Donate SIGN UP

Another Name Sullied But No Charges ....

Avatar Image
youngmafbog | 14:38 Fri 10th Oct 2014 | News
33 Answers
http://news.sky.com/story/1350877/gambaccini-no-charges-after-sex-crime-arrest

No charges but I await those that will claim no smoke without fire.

Isn't it about time this came to an end?

For the money spent Yew tree(Perhaps should have been operation Eucalyptus tree in the case of Mr Harris) is an unmitigated disaster; the money would have been much better spent chasing prolific pedophiles whom we are told Plod dont have enough resources to catch.
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 33 of 33rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
that's what happens when you dont notice where the cursor is
Some selective quoting from the SkyNews link here today...here is another::

"Baljit Ubhey, the Chief Crown Prosecutor of CPS London, said: "Having carefully reviewed this case, we have decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute in relation to allegations of sexual offences made by two males believed to be aged between 14 and 15 at the time of the alleged offending"
Bazile...don't worry...it can happen to the best of us !

OK...the asbestos bit. I don't have the book up on my shelve any more but this is taken from his Wiki entry and is the same version as I remember in the book :::

"In 2008 the New Statesman accused him of improper conduct in his connection with Turner and Newall (T&N), once the world's largest manufacturer of asbestos, which was based in his constituency. In the summer recess of 1981, Smith wrote to Sydney Marks, head of personnel at T&N, informing him that EEC regulations were coming up for debate in the next parliamentary session. A House of Commons speech he delivered was almost identical to one prepared for him by the company. "The public at large are not at risk" he said in his speech of a substance then long known as lethal if inhaled. A year later Smith revealed he owned 1,300 shares in the company. Interviewed in September 2008 by the BBC's local news programme, he responded to the claims he had helped cover up the dangers of asbestos as "absolute rubbish"

People had been dying in huge number in his own constituency, from asbestos -related ailments, and dying in great agony and distress. Instead of investigating the issue properly and campaigning against the industry, he choose to take the money and run.

For those that are interested I would also advise that the Wiki entry for this horrible monster is well worth the few minutes it takes to read it ::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith
-- answer removed --
agreed dive

a principle of our justice system is that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty

in cases such as Gambaccini, the CPs have effectively left him in a situation of 'did something wrong but we couldn't find enough evidence'

at least when cases go to trial there is an opportunity for all evidence to be laid out by both sides - all this situation leaves is innuendo

I didn't think any the worse of Rolf Harris till he was found guilty. I don't think any the worse of Gambaccini.
-- answer removed --
are you, divebuddy? Did you immediately think "He's a sex criminal!" or did you just think "wait and see"? My guess is most people know perfectly well not all investigations go anywhere, not all arrests lead to charges - plenty haven't recently.
-- answer removed --
Well, we have had a couple of high profile actors returning to Coronation Street after being acquitted court cases.

I hope Gambaccini returns to the R2 airwaves as soon as possible.
It's a difficult decision. Should we accuse fifty people of being criminals so that we can catch the five of them that actually are?

If there was no impact on the lives of the 25 innocents, it'd be a no brainer, but as there obviously is, it isn't as clear.
-- answer removed --
We always knew though that 'helping the police with their enquiries' meant, 'we think we've got the b&$***', so it was never a milder option than actually being arrested.

Setting aside the big brother implications, being arrested may turn out to be better, because if it allows them to take DNA, that may help to rule you out.
Admittedly the damage is still done though.

21 to 33 of 33rss feed

First Previous 1 2

Do you know the answer?

Another Name Sullied But No Charges ....

Answer Question >>

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.