FabSwingers.com forum: Dr fox

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Charged on nine counts

Some were under age

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If he's guilty he deserves to have the book thrown at him.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hyllyphyllyMan
over a year ago

Bradford

I'm no longer surprised when a celebrity from the past is charged with sex offences.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago

I have no words

I think I've got to the point with all of this that I'm just struck dumb

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If he's guilty he deserves to have the book thrown at him."

A big one. Hard. In the face. Repeatedly.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"I have no words

I think I've got to the point with all of this that I'm just struck dumb"

Yep. It makes me wonder what is going on now.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If they showed a TV highlights reel from my childhood now, they'd have to show cartoons!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Did he used to be a dj for commercial radio?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hyllyphyllyMan
over a year ago

Bradford

"Did he used to be a dj for commercial radio?"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_Chart

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"Did he used to be a dj for commercial radio?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi_Chart"

Thanks

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The court will hear the evidence and the jury will decided.

But I do have one question, why did he refer to himself as Dr Fox?? Rather odd.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact."

So if you catch crabs, you become a peado?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Let the courts decide I have own _iews but I honestly believe that unless absolutely required anyone charged with such crimes should not be named until found guilty because look at Paul Gambacini who was arrested and under suspicion for over 12 months kept getting rebailed then eventually told no charges to be brought that will tarnish him forever and as with alleged victims of such cases should not be named.

Even cross party of mps have now suggested same.

For example anyone here could be accused of any crime going back 20 years etc and who can honestly say they remember on set date what they were doing.

Imagine that horror knowing you were innocent.

When and if folk are found guilty then hit them hard until then innocent till proven guilty in my eyes.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Don't go crabbing then.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

is this the guy who used to be a judge on pop idol with pete waterman?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hortieWoman
over a year ago

Northampton

"I'm no longer surprised when a celebrity from the past is charged with sex offences."

Nor me. And thats almost the saddest thing of all.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact."

That's just nonce-sense.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.

That's just nonce-sense.

Are you fully encrypted about this?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.

So if you catch crabs, you become a peado?

That's why bareback is evil.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bi HaiveMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Cheeseville, Somerset

"Let the courts decide I have own _iews but I honestly believe that unless absolutely required anyone charged with such crimes should not be named until found guilty because look at Paul Gambacini who was arrested and under suspicion for over 12 months kept getting rebailed then eventually told no charges to be brought that will tarnish him forever and as with alleged victims of such cases should not be named.

Even cross party of mps have now suggested same.

For example anyone here could be accused of any crime going back 20 years etc and who can honestly say they remember on set date what they were doing.

Imagine that horror knowing you were innocent.

When and if folk are found guilty then hit them hard until then innocent till proven guilty in my eyes."

I agree.

If he's found guilty then yep - bang him up for a very long time.

I always wonder how courts hope to find 100% impartial jurys when names are splashed all over the media for months before a case actually (if it ever does!) go to court?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *izzy RascallMan
over a year ago

Cardiff

Even cross party of mps have now suggested same.

For example anyone here could be accused of any crime going back 20 years etc and who can honestly say they remember on set date what they were doing.

Imagine that horror knowing you were innocent.

When and if folk are found guilty then hit them hard until then innocent till proven guilty in my eyes.

I agree.

If he's found guilty then yep - bang him up for a very long time.

I always wonder how courts hope to find 100% impartial jurys when names are splashed all over the media for months before a case actually (if it ever does!) go to court?

Did the guy off Corrie get his job back or was it too late by the time the not guilty verdict came? If it ever went that far. I cant remember his name but can picture his face, not that hekps. What might is he was better looking than Gail.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I was surprised when the great Gambo was charged as he had been a vociferous voice speaking out against Savile

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Even cross party of mps have now suggested same.

For example anyone here could be accused of any crime going back 20 years etc and who can honestly say they remember on set date what they were doing.

Imagine that horror knowing you were innocent.

When and if folk are found guilty then hit them hard until then innocent till proven guilty in my eyes."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

It'll definitely spoil Christmas if Noddy Holder and Wizard are Yewtree.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"It'll definitely spoil Christmas if Noddy Holder and Wizard are Yewtree.

"
very cruel Tina very cruel

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"is this the guy who used to be a judge on pop idol with pete waterman? "

Yes.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"I'm no longer surprised when a celebrity from the past is charged with sex offences."

Thora Hird ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The court will hear the evidence and the jury will decided.

But I do have one question, why did he refer to himself as Dr Fox?? Rather odd."

Just a nickname that rhymed I assume.

He's music tag was the Robert Palmer track, 'Bad Case of Loving You'......

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

"I'm no longer surprised when a celebrity from the past is charged with sex offences.

Thora Hird ?"

On a stair lift, too?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I'm no longer surprised when a celebrity from the past is charged with sex offences."

Nor me.

They are NOT exempt from the full force of the law if guilty.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact."
You got any Clarky Cat?, how about Yellow Bentines?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Dont think he's a real doctor?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Dont think he's a real doctor?"

About as much a real doctor as a lot of the 'doctors' on this site....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

Not interested, let justice take it's course.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I was surprised when the great Gambo was charged as he had been a vociferous voice speaking out against Savile "
.

He wasn't charged, the case was dropped with lack of proof sited.

The only thing wrong in his case was it took 12 months to get there.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

He was charged and bailed, the charges have just been dropped

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.You got any Clarky Cat?, how about Yellow Bentines?"

I can't take that anymore. I had to have an operation on my Shatners Bassoon.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He was charged and bailed, the charges have just been dropped"
.

That was my point no case was brought against him.

The police collect the evidence the cps decide if there's a case, clearly in his case there wasn't and it should have been resolved quicker than 12 months.

In his case he actually stated the general public have been very supportive, I personally see no need to change the law but people to change their attitudes to the difference between being arrested and being convicted!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I can't take that anymore. I had to have an operation on my Shatners Bassoon."
I'm not a bloody piano dentist

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact."

Brass Eye...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington

touching a 14 year old girl, magistrates say witnesses were believable but could not be sure in the context it was a criminal offence.

the good doctor says he's vindicated.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"touching a 14 year old girl, magistrates say witnesses were believable but could not be sure in the context it was a criminal offence.

the good doctor says he's vindicated.

"
.

What did you think he'd say?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

Found not guilty, so innocent in the eyes of the law.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I wish there was a third alternative of 'not proven'.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

"I wish there was a third alternative of 'not proven'."

what exactly do you think having a third ambiguous verdict would achieve?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I wish there was a third alternative of 'not proven'.

what exactly do you think having a third ambiguous verdict would achieve?"
.

The right to say... Fuck off... He's well guilty... But only in a pub

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's a verdict that can be used in Scotland in cases where the jury does not have enough evidence to prove guilt, but they are not sufficiently convinced of the accuseds innocence either.

This verdict carries an implication of guilt despite no formal conviction, and alleviates the stigmatization of the victim in sexual abuse cases where the accused is found not guilty due to lack of corroborating evidence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I wish there was a third alternative of 'not proven'.

what exactly do you think having a third ambiguous verdict would achieve?"

Technically would mean - could find more evidence + then prosecute someone a 2nd time.

With a NG - there's the double jeopardy thing to prevent a 2nd trial.

Though I believe , tgat principle has been ignored at least one time in last few years - can't remember what the case was though

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

"It's a verdict that can be used in Scotland in cases where the jury does not have enough evidence to prove guilt, but they are not sufficiently convinced of the accuseds innocence either.

surely you mean alleged victim in that case. transfering stigma to someone who is innocent is hardly a positive step.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I wish there was a third alternative of 'not proven'.

what exactly do you think having a third ambiguous verdict would achieve?

Technically would mean - could find more evidence + then prosecute someone a 2nd time.

With a NG - there's the double jeopardy thing to prevent a 2nd trial.

Though I believe , tgat principle has been ignored at least one time in last few years - can't remember what the case was though"

The ban on double jeopardy in England and Wales was lifted years ago. New and compelling evidence allows the Court of Appeal to order a retrial. That is no comment on this case though.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The man was always and remains innocent. Its really simple. Unfortunately 'some people' see a big name mentioned after someone crawls out of the woodwork from 30 years ago and assume he is guilty. I feel for Dave Lee Travis who was hauled up on 14 charges and found not guilty on 12. Re-tried on the other two and a third added at the last minute. Found Not Guilty of those original two and guilty of the added on one because he couldn't prepare a defence. The man is now bankrupt and his reputation was shattered long before he went to court. 50 years of hard graft and giving pleasure to millions destroyed by someone who 'suddenly remembered something' 30 years later.

And of course as Littlejohn keeps reminding us Jimmy Saville remains both dead and innocent .... Where were the police 30 years ago?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That's all very well... But let's face facts, what right minded individual would have left there kids with jacko for the weekend... Oh yeah he's innocent of everything

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"The man was always and remains innocent. Its really simple. Unfortunately 'some people' see a big name mentioned after someone crawls out of the woodwork from 30 years ago and assume he is guilty. I feel for Dave Lee Travis who was hauled up on 14 charges and found not guilty on 12. Re-tried on the other two and a third added at the last minute. Found Not Guilty of those original two and guilty of the added on one because he couldn't prepare a defence. The man is now bankrupt and his reputation was shattered long before he went to court. 50 years of hard graft and giving pleasure to millions destroyed by someone who 'suddenly remembered something' 30 years later.

And of course as Littlejohn keeps reminding us Jimmy Saville remains both dead and innocent .... Where were the police 30 years ago?"

he was found guilty of indecent assault later upheld when the court of appeal rejected his appeal..

'couldn't prepare a defence'?

someone was sexually assaulted or does that not matter..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the debate on here shows a little proof that innocent is not acceptable. anyone wccused will be dubiously looked upon forever more.

i abhor the thought of sexual assault, which makes me think that anyone who says years later "oh yes he/she was evil but i couldnt day anything" as a witness which so many have, should be locked up. for heavens sake, the creator of childline preached you must be brave but said f all about saville until it was a press opportunity.

a victim may be scared. a witness shares guilt for standing idle for years.

rant over. now back to what this site is about.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ohnaronMan
over a year ago

london

Is there ANY evidence against Seville or was it press feeding frenzy at the expense of a man who was conveniently dead and couldn't defend himself?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Is there ANY evidence against Seville or was it press feeding frenzy at the expense of a man who was conveniently dead and couldn't defend himself?"
.

Yeah they've hired the Neville brothers... Fucking monsters

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Dr Fox may be innocent but I still won't let him perform a prostrate examination on me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

His name is Neil fox, and he used have a programme on the radio called the surgery where people rang the show.

Hence Dr fox.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I wish there was a third alternative of 'not proven'."

Problem with that is it flips the entire justice system.

No longer are you innocent until proven guilty you are guilty unless you can prove your innocence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well said!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why can you prove he was guilty?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"he was found guilty of indecent assault later upheld when the court of appeal rejected his appeal..

'couldn't prepare a defence'?

someone was sexually assaulted or does that not matter.."

Did I say it did not matter. No I didn't so less of the smart language OK?

The Appeal did not uphold anything. He was DENIED the right TO appeal to that court on a legal technicality. There is a huge difference. It never WENT to a hearing in the Court of Appeal.

And my other point you sort of dismissed was he was found NOT guilty of the 14 charges that he had been dealing with for about 12 months. He was therefore always innocent even though the CPS had two bites at two of those 'cherries'. They got ONE to stick ...Southwark Crown Court jury convicted him by a majority verdict of 10-2. So there was even doubt there and THAT was why he asked for permission to Appeal which was denied.

15 charges and only one proven and that by a majority verdict. That is not justice.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread