Should we have a statute of limitations?

I'd say unless there is absolute proof, yes, but otherwise no. I happened to catch Hogans Heroes the other day, and wondered where the lead actor went. He was murdered about 1980 or so, it's never been solved. Let's say they had scene samples, but not the technology then, but now say DNA analysis proved the culprit, that might be fine, assuming there was no reason they could have contaminated.

But "he said / she said" from 30 years ago? Going on allegation trolling missions to find people who will get compensation after a conviction? It's a nonsense.

Jimmy Tarbuck got arrested for stuff that allegedly happened in the mid 60s.
All charges were dropped but one in particular stood out.
A young girl accused him of attacking her in a London studio when the show was broadcast from Manchester. (or vice versa).
That really beggars belief.

Exactly, thats the sort of crap I'm on about. Where were YOU nov 26th 1995? Even if you wrote it down in a diary, is that proof? It's mad.

I saw Stella Whatshername today on the TV saying "victims" should be believed until proven otherwise! That totally reverses the burden of proof.

I'm not saying there AREN'T victims, but there may also be many reasons why a claim may not be true. There was a woman done the other day as they somehow put two and two together that she had an insane amount of r*pe allegations against unrelated different men - such people exist.

BTW 14 police officers went to his house to arrest him.

Say something sexually inappropriate happens to you when you are fairly young. After you've come to terms with it/realised that you shouldn't have been subjected to it etc what do you do. Justice I hear you say. Great let's go to the cops and report it.

Ok says Mr policeman where's your evidence.

Ooh I don't have any, you say, I wasn't allowed to stop and record it.

So, says Mr Policeman, you want to press charges against this person with no priors on a your word against his basis. Remember he's rather rich so he should be able to get himself a jolly good lawyer. Happy to pay legal costs if you lose. What about a defamation case against you in the future if you lose. Are you ok with that? I assume you have lots of money don't you.

What do you do.

Then after years of counselling, one day this person gets their comeuppance. Wouldn't you like to finally have your say.

Ok I've never been affected by these things and maybe it doesn't work like this, but if it does, then no time limit for me i'm afraid.

There are lots of predators out there. I was asked to do some pervy stuff for money by my older brother's friend when I was about 10. He later became headmaster of a Catholic school in the Midlands and I do now regret not alerting anyone at the time, as he may have been a molester for his whole career and others might have actually suffered. I would not bother to get 'justice' now though. No damage done to me and it helped me to spot a wrong un for the rest of my life.

a statute of limitations would not stop people being able to come forward after
a period of time to tell their story, or indeed to tell a made up story.

they will still find an audience if celebrity is involved

I just googled the man I was on about. A labour councillor now, and on 3 committees to do with childrens' affairs.

That's a very good point donny.

The sheer number of 'victims' who are more than happy to air all via the press is incredible.

If anything a S of L could bring even more out of the woodwork knowing that they're story could never be proved false (if it was).

Saddo. If the bloke still has anything to do with kids you probably should report him mate. Understand that is easier said than done of course.

Sooty and Sweep have now come forward, apparently they had someone's hand up their ar$e for years, the BBC knew but chose to turn a blind eye !

Open goal dan but even so