Jimmy Savile 'household name' sweep

[BrilloPad]

lets hope he decides to challenge their behavior in court. He was smeared IMHO.

If he wins, will this thread be deleted?

[vetran]

If he wins, will this thread be deleted?

doubt it so many of our childhood entertainers seemed to be at it.

[Old Greg]

lets hope he decides to challenge their behavior in court. He was smeared IMHO.

I agree that's probably the case much as I can't stand the man. The sad thing for the guy is that this mud will always stick. I am happy to accept he's innocent, but would you let him babysit your kids? Still, I hope he gets his day in court to seek recompense.

[LondonManc]

I agree that's probably the case much as I can't stand the man. The sad thing for the guy is that this mud will always stick. I am happy to accept he's innocent, but would you let him babysit your kids? Still, I hope he gets his day in court to seek recompense.

He was on TV today talking about it. It's hung over him for 22 months and he's not been charged, let alone had a court case brought against him. As he has suggested should happen, you should remain anonymous until charged at the very least; I'd say until your case goes to court.

[SueEllen]

He was on TV today talking about it. It's hung over him for 22 months and he's not been charged, let alone had a court case brought against him. As he has suggested should happen, you should remain anonymous until charged at the very least; I'd say until your case goes to court.

There is a reason why they act like this.

If they couldn't announce names until people where charge the police would charge people with something just to get their names in the public domain, then drop the charges.

The police and CPS want to put the best cases forward and in the cases of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall they could only do this by announcing their names before charging them. In the case of Rolf Harris they had more victims they could use but chose the most convincing cases to put forward.

In the case of Cliff Richard the Beeb were unfair and should be sued.

[OwlHoot]

There is a reason why they act like this.

If they couldn't announce names until people where charge the police would charge people with something just to get their names in the public domain, ...

IN that case, why not withhold names until conviction, if any?

[SueEllen]

IN that case, why not withhold names until conviction, if any?

Because they want as many people to come forward as possible to save time hearing all the charges together.

There the issue of having a fair trial. For example some jurors are stupid and are influenced by what they hear in the media rather than paying attention to the evidence in front of them. Once some one is convicted the media can report exactly what happened so if there were new charges of the same nature there is a risk the person will just be found guilty or innocent due to what happened before.

A fair trial also includes not leaving people with extra charges hanging over their head for years not knowing when they will be dealt with, and not taking them to court repeatedly.

Finally it saves money for both sides.

[LondonManc]

There is a reason why they act like this.

If they couldn't announce names until people where charge the police would charge people with something just to get their names in the public domain, then drop the charges.

The police and CPS want to put the best cases forward and in the cases of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall they could only do this by announcing their names before charging them. In the case of Rolf Harris they had more victims they could use but chose the most convincing cases to put forward.

In the case of Cliff Richard the Beeb were unfair and should be sued.

Which stinks. It shouldn't have taken 22 months to confirm whether or not charges were bring brought and even now they haven't, mud sticks and people will unfortunately continue to have their suspicions about him. The only saving grace is that he's of an age where his career being over isn't going to affect him.

[Forgotmylogin]

There is a reason why they act like this.

If they couldn't announce names until people where charge the police would charge people with something just to get their names in the public domain, then drop the charges.

Except the CPS decide whether or not someone should be charged in cases like this, not the police. So no, the police wouldn't charge people "just to get their names in the public domain".
Before the CPS can decide that someone should be charged there are a number of tests the case must pass, including on the evidence (amount and validity).

So, once again, you're posting crap as if it is fact.

[SueEllen]

Except the CPS decide whether or not someone should be charged in cases like this, not the police. So no, the police wouldn't charge people "just to get their names in the public domain".
Before the CPS can decide that someone should be charged there are a number of tests the case must pass, including on the evidence (amount and validity).

So, once again, you're posting crap as if it is fact.

Really then how to you explain this case? linky