is absolutely fair. I cannot understand what reasonable objection there can be to this.

Nonsense you say? So what about situations like with Clifford where one initial victim was not enough to support any kind of case? Is that reasonable an objection enough for you to understand how grey the area is?

mrspax wrote:

Cal wrote:

mrspax wrote:The Max Clifford and Gambacinni cases are very clear example of how blanket rules on anonymity are not the way forward. There are many unignorable pros and cons to anonymity.

This isn't black or white. Anyone who claims it is would to me seem quite unempathic with the victims on both sides.

Complete nonsense. Once the accused is actually charged with an offence the police can safely go on their fishing trip for other victims to step forward. Providing anonymity until such time as the police and the CPS feel they have enough evidence to make an initial charge is absolutely fair. I cannot understand what reasonable objection there can be to this.

Nonsense you say? So what about situations like with Clifford where one initial victim was not enough to support any kind of case? Is that reasonable an objection enough for you to understand how grey the area is?

Um, surely if there is one victim there is one charge. It's not like a Costa loyalty card where only after 10 sexual assaults can you get your free coffee, I mean charge.

Eighthours wrote:

mrspax wrote:

Cal wrote:

mrspax wrote:The Max Clifford and Gambacinni cases are very clear example of how blanket rules on anonymity are not the way forward. There are many unignorable pros and cons to anonymity.

This isn't black or white. Anyone who claims it is would to me seem quite unempathic with the victims on both sides.

Complete nonsense. Once the accused is actually charged with an offence the police can safely go on their fishing trip for other victims to step forward. Providing anonymity until such time as the police and the CPS feel they have enough evidence to make an initial charge is absolutely fair. I cannot understand what reasonable objection there can be to this.

Nonsense you say? So what about situations like with Clifford where one initial victim was not enough to support any kind of case? Is that reasonable an objection enough for you to understand how grey the area is?

Um, surely if there is one victim there is one charge. It's not like a Costa loyalty card where only after 10 sexual assaults can you get your free coffee, I mean charge.

"Um.." don't play the fool Eighthours. The first allegation didn't have enough meat/evidence to stand up in court and prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - hence no charge.

The resulting complaints on the back of the initial allegation created enough of a case to ensure he was rightly banged up.

Sexual assault is a crime where victims live in fear of not being believed. There are a lot of studies that conclude that one time offenders are actually multiple time offenders. The revelation that a victim is not alone helps secure convictions.

As for the "loyalty card" quip - yes, he was charged on multiple counts and convicted on multiple accounts. He was also acquitted on some accounts if I recall correctly.

Yes, that IS the way the CPS works. We don't have one trial for every allegation.

Edit: DO not think that means I am saying that the paedogaeddon agenda is right... Far from it. I equally empathise with people like Gambaccini. I fundamentally do NOT believe however that you can put a blanket rule on it.

Keith Vaz is currently on the radio explaining his views - and he's an anonymity advocate - under certian circumstances. Very eloquent and common sense. He advocates that in some circumstances, names should be made public. He doesn't elaborate how that would work though (and I fully admit that is a sticky wicket).

I should say that Rolf Harris was also cited in said interview as a convicted sex offender that would not have been convicted had it not gone public prior to the charge.