ChatterBank2 mins ago
Stuart Hall Admits Indecent Assaults
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Now it turns out that some of the victims were daughters of his friends. The parents knew of the assaults, but chose to take no action apart from keeping their daughters away from him [source for this claim : Sky News]. And people are wondering why sexual assaults were not reported at the time.There's one reason.
He's done himself harm by his eloquent denials after arrest, accusing the complainants of being false accusers. If the judge sees that, it'll make the plea of guilty not look worthy of much of a discount (if I were prosecuting, I'd quote the defendant's words then in opening the case, just to make sure the judge had a full picture. You know, duty to the court and all that)
He's done himself harm by his eloquent denials after arrest, accusing the complainants of being false accusers. If the judge sees that, it'll make the plea of guilty not look worthy of much of a discount (if I were prosecuting, I'd quote the defendant's words then in opening the case, just to make sure the judge had a full picture. You know, duty to the court and all that)
Actually to take you up on this Freddie
I think time does dull memories.....
recollect that Magistrate Bartells threw out the indictments against all those poor police who may or may not have framed the B'ham bombers on the grounds that 15 yr was too long ago....to get justice.
and also I think we are back to confessions alone as a basis for conviction for serious offences EVEN tho' we know that this may result in dubious convictions. see above
and finally I think depresssed old men DO confess to things they didnt do.
My example for this is the prime minister who suicided in 1822 (is that long enough ago for you ?) - and HE confessed to the sins of the Bishop of Clodagh before he erm cut his own throat. Obviously untrue - people had been watching him too closely as they thought he was going mad.
The B of C had been convicted of... well ... kissing men sort of , a few months previously.
as for people really getting it wrong over forty years - look at the trial of John Demjanuk - the fella who identified JD as Ivan the terrible and said "yes yes that is him !" was confronted with an affidavit from 1946 saying the fella had killed him at the end of the war. oops
One of my colleagues said in a completely unconnected case; "if you really want to know what happened at 6.30 on that day, you really shouldnt me asking me five years later."
The case ground on of course, as justice demanded.
I think time does dull memories.....
recollect that Magistrate Bartells threw out the indictments against all those poor police who may or may not have framed the B'ham bombers on the grounds that 15 yr was too long ago....to get justice.
and also I think we are back to confessions alone as a basis for conviction for serious offences EVEN tho' we know that this may result in dubious convictions. see above
and finally I think depresssed old men DO confess to things they didnt do.
My example for this is the prime minister who suicided in 1822 (is that long enough ago for you ?) - and HE confessed to the sins of the Bishop of Clodagh before he erm cut his own throat. Obviously untrue - people had been watching him too closely as they thought he was going mad.
The B of C had been convicted of... well ... kissing men sort of , a few months previously.
as for people really getting it wrong over forty years - look at the trial of John Demjanuk - the fella who identified JD as Ivan the terrible and said "yes yes that is him !" was confronted with an affidavit from 1946 saying the fella had killed him at the end of the war. oops
One of my colleagues said in a completely unconnected case; "if you really want to know what happened at 6.30 on that day, you really shouldnt me asking me five years later."
The case ground on of course, as justice demanded.
Its obvious that there are many more convictions out there, just waiting for court time. Anybody who behaved as Hall did deserves no iota of public sympathy whatsoever.
But the issue of why these crimes went 30, 40 and even 50 years, without coming to the surface still hasn't been addressed. People like Saville and the other perverts carried on regardless. It has been said that if young children had come forward and complained, no one would have believed them. But many DID complain and still nothing was done, especially in the case of Saville.
I hope things have changed now.
But the issue of why these crimes went 30, 40 and even 50 years, without coming to the surface still hasn't been addressed. People like Saville and the other perverts carried on regardless. It has been said that if young children had come forward and complained, no one would have believed them. But many DID complain and still nothing was done, especially in the case of Saville.
I hope things have changed now.
I wish people would stop using euphemisms like ' dirty old man' - that to me conjures up some pervy old man looking at porn- these people we are talking about are paedophiles, rapists and violent sex attackers- I think to give them the term ' dirty old men' does dirty old men everywhere a great disservice and dilutes what they have actually done.
I hope there isn't now going to be talk of compensation, if so, why? The excuse that it is to ensure justice is done doesn't wash, justice has been done unlike Jimmy Saville, as Stuart Hall has gone to trial will be sentenced later. If the victims receive thousands of pounds will it suddenly make them feel better and forget about what they have been through? No. As I said justice has been done, no need for any big wads of cash to be thrown around.
Compensation for someone else's negligence or deliberate harm is not a new concept Dave. Have a look at this 1932 case for example http://
The law would like to be able to put the victim in the position they had been in had the act complained of not occurred. It can't do that because it has no magic wand. The best it can do is to provide monetary compensation.
The law would like to be able to put the victim in the position they had been in had the act complained of not occurred. It can't do that because it has no magic wand. The best it can do is to provide monetary compensation.
That's a real lawyer's case, Donoghue v Stevenson, BM. All the way through the courts, earning a lot of fees, on the preliminary point of liability for a snail being in a bottle, and, when the case finally came to trial, the judge found that there was never a snail in the first place [Megarry LJ researched it]. Those are the kind of litigants we ought to breed from!
Latest Posts
Is Labour Starting To Abolish Democracy...
News19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles33 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles47 mins ago
ChatterBank48 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News63 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.