Stuart Hall has been found guilty.

[merehazle]

:_|

[bankhaunter]

These might dampen them down a bit.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil-justice-reforms

The intention is that the reforms will make costs more proportionate, and discourage unnecessary or unmeritorious cases. In particular, those using no win no fee conditional fee agreements (CFAs) will have an interest in controlling the costs that are incurred on their behalf.

[ecclesvinaigrette]

Some representing the compensation firms seem unfazed by working within the law, Telling people during unsolicited telephone calls that they have been injured in an accident in order to promote a potential claim is one example.

That's all I wanted to offer up, 😉

[bankhaunter]

I have even had a couple cold calling at my door touting for business.

I was not polite.

[al**bear]

"IT's all about claiming compensation"

Another tactic used to blacken or silence these Inquiries

Used frequently in the North Wales case

[duck_a_lorange]

"IT's all about claiming compensation"

Another tactic used to blacken or silence these Inquiries

Used frequently in the North Wales case

It's hard to avoid thinking there must be something in that, when there must be many men who have led totlally obscure lives but behaved just like that during the "swinging sixties" and are now living on their state pensions.  I can't help wondering if anyone would bring accusations against a retired bank clerk or dustman, and if they did, if the police would follow through.

[cee-dee]

If people think that the question I raised about a victim sueing a previous victim because they didn't report their "attack", isn't that similar to people now thinking of sueing the BBC (in both the Savile and Hall cases) because the "attacks" occurred in their time/space?

They might think they're on a better wicket with the BBC because the Corporation is likely to look at the amount being claimed, offer a lower figure to settle out of Court and then claim (a victory?) that they've done well to settle????

[bankhaunter]

That would be because the BBC would have a duty of care to those invited on to the premises and if it was shown they had allowed a young person to have contact with someone about whom they had reasonable grounds to suspect they were abusing young people, they could be held culpable.

Much like a person suspecting their dog was prone to biting, inviting children to play with it in their garden.

How far that duty of care would extend would be up to a judge to decide.

[cee-dee]

Using that argument, then it's logical to claim that a victim has a duty to report a crime upon their person to do all they can to prevent it happening to anyone else.

After all, they know the person concerned has committed a crime whereas the BBC have no knowledge of crimes being committed on their premises (unless the victim reports it and nothing's done).

[bankhaunter]

The BBC would have to have taken reasonable precautions if they suspect child abuse, that need only be ensuring the young person was not left alone with the 'suspect'.

They wouldn't necessarily have complete liability.

As for reporting a crime, it could be held that the BBC or it's employees were in a position where they did have a duty to do so though mere suspicion is unlikely to be sufficient, misprision nowadays can still apply to those in certain positions such as school teachers, police officers and some public servants.