Some nutters on the radio saying the law should be amended retrospectively to ensure longer sentences for people like Clifford.

Aside from possible breaches of the Human Rights Act and Magna Carta etc...

That's basically 5Live's phone in every day.

It is all well and good that Clifford has gone down for what he did.

I do think that the CPS are out to get some people though. Look at the Nigel Evans case, he made a few drunken passes at people and ended up in court. DLT seems to have been pinching a few bums. If everybody who'd done these things in the past were prosecuted then we'd run out of courtrooms.

If there is any criticism to be thrown at the CPS and Police it's probably as a result of the publics reaction to the authorities inaction previously. There will always be people who say those charged have been victimised especially when found not guilty. It's then easy to say its the CPS being heavy handed. But equally if they don't charge then people will say they get away with it because of who they are.
So you can understand how sometimes they decide its best for a jury to decide. That way accusers can have their say. Those accused can have theirs and the jury decide. That's the fair system of justice we have.
The CPS in many cases (not just celebrity sex cases) decide there are to be no charges and no further action. People forget that conveniently. Jails are also full at the moment of people who have been successfully prosecuted. (You can argue about the rights and wrongs of that elsewhere).
It's so easy to sit with a laptop and state you feel the CPS are this that and the other, but without a full case file in front of you it's very difficult to state things as fact.
I'm am sure that if things were as easy as the CPS gunning for every "personality" accused of an offence Southwark crown court would be rammed with cases involving "celebrities"
As an example how many footballers are accused of offences? How many actually get charged. This might highlight deficiencies in the evidence gathering or it might simply be that accusers are falsely accusing, we don't know. But I am sure if the CPS agenda was simply to get celebrities in the dock we would get different outcomes.
DLT is accused by several different people. He's been found not guilty of most of his charges. But undecided on others. He will rightly or wrongly I'm not sure (as I don't have all the facts) face a further trial. Let's let the jury decide. Patting bums and grabbing breasts has different effects on different people. The time that it occurred (if it did) is irrelevant. It was an offence then as it's an offence now. It was maybe tolerated more then as women did not feel as empowered as they do now to complain. Does that make it ok? It's that attitude that allowed Savile and Co to prosper. Allegedly.
The CPS are far from perfect. They are seriously overworked with the resources they have. They are constantly under public scrutiny and will always come under criticism. It's easy to state what you have but you have to be balanced in your statement.

Entertaining it was, though. Evidence was given by Lembit Opik that the accuser had once called him a "fscking dikc-head" and by John Bercow that she had once called him a "cn=#FFFFFF[size=5.[/sizeut". In his summing up, the judge confused the two claims, at which point one of the QCs rose to his feet and pointed out to the judge "Mr. Opik is merely a fscking dikc-head, mi lud, it is Mr Bercow who is the cn=#FFFFFF[size=5.[/sizeut".

"Ah, thank you Mr. Wright", said the judge.

There'll be a few squeaky bums leading up to July 1st. [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mp-will-name-politician-involved-in-child-abuse-9554372.htmlMP will name politician involved in child sex abuse[/url

In my view its nothing to do with whether it was tolerated when it should not have been but whether or not a fair trail can be given after al this time.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about the concept of a Statute of Limitations and why they exist:

[iThe purpose and effect of Statutes of Limitation is to protect defendants. [/i

[iThere are three reasons that support the existence of Statutes of Limitation, namely:

(a) that a plaintiff with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence;
(b) that a defendant might have lost evidence to disprove a stale claim; and
(c) that long dormant claims have more cruelty than justice in them (Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition). [/i

While you could argue victims of sex abuse were never in a position to pursue claims with reasonable diligence I don't see how b) and c) don't apply. I'd certainly have a hard time accounting for what I was up to on specific dates 20 years ago and I think there is more than a whiff of c) in these claims being dragged up now.

No sentence would be long enough for that little turd.

The problem with the CPS is that they are terrified of being critisised so they will run anything that involves sex offences.

I seem to recall that 2 of the complainants (I hesitate to use the term 'victims') in the DLT trial were proven lairs. As in their evidence was proven to be a complete load of bollox.

There was also the trial of the bloke from Corrie (or was it Eastenders), whos name I forget (I don't watch that rubbish). Decision taken by Chief Crown Prosecutor for north west not to proceed owing to complete lack of evidence, later reviewed in London by Allison Saunders, prior to her becoming DPP, and decision made to run the case.

Goes to court....no evidence...not guilty verdicts.

All men are barstewards, all 'victims' must be believed no matter how incredible or unreliable their evidence.

The police and CPS need to be far more robust in assessing who is a genuine victim, and who is just out for a large compo payment.

It's a complete whitewash to spend money compiling reports on the Savile case, just to conclude that there were "systemic errors" and therefore no-one else can be individually held accountable apart from the dead guy.

But I would imagine it would be incredibly difficult to prove anything against an individual.

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned previously but Gary Glitter has again been charged with crimes of a sexual nature. What has made the alleged victims come forward now? I know the media have been saying that the Savile stuff has empowered more victims of sex abuse come forward but GG was done for noncing about 15 years ago in a well publicised case, why ony come forward now?

Equally it may well help the organisations involved realise where things went wrong previously, thus preventing it happening again.
It's pointless simply stating he was vile and did this that and the other unless we actually learn something from what we know now.

So how do you explain the ones that have not been charged and no further action will be taken? I give you Freddie Starr as a starter for 10.
I refer back to my earlier comments which explain IMHO the workings of the CPS. They are under severe pressure with this set of allegations to get it right. They have the entire case file in their possession. Not anyone on this forum (that bit I am simply assuming) and the base their decision on that file. It's not based on the name of the suspect.

"It's not based on the name of the suspect."

I understand that but I suspect that there is a small element of clawing in a "name" for publicity's sake, publicity for new "victims" (rightly or wrongly) to come forward and publicity for a government department that like all others is facing annual reviews of whether they are really necessary or not, what better response to a budget question than "Well we've convicted xxx publicly known sex offenders this year" and what worse response to the same question than "Well we lost every bloody sex offence case last year, especially the famous ones".

As a for instance one of Jimmy Saviles mates who acted as his driver and often procurer of "victims" was convicted of sex offences of his own a couple of years ago, did it get publicity, it got a mention on the news that night and then nothing else, have we had a huge enquiry into how many other "victims" this bloke procured, no, because he wasn't a "name" and the conviction was enough with no need to seek out other accusers or to take the matter any further.

So in that respect, yes, the "names" are being treated differently.

I am not sure about now, but in the past the CPS was always seen as the choice of last resort / desperation for those who couldn't get a training contract or pupillage anywhere else.

Which might say a lot about the quality of people making decisions there.

When Allison Saunders was appointed DPP, she spent the word 'pupillage' wrong on her profile on the CPS website.

I know it's not the same thing, but this did make me giggle.

Not as if you could make the same mistake.

Tie you down in jail Rolf, tie you down in jail.....

Absolutely gutted about Rolf. Thought he was one of the good guys.

Going to have the throw me Rolf Harris CD out now. Two Little Boys just won't be the same anymore

I must admit it's awful that someone I used to like on TV as kid has turned out to be so bad. He seemed such a good guy, unlike Savile who always looked and sounded like a wierdo.

I find it really unnerving and sinister when they show all the old footage of these offenders from years ago knowing what we do now. Savile pushing patients round hospital wards in wheelchairs and Harris in a swimming pool with a load of kids. You just think ''I wonder what happened behind closed doors after the cameras left?''

The most sickening thing is knowing now that Jim'll Fix, a show he controlled for 20 years on the bloody BBC, was probably devised entirely by Savile as a vehicle for his abuse. The sheer front and audacity of the man was staggering.

It wasn't just me then that thought Savile was weird. As a kid I could never understand why he was on Top of the Pop's and later on when various documentaries shed some light on how he lived I never thought "eccentric", just weird. His persona on Jim'll fix it came across as more normal but everything else he did was just down right odd.

First things first, I think Harris was utterly wrong for having a sexual relationship with his daughters best friend. I think he's a sleazy dog. I think he used and abused his celebrity status to have sex with hundreds, if not thousands of women and girls.

But I think the charges, trial and verdict are a complete travesty of justice. When reading the accounts of the alleged victims I don't feel sympathy for them, I feel sympathy for Harris and his family for having to go through this utter BS.