You gotta read the posts. Donks said not a politico had been charged. I merely pointed out that there was a political side to Clifford.

my sis bf left her to live with that woman ^^^^^ she was a nasty piece of work (bf wasn't much better)

Eh? 

 

Where have I defended him? I have been absolutely consistent in saying that people coming forward with accusations should be taken seriously and have their cases investigated thoroughly.

 

You, however, have been consistent in claiming that they should be disbelieved, that they are after cash compensation and that this is all a witch hunt. 

 

You were the one who mentioned a Tory stitch up. I am merely expressing my disgust at your double standards, now that a Labour supporter is in the frame.

No, I didn't! 

The claims of a witch hunt are at odds with previous posts on this site saying all victims of abuse should be believed.

 

Yes, believed - eventhough i argued that is biased.

 

Max Clifford's accusers claim abuse - should they not also then ... be believed?

Again, no one is claiming that these accusations are a witch hunt, apart from Vids saying that he doesn't care if it is, because he dislikes Max Clifford.

Oh no Blizz - i have read it here, witch hunt

Just because you read the words 'witch hunt' doesn't mean that anyone was saying that this accusation is part of a witch hunt.

 

I was pointing out Vid's double standards, when he has called other accusations part of a witch hunt and then claims that he doesn't care if this one is part of a Tory stitch up.

 

Just to be very clear, I don't believe that this is a witch hunt or a stitch up and I don't believe that politics should have any bearing on whether we believe accusers or the accused.

I'm not saying you did say it was a witch hunt.

Who did then? 

Its there somewhere - i can't be bothered to go look.

Others have said they can't believe the Rolf Harris allegations.

Which flies in the face of "all those claiming abuse should be believed" which has been strongly defended here many times.

If you can't be bothered to look, believe me, no one has said it. Vids has misunderstood Garage Joe, and me, and I have objected to Vids calling all these accusations a witch hunt, until it is someone he dislikes, when he appears to think, even if it is a witch hunt, it's fine because it is Max Clifford..

 

As for your other point, you'll probably find that those still claiming that it is a witch hunt are completely different people to those claiming that abuse should be believed

I'm just saying its a double standard no one has picked up on

https://www.gagajoyjoy.com/topi...ee-sex-offence-probe

 

I'm not going to trawl through all the abuse claims threads, but this does show the double standards I was talking about. Not sure if it shows the ones you are talking about.

Not that I noticed 

They should certainly be taken seriously and if there are 7 of them who have come forward independently I would say that's going to be pretty compelling evidence

That's how I read it Blizz

Hi Supes.  

 

Not quite sure whether things are being wilfully misunderstood.  

I said we are in the middle of a witch hunt in the Rolf Harris thread, as in men of a certain age and celebrity status seem to be targetted at the moment, thats not to say all the celebs involved are all innocent, im also not saying that Clifford is guilty, im saying that with his history of porky telling that im not trusting a word he says when he claims to be innocent.

 

No double standards from me.

What on earth does the political party the person supports have to do with anything?

 

I thought this was about the possible abuse of women and children by several accused old men.?

 

I could care less what party the accused supports, where did you get that from.? 

1. Nothing, for me.

 

2. Yes, and males too, in some cases.

 

3. If you mean 'couldn't' then good. You said, "for those of you who really believe that this in some way is an evil Tory stitch up job on him...even in the unlikely event of that being true I say...GOOD, he of all people deserves what he gets" and then you accused me of defending him and pointed out that I did not defend Jim Davidson (with a  after, of course). A pretty clear attempt to imply that I was supporting him, because he supports Labour.

Vids, seem to remember you saying this in the JS Saint or Sinner Thread:

"I dont trust these women that suddenly came forward to claim this, a year after he died and with the smell of possible compo money in the wind I think it's clear what these women are upto."

 

Maybe you should stop calling it a witch hunt then?

 

There may well be some false accusations, but, just because so many are coming forward, that doesn't make it a witch hunt and it is extremely damaging to keep calling it that, imo.

And in the Rolf Harris thread:

 

Yep i posted that, and I still say that some of the ones who came forward to accuse Savile were lying, but he clearly was an abuser and an evil man, i posted that in the very early days of these investigations.

 

Plus the quote about the witch hunt still stands, but as i replied to you before, it doesn't mean all the celebs accused are innocent, or indeed all guilty, Clifford has a history of lying to people and holding sex parties, enough said.

Then others on here should stop claiming that this would be a victory for the Tory party should Clifford get sent down, if he'[s guilty it's a victory for justice and those he abused.

 

 

Ah well, glad to see you've moved on at least a little

HUH?  moved on a little?  I had an opinion about a celeb and have already admitted in the same thread I was quoted here and said openly that Savile was an evil and horrible man, I dont need to defend myself to you about my views about him.

 

 

I still say theres a witch hunt for celeb men of a certain age  and that some innocent men will be accused along with the guilty ones.

 

 

Funny old thing that judicial system, eh?

 You don't and I didn't ask you too, I was just glad that you'd moved on slightly from thinking that all of these women were making it up for compo. Hey Ho

I posted that before the ITV programme, rumours about him had been around for years but was never proved, but after the programme it was clear that he was a sick pervert, and straight away I said as much.

Which is considerably different to the concensus of opinion defended on this forum recently that 'all victims of abuse should be believed'

If they are victims why wouldn't they be

Because they 'claim' to be victims - and its innocent til proven guilty.

 

Ah I see, you missed out a word from your post. As I've said previously, some have more faith in our criminal justice system than I, particularly in these cases where it is often one persons word against the other and little if any other evidence. We'll all make up our own minds on the info we have I guess, JS was never even taken to court, let alone found guilty, despite numerous people coming forward when he was alive, do I think he's innocent, like Hell I do!

It's quite simple. Anyone reporting abuse claims should feel that they will be believed and that their claim will be investigated seriously and sensitively. If they don't, then they won't report it and we end up with abusers who carry on abusing for years and years. When, eventually, the abuse comes to light, you find many more victims willing to come out and support the claims, as we've seen in this case. Then, perversely, you get certain types calling it a 'witch hunt' because they can't believe that such a large number of people could have been victims, or that so many people could have been abusing people and getting away with it.

 

What we need, imo, is the initial report to be believed and anyone dealing with the victim to treat them with sensitivity. This doesn't mean that there will not be vigorous questioning and this should be explained to the victim.

 

The police officers investigating the case must be open minded and investigate with the sole aim of finding the truth. 

 

If it gets to court, the prosecutor should believe the victim and the defence should believe the defendent. The judge should be open minded, as should the jury.

 

No one is saying that the victim should be believed, the accused arrested, charged and locked up with no trial.

I remember saying 'if a person claims abuse' and the response was universally - 'they should be believed' from people on this forum.

My response was they should be taken seriously.

But it was argued back that they should be believed.

Most of our discussion is on this page - https://www.gagajoyjoy.com/topi...nt-or-sinner?page=15

 

One of my posts - The point here is whether victims feel that they will be believed, when they report rape, or other sexual assaults. If they don't, the statistics will get even worse. Obviously, the police need to investigate and the CPS need to judge whether it has any chance in court, but we have to start off believing victims, imo. Too many offenders have been able to get away with it for years, just because their many individual victims were not believed, or not taken seriously.

I don't think I've changed my stance.

Looking back some have said they can't believe the claims against Rolf.

Some have claimed a wich hunt.

Some have said its flavour of the month.

And some said its getting rediculous that sooo many people after all this time are coming out of the woodwork to make claims that are 40yrs old.

 

All of this goes against the general previous consensus that accusers should be believed.

 

I do not accept that all accusers should be believed as its been proven some are liars and have been convicted.

Accusers should be taken seriously - told that and investigated.

Anything else is unfair.