DJ Neil Fox Cleared of all allegations , Perfect , He will bring a voice to many IMHO

[hello88]

@amandaF - DONT LEAVE nooooo - your support has been incredible for me

@bene - just wondering if you've ever been clubbing, or to a party... did someone touch you inappropriately, did you tell them to F..O/slap their hand away, or did you decide to take them to court??? Accusers (false or not) seem to think that they have nothing to loose, i have messages proving my FA is doing this as a favour for drug friend who has a vendetta against us... i have 41 pages of screenshots to prove its a vendetta.... and the FA can still go round thinking 'got nothing to loose i'm not going to drop this case because i don't think i will ever get in trouble' - and the scary thing is she probably right, she hasn't got anything to loose.

rant over.... sorry....

but just a reminder... amandaF don't leave!!!!!

[Casehardened]

Why opt not to have a jury?

It is down to the nature and severity of the charges: these are summary (Mags) either way (defendant can choose) or indictable (crown court)

Reading between the lines the offences that he was charged with were of 'touching' rather than 'penetration' and if found guilty would have attracted a maximum sentence that was within the range that the Mags could impose.

Hence they were deemed to be either way and I suppose that he chose Mags on the advice of his legal team.

It is interesting, as per the very useful link that Rights Fighter has put in her post #22, to read of the Mags deliberations in this particular case as normally what is said in the jury room stays in the jury room.

[as an aside this written judgement in DJ Fox's case (including the phrase This is not to go back on our original assessment that we believed the witnesses and accept that they had attended to tell us the truth as they remember it. rather justifies Bene's comments in post #6 in this thread for which she received a bit of flack]

[wakingnightmare]

Why opt not to have a jury?

Is this option available to all cases?

It appears the not guilty verdict comes down to nuances over the intention of the action rather than it never happening. Was this the reason there was no jury as it was deemed to be down to legal definitions so "beyond" a jury.

Is it better to have no jury for historic allegations?

Re-bail date creeping up.. No indication of what will happen ... Currently clutching at all straws

[can it get worse]

Please continue to post on here AF.

`Your contributions are valuable to those who are victims of FA's. And (I believe) valuable to victims on the other side.

To be a real victim of rape or sexual assault must be horrific and traumatic. Due to past prejudices by the plod, it is unthinkable that genuine victims will feel they are not believed. Conversely, victims of FA's and their families also have terrible experiences.

Amanda - your 'speaking out' is good. We need people like you. Your emotions and anger are totally acceptable, valid and understandable. I believe you have full right to speak out. Who wouldn't in your situation. Your life has been touched with a FA in such an extreme way that I think you can have full license to speak out.

Please continue to do so.......... x

[Rights Fighter]

An interesting view on the case:

http://thesecretbarrister.com/2015/1...om-vindicated/

[Rights Fighter]

Dear hello,
How can you be so certain that they are false accusers ?
Just because someone had been acquitted that doesn't necessarily mean that they are innocent and the victims are lying.
And vice versa! Just because someone has been accused or convicted it doesn't always mean that they are truly guilty and did it.

I'm not saying that Neil fox is guilty because I don't know, I wasn't in the jury room. But for you to automatically assume that the women are false accusers is wrong. Unless there is evidence to prove that all 6 women are lying!! or they have admitted to lying.
Than it's really not right for you to instantly announce them as false accusers with out any prove!

Being in the jury room doesn't help as the jury often does not get to see all of the evidence, only what has been agreed.

Are you at all able to join the discussion without turning it into an argument? If members wish to announce on the FAd side of the forums that they think that somebody is guilty or innocent, they should be able to do so, without worrying about whether you might come in tell them what they can and cannot say. It is not for you to decide whether the members are right or wrong.

[Rights Fighter]

Yes I agree

Amanda you have been very supportive and offered great advice to myself and many others....

I sincerely wish you all the best and hope you come back to the forum soon....people on here need you! Because you have so much great advice and support to offer.

Yet again I have noticed one Member BENE who always has to be so insensitive! And at the centre of things!

Kind regards
A12

Well said Arsenal!

[Rights Fighter]

And with that I think it's high time I took a step back. I'm far too despondent about my own situation right now I don't need to read holier than thou posts from the "other side".
I'll still be lurking in the background, waiting to post more bananas and for those I'm in touch with privately I'll continue.

I wish you all well on your journeys, whichever stage you are at. This place has been inspirational, but for now I'm bowing out.

Some of us have been on the other side of allegations, where we have been victims. That doesn't prevent us from seeing false allegations for what they are, especially in my situation where I get to read all of the paperwork and see what the jury did not see.

Don't you dare leave the forums AmandaF! Please don't let one individual ruin it for the rest of us.

[Lilyput]

Yes i noticed too! Shame as im sure someone whos been on the other side could offer helpful advice too! Xx

[Arsenal12]

Yes I agree

Amanda you have been very supportive and offered great advice to myself and many others....

I sincerely wish you all the best and hope you come back to the forum soon....people on here need you! Because you have so much great advice and support to offer.

Yet again I have noticed one Member BENE who always has to be so insensitive! And at the centre of things!

Kind regards
A12

[Aidy]

I agree with Lilyput, please don't go Amanda!
You add so much to this forum, and I for one have taken strength from your posts!

[Lilyput]

Dont go quiet Amanda, i for one am fed up of the falsely accused being attacked on here. Comments from the other side nearly cost me a seven year relationship. There were witnesses police recommended NFA yet i was made to feel stupid for believing him. I stayed up all night quizzing him and now hes extremely hurt and feels he cant rely on me. Dont let people get inside your head huni xxx

[AmandaF]

Dear hello,
How can you be so certain that they are false accusers ?
Just because someone had been acquitted that doesn't necessarily mean that they are innocent and the victims are lying.
And vice versa! Just because someone has been accused or convicted it doesn't always mean that they are truly guilty and did it.

I'm not saying that Neil fox is guilty because I don't know, I wasn't in the jury room. But for you to automatically assume that the women are false accusers is wrong. Unless there is evidence to prove that all 6 women are lying!! or they have admitted to lying.
Than it's really not right for you to instantly announce them as false accusers with out any prove!

And with that I think it's high time I took a step back. I'm far too despondent about my own situation right now I don't need to read holier than thou posts from the "other side".
I'll still be lurking in the background, waiting to post more bananas and for those I'm in touch with privately I'll continue.

I wish you all well on your journeys, whichever stage you are at. This place has been inspirational, but for now I'm bowing out.

[Rights Fighter]

The judge actually said that he believed the complainants. Fox admitted that there was some sort of "horseplay" or whatever he called it. He said that he never crossed the line. He never crossed the line in his view - is what I would say.

I was in show business for 16 years and believe me there was a lot of "horseplay" going on that was completely unwelcome. I lost work because I refused to "perform" for one club owner. An entertainments agent lost me a lots of work because I refused to "perform".

This was all part and parcel of "show business" and that was the bit I hated. I was often treated like a cheap slut and was criticised by some entertainments agents / club secretaries because I wouldn't put everything (as in tops to the naval and dresses to the waist). I lost work because of that as well. What they wanted was a singing stripper.

I had to suffer the experience of idiot men putting both hands on my chest saying "honk honk". Then they laughed thinking it was funny. It was not. Men still do that - not because they are perverts but because they are complete and utter twats. I would deal with that by stabbing a high heeled shoe into their foot or shouting "does your wife know you touch up other women?" if I knew she was there. It soon stopped. But then I lost work.

Having suffered various sorts of abuses as a child I decided that this was my choice - to perform as a stripper or not. I chose not to.

It was demeaning and I am sure the men who behaved like that truly believed they were entitled to do that they wanted to do. Whether it was illegal is another thing.

I would never walk into a police station and name those (that I can remember) who tried it on with me and accuse them of assault. If it was a criminal offence back then I probably still would not have done as it would have made me into more of a victim that I already was.

Fox admitted to doing certain things, and I have no doubt that he did. It just wasn't a criminal offence back then, despite being upsetting, humiliating and demeaning for the women he did it to, because he's basically admitted to it but brushed it off as "banter".

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.


'Lots of banter'

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.

The three adult complainants came into contact with Mr Fox through work at radio stations, spanning a period of 11 years.

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.

Whether he did kiss a 14 year old is anyone's guess. Could be that she came on to him being of a certain age where she thought she was a woman but still a child, and fancied her chances with a DJ. If he did, and if he knew she was 14 then he wrongly took advantage of her. It clearly should not have happened. However we don't know whether he did that and he knew she was 14. It could well be true as he's admitted to "banter" - although to the young ladies I doubt they saw it as that.

The rest of it seems to be the usual idiotic behaviour that came with being a "star". I am sure some female stars took advantage of unwilling young males too.

[AmandaF]

Before this happened to us , I was always in the no smoke without fire camp.
Now, when I see how we have been , and continue to be judged, my answer is:
I wasn't there when a crime was committed because there was none, The jury, sheriff, fiscal anad anyone else does not know, me, my OH. the village we lived in , our accusers etc etc. All the jury were given. in our case , was whatever the prosecution wanted them to hear.

No reports which showed their despicable backgrounds, nothing.

So when I hear this "He could still be guilty " ****, I say stop talking like an FA and you might have some credence