Rolf Noooooooooooooo!

[Louisa]

I for one am still in shock over this. Cannot believe he would do this sort of thing, it sickens me and makes me doubt the sincerity of major institutions who allowed these people to get away with this sort of thing for decades. How was this so? Times have hopefully changed for the better, and such things could not and would not be allowed to happen under the public gaze so brazenly today as they clearly were in the 60s/70s and even 80s.

Louisa.

[PokerTime]

Peadophiles are expert at hiding their crimes. Always have been and always will be. I would like to think that children today though are far more able to report inappropriate behaviour and that the authorities are much quicker to act when allegations are made.

What I think is most appalling is that circles around Saville, Gary Glitter etc all knew what was going on, but without victims coming forward, they were impossible to prosecute, or fire for that matter.

[ratty]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ratty Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Still praying for Edmonds here!

>

> Yeah! Let's hope that more children have been

> abused! That would be brill.

Do you really think that is what I meant? Please, please answer that!

[northlondoner]

Why did he tie his kangaroo down ?

[Jeremy]

ratty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you really think that is what I meant? Please,

> please answer that!

I'm sure you meant it as a joke, and are not literally praying that Noel Edmonds is guilty of child abuse.

Can't wait to hear the next one.

[steveo]

Will we now see thousands of arrests of otherwise ordinary old men who were involved in fiddly diddly in the 60s/70s/80s or is it only famous people get the early morning knock?

[StraferJack]

gee Steve - I dunno

Given how these peolpe were famous and used their power to abuse children, who finally came to testify having repeatedly seen them on TV, I suspect "ordinary" abusers will be caught (or escape) via other means

Not sure what your real point is?

[steveo]

It's my hobby horse SJ, that the Met is obsessed with bringing down celebs.

I wonder how many copper's hard drives would bear any scrutiny

Plenty of people abuse power/children

[StraferJack]

I'm faaaairly sure lots of non-celebs get caught too

It's the papers and some punters that are obsessed with celebs

[Jeremy]

Exactly... the media makes sure that any case involving a defendent in the public eye automatically becomes high profile. That's not to say that "ordinary blokes" aren't caught too.

Saying that, these are not ordinary cases. These guys had an almost unique "opportunity"... access to hundreds and hundreds of children, and a degree of fame which would have given them a strong influence over their victims. But of course it also meant that in years to come when the victims had the courage to face up to what happened, the perpetrator was rather easy to find.

[Seabag]

I think the Met are obsessed with bringing down criminals, some of whom are celebs

What's the suggestion here steveo, the Met back off celebs. And for every high profile celeb i'm sure there's 100's of Joe Bloggs sex offenders caught and prosecuted, tho of those i'm not sure how many have promoted a campaign for children of abuse to speak out. Or how many had such easy access to children and institutions

[JohnL]

Leon Brittan on Sky News about a dossier he was handed in the 80s by Geoffrey Dickens - so off celebrities and back to Westminster.

[steveo]

The suggestion is that the Met likes dragging down celebs pure and simple.

And hypocrisy. I wonder how many honest bobbies have teen sections on their laptops and make ribald comments about sixteen year-old page three girls.

I find press speculation that Rolf will die in prison pretty unedifying.

If the mob had its way he'd be hanging from a lamp post

[Jeremy]

steveo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And hypocrisy. I wonder how many honest bobbies

> have teen sections on their laptops and make

> ribald comments about sixteen year-old page three girls.

Possibly. Maybe. It's pure speculation so doesn't really mean anything. And you could say something similar about lots of (lesser) crimes. How many policemen have smoked a joint, driven above 70mph, got in a fight, etc. Doesn't mean the police shouldn't continue to apprehend people guilty of these things.

> I find press speculation that Rolf will die in prison pretty unedifying.

I can certainly agree with that bit.

[Otta]

Has anyone read a good summary of the trial and wjat evidence was presented. I'm not saying he's innocent at all, I'm just genuinely interested on how a jury comes to finding him guilty of 12 separate counts of something based mainly on accusation.

Is it simply because of the number of accusations and the fact they came from people that didn't know each other?

It just seems like there was little burden of proof, but I don't know how these things work.

DaveR?

[StraferJack]

I think a large factor was the number of people who didn't know each other testifying very similar accounts of his "methods"

[Jeremy]

I think only the most diehard Rolf fans wouldn't have realised that the writing was on the wall.. the sheer number of victims coming forward speaks for itself.

[steveo]

Call me a cynic but doesn't the lure of damages contribute to the number of victims?

[StraferJack]

Not just cynical steve but your actually starting to be insulting to people who have suffered plenty.

You don't believe them that's up to you

[steveo]

I'm not so please don't feel the need to protect them

[Jeremy]

I admit to knowing little about the legal system and trial proceedings, but surely someone making shit up for financial reasons would be weeded out pretty easily? Besides, those types are too busy accusing footballers...

[Parkdrive]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not just cynical steve but your actually starting

> to be insulting to people who have suffered

> plenty.

>

> You don't believe them that's up to you

Strafer, was he found guilty as a result as a result of irrefutable evidence or on the balance of probability, or because the allegatiosn were beyond reasonable doubt? I find it odd that, like Saville, these allegations seem to go go back years and have only been pursued by the victims now. That is probably why some perhaps feel the lure of compo may have been the main motivating factor. I don't say thse people haven't been abused, just need to clearly understand why the huge delay in bringing matters to court.

[Rolo Tomasi]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not just cynical steve but your actually starting

> to be insulting to people who have suffered

> plenty.

>

> You don't believe them that's up to you

This.

[StraferJack]

because yewtree is a large, public process

For years people like this have been abused and most importantly for people wondering "why now", not believed when they dared try and tell anyone

But if you have that sort of history, only for a large public investigation come along, finally FINALLY you might feel someone wil lbelieve you now (if not now, when?)

In the midst of this she saw Rolf doing the Royal Gala last year and that was a trigger apparently

You can't get done for something like this on "balance of probability" (otherwise someone like rebekah brooks might not have been given a not guilty sentence)

But maybe we should just do away with the jury system and ask what people on internet forums think instead

[Otta]

I don't think you can dismiss the probability of people saying things for compo, or coming forward about something that really hadn't bothered them at the time once they realised they could make a bigger thing of it.

BUT

The sheer number of people coming forward independently of each other should be enough to show that something was going on.