Talk

Advanced search

Freddie Starr libel case

(8 Posts)
Icimoi Fri 10-Jul-15 15:32:53

He's lost - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33477004. What an idiot. So now it's been found in a court of law that he did in fact grope a 15 year old and that he lied about it. I can't believe that he wasn't advised very strongly to keep well away from the libel courts.

VivaLeBeaver Fri 10-Jul-15 15:37:39

Very silly to go to court. Apparantly he will have to pay all legal costs which will be hundreds of thousands.

When his name was mentioned on the radio this morning I thought it was going to say he'd died. Saw him in TV a year or so ago and he did not look a well man at all.

TensionWheelsCoolHeels Fri 10-Jul-15 16:04:21

I'm delighted to hear that.

Karin Ward, along with the other 2/3 women involved in the initial BBC investigation into Saville, opened the door for every other victim of abuse at the hands of rich/famous/powerful people to come forward and be listened to. Starr's efforts to discredit her have been pretty laughable from the minute he was shown to have lied about never being anywhere near Karin Ward, when the footage showed him sitting right beside her.

The verdict, and subsequent costs, is the least he deserves.

InnocentWhenYouDream Fri 10-Jul-15 16:06:46

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

emotionsecho Fri 10-Jul-15 16:08:14

He should have used a brain cell and just thanked his lucky stars that the CPS decided not to prosecute him and left it there. Hoist by his own petard methinks.

emotionsecho Fri 10-Jul-15 16:14:20

Also agree that the costs and humiliation is the least he deserves. I understand also that the Court turned down his request for an injunction to prevent Karin Ward repeating what she said, shout it from the rooftops Karin.

Icimoi Fri 10-Jul-15 16:49:59

I wonder whether this might make the CPS think again? I know the standard of proof is different, but a finding that he has lied about this in court is pretty powerful.

emotionsecho Fri 10-Jul-15 17:25:06

Icimoi sadly, I think the CPS won't look at it again, I imagine they would fall back on the 'standard of proof/likelihood of a conviction/fair trial' argument.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now