One problem with this, is the  no smoke without fire argument...which seems reasonable at face value
but you are convicting just by the number of allegations then that is all

Once one person sees an allegation made against a celebrity, it is in their interest to make an allegation themselves
because they know if enough allegations are made...this will then make the celebrity guilty
each person who has made an allegation then stands to make money

I stand by my argument that most of these allegations should be considered lapsed,
except in the most serious allegations

I am sure some celebrities may be guilty of abuse, but not all of them, which you would have to believe
if you accepted all these claims....that seems highly improbable to me.

A 73 year old "beloved pop star" was interviewed by police about a 10 year old boy in February. His identity was not revealed at that time.

It`s all very strange, the swathe of police cars seen leaving his property today for what? for nothing? and of course there are the allegaytory websites who link Cliff with the whole Elm Guest House sordid filth.

Still no politicians?? some token dead politicians but surely, it`s only a matter of time. No?

If he is charged with anything I hope he asks for multiple offences against music to be considered.

If *this

According to BBC News, Cliff Richard grows wine. Bloody genius, by-passing the grape stage!

Do you follow many child abuse cases other than Yewtree Ebul?  What differentiates Yewtree from other child abuse cases when you speak about clear evidence or allegation on it's own?

I try to avoid them tbh Shrewd dude......they are too sordid for me
I like the good clean Agatha Christie type crime, even though I know that is fiction
But when I do notice them , because there is no financial incentive, I would say there is probably much more truth there

Money completely distorts Yewtree, I cannot approve of it

But it comes to back to the same old thing...what did happen and what did not happen????
allegation on it's own is not enough

I don't see what point you're making - are you saying that max clifford and rolf  harris have been convicted solely on the basis of allegations? I think you'll find that they were actually tried in court where they were each found guilty by the jury.

If any charges are brought, they will go to court and evidence will be given - why are you against the police investigating peadophiles?

ebul

I stand by my argument that most of these allegations should be considered lapsed, except in the most serious allegations


Then may I suggest you have no idea of the effect that the betrayal and sense of worthlessness which often accompanies sexual abuse can have and how it can affect that child for decades if not the rest of their life. It's akin to saying the Nazis who persecuted and killed Jews were old men many years ago and should have been left alone to live out their days free from the fear of the knock at the door. No sir. That fear of the knock at the door was their punishment until justice could be done. None of us know if they can burn in the fires of hell so the inside of a prison cell will have to do and that applies to all who have stolen innocence in this way. Build more prisons if you have to. And because of that the presumption of innocence should ensure that people are not named and shamed in the way which has become fashionable. It is an erosion of our liberty and English justice.

You may not see this, but what is at stake, is all women are claiming all men
regularly abuse children and themselves on some sort of daily basis..

Are you taking some form of substance so we can make allowances for you?

The difference with Yewtree is that there a more likely to be people who feel there is a buck to be made.

In the case of Rolf Harris the majority of charges were made by one person who asked him for money first and another who went to the media first.

In my eyes it makes their unsubstantiated evidence unsafe.

As for Vanessa F waiting until he was found guilty before saying he felt her up is worthy of contempt.
1) why not say something earlier
2) ... or even at the time

That's hardly an argument though is it ebul? I stand by my assertion. The presumption of innocence accompanied by rigorous implementation of the law. You need to put that crack pipe down brother.

old ones out of shape ?

In the case of Rolf Harris the majority of charges were made by one person who asked him for money first and another who went to the media first.

In my eyes it makes their unsubstantiated evidence unsafe.

Their evidence was tested in court though and the jury deemed the witness credible even when cross examined on what you say.

Most of the points you make about Yewtree could be made about most sexual offences as there is only usually two people present at the time and if the person is above the age of consent there is usually a defence of consent if theirs any evidence of sexual intercourse. That is why the victims rights group are always complaining so much and rape convictions are so low. The Scottish government is even in the process of abolishing corroboration simply to improve the conviction rate. Much of what you say isn't a problem with Yewtree but more a wider question of proving sexual offences.

The problem with yewtree is that they have to make public the allegation at a very early stage to encourage others to come forward.
One person would be unlikely to succeed given the time lapsed however with a few accusers involved patterns and etc will start to emerge and aid a prosecution.
However if no one else does come forward and no prosecution follows then that person has been labelled needlessly.

I realise I am talking to a complete gang of cretins here

There is a presumption of innocence...that is the basis of our law
We require guilt must be proved
otherwise you would have many innocent people convicted...but the price is sometimes the guilty get away

What you are arguing for here, is that people can be convicted on allegation only.
By this rule, I could make a claim for sexual abuse against anyone on here, and if you did not have not corroborative  evidence
for your innocence...you would go to Prison!

So by abandoning corroborative  evidence, you are discarding our present justice system

As for finding evidence in Yewtree, they have not found any, because it is too long ago
the convictions are by allegation only

I oppose this, Barbara Hewson a leading barrister also opposes Yewtree, I am not alone in this

Ebul their is no requirement for corroboration in English law and they are trying to abolish it in Scotland. As i've said Yewtree cases with regards to evidence, assertion and allegation as you put it are no different to the other thousands of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence cases which you have already said you pay no interest to.

If you think rape charges should only be restricted to masked men jumping women in the street at night with a crowd of onlookers nearby or a 9 year old phoning the police half an hour after licking uncle charlies winkie then you are living in the dark ages.

Well he keeps using phrases like no evidence, single allegation and assertion so I'm not sure what difference 20 years or 1 year, 1month, 1 week, 1 day would make to his use of these points. Yewtree won't be the only ones dealing with historical cases.The majority of child sexual abuse cases don't come to light until some time after that's what makes them and other sexual offences so hard to prove. The coverage they have got will have led to numerous historical cases which won't be getting reported and/or aren't read about by people like Ebul because they aren't famous.

You know ebul it's not that bad calling people cretins. Many of us enjoy the ribald nature of the cut and thrust of debate but you just broke the golden rule. You don't follow an accusation that people are cretins with a cretinous argument. Not only cretinous but on more than one point. Allow me to clarify:

What you are arguing for here, is that people can be convicted on allegation only.

Shrewd made the point that Scotland with their separate legal system are seeking to abolish the need for corroborative evidence. The point as he makes abundantly clear is that there is no law requiring corroboration in England. What there is in certain cases is descretion for a judge to issue a warning to a jury regarding corroboration in certain cases in certain circumstances with sexual offences being one of those. So in short you profoundly misunderstand the legal position.

So by abandoning corroborative evidence, you are discarding our present justice system

Nope. See point above.

As for finding evidence in Yewtree, they have not found any, because it is too long ago the convictions are by allegation only


Nope. See point above. An allegation even uncorroborated can be seen by the tribunal of law (the judge) and the tribunal of fact (the jury) as being evidence and indeed sufficient evidence to convict if that evidence is compelling enough to satisfy the very high legal burden required.

It's a long time since I was called to the Bar and I haven't practised since then but that's my understanding of our current law. I'd suggest you withdraw your allegation about cretins and sit in the corner with the dunces cap on.