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.ut". 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.ut".

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

There'll be a few squeaky bums leading up to July 1st. MP will name politician involved in child sex abuse

There'll be a few squeaky bums leading up to July 1st. MP will name politician involved in child sex abuse

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:

The purpose and effect of Statutes of Limitation is to protect defendants.

There 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).

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.