Seems Unfair To Me

[sir.prize]

Arrested over 12 months ago (November 1, 2012), Freddie Starr has been bailed and re-bailed three times this year without charge. Today he was re-bailed again until February 2014.

As I said - seems unfair to me.

[jackthehat]

Feel free not to respond to my comments, then, sir.prize.......:o)

[VHG]

Why did he need to get arrested in the first place if the police were not ready to go to court.

He is a well known personality so can hardly go missing, and surely the police could have waited till they were nearer to going to court (if indeed they do) before they arrested him.

It cant be nice for anyone to have this hanging over their head for all this time, be they guilty or not (particularly if it never goes to court).

[sir.prize]

VHG - it was the same with Jim Davidson; eventually the police backed off. Indeed it must be torment for anyone to wait such a long time. Looks like early 2014 could see more celebrities 'performing' in court than on television.

The Max Clifford 'show' could be interesting.

[sara3]

I don't think they "back off". I think they do a full and thorough investigation, and then the CPS decides whether to precede with a prosecution, based on the evidence gathered.

[sir.prize]

Good point sara. Someone backed off or chose not to proceed. Same outcome.

[sara3]

I'm sure you'll know that such historic cases are difficult to prove. there's a lot of weighing up to do.

[sir.prize]

Almost every day we read reports that the police are still investigating Jimmy Savile. What is the purpose? What will be the outcome? Surely the top priority should be investigating the living suspects.

Or apparently not.

[ummmm]

I haven't read almost daily reports. What paper are you reading?

[sir.prize]

Monday Daily Mail

Last Friday the Guardian

Also Friday BBC News

[FredPuli43]

Agree. It is unfair. When a single offence is disclosed, to the CPS's standards, the man must be charged with it immediately. When other offences are suspected, the man may be bailed pending enquiries and must be charged as soon as the evidence supports each.

If not one single offence is disclosed after all this time ,the man is in the position of having been arrested on reasonable suspicion but that suspicion has proved unfounded. Ordinarily, the man would be released without charge. Why these suspects are not treated as anyone arrested would be, is not clear. It may be that the defence see an advantage in all this. The longer this goes on without charge, the weaker the charge will appear to be when it is finally laid; you can hear counsel getting ready to say that the prosecution were so embarrassed by the suspicions proving baseless that, rather than admit that, they decided to charge on evidence they had previously realised was inadequate or had desperately dragged up a charge at the last minute, when it would never have passed any test if it the supposed evidence had been there earlier.

[pixie373]

And the problem is, is that if they have done nothing wrong, their names have still been associated with the allegations, for months on end.

[craft1948]

Is Ken Barlow still on bail?

[mikey4444]

Can I cut to the chase here ? Starr was arrested over a year ago. People get interviewed if the Police think they can "help them with their enquiries" But they are arrested if the enquiry has gone a stage or so further.

Whether its someone famous like Starr or someone anonymous, like the Policemen associated with the Plebgate affair, it doesn't make much difference. 12 months would seem to me to be ample time to decide if a crime has been committed or not. I am not a fan of Starr in any form whatsoever, but I would have thought that he is entitled to ask why this has been going on for so long.

[Gromit]

It took the Police 4 days to name the victims of the Glasgow bar tragedy, when the victims each had a wallet containing driving licences and credit cards/debit cards revealing their name. So a year to investigate antique allegations seems about right.

[CokeTulip]

I'm confused because I dont understand how this one is working because-
didn't Freddie Starr say very recently that he was now in the process of suing Karen Ward (woman who made the allegations about him) and reported that he would have a good case against her.

So - while he's doing that his matter is being put back further! (have more people come forward I wonder - doesn't add up).
(He wont be able to rush time though will he - he'll have to wait so no doubt he's stressing and he's got his plate full if he is going after Karen Ward at the same time as stressing over how long).
Can he actually go after her before his case is settled?

[boingo]

I will have to précis this down which will become obvious why. My daughter was sexually assaulted a few months ago. She has given her statements which were on video. She knows the offender through school. He was arrested and bailed. The police (who have been fantastic) are waiting for a one to one appointment with the CPS. He has been re-bailed once already and it looks like he will be again. They have DNA. I assure you that we are not enjoying it, we are enduring it and want it to be over, not that it ever will be.

[mikey4444]

Boingo...my sympathies to you and your family...fingers crossed that you are not still waiting a year from now for a resolution.

[youngmafbog]

//waiting for a one to one appointment with the CPS//

That is disgraceful, is the CPS really that busy or out at the club with their mates?

The waiting time (often on both sides) is sometimes verging on ridiculous.

In the case of Starr, and some others, it has gone on far too long. At present the man is not guilty, yet he is being punished (restrictions to kids etc). I want justice, but I am not sure this is.

Not a Starr fan either. Does anyone like him?

[mikey4444]

I dislike Starr but not half as much as I dislike Davidson. Now Rolf is another matter altogether...he was part of my childhood and I am saddened by his arrest. But of course, if he is guilty, then so be it.

[LazyGun]

Cannot abide either Starr or Davidson - but this continuing bail nonsense is an affront to their civil liberties and we should not really be tolerating it. No question that allegations should be rigorously investigated, but to effectively traduce their reputation further and restrict their freedoms with these arrest/bail procedures on the basis of as yet unsubstantiated allegations, untested in a court, just seems wrong.

Were the individuals in question a serious flight risk, that is perhaps a different matter...