Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:00 pm  

Ha ha. I actually typed that in Keith's accent!

Smoke kills in seconds, fire kills in minutes.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:47 am  

King Street Cat wrote:

Ha ha. I actually typed that in Keith's accent!

Smoke kills in seconds, fire kills in minutes.

Laugh or burn. Take your pick.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:59 am  

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31720761 I have no particular like or dislike of Paul Gambaccini and his radio output but he does have a point in the article linked to above, which is how long is too long to hold someone on police bail especially when that action has denied them work and an ability to earn income, this applies equally to a warehouse worker who may find that his agency don't offer him anymore shifts as it does media "celebrities" who can't even work for free when under such a shadow as historic sex abuse charges. The other concern about the article is the quote from the DPP who simply dismisses any and all accusations placed before her - its a habit that many public bodies and especially those directly controlled by a government minister have got into, that they simply brush aside any concerns with a denial, an almost arrogant denial that they simply do not recognise that there may be a problem and that they know best and should not be questioned. The description by Gambaccini of being used as "human fly paper" on which they hoped new accusers would stick allegations is a very apt one and still continues in the media even this week - Cliff Richards anyone ?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31720761 I have no particular like or dislike of Paul Gambaccini and his radio output but he does have a point in the article linked to above, which is how long is too long to hold someone on police bail especially when that action has denied them work and an ability to earn income, this applies equally to a warehouse worker who may find that his agency don't offer him anymore shifts as it does media "celebrities" who can't even work for free when under such a shadow as historic sex abuse charges. The other concern about the article is the quote from the DPP who simply dismisses any and all accusations placed before her - its a habit that many public bodies and especially those directly controlled by a government minister have got into, that they simply brush aside any concerns with a denial, an almost arrogant denial that they simply do not recognise that there may be a problem and that they know best and should not be questioned. The description by Gambaccini of being used as "human fly paper" on which they hoped new accusers would stick allegations is a very apt one and still continues in the media even this week - Cliff Richards anyone ?

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:51 am  

When you have a "Justice Secretary" who has (to date) been held by the courts to have acted unlawfully NINE times, it sort of confirms the two-raised-fingers approach now endemic. Though the number of further findings is likely to fall as Grayling is doing his best to do to Judicial Review what he so successfully did to all but kill workers' rights in Tribunals, and what from Monday he will have achieved in blocking access to the civil courts to ordinary people and small businesses who won't be able to pay nor justify the ludicrous, swingeing fee hikes. Systematically dismantling a justice system that took centuries to build.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Mar 04, 2015 11:49 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

I have no particular like or dislike of Paul Gambaccini...

I have a dislike of him. Along with people like Esther Rantzen he spouted off about knowing all about Savile after his death while doing nothing whatsoever about it at the time.

Paul Gambaccini wrote:

Someone whose identity we do not know, who I call the Wizard of Oz, the person sitting behind the curtain, pulling the levers, setting off smoke and light shows, decided 'I've got a great idea, let's have a witch-hunt, let's divert the attention of the public from the police who knew about but failed to stop Jimmy Savile in his lifetime and shine that spotlight instead on his contemporaries and we'll get perverts from show business in the 1970s and 1980s.

It's a good job for Gambaccini that ridiculous, stupid whining isn't a crime or he'd be in jail for that 5hit.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:30 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

When you have a "Justice Secretary" who has (to date) been held by the courts to have acted unlawfully NINE times, it sort of confirms the two-raised-fingers approach now endemic. Though the number of further findings is likely to fall as Grayling is doing his best to do to Judicial Review what he so successfully did to all but kill workers' rights in Tribunals, and what from Monday he will have achieved in blocking access to the civil courts to ordinary people and small businesses who won't be able to pay nor justify the ludicrous, swingeing fee hikes. Systematically dismantling a justice system that took centuries to build.

Agree with the first part but cannot agree with the second part. There are plenty of law firms out there that will take work on a no win no fee basis. The plaintiff's job is to present a solid enough case that one of these firms will take it on. This is just an evolution not a dismantling of the justice system. The policeman who has just got compensation from the gobby ex Conservative minister managed to get his case defended and there are thousands of others like him. The idea the public purse is spent defending an appeal for the likes of the two killers of Lee Rigby is bonkers and shows the old system is not fit for purpose.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:49 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The policeman who has just got compensation from the gobby ex Conservative minister managed to get his case defended and there are thousands of others like him.

The Police Federation funded his case - is this a recommendation for all employees to join a union in order that they can progress future claims ?

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:07 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

The Police Federation funded his case - is this a recommendation for all employees to join a union in order that they can progress future claims ?

Ha Ha - you think I would fall for that!!

What it says is if your case is strong enough somebody will take it on without you needing to fund it.

If you think this is a sufficient bi-product for joining a union and helping to fund the final salary schemes of union officials that is your choice and long may it be so.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:18 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Ha Ha - you think I would fall for that!!

What it says is if your case is strong enough somebody will take it on without you needing to fund it.

If you think this is a sufficient bi-product for joining a union and helping to fund the final salary schemes of union officials that is your choice and long may it be so.

I've only ever been a member of one union and that was just for one month when in the 1970s I found out that someone had nominated me to join the EEPTU, they kicked me out when I wouldn't pay the subscription

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:41 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

I've only ever been a member of one union and that was just for one month when in the 1970s I found out that someone had nominated me to join the EEPTU, they kicked me out when I wouldn't pay the subscription

Fortunately I have never been a member and never worked in place where a closed shop was in place - hideous concept.