Originally posted by DrHammondStoat
Originally posted by Power_Semi
I think some of this is ridiculous to be fair.
As much as I think paedos should be hanged, to arrest and charge Stuart Hall because someone claims that he indecently assaulted them 30 to 40 years
ago is madness.
The Police can't even find evidence to solve crimes that happened 5 minutes ago - look at the girl who'd disappeared in the summer, they searched
the house 4 TIMES, with dogs, and the body was there the whole time.
I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that they have found enough evidence to charge someone because someone else claims something happened all that
I think it's turning into a witch hunt and all of the whackos and compensation seekers are crawling out of the woodwork now.
I don't think it's ridiculous if someone like Stuart Hall did assault children, no matter how long ago.
If you read the news reports the charges are from 3 seperate individuals, different years, who must have come forward independently. Testimony like
that from different witnesses is enough evidence. There is a rape allegation that has not been charged. People were dismissive of the Savile claims
at first saying the victims just wanted money.
Stuart Halls name had not been associated with Savile, so why would 3 or more women come forward about Hall and just be 'whackos'?
I know on this thread I have tried to point out that Savile and Yewtree are getting a disproportianate amount of press and that has been
misunderstood by some - but I would never dismiss any potential victim of abuse as an attention seeker.
Any potential witness should be listened to first and not dismissed because it was 'years ago'.
I'm replying to this today because there's been some more stuff about Stuart Hall on the news today, he's going to court and is adamant he is
I think you misunderstood what I meant re charging people for things that happened years ago.
What I mean is that there can be NO physical evidence after all of this time, it comes down to person A claiming that person B did something, and
person B saying it isn't true.
It's just a case of he said she said.
My grave concern is that someone can be taken to court on such serious charges and have their name and life destroyed on nothing more than the claim
of some person that something happened 30 years ago.
To expand on this and how worrying it is, you would imagine to be accused and tried for abusing someone there would have to be something concrete to
present in court.
And yet one of the charges brought by the crown prosecution service is that Stuart Hall "between 1 January 1983 and 31 December 1983 he indecently
assaulted a girl then aged 8 or 9 years" -
surely you have to see the madness of that statement. If they had ANY evidence AT ALL they would have a date, but to say it allegedly happened some
time in such a range of dates is ludicrous.
If they can't even give a date, or even the month during which the alleged crime occured, how on earth can we take seriously the allegation of the
crime in the first place.
It is an important facet of law that you are innocent until proved guilty, how on earth can you prove allegations made against someone that are so
They have basically thrown this guy to the wolves and he is going to have to prove his innocence rather than the way it should be.
What will he have to do, stand up in court and give an hour by hour account of everything he did on every day for a whole year?
I have as I said grave concerns over what is happening here, and this is my honest belief:
Jimmy Saville was probably a paedophile, and I believe that he was embroiled in those activities with senior politicians and other high profile
I believe that to obfuscate the truth, what TPTB are doing is trying to paint a picture that this child abuse scandal is a problem based around TV
celebrities (or rather ex TV celebrities - i.e. "it all happened in the past") rather than MPs and high profile people.
They are misdirecting the gaze of the public towards "pervert ex TV celebrities" so that questions about who was really involved with Jimmy Saville
and his ilk are not asked.
I do not have any faith with regards to the "evidence" being used to prosecute Stuart Hall, or even Jim Davison for that matter, I think they are
the sacrificial lambs being thrown to the wolves to protect politicians, civil servants, and possibly members of other high level institutions like
for example the Royal family.
It is interesting that no current TV celebrities are being involved in this, like I said I think it's to give the impression it happened in the past,
and also probably so as not to involve current politicians etc.
You have got to have a serious think about the implications, because who's to say it's not going to be me or you who is taken to court next time
because someone says you touched them 30 years ago.