The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that Freddie Starr should not be prosecuted for any offence.
Baljit Ubhey, the Chief Crown Prosecutor of CPS London, said:
“Having carefully reviewed this case, we have decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute Freddie Starr in relation to allegations of sexual offences made by 13 individuals. Each allegation was considered on its own merits and we have concluded that the available evidence does not offer a realistic prospect of conviction for any of the alleged offences.
“In relation to one further complainant, we have decided that although there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, according to the Code for Crown Prosecutors, a prosecution would not be in the public interest. It must be remembered that a determination by a prosecutor that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute under the Code does not mean that the suspect is guilty of the offence. Prosecutors have to consider whether there is enough evidence to bring a case to trial but deciding whether an offence has been committed is entirely a matter for courts and juries and every suspect is innocent until proven guilty.
“All of these decisions have been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and our guidance for prosecutors on cases of sexual offences. The complainants have been informed and we will be writing to them to more fully explain our decision.”
The CPS received initial material from the Metropolitan Police Service regarding these allegations in December 2012. Investigative advice was provided to the police throughout 2013 and the final evidence was submitted to the CPS in March 2014.
theneedleblog 
In a justice system that is supposed to be fair to all how can it be right for an accused to be named on the basis of an arrest before any charges are brought ?All this is too easy for a bone idle police force obsessed with the Savile scandal which registers a sex complaint,arrests the accused,names him to the public and then sits back and waits for more complainants to come forward.FS was arrested and bailed over an outrageous period of 20 months and I hope he succeeds in successfully suing the Met.The other factor in these historic sex cases is that a public compensation fund pays out £14000 and £6000 respectively if a ‘victim’ can prove rape or sexual assault.This is clearly open to abuse.The CPS is hopeless anyway.
We set these celebrities up on a pedestal and overlook the fact that they have human frailties like the rest of us.When my daughter was 13 I made it my business to know where she was and what she got up to and that went on well into her teens,Apart from cases of parental sexual abuse surely some of the blame in these cases of under age sexual abuse must lie at the doorstep of irresponsible parenting ? I don’t condone what RH has done if in fact he is proven guilty I just say that we should look at other areas of society which may be contributory factors.I have serious reservations about the latest accusations against Stuart Hall when a woman claims to have been raped by him 30 times.Can she be serious ?
You think that the children are to blame and not the responsible adult who sexually abuses them? They feel under pressure, they don’t know how to stop what is happening, and they’re to blame ?
I’m not going to comment on the two ongoing cases because whatever I had to say would be in contempt of court. I will say that Stuart Hall is a paedophile convicted of abusing girls as young as 8 years old but you appear to be suggesting that if a paedophile abuses a child more than once then that equates to consent. Ultimately, it is the law that minors can not consent to sex. Just like they can’t drive a car, or sit on a jury.
It is always the adults responsibility to ensure that a person that they are having sexual relations with is above the age of consent because in law a child is incapable of making that decision.
With respect gojam you do not seem to have understood my comments at all and have merely presented your own thoughts.Where do I suggest that the children are to blame ? Do you want to come up with a more constructive response in reply to what I have said ?
look at this a close pal just emailed me
contains sound
http://thetruthnews.info/Theresa_Brown.html
Not in the public interest? Surely it’s in the interest of the alleged victim if, as the CPS states, there is enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction? Their statement sounds absolutely bonkers to me.
‘… a prosecution would not be in the public interest.’ How often does the CPS decide this? (Genuine question) Under what conditions can they decide that it is not in the public interest to try a person for a crime, for which there is a reasonable probability of the person being found guilty? Why aren’t they forced to explain this decision?
BTW I have no axe to grind with Starr nor any reason to believe him guilty of any crime. I just want the CPs to explain and justify their decision.
Info from CPS site on deciding public interest:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html
Start prosecuting the false accusers. You smear a man with 13 complainers.. you can’t put together a compelling case … and then you write to them to explain your decision? What does that tell you about the feminist-inspired CPS witch-hunt and the Criminal Compensation Authority handouts?
Meantime… female sex abusers excused to abuse our children with impunity.
Sickening.