Discussion
I noticed something in one of the papers today that shocked me.
You may remember one of the 7/7 survivors was hailed by many as a bit of a hero (he was being shown on BBC breakfast)
It turns out he is a convicted rapist... Now I still feel sorry for him and his injuries but Im shocked the BBC didnt know this when they were making him their poster boy at the time.
Anyone else notice the story?
You may remember one of the 7/7 survivors was hailed by many as a bit of a hero (he was being shown on BBC breakfast)
It turns out he is a convicted rapist... Now I still feel sorry for him and his injuries but Im shocked the BBC didnt know this when they were making him their poster boy at the time.
Anyone else notice the story?
yes I saw this a wek or so ago and was going to post it on the Bomb vicitm compensation thread I started a few weeks back but never got round to it.
Its pretty shocking and does change one's perspective on it.
While I think he was still right to ask for some compensation, perhaps he should have had the foresight to have kept a slightly lower profile, as he must have realised this would come out.
As far as I know, the BBC knew nothing about it until recently.
Its pretty shocking and does change one's perspective on it.
While I think he was still right to ask for some compensation, perhaps he should have had the foresight to have kept a slightly lower profile, as he must have realised this would come out.
As far as I know, the BBC knew nothing about it until recently.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No, one after that.
www.private-eye.co.uk/pages.php?page=cover&
>> Edited by neil.b on Tuesday 29th November 11:54
neil.b said:
Hmmmm. It was in Private Eye saying (if I remember correctly) that he wasn't convicted? Charged, yes. Convicted, no.
I could be wrong though.
No he was convicted all right, sentenced to 7 years in prison, only served 2 though according to the Telegraph.
One of his victim found it somewhat ironic that he was standing there with a placard saying 'compensation for victims' or some such, when she and her companion didn't get much in the way of compensation for being raped by his gang a total of 45 times between them.
>> Edited by Jaglover on Tuesday 29th November 11:56
peterpeter said:
yes I saw this a wek or so ago and was going to post it on the Bomb vicitm compensation thread I started a few weeks back but never got round to it.
Its pretty shocking and does change one's perspective on it.
While I think he was still right to ask for some compensation, perhaps he should have had the foresight to have kept a slightly lower profile, as he must have realised this would come out.
As far as I know, the BBC knew nothing about it until recently.
why should he ask for compensation???
Jaglover said:
Hmmmm. It was in Private Eye saying (if I remember correctly) that he wasn't convicted? Charged, yes. Convicted, no.
I could be wrong though.
No he was convicted all right, sentenced to 7 years in prison, only served 2 though according to the Telegraph.
One of his victim found it somewhat ironic that he was standing there with a placard saying 'compensation for victims' or some such, when she and her companion didn't get much in the way of compensation for being raped by his gang a total of 45 times between them.
>> Edited by Jaglover on Tuesday 29th November 11:56
I saw an (anonymous, understandably) interview with the victim who claimed that his assertion that he was led along by others in the gang and he was too young and innocent to know what was happening were rubbish, and in fact he was one of the ringleaders. Make of that what you will.
maxf said:
It was in the Evening Standard a while back - he was a gang rapist IIRC. There was a front page about how 7/7 made him sorry for what he did.
Thats where i read it,talk about your past catching up with you,i thought about him as a victim but then i thought about his victim and wondered if she ever got compensated....for what its worth.
A classic case of "what goes around comes around"....maybe he should make a public appology to his victim,FWIW,(without revealing her identity),...or go do some community work to try and prevent rape by working with inner city/town kids.
He owes a debt.
On the face of the evidence presented it does sound like he wasn't the nicest of blokes.
But if anything's going to make you wake up and take stock of who you are and what you stand for, then nearly dying in a random terrorist incident must surely be it.
Can someone change their spots? Or is there always going to be a rapist lurking behind the reform?
But if anything's going to make you wake up and take stock of who you are and what you stand for, then nearly dying in a random terrorist incident must surely be it.
Can someone change their spots? Or is there always going to be a rapist lurking behind the reform?
Jaglover said:
Hmmmm. It was in Private Eye saying (if I remember correctly) that he wasn't convicted? Charged, yes. Convicted, no.
I could be wrong though.
No he was convicted all right, sentenced to 7 years in prison, only served 2 though according to the Telegraph.
One of his victim found it somewhat ironic that he was standing there with a placard saying 'compensation for victims' or some such, when she and her companion didn't get much in the way of compensation for being raped by his gang a total of 45 times between them.
>> Edited by Jaglover on Tuesday 29th November 11:56
I did say I could be wrong.
But when you read stuff like (from a Google search);
"When UK papers found out about Holness's sordid criminal history he attempted to lie, telling The Sun and The Daily Mail that he had been "cleared" of the rapes. The Daily Mail — clearly in awe of the Black "hero" — bought the line, but The Sun courageously confronted the gang-rapist with the truth, which he finally admitted —"
I tend to be a little sceptical.
Then again, rapist or not, as long as we allow these people back on the street instead of running them over with a combine harvester, we are accepting them back into society and, as such, he has as much right to compensation as anyone else.
neil.b said:
Then again, rapist or not, as long as we allow these people back on the street instead of running them over with a combine harvester, we are accepting them back into society and, as such, he has as much right to compensation as anyone else.
Grudgingly, I've got to agree.
The rape victim not getting enough compensation is another matter, but two wrongs wouldn't make a right.
neil.b said:
Hmmmm. It was in Private Eye saying (if I remember correctly) that he wasn't convicted? Charged, yes. Convicted, no.
I could be wrong though.
No he was convicted all right, sentenced to 7 years in prison, only served 2 though according to the Telegraph.
One of his victim found it somewhat ironic that he was standing there with a placard saying 'compensation for victims' or some such, when she and her companion didn't get much in the way of compensation for being raped by his gang a total of 45 times between them.
>> Edited by Jaglover on Tuesday 29th November 11:56
I did say I could be wrong.
But when you read stuff like (from a Google search);
"When UK papers found out about Holness's sordid criminal history he attempted to lie, telling The Sun and The Daily Mail that he had been "cleared" of the rapes. The Daily Mail — clearly in awe of the Black "hero" — bought the line, but The Sun courageously confronted the gang-rapist with the truth, which he finally admitted —"
I tend to be a little sceptical.
Then again, rapist or not, as long as we allow these people back on the street instead of running them over with a combine harvester, we are accepting them back into society and, as such, he has as much right to compensation as anyone else.
What are you skeptical about?
From what I read the DM and the Sun had been doing some digging on the guy and discovered he had a record. The guy then admitted to being convicted and then having the conviction quashed a year later, which the DM and Sun checked out again. The Sun I believe got the answer a day before the DM and went onto publish the guys full story. At this point he came out with the line "i wasn't really involved" which they checked back with the victim who said "not involved - he was the bloody ring leader!".
The moral of the story is - don't pretend to be humble when you have quite so many skeletons in the cupboard.
tinman0 said:
What are you skeptical about?
Anything where The Sun has been on a "crusade". Don't exactly have a 100% hit rate, do they?
Anyway, as it turns out, the Private Eye piece was just lambasting The Sun (and The Mail) as, in the same space of a week, they brandished him a hero, then they "uncovered the truth" and turned on him. All in the name of justice. Or selling newspapers. Whatever you want to call it.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff