General Chat

I sleep with my boss, but then most of us married men do :-D

Mayfield
second in command

but thats a fair point Kay????

Btings up the question to me as what about possible arrests of females

Just found out Jimmy Tarbuck was arrested last month and bailed!

It was normal for a letchy pervy marrried bosses to get staff to sleep with him with the promise of a upgrade in jobs,

rather than someone sleeping with the boss to better themselves,,,,though women cant be excluded for lusting after the boss,


Hollywood was famous for it for wannabe film stars ,lots of screen stars have written about it,

its not the same now days in the 1960 it was "normal" to "sleep with the boss to better yourself and climb the ladder"

OMG


:-|

and so after being reported and reinstated some dimwit has reported it yet again - and no doubt it will be reinstated cos there was nothing really wrong with it

Yes and so they should be tried

BUT inocent until proven guilty ....is the law

BUT none of these stars will possibly work again after being arrested for POSSIBLE abuse of any kind WHEATHER they did it or not

AND yes abused children MUST be protected

But how long after the "event" can a person come forward and report it and something be done about it

As the deputy speaker said he was seeing one of his accusers last week

Very quietly and with little mention anywhere Eddy Shah is currently being tried for sexual assault on an under aged girl.

I think 'no smoke without fire' is one of the most stupid of expressions. Nasty minded too. And why people keep going on about groupies and people cashing in is beyond me! One of the recently charged celebrites is charged with abusing a nine hear old child!! I don't want that swept under the carpet! It's quite sad to see people some of us thought of as family favourites being arrested for abusing people but that's life....abusers don't all look like Jimmy Savile.

I'm quite happy to leave the investigations to the police and the verdict to the courts. I wish other people were.

Once a person has been arrested then the police can only detain them for a maximum of 24 hours ( terrorist offences 3 days ). That 24 hours can however be spread out over weeks and months with the arrested person given police bail. Once the 24 hours is up then the police must either bring charges or drop the matter.

The fact that a person has been arrested is very far from implying guilt and journalists should be very way of what they say or imply.

It is not legal to withdraw a case against a person and then re-arrest them on the same charge unless there is new evidence.

The trouble with not naming people who have been detained is that they can quite literally "disappear" . The Lord Chief Justice quite recently emphasised that legal detention could not be kept secret.

Current prosecution standards demand (a) that there is a realistic possibility of conviction and (b) that the prosecution is in the public interest. The public interest includes funding. English law requires that convictions are beyond all reasonable doubt.

Quite how then convictions can be obtained for events which happened many years ago where the only evidence is unsubstantiated allegations and circumstantial evidence is difficult to see.

Yet this McCarthy style Yewtree investigation and its ilk grinds on and on. Maybe the young Morse could work out what is going on.

I suppose eventually the eye will work its way through all the many people who have appeared on or produced such shows as TOTP, 65Special, TOGWT, L8RWith, Arena, MOTD and not forgetting Hymns of Praise and the Wheeltappers and Shunters Social Club..

Dearie me.

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0012246/quotes

OMG sad this post has been rrd - just as it was getting interesting - so annoying

I can assure you that what Kemp has said WAS happening an awful lot in the 50s, and 60s.
AND I have no doubt whatsoever it still goes on to day. ;-)

I didnt think for one minute that Roy reported my thread but as soon as you put it underneath I realised it would be reported

Sorry Roy if you felt it was aimed in your direction .......it by no means was

Infact now thinking I .................think prehaps its just coz they could report it that it was reported :-D

Nor mine Sue.

KempinaPartyhat, How do you know exactly why your thread has been reported?

I was the one who said arrested over an "allegation" is not the same as "For"

I never reported this thread, But if I did you can be sure I would have said so at the outset

Roy

quote:


its not the same now days in the 1960 it was "normal" to "sleep with the boss to better yourself and climb the ladder"

end quote.

It wasn't 'normal' in my world.

hahahha Anyway the real reason for my visit

Like Wisechild has said it was "normal" for a boss to harrass his staff

Normal I use loosely as there is NO defanition of normal in the world of crime!! or phycology

It was "normal" for me to be sighalled to by the males whom I lived with that it would be good to .....................................

(mothershelp jobs)
Not that any of my friends took up this offer ............well not that I found out about anyway!

like my son says

its not the same now days in the 1960 it was "normal" to "sleep with the boss to better yourself and climb the ladder"

is this now coming back to bite them!!??

Yes no smoke without fire

Like I was saying Jimmy Tarbuck has been arrested for possible child abuse

Its been removed coz I said Been arrested FOR and as I was told earlier it alledged!!!! but like I pointed out FOR OR POSSIBLE probable might could have wont make any difference to his standing in the community!

So whoever reported it

GET A LIFE its all over the BBC news

OH i said BBC

Re.... There is no such thing as "Innocent until proven Guilty".


Looking at the opening Post It would appear that there is no such thing as "Freedom of Speech" either.... Petty and pathetic. :-|

why oh why has this been reported - it's all over the media

There is no such thing as "Innocent until proven Guilty". :-)