quisquose Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 i suspect in all cases "MONEY" is it really hard to believe that after 40 or so years in this case and pretty much all the others that someone suddenly decides "oh yes i think i was abused " all that time ago........and they didnt think to come forward before:suspect: disgusting is the word for these chancers:roll: Yes, because there's plenty of money to be had in falsely accusing somebody of assault 40 years ago and then failing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that something that didn't happen happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 IMO it has also brought some chancers out of the woodwork too. Because of this, every new allegation should be done in the strictest confidence and NO names should be released by anyone. Based on what? Seems the bandwagon gets longer everyday Based on what? Obviously it is you who hasn't got a clue. Have you ever been raped? I have and ive had to live with it for the last 10 years. I reported him right away and he was arrested and hes still in prison. Why on earth would i have waited one second let alone 40 years to report this vile act upon my person? I have real difficulty believing some of these allegations. Undoubtedly some if not most will be true but some just smacks of something sinister. Which ones in particular? i suspect in all cases "MONEY" is it really hard to believe that after 40 or so years in this case and pretty much all the others that someone suddenly decides "oh yes i think i was abused " all that time ago........and they didnt think to come forward before:suspect: disgusting is the word for these chancers:roll: Based on what? I suspect in some cases, "Money" Based on what? Is there any evidence to back up points of view such as these? Or is just opinion and suspicion? Would it not require a great deal of knowledge of each relevant case to be able to come to these conclusions? Do any of you have that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Yes, because there's plenty of money to be had in falsely accusing somebody of assault 40 years ago and then failing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that something that didn't happen happened. Lawyer to Lawyer: "My client will drop their claims and refute their statement if........." Hypothetical situation occurring behind closed doors obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 i suspect in all cases "MONEY" is it really hard to believe that after 40 or so years in this case and pretty much all the others that someone suddenly decides "oh yes i think i was abused " all that time ago........and they didnt think to come forward before:suspect: disgusting is the word for these chancers:roll: Especially considering the "victims" of Saville are now trying to sue his estate for compensation ---------- Post added 01-05-2013 at 16:29 ---------- Based on what? Based on what? Jimmy Savile's alleged victims set to sue BBC and Stoke Mandeville hospital Women allegedly sexually abused by Jimmy Savile at the BBC and Stoke Mandeville hospital are preparing to launch legal actions against both institutions seeking compensation for the psychological damage caused. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/12/jimmy-savile-bbc-hospital-court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Based on what? One answer to all your questions: Based on their own warped view of humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 ]Jimmy Savile's alleged victims set to sue BBC and Stoke Mandeville hospital[/size][/b] Women allegedly sexually abused by Jimmy Savile at the BBC and Stoke Mandeville hospital are preparing to launch legal actions against both institutions seeking compensation for the psychological damage caused. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/12/jimmy-savile-bbc-hospital-court Firstly, why shouldn't they? Secondly, how does that prove money was a motivating factor in reporting/inventing historic abuse? How precisely are you differentiating between the victims who are telling the truth and pursuing a perfectly acceptable legal avenue of redress and those who you are assuming are lying in order to be fraudulently remunerated? To view it as anything other than victims (no need for disparaging quotations marks arond the word) seeking deserved compensation takes you right back to opinion and suspicions. Unless, of course, you have any evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Sarah Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Firstly, why shouldn't they? Secondly, how does that prove money was a motivating factor in reporting/inventing historic abuse? How precisely are you differentiating between the victims who are telling the truth and pursuing a perfectly acceptable legal avenue of redress and those who you are assuming are lying in order to be fraudulently remunerated? To view it as anything other than victims (no need for disparaging quotations marks arond the word) seeking deserved compensation takes you right back to opinion and suspicions. Unless, of course, you have any evidence. Ive never sought one penny compensation for what he did to me. Knowing hes in prison is enough for me to get on with my life. The money would feel tainted any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Firstly, why shouldn't they? Secondly, how does that prove money was a motivating factor in reporting/inventing historic abuse? How precisely are you differentiating between the victims who are telling the truth and pursuing a perfectly acceptable legal avenue of redress and those who you are assuming are lying in order to be fraudulently remunerated? To view it as anything other than victims (no need for disparaging quotations marks arond the word) seeking deserved compensation takes you right back to opinion and suspicions. Unless, of course, you have any evidence. It also answers in part the question "why didn't they report it at the time?" Rape and abuse victims are often, if not frequently, accused of lying, being mad, fantasists, attention seekers, experiencing post bad sexual experience regret and if the accused is rich, money grabbers. They'd be more likely to get money through blackmail than through the courts . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Stark Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Firstly, why shouldn't they? Secondly, how does that prove money was a motivating factor in reporting/inventing historic abuse? How precisely are you differentiating between the victims who are telling the truth and pursuing a perfectly acceptable legal avenue of redress and those who you are assuming are lying in order to be fraudulently remunerated? To view it as anything other than victims (no need for disparaging quotations marks arond the word) seeking deserved compensation takes you right back to opinion and suspicions. Unless, of course, you have any evidence. Can you tell me how you know that the victims are telling the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Of course there's chancers in this sordid mess and the fact that,while the accused are named and pilloried and the accusers are shielded in a veil of anonymity it will go on ad infintum.I see no difference to shielding the accused until proven guilty,strange of all the people who have been arrested who had possible connections to Saville,have any appeared in court yet ? ---------- Post added 01-05-2013 at 17:41 ---------- Just been reading ,the allegations stem from the 60's not the 80's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.