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.

In the realms of cycling fatalities (commited by motorvehicle drivers) judges are well known to misdirect juries with their motorcentric bias summing up, often ignoring the law completely to the point that killers get away scott free. A recent one the judge read a statement regarding the defendant's work (cancer specialist) and mentioned a dozen times about the character of the person (nothing mentioned of character of the person killed) yet the evidence completely pointed toward the driver being wholly in the wrong. www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/ne ... id=1363185 The judge even allowed this staement from the defendents solicitor "Ben Pontin (deceased boyfriend cycling with her) said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place. “He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.” That the person in question was an experienced cyclist seemed to matter not in the judges bias. The Cyclist's Touring Club are striving to get better justice and the useless CPS to pull their socks up. How they can stop bias judges making (probably) illegal statements in summing up I've no idea.

In the realms of cycling fatalities (commited by motorvehicle drivers) judges are well known to misdirect juries with their motorcentric bias summing up, often ignoring the law completely to the point that killers get away scott free. A recent one the judge read a statement regarding the defendant's work (cancer specialist) and mentioned a dozen times about the character of the person (nothing mentioned of character of the person killed) yet the evidence completely pointed toward the driver being wholly in the wrong. www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/ne ... id=1363185 The judge even allowed this staement from the defendents solicitor "Ben Pontin (deceased boyfriend cycling with her) said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place. “He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.” That the person in question was an experienced cyclist seemed to matter not in the judges bias. The Cyclist's Touring Club are striving to get better justice and the useless CPS to pull their socks up. How they can stop bias judges making (probably) illegal statements in summing up I've no idea.

Off topic?

Maybe Hall pleaded guilty because he knew he was?

I totally agree that now DLT has been proved innocent that the state should pay some of his defence costs. I believe he had to sell his house to cover his legal fees.

As has been said before the CPS are damned if they do and damned if they don't in terms of taking a case to court.

The comments re standards at the time are interesting. I believe that a rape charge should be brought if the evidence is there and similarly in the case of sexually abusing children. However, I don't believe that bringing a charge for a celeb goosing a female is in the public interest as this behaviour, although unacceptable now, was par for the course at the time.

The unnamed Scottish band (and lets be honest, most people who watched TOTP at the time know who they are) probably had lots of opportunities to abuse under age fans. Whether thay took those opportunities is a matter for conjecture but I'm pretty sure Gary Glitter's behaviour towards children didn't only emerge later in life.

How people interact in the workplace is a bit of a minefield as these days you have different personal standards. Touching anyone I would say is an absolute no no. At a former employer I had a male MD and a female sales manager who were both very touchy-feely in their approach to other staff, often putting an arm around your shoulder as they talked to you. Even as a straight single bloke I felt uncomfortable in the female sales reps approach. She was often flirtatious in an attempt to get her way which I thought was out of order and she couldn't understand why her charms didn't work on me.

Humour on the other hand is a bit harder to put definite rules in place for as peoples sense of humour varies greatly. At the same employer as above one of the secretaries, in her 50s, had worked on military bases most of her life and had a sense of humour that was filthier than mine (and that takes some doing) while one of the other secretaries was almost Victorian in her prudishness. I think if you don't know the person you are making a remark to/telling a joke to well enough to know what the sense of humour is like then you should just keep witty remarks to yourself to avoid offence.

Some interesting points in your post which I agree with entirely.

My current job involves me going into workplaces on a daily basis often for the first time to train individuals or groups of people usually in an office environment - I'll often be in five different company's most weeks.

One thing that you learn very quickly is that you aren't paid to be a character in a play or to have a personality, not immediately anyway, which is where the whole concept of that ridiculous TV program "The Apprentice" falls flat on its arrse - if any of those contestants or even Sugar himself acted like that in a real business environment then they'd be shown the door pretty quickly or at the least ignored by their colleagues, if they were in a managerial capacity then a manager who puts on a show like some of those contestants do would certainly not motivate me, nor many others I suspect.

Keeping a business personality separate from your own character is vital and when the client is paying several hundred pounds an hour (I don't get that !) for your presence then they expect you to be precise and business-like, not a clown.

All of them grocers?
lol