award-winning star of film, TV, theatre and radio

Not that we should try to find out who she is of course, that would be wrong. And she can’t be Hollywood famous, not if she was wandering through Waterloo. But still:

Mark Pearson, a 51-year-old artist, on his way home from work in rush-hour
CCTV showed him walking through London commuters and past a film star
It cannot be said with certainty the pair made even fleeting physical contact
But woman, in her 60s, claimed that he sexually assaulted her penetratively
There were no witnesses and no forensic evidence but case came to court
It took the jury 90 minutes to reject the woman’s story and clear Mr Pearson

I know it’s the Mail but it’s still bizarre.

I’m a lot less outraged than some that this came to court. I’m happy enough with less choice for the bureaucrats to prosecute or not. But I can’t help thinking that there should be some consequences or other for making outrageous claims that turn out not to be true.

66 thoughts on “award-winning star of film, TV, theatre and radio”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    I’m a lot less outraged than some that this came to court.

    A man has just had his life trashed and been put through hell by a deranged woman whose claims were so outlandish that two minutes of police time should have been adequate to dismiss the charge. That is an outrage.

    I’m happy enough with less choice for the bureaucrats to prosecute or not.

    I don’t see how that follows. You mean you are happy with the situation where the feminists have the police so cowed they will charge anyone anytime with anything just so that Julie Bindel won’t call them names? I can see an obvious problem with this. Mob rule is not prettier because it is a pink fist in the velvet glove.

    But I can’t help thinking that there should be some consequences or other for making outrageous claims that turn out not to be true.

    And there should be consequences for doing your job so utterly incompetently you let this come to trial. Sack them all.

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    And she can’t be Hollywood famous, not if she was wandering through Waterloo.

    Worse, it is Waterloo. If she wasn’t coming back from Paris, that would mean she lives in Guildford or Wimbledon, or Woking or Basingstoke.

    (Possibly she might live in Berkshire)

  3. The fault for the decision to take it to court surely lies with the police. They must satisfy themselves that a crime has been committed, and that the arrested person did it.

    Why did they even send it to the CPS?

  4. I’m old fashioned: I honestly believe that no one should be charged without evidence capable of being tested in court. Was plod so starstruck by an aging Blister that she had to be believed? If she is making wild accusations, should she be wandering around unescorted by carers?

  5. The fault for the decision to take it to court surely lies with the police. They must satisfy themselves that a crime has been committed, and that the arrested person did it.

    Why did they even send it to the CPS?

    Because they have to, for most cases.

  6. She must have ‘identified’ him via CCTV with the police. They would have seen the extent of the ‘contact’ (nil). The prosecutors would also have seen the evidence.

    The decision to go ahead was entirely political. They trashed this man’s life because they knew there would be no consequences for them,

    Can he sue, either her or the authorities?

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    ukliberty – “Because they have to, for most cases.”

    Well that’s not true. The police have special groups of people who they do not habitually take to court. Violence committed by women and BMEs is clearly treated different from violence committed by White males.

    But it is also disingenuous. As this was not such a case. The police need a reasonable belief that the case might succeed. There was no such belief here. They could see the video. The idea that a middle aged man would stick a finger any place it was not welcome in the middle of Waterloo station while surrounded by thousands of passengers is insane.

  8. Its amazing that the police managed to identify him. Maybe from his Oyster card and timing when he used it. But then if they took that much effort to identify him, they would have seen that the evidence didn’t match the woman’s story. Yes, they have to pass on the case to the CPS, but they can add notes to indicate the disconnect between reality and the woman’s story.

  9. SMFS: “The idea that a middle aged man would stick a finger any place it was not welcome in the middle of Waterloo station while surrounded by thousands of passengers is insane.”

    Since Cologne, should you qualify this with ‘white’?

  10. “I’m a lot less outraged than some that this came to court.”

    I’d be interested to know your reason for this Tim. The CCTV video was filmed at one frame per second, but even that slowly I find it difficult to see how anyone could infer that there had been contact beyond a mere brushing of shoulders.

    “The idea that a middle aged man would stick a finger any place it was not welcome in the middle of Waterloo station while surrounded by thousands of passengers is insane.”

    Insane or… Japanese. But Mr Pearson doesn’t appear to be from the land of the rising sun.

  11. Two things are rather odd.

    This: “The court heard she was wearing a coat and jacket and a thin dress over ‘training pants’.”

    Aren’t those things pretty tight, like Lycra?

    And this: “It was only halfway through her interview with police that she described in detail the way in which she claims she was sexually assaulted. In his summing up, the judge said she had seemed ‘coy’ about this aspect of her account, that she had seemed to dwell more on the alleged blow to her shoulder.”

    Why would the police even take up a case where a woman alleged a ‘blow to the shoulder’?

  12. And it took the jury 90 minutes. Did they really like the court canteen food, or something? Because it shouldn’t have taken them longer than 5!

  13. So Much For Subtlety

    JuliaM – “Why would the police even take up a case where a woman alleged a ‘blow to the shoulder’?”

    It does look like a case of “Doesn’t he know who I am!” where she was just annoyed that he did not step aside for her, but as that is not a crime, she tried a JImmy Savile instead.

  14. They’ll have known to the second from CCTV when he went through the barriers with his oyster card.

    If the Daily Mail has labelled the CCTV pictures accurately, the CPS has some explaining to do.

    Well that’s not true. The police have special groups of people who they do not habitually take to court…
    Yes of course it’s true. For serious offences, the group of people whom the police don’t take to court is everyone. The CPS makes these decisions.

  15. I really have no idea of the process of charging someone with a crime. But doesn’t it at least involve making a sworn statement of fact? And if so, can’t she be charged with pergury?

  16. They’ll have known to the second from CCTV when he went through the barriers with his oyster card.

    I remember when the Oyster cards were first introduced, and MPs soothed the fears of libertarians by telling them it was solely a system to facilitate travel and not track people’s movements.

  17. the woman, who is in her 60s, claimed Mr Pearson sexually assaulted her – penetratively – for ‘two or three seconds’.

    So it was a microrape, like one of them “microaggressions” that terrorise special snowflakes doing Gender Studies at university.

    Did anybody check if he is, in fact, a hummingbird?

  18. It does look like a case of “Doesn’t he know who I am!” where she was just annoyed that he did not step aside for her, but as that is not a crime, she tried a JImmy Savile instead.

    It does look like that, yes. She was probably attractive in her day and is now invisible. This hits women hard, especially formerly attractive and famous women with a sense of entitlement. If I were to guess, I’d say the police fawned over her a little due to her fame which encouraged her to make stuff up as she felt they were on “her side” and “wanted to help”.

  19. I have a friend who had the experience of a man managing to get his hand inside her knickers and a finger up her in the time it took him to walk past her. She thinks he must have had a *lot* of practise to do it with such speed.
    Sleight of hand like a magician, so the claim, unlikely possible, but certainly not an Impossible feat.

  20. A friend of mine spent a year going through the same thing (but with a boy) and the evidence was preposterous. It didn’t even get to the jury – the judge threw the case out and gave the prosecuting council a dressing down.

  21. Presumably she must have testified in the witness box that the penetrative sex assault occurred and that he did it. So why can’t a case for perjury be brought against her?

  22. Davy, it’s comprehensible, yes, but I suspect your friend is as big a fantasist as this actress.

    I’m glad I’m not the only one. Without meaning to disrespect Davy’s friend, if somebody was able to get past her knickers and inside her vagina with no preparation in the time it takes to walk past her, it wasn’t just the man who was practiced.

  23. So Much For Subtlety

    Steve – “It’s funny how, as you get older, you realise Niggaz Wit Attitudes were right.”

    Drop English right about now?

  24. I have no doubt that there are people who have the manual speed and dexterity to pull off such a thing. There’s no limit, etc… Pickpockets and their little tricks come to mind sooner than stage magicians in that respect though.

    Together with the “blow on the shoulder” this sounds much more like a bodged pickpocket attempt than a possible sexual assault.

  25. Look, Davy, I’m younger than this deranged harridan, and I doubt I could do that to MYSELF* in the time suggested, and I have the advantage in that my own hand faces the right way…

    *No, you disgusting reprobates, I haven’t put it to the test!

  26. Drop English right about now?

    Yeah blood, innit?

    a man managing to get his hand inside her knickers and a finger up her in the time it took him to walk past her

    That woman’s name?

    Debbie McGhee.

  27. I’m younger than this deranged harridan, and I doubt I could do that to MYSELF* in the time suggested, and I have the advantage in that my own hand faces the right way…

    Julia – friend me on LinkedIn, plz.

  28. this sounds much more like a bodged pickpocket attempt than a possible sexual assault.

    Women don’t realise how lucky they are that the infamous polymathic prestidigitarian mind-monger Derren Brown is gay.

  29. So Much For Subtlety

    Steve – “Debbie McGhee.”

    The lovely Debbie McGhee is married to the magician Paul Daniels. If anyone can perform a fast sleight of hand and get into her knickers without anyone seeing, it would be him. So maybe she is used to it?

  30. No JuliaM.. I’m not saying * he* is.. He can’t be, unless he’s faster than Houdini squared.

    I won’t speculate, but I think I’ve spotted something the police *should* have investigated.

  31. She should have said he did it when she was seven, four decades ago. No evidence required then. You wouldn’t even need to prove they’d even been near each other.

  32. Grikath, there was nothing to investigate.

    I was once bumped into by Albert Finney at South Kensington tube station. Should I report him?

  33. So Much For Subtlety

    Henry Crun – “I was once bumped into by Albert Finney at South Kensington tube station. Should I report him?”

    You know, I really shouldn’t ask, but ….. that depends, did he manage to get his finger up your ar$e?

  34. It’s particularly galling for an artist. His career is his name: now every Google search for his art will reveal this story. It’s one thing for a faceless civil servant (of the type who draft such laws) to be wrongfully accused: they get to keep their jobs. It’s quite another for anyone who faces a daily struggle to win new customers.

    Moral of the story: artists should always use a stage name.

  35. So Much For Subtlety

    Andrew M – “Moral of the story: artists should always use a stage name.”

    Didn’t exactly work for Gary Glitter.

  36. Whilst it may be possible to penetrate someone for a second, she is clearly not telling the truth about “2-3 seconds” because it would be visible.

    There is also the problem that he is carrying something in each hand.

    @AndrewM I think it may well be worth starting a campaign against someone – Keir Starmer seems to be the obvious target – to “produce” allegations against him in the same way as the Police now seem to do as a matter of policy (e.g. get mad people and compo chasers to make stories up then claim they are true)

  37. This is rather more serious than most people realize. The CPS are only supposed to take a case to court if there is a 50/50 change of winning (aiui). So the CPS thought that the English courts are so defective that they had a 50/50 chance of winning despite there being no evidence of the incident ever happening. That’s the scary bit.

  38. I’d like to know precisely how they identified this bloke to charge him.

    Bear in mind also that if they’d dropped the case the DM would have been screeching dementedly about how one of our most treasured actresses has been publicly molested and the police did nothing.

  39. IanB, I’d like to know too why the police picked on him, since “the actress failed to pick out Mr Pearson in an identity parade of video images.”

  40. “This is rather more serious than most people realize. The CPS are only supposed to take a case to court if there is a 50/50 change of winning (aiui). So the CPS thought that the English courts are so defective that they had a 50/50 chance of winning despite there being no evidence of the incident ever happening. That’s the scary bit.”

    No, they took it to court simply because they have been cowed into doing so by the feminists. All these rapes are occurring you see, and the rapists are getting away with it. So more of these cases have to be taken to court, even if they look like BS, because we can’t let these rapists get away with it, can we? (Or, more accurately, we musn’t get in trouble with the feminists, because they can destroy us.)

  41. So is the actress’s anonymity one of those things where the journalists aren’t allowed to report it, but they aren’t prevented from telling people verbally? If the latter, if I was a journalist on that job I’d be telling everyone I knew, and telling them to tell everyone, making sure that the story spread far and wide by word of mouth.

    (Or is she hidden in court?)

  42. *If* anything happened, I’d think it was more likely the bloke in a hoody or grey scarf immediately behind her and walking away in the image titled ‘… she looks back’.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the CPS and Police are minded to send things to court in order to inflate a metric that is not related to convictions. Reading this Anna Raccoon post about Surrey Police it jumped out at me that the deputy Chief Constable was talking about ‘rape detection rate’ rather than convictions:

    Back to the Surrey Police meeting – Nick Ephgrave, the Surrey deputy Chief Constable explained that ‘the rape detection rate one year ago was at 6% which was unacceptable’ but ‘that the changed approach to arrest’ – arrest first, investigate afterwards – had pushed the detection rate to 15.8%; further that:

  43. Both CPS and the bluebottles have been got at by leftist femminista scum. Who can just as easily be manginas as yer actual females.

    This may have been helped by the plod taking Marxist-trained Uni graduate scum into their ranks direct.

    But even for those not in the CM camp proper, the higher up peelers know that the key to ascending the ladder–or even the key to staying where they already comfortably are–is to do what the boss class–the enemy class–wants.

    And fuck justice.

  44. All this sort of thing is doing is ‘devaluing’ rape as an allegation. It used to be that a mere sniff of a rape allegation, let alone a court case (regardless of outcome) would be enough to put the mark of Cain on a man for life. Nowadays its becoming so common that it no longer has the same shock value. In fact I’d go so far as to say that if someone I knew was accused of raping someone my first reaction would be ‘Was he fitted up? Is it a false accusation?’ rather than shock and disgust at what he had supposedly done.

    Its ironic that the feminists have taken a situation where men accused of rape were pretty much assumed by society to be guilty (because only the cast iron cases made it to court) to one where society now views such an allegation with an air of ‘Well there’s a good chance he’s totally innocent and she’s made the whole thing up’.

  45. My daughter, at age 5 and absent-mindedly enjoying central London, stepped on Cardinal Basil Hume’s foot.

    A proddy treading on a Catholic’s right-foot could be seen as a provocation, but this was London, not Belfast.

    No charges were brought, but that was then.

  46. The name has now leaked – and it’s not going to be a name that’ll be instantly recognised by every household in the land.

    Far from it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *