Never thought Tarbuck was funny.

[MrSmith]

I was watching a documentary about the Rolling Stones from BBC 4. Every concert in the 1970s was cut short by crowd invasion and band members being attacked by girls on stage.

It isn't difficult to imagine the teenie boppers with a bedroom full of posters of their celebrity fantasy going to a concert and hanging around the stage door. No doubt some got in, and who knows what went on. But a few years down the line when the phone hasn't rung with that marriage proposal and the offer of a lifetime sipping Champagne by the pool the grudge sets in and the imagination runs riot. It is very easy for these folk to come forward when invited to on the back of another accusation. But it is a big problem for the celeb if the initial complain was false but has been backed up by half a dozen others who have jumped onto the bandwagon.

 

Good post which highlights the reality of the situation nicely.

[Uptowngirl]

You want to believe it's easy, but it isn't.

 

Your example of the Rolling Stones disproves any point you are trying to make. Despite the numerous stories of groupies that surround this band, despite the well documented amount of women that willingly passed themselves around, and despite the fact that the band members are some of the richest people on the planet, there have been no tangible complaints made. Same goes for many similar bands, and celebrities ...

 

The difference between the Rolling Stones, and the vast majority of celebrities for that matter, and some/most of those that are now appearing in the press is nothing to do with how easy it is for women to throw mud around, it is simply because some people used their position to criminally abuse vulnerable boys and girls.

 

I'm sure the police are hearing numerous fictional "stories" that they have to wade through, and some of them might even involve some fantasy about Mick Jagger, but read the letter sent to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown about Stuart Hall. There's a vast canyon of difference between some groupie throwing themself at their hero an offering sex, and a fan asking for an autograph and getting a hand thrust down their underwear, or being systematically groomed for sex.

 

Well the case in the OP is about Jimmy Tarbuck where one person has made a complaint which may or may not be true. However whether true or not it is career over for Tarbuck and reputaion ruined. It also leaves the floodgates wide open for others to invent stories which themselves add weight to the initial claim.

 

UK law is supposedly based on Blackstone's formulation, but it seems recently that this has been forgotten in the rush to name and shame folk in the public eye, some of whom may well be guilty but others probably aren't.

 

It wouldn't be the first time in history that there was a malicious campaign to sully an innocent persons reputation.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/13/gordon-brown-smear-tactics-labour

 

Gordon Brown will be told by senior Labour figures this week that he must clean up Downing Street if Labour is to have a chance of winning the next election following the departure of his aide, Damian McBride, who proposed a smear campaign against David Cameron, the Tory leader.

 

As a "furious" Cameron demanded a personal apology from the prime minister , one senior Labour figure warned the party had suffered "reputational damage".

 

McBride, a senior Brown aide dating back to the prime minister's time as chancellor, resigned on Saturday after the political blogger, Guido Fawkes, uncovered a series of emails outlining plans for a smear campaign against senior Tories.

[Eater Sundae]

Well the case in the OP is about Jimmy Tarbuck where one person has made a complaint which may or may not be true. However whether true or not it is career over for Tarbuck and reputaion ruined. It also leaves the floodgates wide open for others to invent stories which themselves add weight to the initial claim.

 

UK law is supposedly based on Blackstone's formulation, but it seems recently that this has been forgotten in the rush to name and shame folk in the public eye, some of whom may well be guilty but others probably aren't.

 

It wouldn't be the first time in history that there was a malicious campaign to sully an innocent persons reputation.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/13/gordon-brown-smear-tactics-labour

 

 

Gordon Brown will be told by senior Labour figures this week that he must clean up Downing Street if Labour is to have a chance of winning the next election following the departure of his aide, Damian McBride, who proposed a smear campaign against David Cameron, the Tory leader.

 

As a "furious" Cameron demanded a personal apology from the prime minister , one senior Labour figure warned the party had suffered "reputational damage".

 

McBride, a senior Brown aide dating back to the prime minister's time as chancellor, resigned on Saturday after the political blogger, Guido Fawkes, uncovered a series of emails outlining plans for a smear campaign against senior Tories.

 

 

Re bib. I thought that related to convictions in court. The problem with publicising arrests doesn’t necessarily affect the court’s decision.

 

Also, what about the innocent people who continued to suffer at the hands of Jimmy Savile, who might have been spared that suffering if he had been named following the first accusation to the police? Don’t they count as innocents who have suffered.

[Uptowngirl]

Re bib. I thought that related to convictions in court. The problem with publicising arrests doesn’t necessarily affect the court’s decision.

 

Also, what about the innocent people who continued to suffer at the hands of Jimmy Savile, who might have been spared that suffering if he had been named following the first accusation to the police? Don’t they count as innocents who have suffered.

 

Blackstone's principal which has been the backbone of law in all democratic countries is. ""It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

 

The problem with publicising arrests of this nature is mob rule.

Imagine if you son had rowed with a girlfriend who then claimed he had molested her. By the time a trial came around your house would have no windows and your son would have been beaten up.

 

The Savile case is no different from any other. The police should investigate the complaints and bring prosecutions on the merit of the evidence. What went wrong in the Savile case is too many folk who knew what was going on DIDN'T say anything. They are the ones who brought unnecessary suffering on the innocent. Simply assuming every celebrity is similarly perverted and ruining their careers isn't helping anyone.

[Eater Sundae]

Blackstone's principal which has been the backbone of law in all democratic countries is. ""It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

 

The problem with publicising arrests of this nature is mob rule.

Imagine if you son had rowed with a girlfriend who then claimed he had molested her. By the time a trial came around your house would have no windows and your son would have been beaten up.

 

The Savile case is no different from any other. The police should investigate the complaints and bring prosecutions on the merit of the evidence. What went wrong in the Savile case is too many folk who knew what was going on DIDN'T say anything. They are the ones who brought unnecessary suffering on the innocent. Simply assuming every celebrity is similarly perverted and ruining their careers isn't helping anyone.

 

And my point stands. You’ve quoted the principal, but have not considered it fully. Yes, naming an innocent person results in them suffering. However, not naming one who turns out to be guilty can result in other innocent people suffering, as it did in the case of Savile. Had he been named publically, 20 or 30 years ago, on the back of just one complaint, in the way Stuart Hall has recently been, then other people might have come forward, and many innocent people would have been spared from him.

 

The 10 guilty people versus one innocent one is an oversimplification in the way you have used it.

[MrSmith]

And my point stands. You’ve quoted the principal, but have not considered it fully. Yes, naming an innocent person results in them suffering. However, not naming one who turns out to be guilty can result in other innocent people suffering, as it did in the case of Savile. Had he been named publically, 20 or 30 years ago, on the back of just one complaint, in the way Stuart Hall has recently been, then other people might have come forward, and many innocent people would have been spared from him.

 

The 10 guilty people versus one innocent one is an oversimplification in the way you have used it.

 

The people that can best protect the next potential victims are the victims, if they don’t report the crime at the time the crime is committed they are allowing an abuser to continue abusing. Reporting it many years later doesn't stop anyone being abused.

[quisquose]

The people that can best protect the next potential victims are the victims, if they don’t report the crime at the time the crime is committed they are allowing an abuser to continue abusing. Reporting it many years later doesn't stop anyone being abused.

 

When will this victim blaming ever cease?

[Eater Sundae]

The people that can best protect the next potential victims are the victims, if they don’t report the crime at the time the crime is committed they are allowing an abuser to continue abusing. Reporting it many years later doesn't stop anyone being abused.

 

That would really depend on how long the abuser would carry on abusing if they are not identified. In the case of Jimmy Savile, if the first victim had waited, say, 10 years before coming forward, but if that was then made public, there could have been 20 or 30 years worth of victims who might have been protected from him.

 

A late accusation is still better than no accusation at all.

[Mister M]

When will this victim blaming ever cease?

 

It never will.

 

Of course they say some abusers are monsters, but some aren't. Some can't help it, and some are led astray by the 'victims', so that eventually they can claim compensation, be the victim, revel in the publicity, enjoy persecting a 'decent' person who just wanted a 'bit of fun' after all.

It doesn't matter that the alleged victims are children who can't give their consent. The victim wanted it, they are not all innocents, you want to see how they dress.

If they come forward years later why didn't they report it at the time. What's trauma, what's shame?

[janie48]

In view of what has been revealed about Savile with the shocking revelations and extent of his crimes I welcomed the Operation Yewtree investigation being set up because I thought it was good that the Police were recognising that their failure to act in the past all those years ago when crimes about him and other celebrities were ignored by them was terrible.

 

I started to have reservations about how correct they were operating when they started naming names of the alleged accused and I still feel somewhat uneasy about that even though the Stuart Hall details have been so appalling to hear.

There have to be good reasons for them to be certain they are doing the right think naming people before trial otherwise they are going to be severely criticised for doing so in the future especially if it should come to light an innocent person has been falsely accused, though I don't think that will happen because a case won't go to trial without enough evidence.

The only one reason i'm hoping their procedure is right, is that by doing so future such offences will be prevented.

 

Its so often been highlighted how complacent and less concerned society's attitudes appeared to be with regard to some sexual offences were in the 60s/70s and for some time after, and I think that should be taken into account when viewing these situations, if only to learn from the past and avoid a continuation of that same relaxed attitude.