RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (Full Version)

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics



Message


elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/5/2013 6:44:08 AM)

The Moderation Team are dealing with this - so moving on [:)]




Alistair81 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/5/2013 11:26:03 AM)

quote:

Plus how do we know that at the time of these incidents the girl/s didn't possible encourage or maybe even enjoy what happened?? Maybe after the incident they realised what they had done and then decided they didn't like it?.


The thing that gets me about this statement is that even if this actually happened at the time of the offence (I'm referring to the older adolescents not nine year olds) it does not excuse the fact that a person in a position of responsibility/power etc. has totally abused that position. It is not good enough to say you just couldn't resist - it is you responsibility to do so and in not doing so you are acting in a totally inexcusable way and deserve to be punished for it. It is actually a total irrelevance - just because he/she "was asking for it" does not mean you should give in to them and to try to rationalise it in that fashion is mind blowing - yet it comes up time and again. It is conceivable that a 14 or 15 year old might want to become sexually active with an older person but there is no way that the older person is acting in the child's best interest if they were to agree, and if they did so they would still be committing a crime of abuse - it's cut and dry. How rational people continue to offer this as an excuse is beyond me (and it is not just sociopaths that do so).




Dpp1978 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/5/2013 1:21:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

I have to actually agree here. I have heard some genuine horror stories about jurors (from people who work directly in that area) and the decisions they make, and it is true that in complex cases some are genuinely intellectually and emotionally incapable of coping. Sadly a lot see it as a burden rather than a civic duty and just want a verdict to get out of there. A jury is very much a Russian roulette situation and some are great with people who look at the evidence and make informed decisions, others are car crashes where they just utilise their opinion and what the person looks look to make a conclusion.


There is a reason that lawyers will often advise clients to opt for a trial in the Crown Court even where trial by magistrate is available. While the potential sentences available may be greater, the likelihood of an acquittal is increased. Magistrates are generally (to make a sweeping generalisation) case hardened and possibly jaded: they see many cases. They are far less likely to be swayed by even genuine emotional arguments as they have heard them all before.

Jurors may only ever be called on to serve once in their lives. They are more susceptible to emotional argument: especially where the defendant is particularly sympathetic or repulsive. Sometimes objectivity goes out the window and the guilty go free or the innocent are sent down. Many find it difficult to take away a person's liberty.

There is a reason that no-one has ever sanctioned a study on how rational/emotional the decisions of juries are. It'd open a real can of worms. It is a hugely flawed system but one which would be very hard politically to get rid of. It forms the cornerstone of the public perception of public justice; it is the plebs not the learned few who have the power to decide. It is a powerful symbol of democratic principles in action.

This potential lack of objectivity is largely why juries were abolished for the vast majority of civil cases. We keep it, and will probably always keep it, for criminal trials for the benefit of public justice (as opposed to private justice in most civil cases) but there is strong theoretical argument that a professional body of jurists would be a more effective way of coming to objective decisions as to guilt.



One of the interesting things about these cases is how some of them would have lapsed due to the effluxion of time elsewhere in the world. Most countries have a limitation period, after which any charge is barred by statute. In the EU the average limitation period for bringing a charge for sexual offences is 12 years after the event and in the US I believe it is 5 years. There are provisions for extending or suspending the limitation period for certain crimes (sexual abuse against children for example) but it has to be applied for. In the UK there is no statute of limitations for criminal acts, which is why a lot of these cases are decades old without any issue of time barring them. Evidentially they may be hard to prove, especially where the evidence is entirely based on 30+ year old testimony, but there is no legal bar on them proceeding.

I read an article before this particular storm broke advocating a statute of limitations on these sorts of cases. I wonder if the author has since changed his mind. I dread to think what the public opinion would have been had these cases been brought to light and the perpetrators been untouchable on a technicality.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/5/2013 1:35:27 PM)

I was slightly gobsmacked by those 12/5 year limits until I got to the bit about an applied for exemption for child abuse. The latter time limit wouldn't be long enough for many abused to come of an age to realise what had happened to them.




Dpp1978 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/5/2013 2:16:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I was slightly gobsmacked by those 12/5 year limits until I got to the bit about an applied for exemption for child abuse. The latter time limit wouldn't be long enough for many abused to come of an age to realise what had happened to them.


Generally with kids (at least in England) the clock doesn't start to tick until they reach the age of majority. I suspect, but don't know, that is the case elsewhere. In the US I know the clock can be extended almost indefinitely for child abuse cases: certainly for the duration of the victim's life.

This still wouldn't protect those who were young adults, over the age of majority but still vulnerable, who were preyed on by those in positions of trust. In such cases once the clock ran out there would be very little that could be done.




Goodfella -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 1:34:08 PM)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22932222

15 months? Seriously? Is that it?

For sexually abusing girls for a continuous period of almost 20 years, with the youngest aged just 9 at the time of the assault! Surely I can't be the only one who looks at this sentence and thinks that it is disgustingly pathetic, I don't care how long ago the crimes were and I am stunned by his defence solicitor's argument that "13 isn't as bad as a possible 1,300 for which Saville is accused."

He'll most likely be out in far less than 15 as well, as we all know too well.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 2:08:16 PM)

I'm very shocked at how short the sentence is, for really the same reasons. Length of time in which criminal activity took place, a charge of rape staying on the file, all of it.




thatlittlemonkey -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 3:20:29 PM)

Please, don't for a second, believe that I am excusing the crimes or the length of the sentence (he should have far more), but I would imagine that his age would be a big factor in this. After all, at 83, 15 months could end up being a life sentence. However, it was not nearly as long as it should've been.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 3:49:42 PM)

But longevity is increasing, not decreasing. He's a relatively well-off first world male. There was no reported health issue made in court as part of a plea. I really doubt 15mths is close to a life sentence.

The judge seemed to be overly interested in the sentences at the time of the crimes - surely entirely irrelevant? If older generations didn't appropriately punish criminals that's their problem, and not one we should consider.




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 4:04:07 PM)

The sentence is going to be reviewed...

http://news.sky.com/story/1104682/stuart-hall-attorney-general-reviews-sentence




Ref -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 4:07:57 PM)

I can't believe the sentencing either. 15 months?! It's disgraceful how short that is. I don't care if he's in his 80s, he should be serving a sentence that fits the crime(s).

[:@]




jonson -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 4:10:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

The judge seemed to be overly interested in the sentences at the time of the crimes - surely entirely irrelevant?


Wow. So whenever anyone harps back to the "good old days" we can safely assume they mean back when fiddling with 9 years olds wasn't really that bad.

I wonder also if the sentence was purposely short so that any other potential and accused "celebrities" plead guilty a bit quicker, thus saving a lot of time and expense.
Assuming they are guilty, of course.
When I heard it on Radio 5 I honestly thought when they said 15 they'd follow it up with "years" not months.




galvatron -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 4:14:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

The judge seemed to be overly interested in the sentences at the time of the crimes - surely entirely irrelevant?


Wow. So whenever anyone harps back to the "good old days" we can safely assume they mean back when fiddling with 9 years olds wasn't really that bad.

I wonder also if the sentence was purposely short so that any other potential and accused "celebrities" plead guilty a bit quicker, thus saving a lot of time and expense.
Assuming they are guilty, of course.
When I heard it on Radio 5 I honestly thought when they said 15 they'd follow it up with "years" not months.



I was also aghast at hearing 'months'. One of them was 9 years old FFS! Didn't that kid who stole mineral water in the riots get 18 months?!




Sinatra -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 4:30:28 PM)


quote:

Didn't that kid who stole mineral water in the riots get 18 months?!


To be fair, they should have away the key, if you're going to nick drink during a riot at least make sure it's booze! [:-]




thatlittlemonkey -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 4:41:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

But longevity is increasing, not decreasing. He's a relatively well-off first world male. There was no reported health issue made in court as part of a plea. I really doubt 15mths is close to a life sentence.

The judge seemed to be overly interested in the sentences at the time of the crimes - surely entirely irrelevant? If older generations didn't appropriately punish criminals that's their problem, and not one we should consider.


Maybe wishful thinking then... [:D]

The fact that the sentence is going to be reviewed is interesting - obviously the hope is that they'll give him longer. The time when the offences occurred or (if the defence were to lead us to believe) the volume in comparison, shouldn't be a factor. That's 13 lives he's wrecked.




Goodfella -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (17/6/2013 8:38:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thatlittlemonkey

Please, don't for a second, believe that I am excusing the crimes or the length of the sentence (he should have far more), but I would imagine that his age would be a big factor in this. After all, at 83, 15 months could end up being a life sentence. However, it was not nearly as long as it should've been.


It could, it could not, however if you are going to operate age into sentencing, then why isn't age also reflective, then, and I don't fully agree with this myself but not for the reasons you may think, in the victims of the crime for which he is being sentenced. One was as young as 9 years old, I'd say that is about as defenceless for a victim as you can get and one who has, whether or not and we obviously don't know the long-term effects, had her life shattered by this, even if she was perhaps young enough that it has not figured into her psychology as perhaps as if she was 21 and sexually assaulted but that is really my point, it should be totally irrelevant but if it is then what about those things being taken into factor as well? Also, he wasn't 83 when he committed the crimes, for so long he has gotten away with these heinous acts, presumably protected to a degree but his position of power and influence, but when we won't get into that too much until the full enquiry into the BBC in relation to these kind of cases is complete.

A drug syndicate working out of London that supplied Class A drugs in large-scale operations to several parts of south-west England including Plymouth and Bristol saw several of it's high-ranking perpetrators sentenced to between 18 and 21 years in prison today. Rightly so, a thoroughly-deserving sentence and I am in no ways suggesting that because they were not directly responsible for the ill-health, injury, pain and misery that drugs of this type inflict on people's lives and all those around them, as well as sometimes fatalities, this makes them less partially responsible but the nature is similar in the essence of cause to effect so I would ask why the sentenced handed to Stuart Hall doesn't reflect this line of thinking more? I heard the report on the radio and the judge in question handing down the sentences to the drug-dealers to that very approach of the traumatic effect that they had so heartlessly contributed to people's lives (contributed as well, drug addicts make a starting choice that ultimately leads down a road in the majority of cases, those sexually abused as children, actually those who suffer any form of sexual abuse, don't) and had done it purely for their own personal gain, in this case, money, in the case of someone sexually abusing children, well anywhere you want to put it really, a widely-debated issue, personal satisfaction? Power? Twisted and evil sexual arousal? Who knows. But the point is although these two different sentences may be different in their very nature, they are not in the motives of the perpetrators necessarily and the possible effects and outcomes for the victims, so where does the difference come in them then?

I have never heard of any judge taking into consideration the sentencing of crimes of that nature at the time they were committed either when cases come to court like in these circumstances either, sentencing is often reviewed with regards to the different types of crimes committed, especially in the wake of recent concerns over prison populations, which in my personal opinion is a cheap and awful reason to review sentencing in this country because frankly it shows what I have often felt about the government and the CPS that the victim, and they are not still alleged at this stage, the accused has been convicted, but the victim is still not the priority and we have a justice system loaded in the criminals favour but that's getting slightly off topic.

I hope the review goes through and the current sentence is overturned and replaced with one that better fits the crime, and if that means Stuart Hall passes away in the prison that is the price you pay for the disgusting crimes you commit, and he should feel lucky he got to see so much of his life in the meantime given what he'd done but finally and thankfully he's been prosecuted and now he should face the full extent of the law. regardless of his current personal circumstances.




Mister Coe -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (18/6/2013 10:26:27 PM)

Now, I may be mis-remembering this from the free METRO newspaper on the train this morning, but I seem to recall one of the victims, who was 13 at the time, had permission given by her parents to let SH bathe her, during which he molested her.

13. Parents. Bathing.

I REALLY hope I've got this wrong because I cannot believe a mum and dad would let their little girl get groped by someone because he was famous and 'respected'.

Hall belongs in Hell, but what's the deal with the parents?




MonsterCat -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (18/6/2013 10:39:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Now, I may be mis-remembering this from the free METRO newspaper on the train this morning, but I seem to recall one of the victims, who was 13 at the time, had permission given by her parents to let SH bathe her, during which he molested her.

13. Parents. Bathing.

I REALLY hope I've got this wrong because I cannot believe a mum and dad would let their little girl get groped by someone because he was famous and 'respected'.

Hall belongs in Hell, but what's the deal with the parents?


I'm sure it didn't cross their minds that a celebrity would risk his career so he could fuck little kids. Also, did he have a personal connection with the parents?




Shifty Bench -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (18/6/2013 11:00:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Now, I may be mis-remembering this from the free METRO newspaper on the train this morning, but I seem to recall one of the victims, who was 13 at the time, had permission given by her parents to let SH bathe her, during which he molested her.

13. Parents. Bathing.

I REALLY hope I've got this wrong because I cannot believe a mum and dad would let their little girl get groped by someone because he was famous and 'respected'.

Hall belongs in Hell, but what's the deal with the parents?


Yeah, that actually happened. They spoke about it on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 today.




Mister Coe -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/6/2013 1:19:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Now, I may be mis-remembering this from the free METRO newspaper on the train this morning, but I seem to recall one of the victims, who was 13 at the time, had permission given by her parents to let SH bathe her, during which he molested her.

13. Parents. Bathing.

I REALLY hope I've got this wrong because I cannot believe a mum and dad would let their little girl get groped by someone because he was famous and 'respected'.

Hall belongs in Hell, but what's the deal with the parents?


Yeah, that actually happened. They spoke about it on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2 today.


Fucking hell. I don't have a 13-year old daughter but if I did, I wouldn't want to be in the bathroom whilst she was bathing. Much less let a grown man, friend-of-the-family or not, 'bathe' her.

So fucking wrong...




Goodfella -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (19/6/2013 2:39:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Now, I may be mis-remembering this from the free METRO newspaper on the train this morning, but I seem to recall one of the victims, who was 13 at the time, had permission given by her parents to let SH bathe her, during which he molested her.

13. Parents. Bathing.

I REALLY hope I've got this wrong because I cannot believe a mum and dad would let their little girl get groped by someone because he was famous and 'respected'.

Hall belongs in Hell, but what's the deal with the parents?


I'm sure it didn't cross their minds that a celebrity would risk his career so he could fuck little kids. Also, did he have a personal connection with the parents?


I agree, I'm surprised at the decision by the parents still of course, in this modern-age it strikes as odd to say the least, but this was a different era and we don't know the context of this either, I'm not sure will have gone, "So, can I bath your young _______?" "Of course you can Stuart."

Do we know when the sentencing review is likely to take place?




jonson -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (26/7/2013 1:56:08 PM)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23460778

Stuart Halls' sentence doubled to 30 months. Wow. [8|]
That might see the old fucker off though.




Mister Coe -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (27/7/2013 10:30:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jonson

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23460778

Stuart Halls' sentence doubled to 30 months. Wow. [8|]
That might see the old fucker off though.


Nah. They'll keep him nice and safe in the nonce wing, with TV and a rug and everything.

Evil bastards are people too, they have human rights and need to be treated like little cherubs, didn't you know?

[sm=fighting01.gif]




DancingClown -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (11/8/2013 11:19:48 AM)

Utter twat:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23653172




Skiba -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (11/8/2013 1:08:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DancingClown

Utter twat:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23653172

Bloody hell...young girls may well throw themselves at famous people but they then have the responsibilty to act the correct way.

He also goes on to trivialise mental health issues with his "thoughts about suicide". Cunt




emogeek -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/8/2013 12:19:59 PM)

Rolf charged...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23880768





James2183 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/8/2013 1:12:50 PM)

Brings a whole new meaning to "Can you guess what is it yet?" [&:]




great_badir -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/8/2013 1:40:46 PM)

Also explains all those noises.

Have to say I'm shocked and disappointed, if it is indeed true (no mention of him denying the allegations this time, although it is early days in his arrest I guess).

Still not quite sure what is meant by "making" indecent images(?). I say that cos some of you may remember earlier this year I had a paranoid brick-shitting moment when I was searching online for some (Japanese) make-up for my niece (her favourite brand), which unfortunately in English shares the exact same name of a type of website that might have included the likes of Saville, Hall and (allegedly) Harris amongst its members. "Safe search" my ass.

In other words, I'm shitting bricks again...




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/8/2013 5:38:32 PM)

As I understand it the law can be either taking photographs but also includes if a person is storing images on a computer having downloaded them from the internet.




Hood_Man -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/8/2013 5:57:02 PM)

I don't think I can really put into words how this makes me feel. Disappointed is probably the closest at the moment, I was hoping the past few months that this would turn out to be a case of him helping the police with their investigations or something.




Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125