Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 27 Jan 2016, 2:18 pm

Operation Yewtree cost the taxpayer £2.2 million last year........At present I think only three celebrities have been convicted of any offences as a result of it.......Harris, Clifford and someone else..

The problem of course is the time gap from alleged offence to prosecution.........

In the meantime we've seen countless celebrities including guys called Dave Lee travis, Paul Gambacchino, Freddie Starr, James Tarbuck, Jim Davidson, William Roache etc etc cleared at great expense to themselves and the public... in what they call a "Saville inspired Witchhunt"....

If it is a knee jerk reaction some may think it hasn't come soon enough..

However it's had many more misses than hits !! and I imagine it doesn't get any worse than being wrongly accused of paedophilia.....

It's a problem because Operation Yewtree has seen hundreds of abused people come forward (many no doubt are genuine) as a result of the inquiry and any redress these people can get won't even begin to be enough for the torturous baggage they carry.....

Just because a person is found not guilty doesn't mean he/she is innocent either !!.....Celebrities are renowned for escaping justice..

But is the Operation working ??

Some celebrities are calling for the victim/complainant to be named in the papers as well as them....But realistically that's bollox because no one would come forward as the complainant will be up against a PR machine as well as the alleged abuser......

Anything that brings attention to the monstrous behaviour of paedophiles and other sexual abusers has to be a good thing..

But is Operation Yewtree value for money ??.....Or does it have to be ??......Some may think three guys put away is value enough...

and maybe they are right !!.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 28 Jan 2016, 9:37 am

Not sure myself. On balance I think this sort of thing had to be looked at but, in cases like this and r@pe etc, I think there should be anonymity for the alleged perpetrators in the same way there is for the alleged victim(s). Only when a guilty verdict is handed down should the perp be named.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 10:22 am

navyblueshorts wrote:Not sure myself. On balance I think this sort of thing had to be looked at but, in cases like this and r@pe etc, I think there should be anonymity for the alleged perpetrators in the same way there is for the alleged victim(s). Only when a guilty verdict is handed down should the perp be named.

Massive +1

Disgraceful the way a central pillar of British law (innocent till proven guilty) is thrown out the window so vindictive women can destroy men's lives with little or no recourse available.

Just look at that poor lad in Durham Uni recently. F*ck knows what's going to happen to his life & career now thanks to that tramp taking offence at him calling her a cr*p shag.

by Guest Thu 28 Jan 2016, 10:49 am

All that money spent and Noel Edmonds still walks the streets. Not suggesting he's done anything wrong, I just think any excuse to get him off the telly should be grasped with both hands

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 28 Jan 2016, 1:03 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Not sure myself. On balance I think this sort of thing had to be looked at but, in cases like this and r@pe etc, I think there should be anonymity for the alleged perpetrators in the same way there is for the alleged victim(s). Only when a guilty verdict is handed down should the perp be named.

Massive +1

Disgraceful the way a central pillar of British law (innocent till proven guilty) is thrown out the window so vindictive women can destroy men's lives with little or no recourse available.

Just look at that poor lad in Durham Uni recently. F*ck knows what's going to happen to his life & career now thanks to that tramp taking offence at him calling her a cr*p shag.

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment.

The counter-argument put forth would be that by making it public you encourage other alleged victims to come forward. Certainly this has some merit - see the Bill Cosby case for instance. There still remains something of a stigma attached to victims of sexual abuse (she was wearing the wrong clothes, she shouldn't have been out alone after dark, had been drinking, etc.) and there's a fine line still between pragmatic, sensible advice about precautions and victim blaming. One hears some disheartening stories about how some women have been treated by the police when making an allegation. With this in mind, it's perhaps understandable that women will find is easier to speak up if they know they are not alone, hence the naming.

HOWEVER

I do agree with Toppy in that the naming of the alleged assaulter seems to contradict the absolutely fundamental pillar of British (and any decent) law that you are innocent until proven guilty, since the alleged perpetrator will undoubtedly see his name dragged through the mud, his reputation takes a huge hit, future employment is difficult, etc. In fact, all this is the very reason why "innocent until proven guilty" requires anonymity.

HOWEVER AGAIN

Yes I'm tossing and turning on this one quite a bit. So sue me, I'm innocent until proven guilty Very Happy

The statistics surrounding r@pe convictions are.. not particularly good to say the least, and I seem to recall it being mentioned that a lot of people are simply put off even coming forward with their stories. So if it's Mr alleged r@pist against one person it's a "he said - she said" case, but against 60? Thus it could be said that people need to be encouraged to report the assaults more - this also needs men being assaulted to be talked about seriously, the stigma there is even worse if anything.

It's the age-old question of the "greater good" isn't it? If you ruin one life but bring justice to ten others is that ok? how about a hundred? a thousand? more? To what point can principles be absolute? How about if two principles contradict each other? is it ever OK to torture a suspected terrorist who you (very) strongly believe has vital information about an upcoming attack, presuming your torture would be effective? These are difficult questions with no easy answer.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 1:24 pm

Think "vindictive women" is pretty strong.......

But I agree you shouldn't have your name banded around in the media......However the relationship between media and police is alarmingly close...

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 28 Jan 2016, 2:50 pm

DAVE667 wrote:All that money spent and Noel Edmonds still walks the streets. Not suggesting he's done anything wrong, I just think any excuse to get him off the telly should be grasped with both hands

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 28 Jan 2016, 3:01 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Playing Devil's advocate for a moment.

The counter-argument put forth would be that by making it public you encourage other alleged victims to come forward. Certainly this has some merit - see the Bill Cosby case for instance. There still remains something of a stigma attached to victims of sexual abuse (she was wearing the wrong clothes, she shouldn't have been out alone after dark, had been drinking, etc.) and there's a fine line still between pragmatic, sensible advice about precautions and victim blaming. One hears some disheartening stories about how some women have been treated by the police when making an allegation. With this in mind, it's perhaps understandable that women will find is easier to speak up if they know they are not alone, hence the naming.

I agree with some of this however, what does other alleged victims coming forward necessarily have to do with a given case? Surely the CPS/whomever base a case on the evidence directly pertinent to that case? In terms of justice for additional 'victims', after the perp is convicted, surely they can still come forward and get their own justice?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:The statistics surrounding r@pe convictions are.. not particularly good to say the least, and I seem to recall it being mentioned that a lot of people are simply put off even coming forward with their stories. So if it's Mr alleged r@pist against one person it's a "he said - she said" case, but against 60?

Hang on. So it's enough to simply have more people come forward to influence whether someone is guilty???? That can't be a sound basis for a decent conviction.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:It's the age-old question of the "greater good" isn't it? If you ruin one life but bring justice to ten others is that ok? how about a hundred? a thousand? more? To what point can principles be absolute? How about if two principles contradict each other? is it ever OK to torture a suspected terrorist who you (very) strongly believe has vital information about an upcoming attack, presuming your torture would be effective? These are difficult questions with no easy answer.

God, I hope not. That's why (or it's one of the reasons) we got rid of the death penalty. I'd argue this kind of thinking is possibly merited in a war, but hardly in civilian situations. If the conviction and ruination of an innocent is deemed fine as long as we get a few more justifiably banged up, I think that's pretty awful.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 3:28 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Not sure myself. On balance I think this sort of thing had to be looked at but, in cases like this and r@pe etc, I think there should be anonymity for the alleged perpetrators in the same way there is for the alleged victim(s). Only when a guilty verdict is handed down should the perp be named.

Massive +1

Disgraceful the way a central pillar of British law (innocent till proven guilty) is thrown out the window so vindictive women can destroy men's lives with little or no recourse available.

Just look at that poor lad in Durham Uni recently. F*ck knows what's going to happen to his life & career now thanks to that tramp taking offence at him calling her a cr*p shag.

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment.

The counter-argument put forth would be that by making it public you encourage other alleged victims to come forward. Certainly this has some merit - see the Bill Cosby case for instance. There still remains something of a stigma attached to victims of sexual abuse (she was wearing the wrong clothes, she shouldn't have been out alone after dark, had been drinking, etc.) and there's a fine line still between pragmatic, sensible advice about precautions and victim blaming. One hears some disheartening stories about how some women have been treated by the police when making an allegation. With this in mind, it's perhaps understandable that women will find is easier to speak up if they know they are not alone, hence the naming.

HOWEVER

I do agree with Toppy in that the naming of the alleged assaulter seems to contradict the absolutely fundamental pillar of British (and any decent) law that you are innocent until proven guilty, since the alleged perpetrator will undoubtedly see his name dragged through the mud, his reputation takes a huge hit, future employment is difficult, etc. In fact, all this is the very reason why "innocent until proven guilty" requires anonymity.

HOWEVER AGAIN

Yes I'm tossing and turning on this one quite a bit. So sue me, I'm innocent until proven guilty

The statistics surrounding r@pe convictions are.. not particularly good to say the least, and I seem to recall it being mentioned that a lot of people are simply put off even coming forward with their stories. So if it's Mr alleged r@pist against one person it's a "he said - she said" case, but against 60? Thus it could be said that people need to be encouraged to report the assaults more - this also needs men being assaulted to be talked about seriously, the stigma there is even worse if anything.

It's the age-old question of the "greater good" isn't it? If you ruin one life but bring justice to ten others is that ok? how about a hundred? a thousand? more? To what point can principles be absolute? How about if two principles contradict each other? is it ever OK to torture a suspected terrorist who you (very) strongly believe has vital information about an upcoming attack, presuming your torture would be effective? These are difficult questions with no easy answer.

I think the arguments posted in your opening para fall down pretty quickly, IMO, especially given UK sentencing styles.

If a genuine victim makes a complaint, investigate & make arrest but keep provide equal level of anonyminity to accused as purported victim. If the case is real and true and you secure a conviction - fully publicise and request additional victims to come forwards. That was the accused gets rightfully sentenced and all true victims get a right and access to justice & resolution. Meanwhile innocent men don't get their lives ruined. The reason Crosby is counter-suing is because so many claims are from full of sh!t women.

I also think sentencing for deliberate liars in such cases (i.e. not just cases where it's tight but not sufficient evidence, i.e. there is a definite provable case that the accuser actively lied) should be heavily increased. Minimum 5 years in jail etc. Not that that would fit in with the general soft sentencing policy applied to those with a uterus not a Winkle though......

And 'he said' 'she said' is not how convictions are secured beyond reasonable doubt. Each case has to be considered on its individual merits. So if 1 or 100 women accuse a man of some level of inpropriety, if none of them can prove it beyond reasonable doubt then there is no way the accused can be convicted.

A statue of limitations would help as well. Conviction stats would increase as only cases with a real chance of success would occur (i.e. not 30-40 years later) - both because cases/evidence would be more 'fresh' and also because real victims would see a ticking clock on justice which would hopefully motivate them to come forwards. Not wait till the 11th hour when conviction potential is at its lowest.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 3:30 pm

Sorry, only just read Navy's response, which is bang on the money.

by Alistair Thu 28 Jan 2016, 3:36 pm

Be worthwhile if it wasn't far too late, ruined too many lives and the perpetrators weren't old, decrepit or dead.

by Hammersmith harrier Thu 28 Jan 2016, 3:37 pm

An article today in the Mirror highlights the problem, minor below Z list want to be celebrity Josie Cunningham has come out and claimed to have been abused by Jimmy Saville. The police have confirmed that she has made no contact with them over the claims, it as the point where these things when pursued through the media overshadow those who were actually abused by him.

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 3:39 pm

The victims don't sell newspapers...

Any redress is better than none Alistair....and old age doesn't mean they value their freedom any less..

by Alistair Thu 28 Jan 2016, 3:55 pm

No justice really though, Truss.

Some 80 year old perv seeing his days out in prison, while his victim has spent 30 odd years living with what happened?

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 28 Jan 2016, 4:04 pm

Hmmm. Like I said I see it as less black and white, but I feel Toppy's first two paragraphs would only dissuade more women from reporting being assaulted. Stats are obviously a bit of a murky area on this, but estimates are:

around 85,000 women and 12,000 men are r@ped in England and Wales every year. Proportionally that would mean 95,500 women and 13,500 men in the whole of the UK. Total of 109,000.

It is estimated that about 15% of these cases are reported to the police, which means about 92,000 cases weren't reported.

http://rapecrisis.org.uk/statistics.php

This is just the r@pe cases BTW. Sexual assault covers much more, and indeed Yewtree has seen a rise in the number of reports of sexual assault, and a fairly sharp one at that.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2014/stb-crime-stats.html#tab-Sexual-Offences-

My point about the naming encouraging other alleged victims to come forward is that it's also a very difficult process for the alleged victim to go through: she has to confront her alleged attacker, and go through the difficulty of a trial where she might get her character attacked in court by the defending lawyer. All this is of course necessary, but the statistics suggest that more should be done to encourage women and men to report their sexual assaults rather than the contrary.

For what it's worth, over the last five years there have been 109 prosecutions for false accusations in the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-r***-allegations

So I do think it's important that more is done to "encourage" (not the right word, but can't think of a better one) victims to come forward, and with that view Operation Yewtree has been a success.

HOWEVER

I also agree that the presumption of innocence is absolutely vital. So I'm torn basically, as I said before.

I do fundamentally disagree with the statue of limitations though, all that does is massage the figures (i.e. increase conviction stats) but does nothing to solve the underlying problems. A big no-no for me.

I would also politely ask people on this thread to refrain from abusive language such as "vindictive women", "tramp", "a uterus not a Winkle", "sh!t women", etc. Thanks.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 4:23 pm

Alistair wrote:No justice really though, Truss.

Some 80 year old perv seeing his days out in prison, while his victim has spent 30 odd years living with what happened?

30 odd years to do something about it, you mean??

by TopHat24/7 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 4:41 pm

Totally agree we want both reporting and convicting rates to go up.

But not at the expense of considerable misery to innocenet accused persons.

All of which should be achievable by retaining anonymity for the accused until, at least, they are charged (being the moment CPS considered a prosecutable case that stands on its own merits is achieved).

by Mad for Chelsea Thu 28 Jan 2016, 4:50 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:Totally agree we want both reporting and convicting rates to go up.

But not at the expense of considerable misery to innocenet accused persons.

All of which should be achievable by retaining anonymity for the accused until, at least, they are charged (being the moment CPS considered a prosecutable case that stands on its own merits is achieved).

I actually agree with all of that. Shocked

by TRUSSMAN66 Thu 28 Jan 2016, 5:15 pm

Some victims tried to do something about it years ago.....

by Sponsored content

Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????

Re: Operation Yewtree - A success or expensive failure ????