egafd.com

Youre accusers have got to face you at some point in a court of law. As adults they cant be anonymous

I'm not saying Hall's crimes are "irrelevant" because they happened a long time ago, or that he should not have been charged with them. I do think his sentence, considering he's now a geriatric, reflects the hysteria of the times while the increase contains an element of pandering to the mob and that's not justice.

Certainly not where Trayvon Martin was concerned but then the opposite may have been in effect

Essex Lad 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.


A remarkably heartless statement.

If victims of crime are ignored and not allowed a voice they tend to feel that they have been victimised a second time.

"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".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can't believe you put that on a forum. Makes you look like you're in favour of sexual abuse.

JamesW wrote:

> Essex Lad 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.
>
>
> A remarkably heartless statement.
>
> If victims of crime are ignored and not allowed a voice they
> tend to feel that they have been victimised a second time.
>
Why is it heartless? What evidence do you have that victims feel that they have been victimised a second time? We seemed to have a reasonable legal system before the advent of witness statements. It had faults but was better than most.

Another example: If you invest in a company and one of the directors steals all the money, do you feel better if as well as giving evidence you can emote about what an affect it has had on your life?

David Johnson wrote:

> 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.

From that site: The victim personal statement (VPS) scheme gives victims an opportunity to describe the wider effects of the crime upon them, express their concerns and indicate whether or not they require any support.

Johnson, you really need to read what you post before posting it.


>
> 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
>
>

Er. no you didn't trash it. Mainly because it is true. You do not seem to be able to grasp a simple fact. There are many legal fictions in our society that for the most part do not affect how we live.

Example: The Guinness Book of Answers (p542) 7th edition on the list of British monarchs.

The book lists their dates of birth, marriages, reign and death and relevant notes.

In the case of King James II, it says " James was deemed by legal fiction to have ended his reign 11 Dec 1688 by flight."
See those words "legal fiction" ? it means something is legally assumed. It doesn't mean that it is true.

My point "innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction" does not in any way affect the right to a fair trial by a jury of one's peers. It merely states that if someone was assumed to be innocent why have they been charged in the first place?

Did the police arrest Nicky Jacobs because they think he is innocent or because they believe he is guilty? If they arrested him because they think he is innocent then we have a corrupt police force and judicial system. If they arrested him because they think he is guilty, it does not affect any aspect of his trial, merely that they do not believe him to be innocent, therefore innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction.

It's a simple point so I don't expect Johnson to be able to get this thick head around it.

one eyed jack wrote:

> Youre accusers have got to face you at some point in a court of
> law. As adults they cant be anonymous
>
Actually, I believe in some cases they can give evidence from behind a screen visible only to judge and jury.

!laugh! !laugh!

Absolutely pathetic. Really puerile.

You are a waste of oxygen.