Mohammed Al Fayed.

The trouble is that as soon as anyone speaks out (or threatens to speak out) they are accused of sensationalism and making false accusations, even when those accusations have circulated for years (eg Russell Brand, or Phillip Schofield). The rich and powerful can get away with things as they have expensive lawyers and people who insist on watertight proof before believing a word against them. Nobody wants to see witch-hunts, but the system is stacked against ‘ordinary’ people who want to speak up against those in power (and in these cases wealth can buy power) plus women speaking out against men are often treated with suspicion anyway.

Phillip Schofield wasn’t accused of abusing anyone, he had a relationship with a chap younger than himself and first any talk
of him being homosexual

There were many rumours before the story of the runner broke, though. That’s my point.

Yes I missed out Brand, hiding in plain sight.

Being homosexual but not coming out is a criminal offence ?
why rumours about being homosexual?

The rumours weren't about his being gay.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

JaneJudge, fortunately, this thread shows some people care and even understand the power dynamic involved with powerful, wealthy male employers and naive young women (or men)

I’m glad people care on Gransnet 😞 x

*eazybee
What concerns me is that when these cases were reported to the CPS twice, they refused to act because they said, in my understanding that there was little chance of conviction. In other words he was too rich and powerful, in other words he was above the law. This is the stable Keir Starmer comes from*

The CPS won’t prosecute sexual abuse cases unless there is 85% chance of conviction. In the vanishingly rare occasions when prosecution takes place, the Judge is obliged to warn the jury of the risk of conviction in the absence of supporting evidence. There rarely is more than the allegations made. Hence the reluctance to out alleged victims through a trial where their evidence will be torn apart by the defendants barrister. So being rich and powerful has little relevance other than fame can blind people.
Starmer knows this better than most of us. Mi hope he and his government can act on what he calls an epidemic of assaults/violence against women and girls

More facts on actual cases that went to CPS.

Al Fayad cases that got to CPA, what they were, and on the CPA decision making structure.

*2009: Allegation of indecent Assault
*2013 then the same woman 2015 allegation of rape.

*Three other investigations into claims made by three other women - in 2018, 2021 and 2023 - got to an advanced enough stage that the CPS was called in to advise detectives.

*There are 14 CPS offices operating through the country.

Each is headed up by a Chief Crown Prosecutor. They make the bulk of the decisions, only a small minority get passed up to the DPP

(As an example, South Yorkshire CPS prosecuted just over 60% of cases referred, the rest turned down, burden of proof)

So: Director of Public Prosecutions heads up the whole service of the 14 regions.
The Director is directly involved only in certain major cases, such as crimes for which the maximum penalty is 21 years in prison.
Indecent assault the 2009 case would not have gone up to the DPP.
(all infö from CPS or BBC, which as got several news reports arising from the BBC TV programme)
www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors)

The sufficiency of evidence in detail is not available to the public.

More women explain why they didnt take it further at the time.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxrg7281e0o

valdavi

I don't see her comments as victim shaming either & I don't understand how it's only come out now he's dead.The number one justification for reporting this is so it doesn't happen to anyone else, but here, although it's ages since Jimmy Saville & "#Me Too" has been around a while, his death seems to have been the trigger for reports to be acted on. Don't get me wrong, I believe he sexually abused some of his employees.

I believe there were 19 reported cases before Fayed died but no action was taken by the police. The CPS said that it twice considered bringing charges against ex-Harrods owner MAF but concluded there was no realistic prospect of a conviction.
Evidence was produced by the police in 2009 and 2015.
In 2008, the Metropolitan Police investigated Fayed after a 15 year old girl said he sexually assaulted her in the Harrods boardroom.
There were three other claims made in 2018 2021 and 2023. The full file of evidence was not passed to prosecutes. Fayed was a ‘serial sexual abuser’ over 25 years. Barrister Dean Armstrong KC said that Fayed was a monster aided by an institution.
He claimed it was “simply not true” that Harrods did not know of the allegations until 2023. Systematic abuse was well known before this.

Someone earlier mentioned Diana getting involved was sad but she already had a dodgy BIL.

The burden of proof is high. Add societal attitudes, as seen in some posts here and then wonder why women are reluctant to complain. Victims are regularly blamed as complicit in the abuse they report.

And - the eternal question. Why do so many men feel they have the right to force sex on women

Iam64

The burden of proof is high. Add societal attitudes, as seen in some posts here and then wonder why women are reluctant to complain. Victims are regularly blamed as complicit in the abuse they report.

Spot on. I've sat through many court cases over the years, and although things may have improved slightly now, the very process of having to go first to the police and then, if the case does go to court, having to give evidence, can be extremely traumatic for the victim. Throw in attitudes like some seen on here and it is small wonder that many feel they can't go through with it.

MissInterpreted, same here. As well as adult women, I’ve seen 7 and 13 year old girls bravely give evidence only to hear the Judge advise the jury of the absence of corroborative evidence.

And as we all know, the very nature of cases like this means it often comes down to a question of 'he said, she said'.

Couldn’t agree more Missinterpreted it is extremely difficult to prove especially if it’s historical
I too have sat with survivors in court cases I was with one young lady who had eventually after years managed to find the courage to take her step father to court for child sexual abuse, only to have it thrown out because as an adult she couldn’t quote the dates it happened on
She was a child ! and it happened when her mum was on night duty at work, she couldn’t quote dates

So what should courts do? Convict every man on a woman’s say so? There has to be evidence to convict.

In the case of Fayed, he’s dead so no conviction possible , the nearest thing is those security people who worked for him, but I can’t see evidence being forthcoming there, nor for any Harley St doctors who were paid by Harrods to do health checks.
The women may be able to get compensation from the present owners of Harrods who say they’ve already paid some.
It’s a difficult thing to prove years later, so courts can’t be blamed for dismissing some cases.

Of course not, that's not what anyone is saying, and I think you know that. We're just pointing out that the process of going to court and giving evidence can be a traumatic event for any witness, never mind in cases of rape or sexual abuse.

There was evidence in the case I quoted, the ladies sister had also been sexually abused she was not looking for compensation if any kind, just justice.
I really don’t understand some of your posts Oreo

I'll just leave this here.

On uTube, ghastly Burrell who thankfully has not been yapping for over a year, is back, he knew Al Fayed had made an
indecent proposal to Diana so always accompanied her to Harrods, this man is vile

Anyone who has been in that situation will tell you how horrendous it is .
And proving it is another matter .
On the one occasion that I stood up to being sexually harassed the perpetrator denied it and tried to ruin my life in revenge for my rejection .