Well, I'd never have thought this ...

[Montreal Wanderer]

I did say "if" and anyway it would be just for personal use and I didn't inhale too deeply, Worthy.

I think our views of what constitutes sexual harassment or even sexual assault have changed over the years. These BBC allegations seem to deal with harassment of adults and what we shudder at now may have been more normal then. Standards of proof may have been different at the time. Regarding this Cyril Smith chap, of whom I knew nothing but seems to have been a homosexual pedophile (NA spelling), I'd say you can't go after him (being dead) and you shouldn't go after his family, so go after the people who covered things up assuming they are still alive. Is it known that bringing up a forty year old matter is good or cathartic for the victim? I'm not convinced. There were things that happened to me at school that I forgot and moved on with life - I wouldn't want to revisit them fifty years later.

I guess in both these cases, there is a complainant. So someone allegedly affected by something rather more serious than harassment. I do agree that you shouldn't be able to base the case on the laws of today - where would that stop - a road that now has a 20 mile an hour speed limit that was 30 type of thing. Even if you do that, you can't really account for any attitudinal change in the jury from how a jury may have viewed an event at the time. So tricky, but I think these alleged crimes are significant enough with appropriate evidence that they could be bought to Court. Would you apply the Statute of Limitations to murder?

The Statute of Limitation is a common law concept. In Canada the statute does not apply to serious crimes, including murder. The same in the US, although it often depends on the nature of the murder - a particularly heinous crime would still be prosecuted, while for example vehicular homicide while drunk forty years ago would not. In the US the 6th amendment and in Canada the Charter of rights and freedoms guarantee the right to a speedy trial. Recently our supreme court threw out a case of rape because it took 30 months to come to trial. We would have to ask Crayons if such a provision exists in the UK. However, article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states: "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law" (emphasis mine). So I guess my answer, Worthy, would be it depends.

[Montreal Wanderer]

As far as I'm aware the police in England are legally obliged to investigate the matter once an criminal allegation has been made. If there is enough evidence to believe a crime has been committed then, if it is in the public interest, something determined by the CPS, then it should be pursued. (I'd much rather that than a statute of limitations.) Charging someone with an offence of avoiding a parking fine or smoking a spliff 30 years ago is not currently/thankfully in the public interest. Sexual abuse, particularly of minors, is. That doesn't mean to say an octogenarian should be given a heavy prison sentence for being convicted of such a crime. It should at the very least mean he or she is no longer able to work for the national broadcaster.

I would agree that sexual abuse of minors should always be investigated and prosecuted. We have a problem in Canada of a junior hockey coach who molested teenagers on his team over some time. In the latest conviction the judge gave him two years. The coach had previously been sentenced to three and a half years for the same offense with different boys - he served 18 months and was later pardoned (i.e. his criminal record was expunged). Many feel the sentence was not strict enough.

[Worthy4England]

I did say "if" and anyway it would be just for personal use and I didn't inhale too deeply, Worthy.

I think our views of what constitutes sexual harassment or even sexual assault have changed over the years. These BBC allegations seem to deal with harassment of adults and what we shudder at now may have been more normal then. Standards of proof may have been different at the time. Regarding this Cyril Smith chap, of whom I knew nothing but seems to have been a homosexual pedophile (NA spelling), I'd say you can't go after him (being dead) and you shouldn't go after his family, so go after the people who covered things up assuming they are still alive. Is it known that bringing up a forty year old matter is good or cathartic for the victim? I'm not convinced. There were things that happened to me at school that I forgot and moved on with life - I wouldn't want to revisit them fifty years later.

I guess in both these cases, there is a complainant. So someone allegedly affected by something rather more serious than harassment. I do agree that you shouldn't be able to base the case on the laws of today - where would that stop - a road that now has a 20 mile an hour speed limit that was 30 type of thing. Even if you do that, you can't really account for any attitudinal change in the jury from how a jury may have viewed an event at the time. So tricky, but I think these alleged crimes are significant enough with appropriate evidence that they could be bought to Court. Would you apply the Statute of Limitations to murder?

The Statute of Limitation is a common law concept. In Canada the statute does not apply to serious crimes, including murder. The same in the US, although it often depends on the nature of the murder - a particularly heinous crime would still be prosecuted, while for example vehicular homicide while drunk forty years ago would not. In the US the 6th amendment and in Canada the Charter of rights and freedoms guarantee the right to a speedy trial. Recently our supreme court threw out a case of rape because it took 30 months to come to trial. We would have to ask Crayons if such a provision exists in the UK. However, article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states: "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law" (emphasis mine). So I guess my answer, Worthy, would be it depends.

My interpretation of Article 6 is that reasonable time is from the point that a charge has been made against the perpetrator. In which case it is absolutley reasonable that an impartial tribunal is convened within a reasonable time from the point that the charge was made, as you would hope that before bringing a charge, enough evidence had been collected to make the case in the first place. I don't think it seeks to limit the time leading up to the making of the charge.

I don't think I'd want a Statute of Limitations on anything involving murder or even the scenario of vehicular homicide whilst drunk 40 years ago. I might give a different sentence for the two (hanging instead of lethal injection for example ). The passage of time doesn't diminish the seriousness of the event, but might I guess be an element to think about (reoffence liklihood) in passing sentence.

[thebish]

stuart hall???

[Bruce Rioja]

Hasn't he been nabbed for illegal sausage activity in the past?

[Little Green Man]

These should be illegal.

[boltonboris]

What happened to his thumbs?

[bobo the clown]

Hasn't he been nabbed for illegal sausage activity in the past?

I THOUGHT there was something about handling slolen goods with regardto an antiques business he had (on St. George's Rd., again if my memory is correct.)

The trouble here is .... & if he's done this I hope the book's thrown at him .... these accusations come from the 1970's & '80's.

How the hell do you prove guilt or innocence in that time gap ?

Meanwhile, people can just fling names about & your career & reputation are shagged.


I wonder who's next ? ... & will the Police offer them a deal, or no deal do you think ?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Jeux sans frontieres... ahh so that's what it meant.

[Bruce Rioja]

Here you go.

Stuart Hall was busted in 1990 for shoplifting when he tried to steal a jar of coffee and a pack of sausages from a grocery store in Manchester.

So he's a sausage burglar.

[jaffka]

Here you go.

Stuart Hall was busted in 1990 for shoplifting when he tried to steal a jar of coffee and a pack of sausages from a grocery store in Manchester.

So he's a sausage burglar.

[Annoyed Grunt]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20627765" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Max Clifford as well..

[malcd1]

Hasn't he been nabbed for illegal sausage activity in the past?

I THOUGHT there was something about handling slolen goods with regardto an antiques business he had (on St. George's Rd., again if my memory is correct.)

The trouble here is .... & if he's done this I hope the book's thrown at him .... these accusations come from the 1970's & '80's.

How the hell do you prove guilt or innocence in that time gap ?

Meanwhile, people can just fling names about & your career & reputation are shagged.


I wonder who's next ? ... & will the Police offer them a deal, or no deal do you think ?

At least lets hope it is the end of his radio career.

[Harry Genshaw]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20627765

Max Clifford as well..

I've always quite liked Stuart Hall & hope against hope he is innocent of this.

However, if there's one bloke I'd like to see get banged up for a while - it's the odious c**t that is Max Clifford

[bobo the clown]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20627765

Max Clifford as well..

I've always quite liked Stuart Hall & hope against hope he is innocent of this.

However, if there's one bloke I'd like to see get banged up for a while - it's the odious c**t that is Max Clifford

Oh, there's a man called Piers who deserves that even more.

[Bruce Rioja]

I remember Stuart Hall reciting a swathe of Prometheus Unbound by Shelley once instead of giving a match report.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I remember Stuart Hall reciting a swathe of Prometheus Unbound by Shelley once instead of giving a match report.

Well, that at least sounds admirably independent...

[thebish]

I remember Stuart Hall reciting a swathe of Prometheus Unbound by Shelley once instead of giving a match report.

aye - and he's always an irritating feck-head...

[William the White]

I remember Stuart Hall reciting a swathe of Prometheus Unbound by Shelley once instead of giving a match report.

aye - and he's always an irritating feck-head...

Percy B Shelley deserves much more respect than this...

I particularly like The Mask of Anarchy for a sustained poetic assault on the Tories of his day...

[TANGODANCER]

I remember Stuart Hall reciting a swathe of Prometheus Unbound by Shelley once instead of giving a match report.

Didn't he come out with "I am Ozymandius, king of kings" at one game?