egafd.com

cockneygeezer2009 wrote:

> "Which is why the victims should never be part of the equation.
> The crime was what it was, the victims to all intents and
> purposes are irrelevant"!!??
>
> Lol. Don't think you'd be saying that if someone murdered you.
>
Since I'd be dead, I wouldn't be able to say anything ? that might please Johnson, D though...

Isn't that the problem with the law? Victims aren't considered to have any need to be involved or even considered.

The legal system was built to promote justice and has since become nothing more than a legal system which does no more than support the system without any trace of justice and ensure those who work in the legal business a exrtremely nice living from it.

No, the victim is irrelevant ? the crime is what matters because it is the crime that brought matters to court in the first place. This is also why hate crimes and victim statements are a nonsense. Isn't taken as read that someone who is a victim of crime has been traumatised by the experience? And why should one crime be punished more seriously than the same crime because of who the victim is.

Justice should be blind, which is why Lady Justice outside the Old Bailey is blindfolded.

I'm sure a certain type of person will get some vindictive pleasure from this, but it's not necessarily justice. I can't see what benefit this can be to Hall's victims so long ago either.

Justice should be blind but not deaf to its victims and generally dumb.

I'm sure a certain type of person will get some vindictive pleasure from this, but it's not necessarily justice. I can't see what benefit this can be to Hall's victims so long ago either.

Which makes you wonder if it wasnt irrelevant for it happening so long ago why has Stuart Hall been charged tried and convicted?

It doesnt matter what the year is, if the guilty party is alive and it took this long to get them to answer for their crimes then justice is still doing what it is meant to be doing

But the crime is the reason for the court case ? not the victim. The statute book says murder is against the Queen's peace. It doesn't say the murder of xxx is against the Queen's peace. This is why the judiciary should be as dispassionate as possible.

I have to agree with Number Six and Andy on this one. Several aspects of
Hall`s case worry me.....for starters its all based on things that happened
forty years ago ! The old guy, who is in his eighties, says he pleaded
guilty (ie the case was not heard in detail) because at his age he wanted it
over and done with. He may have thought he would get off with a stiff fine
or six months inside, given his age (and the sad end to his career in TV
broadcasting). Because someone pleads guilty is no certainty they did it.
That's part of the problem with a guilty plea.
All these old old cases thrown up by the Saville enquiry allow the accusers
anonymity while having a grand time slinging mud at famous people. Justice
must be done, I accept, if... if...if... the defendants are guilty, but justice
should also be SEEN to be done and these old cases leave a bad odour.
Personally I find it astonishing that sufficient witnesses, sufficient evidence,
a real watertight case, was not made against Hall in the 1970s....any ruddy
complainant who takes over 40 years to decide if she wants to make a case
against him seems an odd lady to me.

Essex Lad is talking nonsense. This is what victim statements are about.



They are much more far reaching with multiple objectives and not just about a victim talking about how they have been affected by a crime - as important as those thoughts are. Victim statements were provided as part of the Stuart Hall trial and quite right too.

Essex Lad has a track record for talking rubbish on legal matters e.g. "But innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction."

an idea which I trashed here

Frank:

Because someone pleads guilty is no certainty they did it.

Nope not me. if I aint guilty Im tearing up the city in protest it isnt me (I'm from Tottenham too can't you tell) I aint going down quietly so it will go away. I dont buy it and I cant identify with that.

I'm not that kind of guy to bury my head in the sand as some people have found out. If this is what Stuart Hall did then he had it coming to him