egafd.com

"I think the Savile scandal has influenced the CPS in making a political decision to bring these cases so that when the individual gets off, at least the CPS can say that unlike Savile, the police and CPS tried their best."

You may well be correct.

It's a bloody difficult one. "People accused of such things should not be publicly named until they have actually been convicted".

This makes total sense. The situation in these cases is totally unresolvable for victims and perpetrators under our present law. Statute of limitations then or the "victims" should keep their mouths shut.

cockneygeezer2009 wrote:

> "I think the Savile scandal has influenced the CPS in making a
> political decision to bring these cases so that when the
> individual gets off, at least the CPS can say that unlike
> Savile, the police and CPS tried their best."
>
> You may well be correct.
>
>

Again, that was the view of Jim Davidsons lawyer. "All complaints are taken as statement of fact, guilty until proven innocent is the mantra, put everything before the courts to say that we did our bit, we can't be blamed for anything from there on" (not verbatim)

Unfortunately, they are getting blamed for not testing the 'evidence' which is being ripped apart in court, but obviously not before the damage is done to the defendant.

This is a difficult one. I can see both sides of the argument. However, I think that the identity of the person arrested for sexual offences should only be divulged when they are actually charged rather than when they are arrested.

That way, there is pressure on the police to properly investigate the claims made by the accusers e.g. which year was it!!!!!. What appears to happen at the moment is

1. Someone accuses a celeb or Joe Public.
2. They arrest the person accused seemingly without doing much in the way of checks on the accuser's story.
3. The police release the name of the person arrested and thus go on a fishing trip, particularly with celebs to see if anyone else comes along who they can use to support a potential case which otherwise might not go to trial.

I also think that the UK is very much the exception in terms of having no time limitations on how long it can be before sexual assault accusations can be brought. As I said elsewhere if accusers can't even remember what year it was, never mind what day, then this seems to go against natural justice in terms of allowing the accused to put together a proper defence.

People have made some sensible and succinct comments. However i would like to point out there was no evidence against Jimmy Saville either. I can't see the difference between Saville and any other celeb. So you have to be dead to be guilty? Saville was not tried in a court of law but has been found guilty. If he was alive today would he be prosecuted? Due to some people's love of celebs i don't think he would be convicted. As some say, he said, she said, no evidence, can't remember exact dates, happened long ago, what wrong with a good grope etc.

Stuart Hall must be well pissed off knowing his 'celeb status' would have protected him.

As for dates and times, i was thinking about all the times i've had sexual encounters. I can't remember the time, day, date, month or year of most of them. In some cases can't remember my age, the female's age and/or their names. So does that mean sex never took place with these females then?

I agree there is a witchhunt against the celebs who have allegedly committed the worst or the most historical sex offences.

No evidence and he said, she said which is similar to rape cases. There is a low conviction rate for rape. So it should be the same in historical sex abuse cases but what i want to know is will the conviction rate be even lower in celeb historical sex abuse cases?

"However i would like to point out there was no evidence against Jimmy Saville either."
This is incorrect. There is what could be termed "evidence" but no trial or conviction for the obvious reason which meant that this "evidence" was not tested in court.. Obviously, because there is no law of libel against the dead, you find the media making all kinds of assumptions e.g. Jimmy Savile was the worst paedophile ever etc.

"I can't see the difference between Saville and any other celeb."
Surely this is obvious. Savile is dead. The celebs brought to trial aren't.

"So you have to be dead to be guilty?"
No, ask Stuart Hall.

"Saville was not tried in a court of law but has been found guilty."
No. THis is incorrect. He has clearly not been found "guilty" other than in the eyes of the media and it is this "guilt" that in my view has influenced the police and the CPS in how they have handled subsequent cases.

"Stuart Hall must be well pissed off knowing his 'celeb status' would have protected him."
No. This is incorrect. There was a great deal of corroboration between the stories told by accusers who had not known each other. I suspect that Hall realised that he was on a loser so decided to plead guilty in the hope of a lesser sentence.

"As for dates and times, i was thinking about all the times i've had sexual encounters. I can't remember the time, day, date, month or year of most of them."
This does not strike me as a very sensible comment. If you had been raped i.e. a violent, horrible, unpleasant assault potentially having terrible psychological effects, you would be much more likely to remember the details including the time, perpertrator, location etc. Surely?

"I agree there is a witchhunt against the celebs who have allegedly committed the worst or the most historical sex offences. "
I do not think witchhunt is the right term. What I do think is that there has been shedloads of media and political criticism arising over the Savile scenario and the paedophile grooming rings in various parts of the country in which complaints have not been take seriously at all. Tthe police and CPS have now over-compensated in order to appear squeaky clean.

"So it should be the same in historical sex abuse cases but what i want to know is will the conviction rate be even lower in celeb historical sex abuse cases?"

No. It is all about the quality of the case/evidence put forward by the CPS.

There are some very plausible arguments in your retort David but it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm sure this topic will resurface when the next 'celeb' is found not guilty or guilty.

Agreed!! Cheers.