Dj Dr fox arrested
Discussion
Jimboka said:
unrepentant said:
Hardly a vindication is it. One of the girls whose evidence was believed by the magistrates was 14 at the time. The guy's clearly a serial sleaze bag.
I hope you have deep pockets. I reckon he'll be coming after people who make such slurs .. McAlpine style
BBC said:
The court had also heard from a woman who was 14 when Mr Fox allegedly kissed her and slid his hand up her skirt at a motor show in Bromley, south-east London, in July 1991.
BBC said:
Six women had made allegations, and one claimed she was 14 when Mr Fox took her to an underground car park at Capital Radio in Euston, central London, and kissed her.
BBC said:
One of the women alleged that Mr Fox had regularly touched her bottom, while another said he had approached her from behind and kissed her bare shoulders.
Sounds like a right charmer doesn't he.unrepentant said:
Hardly a vindication is it. One of the girls whose evidence was believed by the magistrates was 14 at the time. The guy's clearly a serial sleaze bag.
I am so relieved he was found not guilty - you couldn't imagine anyone less sleazy. Anyone who knew him was utterly gobsmacked by this allegation - particularly the girls from the team when we worked with him for years. Paul Gambaccini is calling for Met Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe to resign as I think Gambaccini suffers a similar fate but e too hwas found not guilty.
audidoody said:
unrepentant said:
Made a habit of feeling up 14 year old girls did you?
No. And neither did he.
Otherwise he would have been found guilty of indecent assault against a minor.
For those who'll instinctively react to that statement, I am not suggesting he did do it, nor suggesting any 'smoke without fire' scenario. I am merely pointing out that you cannot say someone did not do an act because it's not been proven to the criminal threshold. Plenty of people do the acts but it cannot be proven.
If the matter were been tried on the 'balance of probabilities' there may have been a different outcome.
Ken Figenus said:
Paul Gambaccini is calling for Met Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe to resign as I think Gambaccini suffers a similar fate but e too hwas found not guilty.
He wasn't charged. He speculates that he was kept on bail for sometime to encourage others to come forward / was re-bailed on 'big news dates' (that would require some planning given the news wouldn't be known before the future bail dates). There's other hearsay and circumstantial information used to draw 'solid' conclusions. Surprisingly, the Commissioner didn't resign over that... If the crimes really are a fumble at the office Christmas party or office banter then maybe it is time for the investigators to be investigated, I have worked in manufacturing most of my life and these things have always gone on, one interesting thing, women are worse than blokes, yet if a bloke complained that a woman had slapped his bottom he would just get laughed at.
This investigation like a modern witch finder general, if they drown, they are innocent !
This investigation like a modern witch finder general, if they drown, they are innocent !
La Liga said:
audidoody said:
unrepentant said:
Made a habit of feeling up 14 year old girls did you?
No. And neither did he.
Otherwise he would have been found guilty of indecent assault against a minor.
Let's just think about that for a second.
A man has been forensically subjected to the due process of law by legal professionals and found to be innocent.
Yet some bloke on the internet - who we can presume has gained all of his knowledge about the case from the media and social networking and certainly hasn't a clue who the complainants are - says ' not true'.
Truly a "wow - just wow" moment there.
audidoody said:
La Liga said:
audidoody said:
unrepentant said:
Made a habit of feeling up 14 year old girls did you?
No. And neither did he.
Otherwise he would have been found guilty of indecent assault against a minor.
Let's just think about that for a second.
A man has been forensically subjected to the due process of law by legal professionals and found to be innocent.
Yet some bloke on the internet - who we can presume has gained all of his knowledge about the case from the media and social networking and certainly hasn't a clue who the complainants are - says ' not true'.
Truly a "wow - just wow" moment there.
You proposed that he could not have committed the act because there were no conviction by writing, "Otherwise he would have been found guilty". This isn't true. It is perfectly possible he committed the act of 'feeling up a 14 year old' without being found guilty, thus your statement of, 'Otherwise he would have been found guilty of...' is incorrect, as the link isn't absolute like you present.
I presume you can differentiate between an act and a conviction and comprehend that one can occur without the other. Plenty of people are found 'not guilty' (people aren't 'found to be innocent' in UK criminal courts) but committed the act. It just can't be proven to the required evidential threshold.
I don't need to know anything about the evidence to point out the generalised, flawed link you presented.
'Forensically examined'? That'd be impressive given the historical nature of the allegations.
La Liga said:
es, let's think about it more for a second (or read my post on it again as I'm just going to repeat what I wrote).
You proposed that he could not have committed the act because there were no conviction by writing, "Otherwise he would have been found guilty". This isn't true. It is perfectly possible he committed the act of 'feeling up a 14 year old' without being found guilty, thus your statement of, 'Otherwise he would have been found guilty of...' is incorrect, as the link isn't absolute like you present.
I presume you can differentiate between an act and a conviction and comprehend that one can occur without the other. Plenty of people are found 'not guilty' (people aren't 'found to be innocent' in UK criminal courts) but committed the act. It just can't be proven to the required evidential threshold.
I don't need to know anything about the evidence to point out the generalised, flawed link you presented.
'Forensically examined'? That'd be impressive given the historical nature of the allegations.
You're wasting your time. Here on PH the world operates entirely in black and white, there are no shades of grey.You proposed that he could not have committed the act because there were no conviction by writing, "Otherwise he would have been found guilty". This isn't true. It is perfectly possible he committed the act of 'feeling up a 14 year old' without being found guilty, thus your statement of, 'Otherwise he would have been found guilty of...' is incorrect, as the link isn't absolute like you present.
I presume you can differentiate between an act and a conviction and comprehend that one can occur without the other. Plenty of people are found 'not guilty' (people aren't 'found to be innocent' in UK criminal courts) but committed the act. It just can't be proven to the required evidential threshold.
I don't need to know anything about the evidence to point out the generalised, flawed link you presented.
'Forensically examined'? That'd be impressive given the historical nature of the allegations.
Everyone found guilty is completely guilty, everyone found not guilty is truly innocent. Guilty people never walk free for crimes they've committed and innocent people are never wrongly jailed.
Here on PH justice is absolute, unless someone is found guilty of a crime then it simply never happened. The notion that people can commit crimes and walk free at trial is simply incomprehensible.
Just don't mention high profile cases like OJ Simpson, Oscar Pistorius or Lance Armstrong, their heads might implode.
Oakey said:
Just don't mention high profile cases like OJ Simpson, Oscar Pistorius or Lance Armstrong, their heads might implode.
and the relevance of any of those cases (all being non UK) is exactly what?Yes, we have had some questionable verdicts, as any system will likely have, but looking at the cold hard facts of this one, the Police clearly had stuff all case, but were under political pressure to keep pushing as were the CPS.
Same for the DLT case, they only just got a highly questionable guilty verdict after piling in all sorts of rubbish, or Cliff Richard, who they have still yet to even charge, after raiding his house on TV etc etc.
Ever since they total failures to deal with Savile, they are now hell bent on getting *anybody* from that era.
Oakey said:
Here on PH justice is absolute, unless someone is found guilty of a crime then it simply never happened. The notion that people can commit crimes and walk free at trial is simply incomprehensible.
it works the other way too in that some people assume that because theres an allegation (a) they must have a done it and (b) that its an offenceIts only if both can be proven you're found guilty otherwise youre presumed innocent.
You have to do it that way otherwise you might as well lock everyone up for starters then decide who youre going to release for good behaviour assuming they (we) are all guilty anyway.
I haven't covered the thread, so apologies if it was mentioned before.
There are a lot of claims about feeling up people etc.
Usually to celebrities.
Do we think it's fair that it's been plastered all over the news? Before a guilty charge has been dropped?
Because I think even now he's been cleared, his reputation would have been damaged.
I don't understand why the law won't keep things under wraps until such a time where it's proven guilt.
There are a lot of claims about feeling up people etc.
Usually to celebrities.
Do we think it's fair that it's been plastered all over the news? Before a guilty charge has been dropped?
Because I think even now he's been cleared, his reputation would have been damaged.
I don't understand why the law won't keep things under wraps until such a time where it's proven guilt.
The core issue with many of these cases is timing. We can't compare with Oscar Pistorius, where there was tangible evidence.
In the case of Neil Fox, it's a question of proof. There isn't any. There are a lot of allegations, but they can't be proven true or false. The largest issue with cases of this age is that there's simply no physical proof or evidence - no CCTV, no forensics, nothing.
Perhaps it's time we introduced a time limitation for prosecution - such that if something is simply too long ago to be proven then it can't be taken to court.
In the case of Neil Fox, it's a question of proof. There isn't any. There are a lot of allegations, but they can't be proven true or false. The largest issue with cases of this age is that there's simply no physical proof or evidence - no CCTV, no forensics, nothing.
Perhaps it's time we introduced a time limitation for prosecution - such that if something is simply too long ago to be proven then it can't be taken to court.
xjay1337 said:
I haven't covered the thread, so apologies if it was mentioned before.
There are a lot of claims about feeling up people etc.
Usually to celebrities.
Thats a different question as in that world of 'luvvies' everyone seems to be much more touchy feely than in other walks of life. Its the point when it crosses the boundary of acceptability and the further boundary of whether its unlawful. Not saying that happened here. There must be another way of addressing it than taking months going through courts to try to judge the boundaries.There are a lot of claims about feeling up people etc.
Usually to celebrities.
Scuffers said:
Yes, we have had some questionable verdicts, as any system will likely have, but looking at the cold hard facts of this one, the Police clearly had stuff all case, but were under political pressure to keep pushing as were the CPS.
Clearly, yet his expensive, experienced and expert defence team missed this and were unable to trigger the safeguards to have the matter halted. If only they had you. You're talking rubbish about something you repeatedly demonstrate you know little to nothing about.
DavidJG said:
In the case of Neil Fox, it's a question of proof. There isn't any. There are a lot of allegations, but they can't be proven true or false. The largest issue with cases of this age is that there's simply no physical proof or evidence - no CCTV, no forensics, nothing.
Witness evidence, primary evidence, is the foundation of most prosecutions. Lots of prosecutions successful based on witness evidence alone. Especially when there are multiple allegations / corroboration. DavidJG said:
Perhaps it's time we introduced a time limitation for prosecution - such that if something is simply too long ago to be proven then it can't be taken to court.
If there's no realistic chance of it being proven, there's no realistic chance it can be proven. It doesn't matter on the time frame. The CPS will judge whether or not there is a realistic conviction with the evidence before them. This means there doesn't need to be cut-off. xjay1337 said:
I haven't covered the thread, so apologies if it was mentioned before.
There are a lot of claims about feeling up people etc.
Usually to celebrities.
Do we think it's fair that it's been plastered all over the news? Before a guilty charge has been dropped?
Because I think even now he's been cleared, his reputation would have been damaged.
I don't understand why the law won't keep things under wraps until such a time where it's proven guilt.
I do agree anonymity for the accused needs to be considered because people / society will make judgements based on someone being investigated / charged. There are a lot of claims about feeling up people etc.
Usually to celebrities.
Do we think it's fair that it's been plastered all over the news? Before a guilty charge has been dropped?
Because I think even now he's been cleared, his reputation would have been damaged.
I don't understand why the law won't keep things under wraps until such a time where it's proven guilt.
xjay1337 said:
I haven't covered the thread, so apologies if it was mentioned before.
There are a lot of claims about feeling up people etc.
Usually to celebrities.
Do we think it's fair that it's been plastered all over the news? Before a guilty charge has been dropped?
Because I think even now he's been cleared, his reputation would have been damaged.
I don't understand why the law won't keep things under wraps until suc
h a time where it's proven guilt.
Sorry, I don't buy the it's worse for celebs line. If you were some no mark from wherever then the damage to your reputation would be equally as bad.There are a lot of claims about feeling up people etc.
Usually to celebrities.
Do we think it's fair that it's been plastered all over the news? Before a guilty charge has been dropped?
Because I think even now he's been cleared, his reputation would have been damaged.
I don't understand why the law won't keep things under wraps until suc
h a time where it's proven guilt.
Fox had hardly been exonerated as he claimed yesterday. The case didn't go ahead due a lack of evidence. Which doesn't mean it didn't happen.
MarshPhantom said:
Sorry, I don't buy the it's worse for celebs line. If you were some no mark from wherever then the damage to your reputation would be equally as bad.
Fox had hardly been exonerated as he claimed yesterday. The case didn't go ahead due a lack of evidence. Which doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Ok, maybe I should have explained myself.Fox had hardly been exonerated as he claimed yesterday. The case didn't go ahead due a lack of evidence. Which doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I wasn't meaning that it only happens to celebrities.
Only that we generally hear about celebrities. Of course it would effect a normal person.
Again my point being until it's been proven the accused should not be named.
As said above, people form assumptions.
MarshPhantom said:
Fox had hardly been exonerated
Of course he's been exonerated or whatever you call it 
- thats the whole pint of the legal system
The case has been judged so everyone can move on
You cant do the old yeah but (well you can but its not going to go very far)
Are you now going to set up your own system of justice to make things go the other way?
MarshPhantom said:
The case didn't go ahead due a lack of evidence. Which doesn't mean it didn't happen.
or that what ever happened if anything did, was criminal.All we know is that nothing happened that was deemed criminal and the world can carry on again.
La Liga said:
Scuffers said:
Yes, we have had some questionable verdicts, as any system will likely have, but looking at the cold hard facts of this one, the Police clearly had stuff all case, but were under political pressure to keep pushing as were the CPS.
Clearly, yet his expensive, experienced and expert defence team missed this and were unable to trigger the safeguards to have the matter halted. If only they had you. You're talking rubbish about something you repeatedly demonstrate you know little to nothing about.
look, you can go on all you like with your hight and mighty attitude, simple facts are they had no hard evidence.
they spent enough time and effort, that if there had been solid evidence, he would have not been acquitted.
you obviously think you know better? well? what evidence tells you he was guilty of exactly what?
either put up or STFU.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff