Would it have gone to crown court if there was zero evidence?

It's gone to Crown Court because of the nature of the alleged offence and those associated with it .....

In the case I sat on, the "evidence" was merely that of the little girl, who said she had been "touched" by a man (as, apparently, in this case) but she turned out to be a liar who was protecting her mother's pornographer boyfriend who WAS her sexual abuser .....

So to be fair she was not lying, she was bein assaulted.... Abusers use threats as a form of control, to seek help then panic and blame someone else is something that happens in these cases.

No matter how old you are 19, 19, 39, 59 if you were assaulted, molested or abused as a child my advice would be to report it.

This is complete nonsense, the man is 82 years old for gods sake.... If a crime was committed then why was it not reported at the time which is probably over 40 years ago.
This is crazy !!! just another aging male celeb who probably enjoyed the swinging sixties now being drawn into the witch hunt.

Whats next.... Bruce Forsyth buggering young boys on the generation game..!!!!!

You're missing the point - lives were ruined - the accused was named, shamed and assaulted, lost his job and his house - eventually he and his family had to move to another county all because the little girl lied - the court case cost a fortune while another investigation and subsequent court case had to follow all because the little girl lied - she wasn't threatened, she chose to accuse an innocent man because she thought it was "fun" ..... it was only when the case came to court that her dysfunctional "family" life came to light ......

Agreed ..... but not everybody tells the truth - we shall have to see what evidence can be presented if the case gets to trial .....

No, she was a lying little toe-rag who herself would have been charged with offences if she were older ..... :mad:

goddamn pedos

why can't all allegations that are made which are of a sexual nature legally be subject to reporting restrictions until pre investigations are concluded. only when actual charges are brought and a trial is arranged should the press get involved.

This current Jimmy Savile story has certainly created a feeding frenzy for the press who are quite happy to sensationalise any allegation against a Celeb regardless of how long ago it was and before any evidence is presented or charges brought.

Why this has turned into your skewed view on how children should act and react to abuse and the subsequent court case I don't know.
Do you not think women abused as children should ever report it then?...
ooo...de ja vu...

You weren't there, as I was, for several days, so you don't, and never will, know the full facts of the case .....

If you ever do jury service, you may find that the old maxim "Never judge a book by its cover comes to mind" .....

Of course ..... but being "touched" some time between January 1, 1983 and December 31, 1983 is a very vague accusation and certainly does not come under the heading of abuse - as I said earlier, if that is all she can offer, then the accused may emerge from the case not only innocent but with a hefty damages claim against the plaintiff .....

I have served on a jury in a child abuse case.
And yes molestation is abuse.

Omah you should put your opinions on here more...some very good points! And i think I saw a post or two without a link :wink:

Quelle coincidence ..... :rolleyes:

Of all the cases, in all the courts, in all the world, she has the same as mine.

Did you think you were the only person to sit on a jury in the UK omah?....

Just ..... quelle coincidence ..... :rolleyes:

Strange you didn't bring it up before ..... :suspect:

You'll be telling me you were the foreman next ..... and that you shared a ciggie in the usher's toilet with the Joan Collins look-a-like ..... :shrug:

Why are you being so rude?
I have mentioned it on another thread regarding abuse that I sat on a jury in a case...
Do I have to announce it at the beginning of every thread associated with sexual assaults now?

If.

If I may say so, you're the one being rude by persistently asking me hypothetical questions about a court case about which we know very little except the charges, one of which you have extrapolated into some some sort of father/daughter scenario .....

All we know is that the 9-year-old who is now 39 years old who alleges that she was "touched" (by Hall) some time (in the 12 months) between January 1, 1983 and December 31, 1983 (in a location not specified).

Anyone who has been juror would want (and wait) to hear more details and consider any "evidence".

If anyone wants to touch me in a location not specified, then I'm sure we can sort something out.

So, it could be, like... Milton Keynes for instance?

For contact from another human, I'd even travel to the land of Partridge - for a high 6.

I'm not going to Swaffham, not even for you. Only two surnames in the whole town.

I know we're going O/T but I have to interject "NFN" ..... :laugh2:

why not wait until Stewart Hall is 92 there's bound to be a lot more people that were abused by him ready to come forward by then.

Better still why not wait until he's dead and then let the floodgates really open, who knows we might have 400 or 500 people suddenly remember that 50 years ago they too were abused by this man (A bit like Jimmy Savile)

The whole thing is nasty, spiteful contrived nonsense....!!!!!

LOL... yes.