Motoring11 mins ago
Stuart Hall arrested, oh no, not another one!!!
26 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by netibiza. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To some extent, I agree with Ann, MT, there is an unpleasant air of "McCarthyism" and his "Reds under the Bed" that seems to be rampant in this country at the moment.
Bear in mind that at the moment it's enquiries only and, even if he is charged, that does not equate to being guilty. Only when the Chief Juror gets up and delivers a verdict will we know, unless he admits to it.
Bear in mind that at the moment it's enquiries only and, even if he is charged, that does not equate to being guilty. Only when the Chief Juror gets up and delivers a verdict will we know, unless he admits to it.
Trouble is that , years ago, people in the BBC and, perhaps, generally in life, committed sexual assaults with impunity because the victim normally never complained and, if they did , they soon found that the rules of evidence then, together with the attitude of police and prosecutors, meant that a prosecution and conviction were unlikely.
Now that Savile's case has come to light, many victims have come forward and a wider investigation has revealed yet more. There must be many old men who never gave their acts of sexual assault a second thought years ago, probably did not regard it as a crime at all, and who now find that procedure, rules of evidence and the reluctance of victims have all changed.
That is no reason not to prosecute them now.
Now that Savile's case has come to light, many victims have come forward and a wider investigation has revealed yet more. There must be many old men who never gave their acts of sexual assault a second thought years ago, probably did not regard it as a crime at all, and who now find that procedure, rules of evidence and the reluctance of victims have all changed.
That is no reason not to prosecute them now.
-- answer removed --
OK, this is risky but here goes. All of these accusations coming from 25+ years ago, how can they be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, especially if they involve a single accuser? Someone has stated "there's no smoke without fire", is that always true or, because these accusations are being investigated in the light of the JS case, does it not place everyone in danger of vindictive revenge accusations? If an ex-pupil of mine makes an accusation against me from when I taught them 20 years ago, how do I prove my innocence? I don't think the names of people should be published until they are facing a trial, otherwise whatever happens in the Stuart Hall case, there will always be nudge nudge wink wink.
well said, zebo. That is one of my concerns about all of this, though I do accept that clear cases should and must be processed, the definition is what is "clear" - maybe the arrests should be kept quiet to prevent the nudge-nudge, perhaps it should be at the charging phase, that information is released.
This man was cleared of assaulting two girls in 2009. He tried, but failed, to have the court proceeding kept from the press. As a result other victims came forward and he's now been convicted of assaults on them.
There are cases where anonymity would protect the guilty.
http
There are cases where anonymity would protect the guilty.
http
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
What Did The Conservatives Achieve In...
Politics34 mins ago
Crosswords34 mins ago
The Mail On Sunday Prize Crossword
Crosswords48 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.