Bloody hell, here we go again... Sky News ‏@SkyNews DJ Neil Fox, aka Dr Fox, has been arrested over alleged historic sexual offences.
I hope Simon Bates gets done, couldnt ****ing stand him or Our Tune. Slimy creepy ****er. Fingers crossed.
Back in the day most women just laughed it off or said No if they did not like it. What DLT did should have been reported at the time. Not 20 years later. She may have been. However to leave it for almost 20 years does make you wonder. Very true and i bet that there will be others named soon. Yeah right. Who do you think you are - Jackie Chan ?
Despite it being in the Daily Mail here is a well balanced point of view. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...treatment-actresses-changed-early-career.html
On radio four extra a few months back I heard an episode of 'Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads' that featured a load of jokes about one of them going down to the girls school etc etc, which for one I was really surprised they broadcast, two I don't think would be broadcast now had anyone heard the content, and three really showed the difference in attitude between the 70s and now. It is forty years ago, but if someone really feels damaged by what was done to them then the perpetrated should be prosecuted, even if times were very different then. Off the top of my head I would say if someone has broken the law of that time they should be prosecuted regardless of the prevailing attitudes or what men thought was acceptable 'banter' at the time. I assume the law is the basically the same then as now.
I guess that Keys' and Gray's 'banter' on those off air sky clips are a contemporary equivalent. Times have moved on and it is good that they have.
My favourite was when he was telling the tale of someone who had a nervous breakdown after the breakup of a relationship (accompanied by the usual mushy background music) and had been admitted to a mental hospital. He piped up with "Stay positive and I am sure in no time you will be running around like a madman".
No it doesn't, if someone makes an accusation against someone claiming to be a victim & then the person is found not guilty then the person who main the claim should be identified (hence the "victim") & potentially prosecuted for defamation, if however the accused is found guilty then the victim should remain anonymous
How far would you take that? Some offences are crimes against the person, others are crimes against the state. Should the CPS be prosecuted if they don't achieve a conviction? How many genuine people would be reluctant to come forward with that threat? There are some cultures where if an allegation of rape is not proven, the victim has effectively admitted adultery, an offence punishable by death. There are very few reported rapes. Do you think there are really few rapes? It should all be kept anonymous until a proven verdict. The problem then is do you keep a record of those repeatedly found not guilty? That's how Huntley slipped under the radar and got a job in a school, despite the authorities being aware of his taste for school girls. I'm a cynic, but I can't help but think the wave of celebrity allegations is sleight of hand to shift the focus away from the real big players.
