Not to mention any specific ongoing case including the one which concluded 12 of its 14 charges yesterday, but in discussing that one in various newspaper articles this morning a few questions have emerged...

1. Is it fair that an accused who is found innocent of charges should be expected to pay his/her own legal bill for defending those unproven charges - lets not muddy the waters by saying "well he must have done it but they just can't prove it", if you are not guilty in a court of law then you are innocent of those charges yet have to pay dearly to clear yourself when the state is prosecuting you, some might say maliciously or with a sense of guilt over other cases that were not historically pursued.

2. In the matter of William Roache, the one "celeb" who has been cleared of all charges, one of his victims told the court that she had no recollection of the incident that she had accused him of yet he was still tried on this charge until the judge instructed the jury to dismiss this one during their deliberations, in other words the jury heard the allegations as part of the trial in order to build up a picture of a serial accoster even though there was no evidence in this case.

3. The judge in the case yesterday (which is potentially still ongoing) told the jury not to judge the charges by applying historical, more relaxed attitudes to sexism in the workplace which frankly is a ridiculous thing to ask, so ridiculous that you would have to hand pick a jury of 20 year olds in order to remove any possibility that any juror over the age of 40 might apply some of the recollection of the times during which most of these alleged incidents took place.

4. Is it time that a time limit was put on historical sexual abuse accusations, some are suggesting three years to match the current personal injury cap but it has been revealed that during the most recent trials (the one that might not have ended yesterday), three more accusers contacted the police about historical incidents involving that person - WTF!!! - are they honestly trying to tell us that after (up to) 40 years they have just remembered and that they'd never heard the presenters name before until the court case, or were they expecting a guilty verdict and thought they'd have some of that for themselves ?

5. Are all of the ongoing "celeb" trials and/or indecisions currently sat on the desk of the CPS simply a kneejerk reaction to the Savile revelations which, let us remind ourselves, were not made until after his death and so are unproven in a court of law yet generally accepted as true by a media who wish it to be so being that he was "a bit strange" - echoes of Chris Jefferies ???


Please remind ourselves that most of these cases are still ongoing...

In Germany there is a statute of limitation on criminal offences. I believe that for 'sex crimes' it is 10 years after which proceedings are time-barred.

The UK Govt recently tried to extradite a Brit living in Germany for an alleged sex crime, said to have taken place in the UK 30 years ago. The German authorities told the UK to do one.

A lot of this is bollox and mass hysteria falling out of Savile - people alleging they were sexually assaulted 30/40/50 years ago, but only coming forward now.

The cops and CPS are very excited about it all because it is the chance to nail someone 'high profile'. The evidence in some of these cases has clearly been flimsy at best, and I do not believe it would have gone to court but for the fact the cases were so high profile.

On the back of this all we have various solicitors running around saying they can get compensation for the 'victims'. I am not sure how they propose doing this - civil law has a 3 year limit for personal injury or 6 years for most other types of claim. In the event a claimant is under 18 this runs from their 18th birthday. Either way, the time limits for claiming compo would have run out long ago and you have to have a bloody good reason to get them extended.

The BBC were talking about setting up a 'fund' to pay compensation to the Savile 'victims'. Quite why a quasi-public body, funded by the tax-payer, is setting up a 'fund' to compensate people who would have no right to compensation under law is beyond me. If they start paying out then the licence-fee payer will have cause for complaint.

I have dealt with cases where people are accused of serious sex crimes, typically rape. What amazes me is the amount of time these arise out of 'morning after regret' where someone (usually the woman) has consented to a one-night-stand only to regret it later then, usually under pressure from family or a partner, made a complaint to the police.

The CPS will pretty much run anything that involves an alleged sex crime. They are terrifying of dropping stuff and then getting slated in the papers.

Very rarely have I seen action taken against false-accusers. Even when their claims are dis-proved by forensic evidence. This is because there is worry that it will discourage others from coming forward.

Conviction rate for sex-crimes is going to take a hit what with all these high-profile acquittals on multiple charges. Half the problem is that crap cases with no realistic prospect of success are taken to court.

1. Agree, ludicrous state of affairs.

2. Agree, but everybody knows the law really is an ass these days. The question should perhaps be why his counsel didn't challenge it.

3. Hmmm, the defendants were being tried for something far more serious than "sexism in the workplace".

4. It was my understanding that at least some of the accusers had not come forward previously because they felt, probably correctly, that it was their word against that of a popular, powerful celebrity and they simply wouldn't be believed.

5. Trial by media? Surely not (is there a tongue in cheek smiley?).

I think this is spot onthen getting slated in the papers...'"

Quote: Mintball "I think this is spot on So part of what it comes down to is irresponsible reporting by the mainstream media.'" You don't have to look too far to find stuff like this, which has been widely reported, the suggestion being she was raped and the authorities decided to do nothing about it: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... d-her.html

Quote: Mintball "I think this is spot on So part of what it comes down to is irresponsible reporting by the mainstream media.'" You don't have to look too far to find stuff like this, which has been widely reported, the suggestion being she was raped and the authorities decided to do nothing about it: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... d-her.html

I think the big issue here is just what constitutes "sexual abuse", 30 years ago the world was very different, expectations of behaviour were very different. Whatever any of these celebs did or didn't do was probably no different to what went on at No 11 Acacia Avenue on an average Friday night (and I don't include Saville in that comment). We live in a completely different world now, hell, I even cross the road if I am walking toward/behind a lone female to make sure they don't feel threatened. As Mintball says, it's largely media, I doubt there are any more or less molesters, rapists, paedophiles etc than there were 30 years ago, and I would bet my bottom dollar that some of these girls (and guys, who strangely seem to have remained quiet) threw themselves at celebrity, did so willingly and deliberately.

What does grate, is that people can make accusations, drag someone through the mud (someone who has made their career out of notoriety) and then be scot free of any recriminations.

Maybe we should hang David Cameron for our expansion of the Empire?

Patently not, but the present government really couldn't give a flying fart about fairness or justice, as all their so called "justice" reforms so clearly show.


An outrageous direction. To commit a crime, you have to have the[i mens rea[/i i.e. the criminal intention. How else can that be judged except by considering the mores of the day? Would anybody be convicted in court today, on the basis of an argument that "in 40 years you know, this will be illegal and frowned upon"?


Probably yes, but if a person is suspected of the most serious of allegations, eg rape, then I have no problem of a prosecution being brought very late - as long as the evidence is so compelling and the prospects of a conviction so great that the CPS are confident they will get a conviction. In many cases the very passage of several decades before a complaint is made should, surely, place a very heavy burden on the CPS before they go fo a prosecution, especially given the extreme handicap of an accused having to try to defend something so far back in the mists of time. For offneces down the scale, absolutely there should be a limit. If it was not important enough at the time or within a close timescale, then that's tough. The complainant made their choice to live with whatever they thought it was, and should not be allowed to change their mind.


Clealry there was a feeling of outrage that one celeb had escaped prosecution and I reckon that created the atmosphere of getting after not-yet-dead celebs as a mix of revenge and especially as a partial smokescreen over the perceived widespread failings that seemingly allowed Savile to escape the law for so long. People seem to be not so much bothered about whether it really happened, as by whether another celeb might escape on their watch.

Looking at the cases that have finished, whilst I haven't sat in court and listened to every word, I have had a strong and recurring feeling of disbelief as to some of the stuff which was being aired in court after 4 decades. It was no surprise at all to me that all these charges against those acquitted were thrown out, the only mystery to me is how the CPS persuaded themselves that they had a case fit to put before a court, let alone that it was in the public interest to do so, certainly in the majority of the sort of events being complained of.

One consideration that doesn't seem to have featured is that in the case of people like DLT and Roache, acquittal, while obviously better than spending years at the back end of your life behind bars, doesn't mean to say that their later years aren't blighted; they clearly are. If they are indeed innocent of any crime, that is a tragedy, and sadly in the eyes of many their acquittals will not restore their reputations. I saw some banal commentary in one news report that Roache could now "start to rebuild his career". He's eighty-odd, ffs; 20 years past the age where normal people retire.

In Roaches case his counsel did something that is supposedly unheard of in court circles in that she actually stopped the judge in his summing up to the jury and complained that he was being prejudicial towards her client in his terms of reference and guidance, the jury was sent out of court and 20 points of objection were raised, some very minor but (in their words) all building up to a biased summary - when the jury were brought back the judge apologised and at that point directed the jury to ignore one of the charges (the one where the girl had completely forgotten the incident that she had complained to the police about).

According to those in the know (the Daily Mirror) this sort of thing was unprecedented.

I agree entirely.

Now here is one strange thing...

Where are all the accusations against pop stars of the 1960s and 70s ?

I do not believe for one instant that *pick any name from the 1970s* did not take his/their share of female attention from the hundreds that would be on offer to them every night on a tour and I do not believe that some of them would not even have been old enough to offer their charms to him/them.

So why are none of *pick any name from the 1970s* not being cited, could it be that stage door idolisation is viewed as self inflicted by the CPS or do they realise that they are on a hiding to nothing in those cases ?



I picked a popular 1970s Scottish group in the sweepstake.

Staggering but completely unsurprising at the same time.

We're lucky these bewigged buffoons don't get the chance to don the black cap in anger any longer.

I wonder if Stuart Hall is kicking himself for pleading guilty? And reflecting on how things might have turned out if his case had been scheduled after the other two, not before.

Its something of a no win situation for the CPS. If they don't prosecute when there are multiple accusations they'll get savaged in the media. But its very difficult for them to know how well witnesses will stand up to the pressure of cross examination recounting events from decades ago. And if the CPS don't prosecute we'll never hear the weaknesses in their case.

Perhaps if Hall had pleaded not guilty there would have been similar weaknesses in the evidence given by his victims. With the same criticisms being made of the CPS as we've heard this week.

The decision to prosecute Hall was vindicated by his guilty pleas. But it might not have been based on any stronger evidence than we've heard in these two cases.

I'm pretty sure one of them (if we're thinking of the same popular group) has been prosecuted for similar offences, but may have to check that!

The manager did time for gross indecency with teenage boys and one of them was convicted for downloading child porn - none of their teen and pre-teen fan base has ever come forward with an abuse charge though.

As Neil Sedaka sang, "Nobody wants an overage groupie now..."

The "lawyers" who defended him should be charged with theft and elder abuse.

Once that guilty plea came in he was royally and totally screwed. IMO he did it because he was scared by the threat of the long sentence. Well the state screwed him over by reneging on the short sentence. And he's screwed with the new trial and the money grabbers are queuing up to take his house.

The CPS and police had their ideal target with the dead Jimmy Savile. They managed to get a frail 84 year old to plead guilty. But they're probably the only convictions they're going to manage.