[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Zee

But then on the other hand - what if he did nothing to these women? He didn't 'get away' with anything, he didn't have to answer allegations because there weren't any and now he's dead and people are dragging his name through the mud. Why wait until he's dead? They've had what, forty years to come forward with this information? I just don't think I believe this, it's my gut feeling.

they weren't women, they were children.

[the truth]

a person is innocent until proven guilty. trial by media is no trial at all, totally meaningless. If these women want to be taken seriously go to the police and provide evidence and try to prove these allegations.

[arista]

Originally Posted by the truth

a person is innocent until proven guilty. trial by media is no trial at all, totally meaningless. If these women want to be taken seriously go to the police and provide evidence and try to prove these allegations.

The Police
are now looking into this , again.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by arista

The Police
are now looking into this , again.

What can the Police achieve by looking into this again, they will take statements from the alleged victims but no evidence ie photographic or DNA (wasn't around then) or anything that can substantiate these claims. It becomes their word against the word of a dead man who cannot answer back.

No criminal prosecution will ever be mounted so all of this is circumstantial, heresay etc...

If these women were attacked/molested/abused by him then it is outrageous that this much loved figure could hide this vile behaviour from the public for so long. And yes their story should be told and he should lose his knighthood and his name and reputation.

But if they are creating stories out of nothing or embellishing odd behaviour which may have felt uncomfortable at the time eg fruity language to gain press attention and/or monetary gain now all these years later, then how can JS ever defend himself against this.

Since Mud sticks and there's no smoke without fire even if these stories amount to nothing his reputation is toast.

A tough one to call...!!!

[lostalex]

innocent until proven guilty under THE LAW. but just because you can't prove someone is guilty doesn't mean they are innocent in REALITY.

[arista]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Well i think the BBC does have something to answer for in this case. And the BBC deserves the criticism it's getting right now. The BBC did extensive work on this story and then buried it for no reason.

Yes a Ex BBC Producer is in the Docu.

I hope it goes Online so you can watch it , Alex.


The Bloated BBC rushed out how they have no Record of this.
But Good news many that worked with him are still Alive
One Former Worker
in the docu warned Jimmy as he was with a 14 year old girl.
That Interview has been pre-viewed.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by lostalex

innocent until proven guilty under THE LAW. but just because you can't prove someone is guilty doesn't mean they are innocent in REALITY.

and it doesnt mean theyre guilty in reality either

personally i think the law should protect the accused as well as the accuser until it reaches trial. as it stands, anyone can wrongly accuse anyone of anything, shame them, detsroy their lives, get them sacked and withdraw the complaint at a later date. oh and sell the story in the mean time to make a fortune. false accusation of such a crime is almost as bad as the crime itself imho

[arista]

A new Woman who was 14 at the time
in Jersey
was taken into his van for sexual acts.

Just on Ch5News

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by the truth

and it doesnt mean theyre guilty in reality either

personally i think the law should protect the accused as well as the accuser until it reaches trial. as it stands, anyone can wrongly accuse anyone of anything, shame them, detsroy their lives, get them sacked and withdraw the complaint at a later date. oh and sell the story in the mean time to make a fortune. false accusation of such a crime is almost as bad as the crime itself imho

no, i think as it stands now there are far more guilty people going free than innocent people put in jail. Guilty people already have it too easy, you want to have even more opportunities to get away with their crimes??? are you joking??

[Omah]

With all this speculation going on before the program, what's it going to be like when we've seen it .....

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Omah

With all this speculation going on before the program, what's it going to be like when we've seen it .....

i'm gonna watch it, and i'll be open minded when i watch it.

[Omah]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/wi...-away-with-it/

In Jimmy Savile’s case, we know there were stories circulating about his child abuse among BBC colleagues. “It was always said that Jimmy likes them young,” a veteran broadcaster told the Telegraph. One former BBC producer said: "I know for a fact that Jimmy spent a night in a rather squalid hotel with a girl who was at the most 12, or probably 10…”

So why did no one put an end to it? The answer won’t necessarily be an obvious one. Malcolm Gladwell pointed out in the New Yorker recently that “a paedophile is someone adept not just at preying on children but at confusing, deceiving, and charming the adults responsible for those children”.

Gladwell’s piece, headlined "In Plain View: How child molesters get away with it", is worth reading for one reason alone: it reveals precisely how paedophiles operate. The average child abuser is not, says Gladwell, a “dishevelled old man baldly offering candy to preschoolers”. Rather, they can be highly popular, charismatic – almost canonised by the community they live in.

Gladwell tells the story of Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child molester who was assistant football coach at Pennsylvania State University from 1969 to 1999. Like Jimmy Savile, Sandusky was a philanthropist. He founded The Second Mile, a charity that served Pennsylvania’s underprivileged youth – and he used that organisation, as well as his football coaching, to select vulnerable boys, groom them, and abuse them.

It becomes clear, in Sandusky’s case, that he wasn’t a football coach or philanthropist by coincidence. He was those two things because he was a paedophile, and because they gave him access to children he could abuse, all the while earning him the trust of adults. Gladwell makes the wider point: “Paedophiles cluster in professions that give them access to vulnerable children – teaching, the clergy, medicine.”

To me, what has emerged over the last few days proves that Jimmy Savile was not involved in children’s television and other popular TV shows by coincidence, but because they allowed him to select, groom and abuse young girls. In part, he got away with it because the Jimmy Savile public persona – the loveable, slightly creepy eccentric – was enough to distract from his very real crimes. Most people gave him the benefit of the doubt.

After Sandusky's conviction, an independent report confirmed that senior university officials had known about allegations of his abuse, but were complicit in failing to disclose them.

"In Plain View" - to those who opened their eyes .....

[the truth]

Originally Posted by lostalex

no, i think as it stands now there are far more guilty people going free than innocent people put in jail. Guilty people already have it too easy, you want to have even more opportunities to get away with their crimes??? are you joking??

but what of those thousands falsely accused who lives and families are utterly destroyed? what should happen to those false accusers, who simply set out to destroy people and make fast money?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by the truth

but what of those thousands falsely accused who lives and families are utterly destroyed? what should happen to those false accusers, who simply set out to destroy people and make fast money?

what about those millions of victims that get no justice?

[arista]

Dee Coles


on Ch4 News Now

[GypsyGoth]

It seems like people don't want to believe it because he is perceived to have done a lot of good with his life, just like those molester priests.

[arista]

Originally Posted by GypsyGoth

It seems like people don't want to believe it because he is perceived to have done a lot of good with his life, just like those molester priests.

Yes

I will watch the 11:10PM Docu on ITV1HD
tomorrow night

[lostalex]

Wednesday Night in the UK an expose on a beloved icon being a child molestor
Wednesday Night in the US the Presidential debate.

I can't decide which is more sordid.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by lostalex

what about those millions of victims that get no justice?

2 wrongs do not make a right
we need to fight to protect the innocent as well as prosecute the guilty
as it stands, we name and shame thousands of innocent people and destroy their lives needlessly. I have enormous sympathy for these falsely accused people, just as I have sympathy for the victims of crime
false accusation is massively underestimated in the Uk.
It should be a minimum of 5 years imprisonment.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by the truth

2 wrongs do not make a right
we need to fight to protect the innocent as well as prosecute the guilty
as it stands, we name and shame thousands of innocent people and destroy their lives needlessly. I have enormous sympathy for these falsely accused people, just as I have sympathy for the victims of crime
false accusation is massively underestimated in the Uk.
It should be a minimum of 5 years imprisonment.

sorry, but I disagree, i think there are far more guilty people getting away with their crimes then there are innocent people being "named and shamed" as you put it.

We need to be thinking about more ways to put guilty people in jail, not more ways to give them even more excuses to get away with it.

[arista]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Wednesday Night in the UK an expose on a beloved icon being a child molestor Wednesday Night in the US the Presidential debate. I can't decide which is more sordid.

but that US Debate is not on for Hours after our 11:10PM (thats your afternoon etc)
you do know that?

[the truth]

Originally Posted by GypsyGoth

It seems like people don't want to believe it because he is perceived to have done a lot of good with his life, just like those molester priests.

I dont agree. People want to see the guilty brought to justice
However people do not want to see trial by media, or false accusations made out of either pure malicious, mental derangement or purely for financial gain. The crime of false accusation is one of the worst most under-punished crimes in the country. the government must address this. the trouble is, the more false accusers who make filth up in order to get revenge or maybe through mental illness or to milk money off the press or blackmail is enormous.
worse still, the false accusers waste police and judicial time and money.. this then means less time and money is spent on the legitmitae victims of these disgusting crimes.

The law under the labour government tried to be biased in favour of the accuser. this has failed. the law cannot be biased or the whole system is corrupted. The law must be balanced and justice must be blind.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by arista

but that US Debate is not on for Hours after our 11:10PM
you do know that?

well that's why i'll be downloading the itv doc first and watching the debates live. but my point stands, they're both sordid.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by lostalex

sorry, but I disagree, i think there are far more guilty people getting away with their crimes then there are innocent people being "named and shamed" as you put it.

We need to be thinking about more ways to put guilty people in jail, not more ways to give them even more excuses to get away with it.

so just allow anyone accuse anyone of anything , allow any money grabber to sell a pack of lies to a tabloid (as is done on a daily basis) , then have a witch hunt so people target individuals, smash their homes, attack them, beta them to death?

the vast majority of accusations made against teachers for example turn out to be a pack of lies (over 66% in canada provided zero evidence at all) often the false accusers in families relate to family break ups.



meanwhile if it even goes to court, tax payers then spent billions on these cases, name and shame millions of innocent people, get them all sacked, no doubt many of the falsely accused will lose their families , their homes, their careers, their health and ultimately many will kill themselves with the stress. all that talent , all those innocent people and their friends and families detsroyed. you think that sounds like a fair unbiased society? that is anarchy.

you should go to the police, provide evidence and not be allowed to make false accusations just to make money and to destroy people you hate

harriet harman that total nutjob, demands in every single accusation of anything , you should always assume the accusers is `100% in the right. what hogwash. assume nothing. collect the evidence. if theres enough then it goes to court. simple. trials by media are out of control. if we followed her insane mentality , millions would be getting arrested on a daily basis. exactly how manylives does she want to destroy , shed also need around 5 million more police. ironically though accusations against the police get buried more than anything, even more than the priests paedophilia.

There should be far tighter laws on false accusation, as the number of false accusers is out of control

the law must be balanced, justice must be blind.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by lostalex

well that's why i'll be downloading the itv doc first and watching the debates live. but my point stands, they're both sordid.

so is false accusation, disgustingly sordid.