Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Freddie Starr: Third Arrest Over Alleged Sexual Offences
80 Answers
Just flashed up on the Sky News alert app.
At this rate and for him to be arrested on the day that all the other household names appeared in court one does wonder if he'll actually be able to get a fair trial, if he is indeed ever charged!
At this rate and for him to be arrested on the day that all the other household names appeared in court one does wonder if he'll actually be able to get a fair trial, if he is indeed ever charged!
Answers
I'm not sure why Starr hasn't been charged ? The Police have had ample time to investigate and bring charges. I am not a fan of Starr in any shape or form and if he is guilty of any offences, he should feel the full force of the law. But to dangle him on a piece of string for so long doesn't seem entirely fair to me. All those others arrested at about the same time are now in...
10:22 Thu 16th Jan 2014
andy-hughes
/// AOG - let me offer you a reverse scenario. ///
/// so using your logic, i am not guilty of any offence - he was, as stated, asking for it. ///
That is in no way a reverse scenario, neither did I ever say that these celebrities where not guilty (although to be fair they are not yet) of any offence, and that all the guilt is to be laid at the feet of their victims.
/// AOG - let me offer you a reverse scenario. ///
/// so using your logic, i am not guilty of any offence - he was, as stated, asking for it. ///
That is in no way a reverse scenario, neither did I ever say that these celebrities where not guilty (although to be fair they are not yet) of any offence, and that all the guilt is to be laid at the feet of their victims.
AOG - "That is in no way a reverse scenario, neither did I ever say that these celebrities where not guilty (although to be fair they are not yet) of any offence, and that all the guilt is to be laid at the feet of their victims."
I think it is a reverse scenario - it fits all the criteria you are offering as mitigation - location / clothing / perceived behaviour = defence.
No indeed, you do not say that 'all' the guilt is laid at the feet of the victims, and that is where we differ.
As far as I am concerned, if a woman is sexally assaulted, then there is NO guilt to be attached to her - certainly not on the basis of some suble indication that she was a willing participant - an indication so subtle that she was utterly unaware of it until it was spelt out in court by the accused's defence solicitor.
I think it is a reverse scenario - it fits all the criteria you are offering as mitigation - location / clothing / perceived behaviour = defence.
No indeed, you do not say that 'all' the guilt is laid at the feet of the victims, and that is where we differ.
As far as I am concerned, if a woman is sexally assaulted, then there is NO guilt to be attached to her - certainly not on the basis of some suble indication that she was a willing participant - an indication so subtle that she was utterly unaware of it until it was spelt out in court by the accused's defence solicitor.
andy-hughes >
AOG - "Another was said to have been assaulted in the toilets of Granada studios, once again one has to ask, what was she doing in Granada Studios and especially in the toilets with that person?"
The report I read advised that the young lady was in the ladies' toilet, so i think it reasonable that she was there. <
andy just heard the news on the radio and the reporter said it was the male toilets
AOG - "Another was said to have been assaulted in the toilets of Granada studios, once again one has to ask, what was she doing in Granada Studios and especially in the toilets with that person?"
The report I read advised that the young lady was in the ladies' toilet, so i think it reasonable that she was there. <
andy just heard the news on the radio and the reporter said it was the male toilets
Thanks for clarifying Dr Filth.
AOG may imagine that this fact gives some credence to his repugnant view of 'defence' and 'culpability' but my stance remains unchanged.
A young woman tempted into a male toilet for the purposes of a sexual assault should not be burdened with some sort of twisted notion that her acquiescence infers a green light for said sexual assault - trying to make a victim complicit in this most loathesome of crimes is contemptable.
AOG may imagine that this fact gives some credence to his repugnant view of 'defence' and 'culpability' but my stance remains unchanged.
A young woman tempted into a male toilet for the purposes of a sexual assault should not be burdened with some sort of twisted notion that her acquiescence infers a green light for said sexual assault - trying to make a victim complicit in this most loathesome of crimes is contemptable.
are the media at fault giving out different information. take the guy who was shot and lots of people have posted about it.
at the time it was said that he shot a plod , then another said they had found a gun hidden in the car , then another said they had found a gun hidden in a sock in the car and so on and so on
at the time it was said that he shot a plod , then another said they had found a gun hidden in the car , then another said they had found a gun hidden in a sock in the car and so on and so on
Dr Filth - "are the media at fault giving out different information. take the guy who was shot and lots of people have posted about it."
I think the circumstances of the shooting are similar insofar as the notion of trying to make a victim part of the crime, and look for ways to infer that they are in some way to blame for what happened to them, thereby lessening the responsibility of the perpatrator, is a dreadful way of looking at a tragedy
I think the circumstances of the shooting are similar insofar as the notion of trying to make a victim part of the crime, and look for ways to infer that they are in some way to blame for what happened to them, thereby lessening the responsibility of the perpatrator, is a dreadful way of looking at a tragedy
DrFilth - "andy i do not know if it is true that is just what the reporter said on the radio he could have said it wrong ?"
He could have - but the fact does not change.
This woman could have walked into the gents toilets stark naked with a rose between her teeth and swung from a cubicle door singing When The Saints Go Marching In - it is still not a green light for an assault.
He could have - but the fact does not change.
This woman could have walked into the gents toilets stark naked with a rose between her teeth and swung from a cubicle door singing When The Saints Go Marching In - it is still not a green light for an assault.
andy-hughes
You earlier put:
/// You stated that you wondered what the victim was doing in the toilets with that person - which infers a degree of responsibility on the part of the victim - why would a woman or girl enter toilets with a
man? ///
/// Why indeed - but since the facts advised are that she was in the ladies' toilet, and the accused entered and assaulted her there. ///
Seems your so called 'facts' are proven to be incorrect, she was in fact in the Men's toilets, although allegedly being dragged in there by Roache.
These are excerpts from a then 14 year old's testimonial, taken from reports of the courts proceedings to which I will make no comment on.
*** At one point she and Roache left the dressing room, she said, and he pulled her 'roughly' by the arm in the direction of a men's toilet.
*** 'I was the one in the wrong place. What was wrong was me. I was shocked and I didn't really understand what was going on, but the one thing I thoroughly understood was that I should not have been in the gents', ' she added. ***
*** 'I was taken aback. I wasn't quite sure why I was in there. I should not have been in there.' ***
*** She said the next thing she remembered was him placing his hand over his genitals and said she did not appreciate what was
happening. ***
*** She told the court both the actors were then called away but Roache asked her to let him know how he could get in touch with
her. ***
*** 'I left my address on the dressing room table,' she said. ***
*** She said that after receiving the letter she returned to the studios later in the year, telling the court that Roache told her to wait outside and he would pick her up in his car ***
http://
You earlier put:
/// You stated that you wondered what the victim was doing in the toilets with that person - which infers a degree of responsibility on the part of the victim - why would a woman or girl enter toilets with a
man? ///
/// Why indeed - but since the facts advised are that she was in the ladies' toilet, and the accused entered and assaulted her there. ///
Seems your so called 'facts' are proven to be incorrect, she was in fact in the Men's toilets, although allegedly being dragged in there by Roache.
These are excerpts from a then 14 year old's testimonial, taken from reports of the courts proceedings to which I will make no comment on.
*** At one point she and Roache left the dressing room, she said, and he pulled her 'roughly' by the arm in the direction of a men's toilet.
*** 'I was the one in the wrong place. What was wrong was me. I was shocked and I didn't really understand what was going on, but the one thing I thoroughly understood was that I should not have been in the gents', ' she added. ***
*** 'I was taken aback. I wasn't quite sure why I was in there. I should not have been in there.' ***
*** She said the next thing she remembered was him placing his hand over his genitals and said she did not appreciate what was
happening. ***
*** She told the court both the actors were then called away but Roache asked her to let him know how he could get in touch with
her. ***
*** 'I left my address on the dressing room table,' she said. ***
*** She said that after receiving the letter she returned to the studios later in the year, telling the court that Roache told her to wait outside and he would pick her up in his car ***
http://
andy-hughes
/// I think the circumstances of the shooting are similar insofar as the notion of trying to make a victim part of the crime, and look for ways to infer that they are in some way to blame for what happened to them, thereby lessening the responsibility of the perpatrator, is a dreadful way of looking at a tragedy ///
Well if you don't think that gangster was in some way not responsible for what happened to him, somehow makes all your other views on certain things also lacking a certain amount of credibility.
/// I think the circumstances of the shooting are similar insofar as the notion of trying to make a victim part of the crime, and look for ways to infer that they are in some way to blame for what happened to them, thereby lessening the responsibility of the perpatrator, is a dreadful way of looking at a tragedy ///
Well if you don't think that gangster was in some way not responsible for what happened to him, somehow makes all your other views on certain things also lacking a certain amount of credibility.
AOG - "Seems your so called 'facts' are proven to be incorrect, she was in fact in the Men's toilets, although allegedly being dragged in there by Roache."
I gain my facts - as do you, by what I hear and see in the media. Because something I stated as fact, because it was reported as such, and is then contradicted by another unproven media source does not suddenly make it 'my "so-called" fact' - it is what it is, and was - a fact advised in the media.
"These are excerpts from a then 14 year old's testimonial, taken from reports of the courts proceedings to which I will make no comment on."
Why on earth not? here is your 'proof', your 'defence', your back-up to your assertion that some women are at least partly responsible for being sexually assaulted.
Except that this is a child - a fourteen-year-old child.
Any attempt by you to use this testimony as acknowledgement of culpability by this child would be utterly beneath you - I am so glad that you have seen fit not to comment.
I feel your argument is beyond the pale as it is.
I gain my facts - as do you, by what I hear and see in the media. Because something I stated as fact, because it was reported as such, and is then contradicted by another unproven media source does not suddenly make it 'my "so-called" fact' - it is what it is, and was - a fact advised in the media.
"These are excerpts from a then 14 year old's testimonial, taken from reports of the courts proceedings to which I will make no comment on."
Why on earth not? here is your 'proof', your 'defence', your back-up to your assertion that some women are at least partly responsible for being sexually assaulted.
Except that this is a child - a fourteen-year-old child.
Any attempt by you to use this testimony as acknowledgement of culpability by this child would be utterly beneath you - I am so glad that you have seen fit not to comment.
I feel your argument is beyond the pale as it is.
AOG - "Well if you don't think that gangster was in some way not responsible for what happened to him, somehow makes all your other views on certain things also lacking a certain amount of credibility."
I incorrectly assumed that the 'shooting' post to which I responded was referring to the recent incident in the U.S. when a cinema goer was shot by a retired police officer.
But for the record - I don't agree that a person's career history is a justification for shooting them. Actions at the time, such as a perceived threat of violence are a different issue, but if, as i understand, you are inferring that this man's criminal past means that shooting him is justified, then again we must agree to differ. If however I have misynderstood your last post, I am of course delighted to retract that observatin.
I incorrectly assumed that the 'shooting' post to which I responded was referring to the recent incident in the U.S. when a cinema goer was shot by a retired police officer.
But for the record - I don't agree that a person's career history is a justification for shooting them. Actions at the time, such as a perceived threat of violence are a different issue, but if, as i understand, you are inferring that this man's criminal past means that shooting him is justified, then again we must agree to differ. If however I have misynderstood your last post, I am of course delighted to retract that observatin.
andy-hughes
/// I gain my facts - as do you, by what I hear and see in the media. Because something I stated as fact, because it was reported as such, and is then contradicted by another unproven media source does not suddenly make it 'my "so-called" fact' - it is what it is, and was - a fact advised in the media. ///
Yes but unlike you I posted evidence of my 'FACTS' which you yourself failed to do, only later to lean on the pretence that you gained it from some unknown media outlet so as to somehow excuse your wilfully wrong information.
Had I had done the same and that the Daily Mail was proven to be wrong I would have then have been gentleman enough to admit that I was wrong.
/// I gain my facts - as do you, by what I hear and see in the media. Because something I stated as fact, because it was reported as such, and is then contradicted by another unproven media source does not suddenly make it 'my "so-called" fact' - it is what it is, and was - a fact advised in the media. ///
Yes but unlike you I posted evidence of my 'FACTS' which you yourself failed to do, only later to lean on the pretence that you gained it from some unknown media outlet so as to somehow excuse your wilfully wrong information.
Had I had done the same and that the Daily Mail was proven to be wrong I would have then have been gentleman enough to admit that I was wrong.
andy-hughes
/// but if, as i understand, you are inferring that this man's criminal past means that shooting him is justified, then again we must agree to
differ. ///
This man's criminal past was not in question it was the fact that he was carrying a gun and he was shot lawfully by an armed response unit policeman.
/// but if, as i understand, you are inferring that this man's criminal past means that shooting him is justified, then again we must agree to
differ. ///
This man's criminal past was not in question it was the fact that he was carrying a gun and he was shot lawfully by an armed response unit policeman.
AOG - "Yes but unlike you I posted evidence of my 'FACTS' which you yourself failed to do, only later to lean on the pretence that you gained it from some unknown media outlet so as to somehow excuse your wilfully wrong information.
Had I had done the same and that the Daily Mail was proven to be wrong I would have then have been gentleman enough to admit that I was wrong."
Yur point is a fair one, and is indeed backed up by your reliable attacthment of a link when required.
I did not intend my lack of a source to be taken as a spurious attempt to avoid validation of my view - and if it was interpereted as such, then of course I am equally enough of a gentleman to offer my apologies - and do so unreservedly.
Had I had done the same and that the Daily Mail was proven to be wrong I would have then have been gentleman enough to admit that I was wrong."
Yur point is a fair one, and is indeed backed up by your reliable attacthment of a link when required.
I did not intend my lack of a source to be taken as a spurious attempt to avoid validation of my view - and if it was interpereted as such, then of course I am equally enough of a gentleman to offer my apologies - and do so unreservedly.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Law6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles53 mins ago
Shopping & Style86 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles86 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.