mossdog Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 There certainly seems to be lots of witch-hunts going off lately for one thing or another. Still it's good to distract public attention away from the things that really matter.More pearls of wisdom from Mecky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 There certainly seems to be lots of witch-hunts going off lately for one thing or another. Still it's good to distract public attention away from the things that really matter. Excuse me but what? Are you really suggesting that the Govt are so worried they are prepared to throw someone to the wolves to distract the public? Are you really so hide bound in your hatred of the right that you are even willing to espouse this sort of viewpoint? It does you no credit whatsover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 He had this covered. So did the Guardian in an article in 1997 that is now doing the rounds. By any chance The Guardian article by Nick Davies that states "Those named to the tribunal include: A man who bears the same surname as a prominent Conservative supporter". Lol, I know a few people with the surname Plant, however none have ever been lead singer with Led Zep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Because Starr publically said he wanted to be interviewed by the police to clear his name and the politico threatened to sue anyone who mentioned his name. I've no idea what truth their is in the allegations against either but on the face of it Starr made the right decision publicity wise as while both names are in the public domain one seems desperate to keep it secret. Do you realise that Starr had applied for and obtained obtained an emergency injunction to keep his name out of the media? He only came forward with his "wish to be interviewed" after the injunction was overturned the next day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 We live in interesting times. Unless you rely on Sheffield Forum where all discussion of these matters has been suppressed. It's not the forum's fault, it's the users. I frequent other forums where topics, such as one about a man who hosted a "Fix It" TV programme, or topics on religion or parking can be discussed without it resorting to name calling, bickering and the subsequent lock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I'm not sure what Philip Schofield thought he was doing by holding up a card to the Prime Minister on the ITV show 'This Morning' that listed the names of MPs who are alledged to have abused children. For a start off the names were visible to the viewer (which could affect a future trial); and secondly they are names that were gleaned from Twitter. I'm not surprised that there have been complaints from ITV about this. You'd think after years of experience of hosting television shows Schofield would have been a bit more savvy than he was. What did he hope to achieve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I'm not sure what Philip Schofield thought he was doing by holding up a card to the Prime Minister on the ITV show 'This Morning' that listed the names of MPs who are alledged to have abused children. For a start off the names were visible to the viewer (which could affect a future trial); and secondly they are names that were gleaned from Twitter. I'm not surprised that there have been complaints from ITV about this. You'd think after years of experience of hosting television shows Schofield would have been a bit more savvy than he was. What did he hope to achieve? What trial? If there is any substance to this you know this will be covered up with an avalanche of d-notices, official denial and rubbish about national security. If the names were visible then let them sue if they have nothing to hide. Maybe they might want to have a word with Cameron though for outing them as gay. But maybe think about this. If the names on the list are implicated then maybe it will stop them and their associates from harming any more youngsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 What trial? If there is any substance to this you know this will be covered up with an avalanche of d-notices, official denial and rubbish about national security. If the names were visible then let them sue if they have nothing to hide. Maybe they might want to have a word with Cameron though for outing them as gay. But maybe think about this. If the names on the list are implicated then maybe it will stop them and their associates from harming any more youngsters. Can the internet be trusted,i wouldn't have thought so. It never helps victims if wrong accusations are made,it results in making it more difficult for victims to report crimes for fear of being disbelieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Can the internet be trusted,i wouldn't have thought so. It never helps victims if wrong accusations are made,it results in making it more difficult for victims to report crimes for fear of being disbelieved. Can the powers that be be trusted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Can the powers that be be trusted? I think if we assume there is any interest in covering things up in the coalition government, which I find unlikely, then the state of their relations with the police and the Murdoch press would make the risks involved in trying to put any pressure to sweep things under the carpet utterly suicidal. So yues, I think they can be trusted, whether justice can prevail for the victims given the passage of time and alledged destruction of evidence in the past is a different question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.