Well, I'd never have thought this ...

[Bruce Rioja]

Cyril Smith's name's been dredged up now. Could he actually see his cock?

And I'm sorry, but if you couldn't outrun Cyril Smith then you deserved fecking!

[BWFC_Insane]

Cyril Smith's name's been dredged up now. Could he actually see his cock?

And I'm sorry, but if you couldn't outrun Cyril Smith then you deserved fecking!

Sorry, but I honestly think that should be deleted.

EDIT: I know it was said in jest but still, personally don't think thats acceptable.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

And that Gary Davies with his bit in the middle - the tw*t!

Oooh Gary Davies! Oooh Gary Davies!

Now I would never have tired of punching that bastard.

[thebish]

Have I heard that right...Dave Lee Travis has been arrested?

for the record - he has made a statement to vehemently deny that it is anything at all to do with children - but it about incidents with two grown women.


on an entirely unrelated story that I might as well put here rather than start another thread..

A former Radio 1 DJ has claimed she was routinely groped by another presenter while working for the BBC during the 1980s.

Liz Kershaw described the atmosphere at the station as intimidating and said that when she tried to complain she was accused of being a lesbian.

"When I walked into Radio 1 it was a culture I have never encountered before. I have always said it was like walking into a rugby club locker room and it was very intimidating for a young woman," she said.

"There was one presenter who routinely groped me. I would be sitting in the studio with my headphones on, my back to the studio door, live on air, and couldn't hear a thing except what was in my headphones, and then I'd find these wandering hands up my jumper fondling my breasts," she said.

"I couldn't say anything, I couldn't even explain because I was broadcasting to the nation. When I complained to somebody they were incredulous and said: 'Don't you like it, are you a lesbian?'"

[Annoyed Grunt]

She worked with Bruno Brookes.......hmmm.

[Bruce Rioja]

Cyril Smith's name's been dredged up now. Could he actually see his cock?

And I'm sorry, but if you couldn't outrun Cyril Smith then you deserved fecking!

Sorry, but I honestly think that should be deleted.

EDIT: I know it was said in jest but still, personally don't think thats acceptable.

Had there not been this sort of bollocks doled out by sanctimonious gobshites then there'd have been no Brass Eye Paedogeddon, and our lives would have been all the less for it. Keep up the good work, Insaney.

[BWFC_Insane]

Had there not been this sort of bollocks doled out by sanctimonious gobshites then there'd have been no Brass Eye Paedogeddon, and our lives would have been all the less for it. Keep up the good work, Insaney.

Hmmm I think a satirical program (which i enjoyed) highlighting the medias obsession with paedophiles, is somewhat different than suggesting (even in jest) that 11/12 year old kids in care deserved what has been alleged to have happened to happen to them.

Just my opinion.

[thebish]

Had there not been this sort of bollocks doled out by sanctimonious gobshites then there'd have been no Brass Eye Paedogeddon, and our lives would have been all the less for it. Keep up the good work, Insaney.

Hmmm I think a satirical program (which i enjoyed) highlighting the medias obsession with paedophiles, is somewhat different than suggesting (even in jest) that 11/12 year old kids in care deserved what has been alleged to have happened to happen to them.

Just my opinion.

FWIW - and some might say, unusually, I agree...

[Bruce Rioja]

Had there not been this sort of bollocks doled out by sanctimonious gobshites then there'd have been no Brass Eye Paedogeddon, and our lives would have been all the less for it. Keep up the good work, Insaney.

Hmmm I think a satirical program (which i enjoyed) highlighting the medias obsession with paedophiles, is somewhat different than suggesting (even in jest) that 11/12 year old kids in care deserved what has been alleged to have happened to happen to them.

Just my opinion.

FWIW - and some might say, unusually, I agree...

You'll have to point out where anyone's actually claiming that Cyril Smith fecked anyone ever then.

[Little Green Man]

Well this'll keep him from delivering those tiresome match reports for a while at least.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20605267

[Montreal Wanderer]

Well this'll keep him from delivering those tiresome match reports for a while at least.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20605267

I don't really understand the point of going after octogenerians, dead and alive, for crimes they may have committed decades before. I suppose there is a possibility of a class action suit to get compensation from the alleged victims, but it would seem to me a pretty cold case with evidence hard to find. Still I suppose there must be some point.

[BWFC_Insane]

Well this'll keep him from delivering those tiresome match reports for a while at least.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20605267

I don't really understand the point of going after octogenerians, dead and alive, for crimes they may have committed decades before. I suppose there is a possibility of a class action suit to get compensation from the alleged victims, but it would seem to me a pretty cold case with evidence hard to find. Still I suppose there must be some point.

Totally disagree. It could well be the Cyril Smith situation where evidence was seemingly 'buried' or at least not acted on to protect him, with a different form of policing at the time.

If allegations are made, AND there is sufficient proof I don't care how old the accused is, or how historic the charges, they should still be acted upon.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Well this'll keep him from delivering those tiresome match reports for a while at least.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20605267

I don't really understand the point of going after octogenerians, dead and alive, for crimes they may have committed decades before. I suppose there is a possibility of a class action suit to get compensation from the alleged victims, but it would seem to me a pretty cold case with evidence hard to find. Still I suppose there must be some point.

Totally disagree. It could well be the Cyril Smith situation where evidence was seemingly 'buried' or at least not acted on to protect him, with a different form of policing at the time.

If allegations are made, AND there is sufficient proof I don't care how old the accused is, or how historic the charges, they should still be acted upon.

I understand the UK does not have a statute of limitations (except for some civil actions) but it seem pretty hard to pursue dead people who no longer have the ability to defend themselves properly. What is sufficient proof? One person claimed something happened thirty years ago? Two? Several? It is possible that fifty years ago I possessed some then illegal substances or that I smuggled stuff into the UK. Should these offenses hang over me now in Damoclean fashion? There is something to be said for Statutes of Limitations in criminal cases.

[BWFC_Insane]

Well this'll keep him from delivering those tiresome match reports for a while at least.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20605267

I don't really understand the point of going after octogenerians, dead and alive, for crimes they may have committed decades before. I suppose there is a possibility of a class action suit to get compensation from the alleged victims, but it would seem to me a pretty cold case with evidence hard to find. Still I suppose there must be some point.

Totally disagree. It could well be the Cyril Smith situation where evidence was seemingly 'buried' or at least not acted on to protect him, with a different form of policing at the time.

If allegations are made, AND there is sufficient proof I don't care how old the accused is, or how historic the charges, they should still be acted upon.

I understand the UK does not have a statute of limitations (except for some civil actions) but it seem pretty hard to pursue dead people who no longer have the ability to defend themselves properly. What is sufficient proof? One person claimed something happened thirty years ago? Two? Several? It is possible that fifty years ago I possessed some then illegal substances or that I smuggled stuff into the UK. Should these offenses hang over me now in Damoclean fashion? There is something to be said for Statutes of Limitations in criminal cases.

But in many of these cases the evidence was always there, just not acted upon to protect someone who at the time was perceived 'important'.

[Worthy4England]

Well this'll keep him from delivering those tiresome match reports for a while at least.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20605267

I don't really understand the point of going after octogenerians, dead and alive, for crimes they may have committed decades before. I suppose there is a possibility of a class action suit to get compensation from the alleged victims, but it would seem to me a pretty cold case with evidence hard to find. Still I suppose there must be some point.

Totally disagree. It could well be the Cyril Smith situation where evidence was seemingly 'buried' or at least not acted on to protect him, with a different form of policing at the time.

If allegations are made, AND there is sufficient proof I don't care how old the accused is, or how historic the charges, they should still be acted upon.

I understand the UK does not have a statute of limitations (except for some civil actions) but it seem pretty hard to pursue dead people who no longer have the ability to defend themselves properly. What is sufficient proof? One person claimed something happened thirty years ago? Two? Several? It is possible that fifty years ago I possessed some then illegal substances or that I smuggled stuff into the UK. Should these offenses hang over me now in Damoclean fashion? There is something to be said for Statutes of Limitations in criminal cases.

Somehow I didn't have you down as a drugs mule Monty.

I'm not sure pursuing the dead does anything in the sense that dead person can't defend themselves, but it might, if enough "proof" was bought forward help the victim, in other ways than pursuing some sort of monetary claim

I agree with Statute of Limitations in some cases I suspect but I'm not sure where I'd draw the line, but it probably wouldn't be the wrong side of rape or murder.

It might well not include someone smoking the odd spliff 30 years ago and absolutely wouldn't include (for example) an unpaid speeding fine from a foreign country...

[Montreal Wanderer]

I did say "if" and anyway it would be just for personal use and I didn't inhale too deeply, Worthy.

I think our views of what constitutes sexual harassment or even sexual assault have changed over the years. These BBC allegations seem to deal with harassment of adults and what we shudder at now may have been more normal then. Standards of proof may have been different at the time. Regarding this Cyril Smith chap, of whom I knew nothing but seems to have been a homosexual pedophile (NA spelling), I'd say you can't go after him (being dead) and you shouldn't go after his family, so go after the people who covered things up assuming they are still alive. Is it known that bringing up a forty year old matter is good or cathartic for the victim? I'm not convinced. There were things that happened to me at school that I forgot and moved on with life - I wouldn't want to revisit them fifty years later.

[Little Green Man]

As far as I'm aware the police in England are legally obliged to investigate the matter once an criminal allegation has been made. If there is enough evidence to believe a crime has been committed then, if it is in the public interest, something determined by the CPS, then it should be pursued. (I'd much rather that than a statute of limitations.) Charging someone with an offence of avoiding a parking fine or smoking a spliff 30 years ago is not currently/thankfully in the public interest. Sexual abuse, particularly of minors, is. That doesn't mean to say an octogenarian should be given a heavy prison sentence for being convicted of such a crime. It should at the very least mean he or she is no longer able to work for the national broadcaster.

[BWFC_Insane]

I might sound a bit Hoboh, but if they've been found guilty of a serious offence that warrants a custodial sentence I have absolutely no interest in how old they are.

[Worthy4England]

I did say "if" and anyway it would be just for personal use and I didn't inhale too deeply, Worthy.

I think our views of what constitutes sexual harassment or even sexual assault have changed over the years. These BBC allegations seem to deal with harassment of adults and what we shudder at now may have been more normal then. Standards of proof may have been different at the time. Regarding this Cyril Smith chap, of whom I knew nothing but seems to have been a homosexual pedophile (NA spelling), I'd say you can't go after him (being dead) and you shouldn't go after his family, so go after the people who covered things up assuming they are still alive. Is it known that bringing up a forty year old matter is good or cathartic for the victim? I'm not convinced. There were things that happened to me at school that I forgot and moved on with life - I wouldn't want to revisit them fifty years later.

I guess in both these cases, there is a complainant. So someone allegedly affected by something rather more serious than harassment. I do agree that you shouldn't be able to base the case on the laws of today - where would that stop - a road that now has a 20 mile an hour speed limit that was 30 type of thing. Even if you do that, you can't really account for any attitudinal change in the jury from how a jury may have viewed an event at the time. So tricky, but I think these alleged crimes are significant enough with appropriate evidence that they could be bought to Court. Would you apply the Statute of Limitations to murder?

[Little Green Man]

I might sound a bit Hoboh, but if they've been found guilty of a serious offence that warrants a custodial sentence I have absolutely no interest in how old they are.

I wouldn't be fussed either. My main point was that it has to be followed through because of the severity of allegations (especially when you consider the authorities are already investigating another much indulged BBC employee - the deceased creep with the jingle-jangle-jewellry). However, like all government departments these days, the Prison Service does not have deepest of pockets and I suspect the age of an offender would get taken into account these days before sentencing.