Following the Saville report, and the new "law" - Thou shalt be guilty without a single shred of evidence being presented before a Court - there is now to be a selection of specially chosen Judges to hear future alleged child abuse cases.

Apparently - see www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23597224 - witnesses will no longer be "tested" in Court to see whether they are telling the truth, and to test their character etc.

Without such "tests" we will simply have to accept - without challenge - whatever the complainant says.

The law is an ASS - its now official !

Fortunately the Judge in the above case was so unimpressed - having heard ALL the evidence and seen the witness giving evidence - that he passed only an 8 month sentence and then suspended it.

Although the guy was in the wrong for having sex with a 13 year old girl, people are making unfair criticisms about the case when they know nothing about it or the girl in question. She may very well have been sexually experienced, this doesn't excuse the guy, but is a cause for slight mitigation.

Although sex with a minor is always illegal, there should be distinctions made between when the girl is doing most of the running and when the man is grooming her. After all there are distinctions made when the age difference isn't very large

robbiex wrote:
Although the guy was in the wrong for having sex with a 13 year old girl, people are making unfair criticisms about the case when they know nothing about it or the girl in question. She may very well have been sexually experienced, this doesn't excuse the guy, but is a cause for slight mitigation.

Although sex with a minor is always illegal, there should be distinctions made between when the girl is doing most of the running and when the man is grooming her. After all there are distinctions made when the age difference isn't very large

Absolutely spot-on, robbiex - but irrelevant now that the "Savile law" can get someone convicted without ever appearing in Court !

Also, by having a special team of (soft?) Judges they will prevent proper questioning of the claimant - merely believing everything they are told. (If thats NOT the purpose of the "special team" - then what is?)

At this stage, does anybody believe that Saville is innocent of everything?

Rather unlikely....