Jimmy Savile 'household name' sweep

[ZARDOZ]

Truely shocking. My Father once worked with him and at the time commented what a nice chap he was. I suppose these people have to be convincing to get the opportunity to commit the crimes.

[stek]

Jimmy Savile 'household name' sweep

I'm watching as much Morecambe and Wise as I can just in case...

[Troll]

Sticking your hand up a 9 year old's skirt? He really, really, should be locked away for good.

9 is a whole different ball game..nuts smashed between 2 bricks and thrown to the wolves for starters

[stek]

Jimmy Savile 'household name' sweep

At least it's to his credit that he pleaded guilty.

I'm still hoping Rolf's innocent.

He denied it originally..

[NickFitz]

I'm all for Anonymity unless approved by a court.

Food for thought: Stuart Hall was initially charged with three offences. Once that fact had been made public, other victims came forward and within a few weeks he was charged with a further fifteen offences.

If he had been granted anonymity on the first three charges, the other offences would not have come to light until after his conviction, at which point the authorities might have been unwilling to shell out for a second trial. So he would have got off much more lightly at sentencing than he presumably will.

[vetran]

Food for thought: Stuart Hall was initially charged with three offences. Once that fact had been made public, other victims came forward and within a few weeks he was charged with a further fifteen offences.

If he had been granted anonymity on the first three charges, the other offences would not have come to light until after his conviction, at which point the authorities might have been unwilling to shell out for a second trial. So he would have got off much more lightly at sentencing than he presumably will.

If as suggested there were reasonable grounds to suspect he was a serial offender and the accusations were credible then the Police could go to a Judge and request removal of anonymity.

Currently the Police can release the name with little or no restraint.

I'm talking about a person of previously spotless character being accused completely out of the blue with no forensic or other corroborating evidence, which has happened and ruins the person's life. The Accuser has since been locked up but the accused will never work in a CRB checked or high profile job again.

We are all wondering if Rolf is innocent, if he is then he will never remove the stain, he has no recourse and basically he is stuffed for any type of protected employment. Imagine if you didn't have his money but were accused like him, where would you work, how would you rebuild your family & friends?

He may turn out to be a ponce & a rapist in which case that is very sad and needs to be locked up.

Its a process not a prohibition.

[vetran]

I know its a DM link but I suspect its actually true. They were jailed.

Teenage girls are jailed for falsely accusing father of two of flashing at them in revenge for long-running family dispute | Mail Online

[vetran]

or this


Anonymous protester who stayed at Occupy London camp outside St Paul's Cathedral is cleared of raping woman in one of the tents | Mail Online

She said he attacked her twice in her tent in January but waited six months to report it to police.

Mr Blackman, of Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, denied the allegations. He told the jury that he did not go into the woman's tent to attack her.

'That simply did not happen,' he said.

He stated the woman was angry about a new relationship he had started with another protester.

'I wanted to leave. I was beginning to feel uncomfortable with the situation. I wanted to leave but I was prevented. She shoved me back with both hands.'
...
Mr Blackman said she shoved him again and he had to call out for help to leave the tent. He said he did not return to the tent and went home to Somerset until February 7 when he came back to the camp.

He said he eventually left for good on February 26, the day after he claimed the complainant punched him and also hit his new lover. Outside court, Mr Blackman said he did not think the case should have been brought.

'There was never any evidence of crime,' he said.

That's two in a week.

[NickFitz]

I'm talking about a person of previously spotless character being accused completely out of the blue with no forensic or other corroborating evidence, which has happened and ruins the person's life.

Isn't that exactly what happened in the case of Stuart Hall?

[vetran]

Isn't that exactly what happened in the case of Stuart Hall?

was there any corroborating evidence (multiple complaints at different times would be a good example or validated objective witnesses)

In which case they could apply to the court to reveal the accused's name.

At the point where they charge the accused then I see no reason to unreasonably withhold the name.

As its unlikely the trial will start for at least 6 months or more then there is plenty of time for other alleged victims to come forward.

However I would expect in cases like the ones I linked to for a reprimand to be placed on the investigating officers record if the accused is completely cleared and the complainant to be fully prosecuted for false accusations.

Blackstone's formulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I say its a process not a prohibition.