Because (and IANAL, so I'm sure one will be along to correct me if I'm wrong) he has to be charged under the the charge extant at the time the offence was committed.
grand choice of picture to illustrate the articleGrace Dent nailed it months ago:
The Jimmy Savile abuse scandal means men across Britain will sleep uneasily, remembering past 'conquests'
<waits for VP to catch up ...>
Canucker.
Petronella Wyatt .... oh no....
You beat me.
Same here. My only question is, what took them so long ?
Same here. My only question is, what took them so long ?
they say for legal reasons. i guess those legal reasons may be mr harris' keen legal team?Same here. My only question is, what took them so long ?
I think he was in a clinic. Maybe they wanted him to be in good health before nicking him
same as with jimmy. national treasure, disbelieving coppers, hardcore lawyers.
(probably)
He's not been charged nor named by the police who are usually very keen to do so.
I mean "what took them several decades ?" Not saying he's a nonce or a rapist, but I've worked with him for one day in the 90s and was aware that he was sexually harassing female staff members. He was the opposite from his public persona, a really unpleasant man to be around.
Did you report him?
It would have been up to the women to report him, who were in higher positions than I was at the time. I didn't witness the harassment myself, but several of the women at the studio he was making a programme about, were complaining about how he would touch them inappropriately and without warning. Nobody did report him, because he was gone again after a day and he provided a lot of publicity to the company he was visiting. Nobody wanted to fuck that up.
More likely they didn't want to risk their jobs by complaining or be disbelieved