I'm more surpised about htis outcome than the other cases.
There is no denying there was a culture of cover-up in various institutions in decades gone by and I wonder if it would have been different if the cases had come to court at the time when time-lapse and memory is not an issue. But then the culture of the time was also undeniably different then all over.
It also casts doubts on the 'hundreds' who have claimed agaisnt Saville. If 100% of the other cases that have come to light since those revelations came out then what percentage of the Saville claims are true?
"At one point jury asked judge what they should do if they believed women in DLT case but found no evidence to support."
Interesting, could explain the two other charges.
That should be easy - the jury can only decide on the evidence presented in court and nothing else.
I am surprised that they felt the need to ask that as when I did jury service the judge made it very clear we could only decide on the basis of evidence presented. Makes you wonder what would have happened if they hadn't asked the judge.
"At one point jury asked judge what they should do if they believed women in DLT case but found no evidence to support."
Interesting, could explain the two other charges.
Could explain that they didn't understand the directions of the judge on burden of proof etc!!! Wouldn't be the first. CPS not doing too well when defendants in these historic cases plead not guilty.
Interesting , I watched TOTP 2 last week and it was our old friend David 'Kid' 'nigel' Jensen probably at the time he supported QPR.
What interested me was the way he quite freely put his arms around young girls shoulders in a way which seemed by today's standards wrong . I suspect then this was accepted as normal behaviour of Radio 1 DJ's, clearly Saville was on a different level.
But 30 years ago I probably watched that episode of TOTP and didn't give it another thought. I think it would be virtually impossible to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt about events which are 30/40 and even 50 years ago,but by today's standards this behaviour would now be seen as inappropriate.
"At one point jury asked judge what they should do if they believed women in DLT case but found no evidence to support."
Interesting, could explain the two other charges.
That should be easy - the jury can only decide on the evidence presented in court and nothing else.
I am surprised that they felt the need to ask that as when I did jury service the judge made it very clear we could only decide on the basis of evidence presented. Makes you wonder what would have happened if they hadn't asked the judge.
I would imagine the women involved would be heartened to hear that though.
It's such a difficult one this. Clearly there was a culture around the BBC back then, as indeed I'm sure there is now albeit with the morals of a different time. That doesn't make DLT guilty of anything, but I can't help thinking that for every one person with a genuine complaint there have been several jumping on the bandwagon for this modern trend for a demand for your 15 minutes of fame. I struggle to believe, for example, that even Jimmy Saville found time to commit sexual offences on 500 different people, even if you assumed (i) that was everyone (ii) his only sexual behaviour was illegal.
Whilst I feel sympathy with those with genuine cause for complaint, the cases should probably never have been brought to court.
The idea that a woman will put herself through the ordeal of a trial and the cross-examination that she has to endure for '15 minutes of fame' is absurd. Especially so when the law requires that she must remain anonymous.
"At one point jury asked judge what they should do if they believed women in DLT case but found no evidence to support."
Interesting, could explain the two other charges.
That should be easy - the jury can only decide on the evidence presented in court and nothing else.
I am surprised that they felt the need to ask that as when I did jury service the judge made it very clear we could only decide on the basis of evidence presented. Makes you wonder what would have happened if they hadn't asked the judge.
I would imagine the women involved would be heartened to hear that though.
But that is how our justice system works. It is evidence presented in court. Not "I have a feeling that X is telling based on a hunch/prejudice/don't like the look of them".
In my book it is worse if an innocent is convicted so our system tries to ensure that this doesn't happen. It's not perfect and I am sure that there are many victims of crime who would disagree but if we are going to punish people we need to be as sure as possible that they are actually guilty.
Maybe having the Chuckle Brothers as character witnesses was not as bizarre as it seemed when i first saw them on Sky news outside Southwark Crown Court under a couple of weeks ago.
Interesting , I watched TOTP 2 last week and it was our old friend David 'Kid' 'nigel' Jensen probably at the time he supported QPR.
What interested me was the way he quite freely put his arms around young girls shoulders in a way which seemed by today's standards wrong . I suspect then this was accepted as normal behaviour of Radio 1 DJ's, clearly Saville was on a different level.
But 30 years ago I probably watched that episode of TOTP and didn't give it another thought. I think it would be virtually impossible to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt about events which are 30/40 and even 50 years ago,but by today's standards this behaviour would now be seen as inappropriate.
As a young teen at the time, seeing all those girls round the Radio One DJs made me and all my mates want to be Radio One DJs. I don't know where I am going with this to be honest. I do know that I met several DJs a bit later on, including DLT. There was nothing creepy about the Hairy Cornflake (IMHO).
Interesting , I watched TOTP 2 last week and it was our old friend David 'Kid' 'nigel' Jensen probably at the time he supported QPR.
What interested me was the way he quite freely put his arms around young girls shoulders in a way which seemed by today's standards wrong . I suspect then this was accepted as normal behaviour of Radio 1 DJ's, clearly Saville was on a different level.
But 30 years ago I probably watched that episode of TOTP and didn't give it another thought. I think it would be virtually impossible to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt about events which are 30/40 and even 50 years ago,but by today's standards this behaviour would now be seen as inappropriate.
As a young teen at the time, seeing all those girls round the Radio One DJs made me and all my mates want to be Radio One DJs. I don't know where I am going with this to be honest. I do know that I met several DJs a bit later on, including DLT. There was nothing creepy about the Hairy Cornflake (IMHO).
Kid Pension & QPR?? I thought he had always been a Nigel.
My Mum was a big Radio 1 fan, & would take me & my brother to the Radio 1 Roadshow when it would end up down in Brighton, back in the 80's. It was a huge event, with usually a minimum of 250k people on the front. The DJ's were extremely popular, & I remember girls squealing as we queued up for autographs from the likes of Adrian Just, Adrian John & Peter Powell.
It really was all a bit 'Smashie & Nicey' back then!
With Roache acquitted and now DLT - with Harris next up - you have got to ask serious questions about what the hell the CPS are up to with this?
They have spent million pursuing high-profile people and are now 0 from 2, and it could get worse.
The Police had great fun hauling these people up before the beak and getting lots of publicity (at a time it was more than welcome) and its now resulting in zero convictions.
Best not to let the facts interfere with your argument Ormiston but Stuart Hall was prosecuted and indeed pleaded guilty so 1-2 against the CPS. Guilty pleas are just as valid as convictions after trial. I'm not defending the CPS as my comment at 3.34 shows. I have my own views on these prosecutions which I will keep to myself.
Best not to let the facts interfere with your argument Ormiston but Stuart Hall was prosecuted and indeed pleaded guilty so 1-2 against the CPS. Guilty pleas are just as valid as convictions after trial. I'm not defending the CPS as my comment at 3.34 shows. I have my own views on these prosecutions which I will keep to myself.
Fair enough they got Stuart Hall but taking on these cases - particularly the Roach case where you're looking to convict a bloke for something committed 40 years ago - does seem pretty extraordinary to many people because the chances of getting a jury to convict on something that low seem quite remote in the absence of any physical evidence.
Back to the Stuart Hall case, was it not the case that he actually admitted his guilt and therefore it never actually went before a jury? Probably worth bearing that in mind so it can "interfere with your argument."
I really consider you one of the better posters on here so I am pretty disappointed that you resort to bitchy little comments when discussing things, really no need for it.
Ormiston, sorry that you thought I was being bitchy, I was actually being flippant so my apologies! As I specifically mentioned, Hall pleaded guilty and therefore his case didn't need to go before a jury. Let me expound a little on the decision making. Many years ago there was a reluctance to prosecute (see criticisms of the non-prosecution of Savile even after allegations had been made to police) where there was not very strong supporting evidence. Now it may be that the pendulum has swung too far the other way (everyone can have a legitimate view) but perhaps ultimately that it why we have the jury system. If the only cases which were prosecuted always resulted in convictions, there would be vast numbers which should be laid before a jury (some would be convicted, some acquitted) which the CPS have bottled.
I wonder if Savile would be convicted if he were tried now, if he was alive etc. I'm guessing he would obviously but I am sure he would be acquitted of many of the individual accusations.
With Roache acquitted and now DLT - with Harris next up - you have got to ask serious questions about what the hell the CPS are up to with this?
They have spent million pursuing high-profile people and are now 0 from 2, and it could get worse.
The Police had great fun hauling these people up before the beak and getting lots of publicity (at a time it was more than welcome) and its now resulting in zero convictions.
Something is not right about all this.
Something isn't right about this at all. The CPS can spend the public purse pusuing these cases, while the defendant has to sell his home to pay to prove his innocence.
Ormiston, sorry that you thought I was being bitchy, I was actually being flippant so my apologies! As I specifically mentioned, Hall pleaded guilty and therefore his case didn't need to go before a jury. Let me expound a little on the decision making. Many years ago there was a reluctance to prosecute (see criticisms of the non-prosecution of Savile even after allegations had been made to police) where there was not very strong supporting evidence. Now it may be that the pendulum has swung too far the other way (everyone can have a legitimate view) but perhaps ultimately that it why we have the jury system. If the only cases which were prosecuted always resulted in convictions, there would be vast numbers which should be laid before a jury (some would be convicted, some acquitted) which the CPS have bottled.
No problem @legaladdick no need to apologise, just crossed wires.
Comments
Interesting, could explain the two other charges.
There is no denying there was a culture of cover-up in various institutions in decades gone by and I wonder if it would have been different if the cases had come to court at the time when time-lapse and memory is not an issue. But then the culture of the time was also undeniably different then all over.
It also casts doubts on the 'hundreds' who have claimed agaisnt Saville. If 100% of the other cases that have come to light since those revelations came out then what percentage of the Saville claims are true?
I am surprised that they felt the need to ask that as when I did jury service the judge made it very clear we could only decide on the basis of evidence presented. Makes you wonder what would have happened if they hadn't asked the judge.
Grim.
What interested me was the way he quite freely put his arms around young girls shoulders in a way which seemed by today's standards wrong . I suspect then this was accepted as normal behaviour of Radio 1 DJ's, clearly Saville was on a different level.
But 30 years ago I probably watched that episode of TOTP and didn't give it another thought. I think it would be virtually impossible to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt about events which are 30/40 and even 50 years ago,but by today's standards this behaviour would now be seen as inappropriate.
It's such a difficult one this. Clearly there was a culture around the BBC back then, as indeed I'm sure there is now albeit with the morals of a different time. That doesn't make DLT guilty of anything, but I can't help thinking that for every one person with a genuine complaint there have been several jumping on the bandwagon for this modern trend for a demand for your 15 minutes of fame. I struggle to believe, for example, that even Jimmy Saville found time to commit sexual offences on 500 different people, even if you assumed (i) that was everyone (ii) his only sexual behaviour was illegal.
Whilst I feel sympathy with those with genuine cause for complaint, the cases should probably never have been brought to court.
In my book it is worse if an innocent is convicted so our system tries to ensure that this doesn't happen. It's not perfect and I am sure that there are many victims of crime who would disagree but if we are going to punish people we need to be as sure as possible that they are actually guilty.
Kid Pension & QPR?? I thought he had always been a Nigel.
My Mum was a big Radio 1 fan, & would take me & my brother to the Radio 1 Roadshow when it would end up down in Brighton, back in the 80's. It was a huge event, with usually a minimum of 250k people on the front. The DJ's were extremely popular, & I remember girls squealing as we queued up for autographs from the likes of Adrian Just, Adrian John & Peter Powell.
It really was all a bit 'Smashie & Nicey' back then!
They have spent million pursuing high-profile people and are now 0 from 2, and it could get worse.
The Police had great fun hauling these people up before the beak and getting lots of publicity (at a time it was more than welcome) and its now resulting in zero convictions.
Something is not right about all this.
Back to the Stuart Hall case, was it not the case that he actually admitted his guilt and therefore it never actually went before a jury? Probably worth bearing that in mind so it can "interfere with your argument."
I really consider you one of the better posters on here so I am pretty disappointed that you resort to bitchy little comments when discussing things, really no need for it.
Oh no, that's a Big Mac......
Doesn't sound right to me.
Cheers.