Re: Stuart Hall sentence

I posted this in another forum and thought it may interest some people here

."]TheOpinionSite.org[/URL]

It is likely that someone who is arrested on suspicion of armed robbery is unlikely to be named, whereas someone arrested for the most minor sexual offence probably will be in order that the media can indulge in their usual feeding frenzy whilst at the same time remaining friends with the police.
Those in favour of naming arrested suspects maintain that it is necessary to do so, particularly in alleged cases of sexual assault, in order that “other witnesses and those with further allegations” may be encouraged to come forward.
Those against naming suspects at the point of arrest however, make the important point that if someone is arrested, there should be sufficient information and evidence with which to charge them.
This is wholly different from arresting somebody on the weakest of suspicions in the vague hope that some kind of “fishing exercise” can be carried out or worse, that by plastering the suspect’s name all over the media, sufficient people will be encouraged to jump on what could be a very profitable bandwagon.

In the wake of Operation Yewtree, the ever more expensive and apparently ineffective Metropolitan Police enquiry into offences alleged to have been carried out by those associated with Jimmy Savile, only two people has so far been charged although 12 have been arrested and been hung out to dry by the media.Whatever one’s personal view may be regarding the naming of those who are arrested, it cannot possibly be right that reputations, jobs and families can be put at risk simply because the police either have insufficient evidence to charge the person they have arrested or the media are hungry for a story.

Malhotra claimed that it was only because Stuart Hall was named that other “victims” came forward.

To his credit, Starmer immediately corrected her and pointed out that this was not the case and that Hall had in fact been arrested at 10 o’clock in the morning and charged at 7.00 PM the same day, other witnesses coming forward long after the charge was made.

Re: Stuart Hall sentence

I wish I could believe that. Unfortunately, egged on by the sensationalist press, opportunist politicians and lowest common denominator public opinion, the police and courts tend to pander to whichever current moral panic is going the rounds. Remember the "satanic abuse" panic in the early 1990's - lots of totally innocent parents, priests, teachers, neighbours and others were targeted by the press as satanic sexual abusers. The reality - the only abuse was in the twisted minds (and behaviours) of a small number of totally loony doctors/social workers and in the appalling way in which kids were kidnapped from their homes and attempts to brainwash them made.

Now I am not for one moment suggesting that there is no truth in any or all of the allegations made in the recent "historical abuse" cases. What I am suggesting is that we need to address these cases calmly and dispassionately - looking at evidence, not reacting emotionally.

I also think that it is very difficult to see yesterday's behaviours with today's eyes. I am sure that (technically) the great majority of '60's rock stars are child abusers. I can remember young girls of 13, 14 and 15 absolutely throwing themselves at band members at gigs I went to (I was very jealous!) and I'm sure that many of the guys involved took advantage - was that child abuse? Technically yes, but the band members were only kids themselves, so..........?
Similarly during the recent character assassination of a leading Scottish cleric, the story was related of a young choirboy (16 at the time) who was flirted with and mildly groped by the cleric in question. According to the young (now elderly) man, this traumatised him for life. Poor thing must have been very sensitive. I remember when I was 11, a middle-aged man exposed himself to me in an alleyway near my council estate. I don't remember being traumatised, but I do remember kicking him in the crotch and running home, not to get my parents or call the police, but to get my mates who all went down and gave the guy a good hiding. Rough justice, but more effective than waiting 30 years to claim abuse. I never told my parents about the incident simply because it just didn't seem that important.

Re: Stuart Hall sentence

Why didn't they come forward when this happened or do you reckon he was guilty even tho' he was cleared?

( Peter Adamson..AKA Len Fairclough... "Corrie')

February 1983, Adamson was suspended from Coronation Street after selling stories about the show and cast to a tabloid newspaper following his arrest for alleged indecent assault in April 1983, Granada Television decided not to support him financially through his legal problems. Although he was cleared of the charge, he was sacked from Coronation Street by producer Bill Podmore in September 1983 for breach of contract when it was discovered Adamson had sold his memoirs for £70,000 after the previous warning, in order to pay the £120,000 legal debts from his trial.[2]

Re: Stuart Hall sentence

Thanks grumblewagon

And mesco and Furry Pats ... I'm not dumbing down the severity of the crime.
Quite the opposite if you actually take onboard what I said.

As previously stated I would have much preferred to see the police pursuing the one allegation he did deny.
The rape.

I just have a problem with historic sex abuse cases.
Far too much room for exaggeration and lack of concrete proof after all this time ... and open to manipulation of public sentiment when it's plastered all over the web.

However ... as any old hand on forums knows.
Find out what is popular. The mood and style of forum content. .... and fit in with it.
I don't really want to be too controversial here. In all fairness back and forth serious discussion isn't a big feature of this site. So I'll abstain.

This place is diverse enough for me without it. ... with the daily chat and lifestyle type threads and oral sex and bonking ... (the latter which always makes me smile ).

Re: Stuart Hall sentence

Go for it maggis

Re: Stuart Hall sentence

That post really takes the biscuit - utter nonsense .....
Dont understand your last comment at all ....either

Re: Stuart Hall sentence

Maggis the media which I loath, has a lot to answer for in every respect..
I agree no one should be named in early stages....

Re: Stuart Hall sentence

Yes pats, and while those who are guilty should be punished I think that MickB has some relevant points, 30 yrs ago society was very different, dads smacked their daughters/sons on the backside or gave them a clip around the ear, but you don't get those now adults screaming child abuse just think of all the court cases, compo involved if that were so

Re: Stuart Hall sentence

I remember that Maggis, that would have been an ideal time for others to come forward with allegations particularly those who made allegations against B Roache.

Re: Stuart Hall sentence

Mick - you dont recall being traumatised, maybe because he didn't grab you... you and your mates sorted him out - good for you - So .....?
Are you suggesting the police are now too emotional and 'not' looking at the cases 'calmly' .....
There have been many mistakes and mis-handling by the police, why assume all following cases follow the same lines. Each case taken on its own credability surely...