BOF Posted January 23, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 23, 2013 I posted something in here along those lines before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 23, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 23, 2013 We can only hope the police know what they're doing :shock: Its not the police's job, they just record complaint, investigate and pass evidence on to the Crown Prosecution Service. It's the CPS that decide whether there is enough evidence to take it to trial with a reasonable chance of a conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Its not the police's job, they just record complaint, investigate and pass evidence on to the Crown Prosecution Service. It's the CPS that decide whether there is enough evidence to take it to trial with a reasonable chance of a conviction. "reasonable" in this case being >50% so as dear as makes no difference to a coin toss in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 23, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 23, 2013 Its not the police's job, they just record complaint, investigate and pass evidence on to the Crown Prosecution Service. It's the CPS that decide whether there is enough evidence to take it to trial with a reasonable chance of a conviction. Well then I meant CPS. Whoever it is that makes the decision. I hope they know what they're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 One of the alleged indecent assaults Stuart Hall has been charged with happened 45 years ago! The rape 36 years ago As has been mentioned above, what evidence have the CPS seen that has persuaded them to seek a criminal conviction. The prosecution now has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. Bar him admitting it, i can't see how they will be able to do that? I'm guessing there can be no forensic evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted January 23, 2013 Administrator Share Posted January 23, 2013 Admission is not evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 One of the alleged indecent assaults Stuart Hall has been charged with happened 45 years ago! The rape 36 years ago As has been mentioned above, what evidence have the CPS seen that has persuaded them to seek a criminal conviction. The prosecution now has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. Bar him admitting it, i can't see how they will be able to do that? I'm guessing there can be no forensic evidence Indeed. Very intrigued with how all of this is going to play out. I wish I had the time or the inclination to sit in on some of these trials, I will be following from afar with interest. I wouldn't like to guess anything, personally. I should think all of these cases will hinge on the prosecutions ability to spin circumstantial evidence as cold, hard fact. They're pretty **** good these lawyers, I've met a few in my time. They know their shit and us being archair judges on VT is ultimately pointless. Not that I don't enjoy reading opinion. In my opinion he's guilty as sin. Most of them are and thank the imaginary man in the sky that it has become much harder over the years and especially now for scum like that to get away with these crimes. That's the bitterest pill for me to swallow, that the BBC in particular could have kicked this all off many, many years ago and chose not to. You can't take back what has happened but you can punish, rehabilitate and prevent. How many have suffered unnecessarily because of their actions? The BBC still has a lot to answer for in my opinion. Whether we'll ever get that answer is looking more and more unlikely by the day. I'll not be paying my license fee until we do and I'm happy to see them in court and tell them why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 don't pay your income tax either, because the CPS and the police and the nhs did **** all either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 24, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2013 In my opinion he's guilty as sin.I'm curious. Why do you think him guilty? Me having seen him cop off with Gays on a Sunday night, I'm somewhat sceptical in Stuart Hall's case. I'm not sure the BBC have any responsibility as far as Hall's alleged victims are concernedSavile, yep, we can all see that one, Glitter even has convictions for it, Freddy Star? Not so sure at all, from what I know of the man, he's a prize twunt but not a paedo. DLT was always known as a serial sex pest at the BBC (but not a paedo) but the bloke who shall remain nameless but ties his kangaroo down nah can't see that one either.I think I'll wait until we've had some trials before I form an opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I'm not sure Bicks. I guess it's the manner of these allegations. My opinion is based on very little at all but I think that stands for most of us. I'm pretty sure that's what I've tried to outline in my opening paragraph or two as well. The BBC could have blown the lid on this filthy underworld a very, very long time ago. Maybe it wouldn't have made a difference, but I doubt that. If it had stopped one human being suffering at the hands of Glitter, Savile or whoever it would have been worth it. In my opinion they have 'blood' on their hands and they should be held accountable. Not just the BBC of course, but I can make a stand against them. So I will. My post was not intended to be taken in isolation towards the Hall case. Sorry for the confusion there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC_Hitz Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Stuart Hall...we're getting closer to nailing Des Lynam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 25, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 25, 2013 I really hope no-one who ties their kangaroo down is guilty of this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 25, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 25, 2013 I know you are hinting at something there BOF I just can't tell what it is yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 25, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 25, 2013 Stuart Hall...we're getting closer to nailing Des Lynam. What an odd life ambition that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 25, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 25, 2013 I'd go as far as to say that people who wouldn't otherwise have done that kind of thing may be guilty simply because there was such a culture of acceptibility of it within the BBC. It appears to have been that endemic at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted January 25, 2013 Author Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) No-one who ties their kangaroo down better not be **** guilty. That would totally ruin any cartoon club no-one who ties their kangaroo down may or may not have ran that I used to love. Edited January 25, 2013 by GarethRDR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 If it IS true, I want him to have said "Can you tell what it is yet" as he popped it into whichever orafice it went into..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 25, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 25, 2013 No-one who ties their kangaroo down better not be **** guilty. That would totally ruin any cartoon club no-one who ties their kangaroo down may or may not have ran that I used to love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 25, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 25, 2013 As for the publicist, there'd certainly be an irony if he was guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 25, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 25, 2013 I'd have thought that tying kangaroos down is in itself an offence. As for Jake the Peg (with his extra "leg"), well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts