Video Edit, How To Rotate To Play On Tv
Technology1 min ago
Tried putting up a link....
"What point are you trying to make? As far as I'm aware there is no time limit. "
The point I'm trying to make is that some people question why it takes so long for women to come forward and accuse a man of sexual assualt / rape / grooming.
My answer at 10.02am explains why. Just as there's no time limit to make such an accustion, people shouldn't ask why people leave it so long to complain.
My answer at 10.02am again.
That's why.
Canary42
Problem is - this isn't like Cliff, where the police investigated and cleared his name.
This is more like when the press pointed the finger at John Leslie after Ulrika Jonnson revealed she'd been raped.
Because there was no criminal investigation, it was all left to hang in the air like a bad smell. His career never recovered.
Same will probably happen to Schofield.
Brand however - I'm not so sure. Too early to say.
It's not unknown for lawyers to ride into battle believing in their own powers of persuasion and with one eye on a big payday where celebrity is involved.
How such accusations could be proven without the equivalent of the blue dress is hard to see. Many people making claims doesn't make them true.
See any bandwagon driving rabble rouser from history.
Calling something a witch hunt pre-supposes that the object is innocent, which they may or may not be. So calling it a witch hunt is problematic and wrong.
The motives if the Murdoch press are complicated. They hate the fact that news is free on the BBC and Channel 4, and paid in Murdoch channels.
That said, they may well have exposed a scandal, which would be helpful to the victims.
James Cleverly has piled in very quickly, probably because he and the Tories are more aligned with Murdoch and less with the BBC and Channel 4.
So in the whole, it's an unholy mess, with possibly at least a grain of truth an in the allegations ... whether or not they were the reason they were published.