boxst

He has been charged with three counts here: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/presenter-s...164752380.html

Personally I wonder how you can charge someone forty years after the fact. It can only be based on one persons word against another? Of course he shouldn't get away with anything, but it just seems a little dubious to me.

IWatkins

Obviously a Paedo?

mart360

Surley the statue of limitations ? would apply

at the rate this is going, nearly everyone who worked in tvland is going to get nicked for somthing or other


Mart

Felix.

unless he has made admissions in his interview, or there are other witnesses that have come forward.

I think it has to be considered as well that times have changed, in the 60’s & 70’s taps on a the bum of an office girl was largely accepted as the norm and regularly seen on TV shows – now its seen as indecent assault (and rightly so I may add).

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Apparently playing "It's yer **** out"

Seriously. I get the point about there being a limit but at the same time, should justice, whilst the victiims are alive at least, be seen to be done? Also, if you are going to dig up jimmy's corpse and crucify it, then you have to take those still alive to task too don't you?

TelBoy

With three separate allegations, the CPS would press for a prosecution.

The same questions are valid as per the Savile victims; why wait 40 years to speak up? If there was no chance whatsoever of any financial compensation, would you bother? I do understand the point about wanting closure and or justice but seriously, will ruining the rest of Stuart Hall's life really bring you the comfort you say you need? Don't quite get it.

urban

iTrader: (1)

I don't understand this either

Maybe its like the Irish priest scenario.
Once one victim comes forward and speaks up, others follow suit.

David Lock

There was a 9 year old involved and an alleged rape although he hasn't been charged with that. If it was only a couple of 16 year olds then may be leave it but....

Always seemed a fairly straightforward type of chap - not creepy like Savile - so I was a bit surprised.

dl

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Seems bad form to me to rake up stuff that's 40yrs+ old esp as it's fairly low key stuff, no one has been murdered ffs. All he needs to do is deny it, what can the Police do without a guilty plea ...

TX.

TelBoy

As i said. One case of uncorroborated evidence - probably just an interview. Three separate and independent cases - high chance of prosecution.

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Exactly TelBoy - Same as Jonathan King who has always denied it but still did time

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Sorry but how is that possible if he or anyone simply denies it. My word vs yours 40 years later

TX.

TelBoy

Not quite sure what other words to use. Three people tell the Police he committed the same, or very similar crime. Of course he denies it, criminals usually do. But weight of evidence will be enough to get a prosecution. You can't expect photographic or recorded evidence in every situation. If the Police had gone public with his name and then more victims came forward, that would significantly weaken the case.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

What evidence though? I can ring the Police now and tell them that you touched me inappropriately. I could get a couple of my mates to do it too. Would they arrest you and send you to gaol?

TX.

David Lock

My guess is that he will put his hands up and he willl serve a short suspended sentence and/or community service. His life will now have been ruined along with his family's.

Let sleeping dogs etc

dl

TelBoy

*sigh* No. The Police aren't quite as trivial as that. Especially in cases like this. You're obviously unconvinced so that's fine, let's leave it here. But at least you know the process, even if you don't believe it.

boxst

And now Max Clifford ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20627765

SJ_Skyline

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20627765

Spin your way out of this one!

TelBoy

Wow. That will utterly destroy his little empire. That's the most shocking one yet, in my opinion.

urban

iTrader: (1)

Surprising yes, but I wouldn't say shocking.

Savile has to the most shocking based on the places he abused in

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

*sigh* let's call it quits then albeit you've hardly put up a convincing case ... quite frightening in all honesty if peeps can be arrested then gaoled on the back of what's simply their word vs yours.

TX.

TelBoy

A convincing case??????????? What, told you the British law???????????????????


Mate if you don't know the process then fair enough but i'm not "debating" it, i'm telling you facts, the way it is, the law!!!!

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

And lose all your clients in 3... 2... 1....

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

Eh? This is all you've said:

With three separate allegations, the CPS would press for a prosecution.

As i said. One case of uncorroborated evidence - probably just an interview. Three separate and independent cases - high chance of prosecution.

Three people tell the Police he committed the same, or very similar crime. Of course he denies it, criminals usually do. But weight of evidence will be enough to get a prosecution. You can't expect photographic or recorded evidence in every situation. If the Police had gone public with his name and then more victims came forward, that would significantly weaken the case.

Where is the process or the Law explained?

TX.

TelBoy

Oh TX, one more reply then i'm out. The CPS have *charged* him, ie they're taking him to Court because they know they have enough evidence to have a high chance of prosecution. They can do this because according to British Law, three independent victims of three separate crimes constitutes enough of a case against Hall, unless he can provide compelling evidence to prove that it wasn't him in each of these situations.

Please, stop trying to make it a debate. It isn't one. This is a process of Law now. There are plenty of online versions for you to read if you don't like mine. Cheers.

cster

Priceless.
The scourge of the wealthy and true Labour stalwart.
Champion of the common man.

boxst

I have to say that is quite worrying. He has to try and prove that these three events are not true? I would be surprised if an 82 year old can remember what he had for breakfast let alone defend himself from allegations 30 - 40 years ago.

Steve

TelBoy

Yep and you'd like to think that unless the prosecution can provide a pretty strong case, he won't be convicted, for the reasons you state. Certainly the time delay will be their strongest defence. But the CPS will know all this and they don't take people to Court just for the hell of it.

boxst

Whilst I agree with that, I would say that the CPS are very aware of the publicity around the fact that they didn't prosecute Savile when they had an opportunity so may have lowered the barrier a little.

Who knows. I guess we will see when the trial happens.

TelBoy

They never had the opportunity. He was never charged. But i know what you mean.