Discussion
Welshbeef said:
Mr Snap said:
You mean that had all of Hitler's henchmen committed suicide untried, he would have got away with it…?
There's plenty of evidence on public record, it just hasn't been tried in court. But I don't think anyone rational believes he wasn't guilty of hundreds of offences.
Exactly we don't but fact is legally and forever more he is an innocent man There's plenty of evidence on public record, it just hasn't been tried in court. But I don't think anyone rational believes he wasn't guilty of hundreds of offences.
Please explain the point you are trying to make? Because I'm f*cking baffled.
MocMocaMoc said:
Welshbeef said:
Mr Snap said:
You mean that had all of Hitler's henchmen committed suicide untried, he would have got away with it…?
There's plenty of evidence on public record, it just hasn't been tried in court. But I don't think anyone rational believes he wasn't guilty of hundreds of offences.
Exactly we don't but fact is legally and forever more he is an innocent man There's plenty of evidence on public record, it just hasn't been tried in court. But I don't think anyone rational believes he wasn't guilty of hundreds of offences.
Please explain the point you are trying to make? Because I'm f*cking baffled.
He cannot be found guilty due to the fact a dead person cannot be put to face charges in court therefore as he was never found guilty in court he is legally an innocent man. More to the point regardless of any evidence even if its 100% cast iron without doubt not just accusations without witnesses he is a legally innocent man.
I cannot explain it any clearer than that - hope this clears it up if your still f
king baffled what part or is it a case that you cannot believe our legal system cannot find such a highly likely guilty man guilty even though he is dead. Welshbeef said:
MocMocaMoc said:
Welshbeef said:
Mr Snap said:
You mean that had all of Hitler's henchmen committed suicide untried, he would have got away with it…?
There's plenty of evidence on public record, it just hasn't been tried in court. But I don't think anyone rational believes he wasn't guilty of hundreds of offences.
Exactly we don't but fact is legally and forever more he is an innocent man There's plenty of evidence on public record, it just hasn't been tried in court. But I don't think anyone rational believes he wasn't guilty of hundreds of offences.
Please explain the point you are trying to make? Because I'm f*cking baffled.
He cannot be found guilty due to the fact a dead person cannot be put to face charges in court therefore as he was never found guilty in court he is legally an innocent man. More to the point regardless of any evidence even if its 100% cast iron without doubt not just accusations without witnesses he is a legally innocent man.
I cannot explain it any clearer than that - hope this clears it up if your still f
king baffled what part or is it a case that you cannot believe our legal system cannot find such a highly likely guilty man guilty even though he is dead. And, is why I'm baffled, branding him 'innocent' is of equal value. Like the artist who spoke out to say what the 9/11 terrorists achieved was a visual masterpiece, while technically true (we pay money to cinemas to see equal devastation) nobody appreciated being told that. And he was, legally, punched in the mouth (sure he was sued by the family of a victim - and certainly dragged by his teeth through the media)
And so, here were are, shouting at the top of our fingers about how Jimmy Savile is (TECHNICALLY) an innocent man?
Shut the f*ck up.
MocMocaMoc said:
And what benefit to the world does branding him guilty hold? I'm guessing all cases are being investigated and, as a result, process put in place to prevent further examples of these monsters being able to carry out what he's done. And the victims, hopefully, offered help in any form required. So, in real terms, branding him guilty is of absolutely no consequence to anyone?!
And, is why I'm baffled, branding him 'innocent' is of equal value. Like the artist who spoke out to say what the 9/11 terrorists achieved was a visual masterpiece, while technically true (we pay money to cinemas to see equal devastation) nobody appreciated being told that. And he was, legally, punched in the mouth (sure he was sued by the family of a victim - and certainly dragged by his teeth through the media)
And so, here were are, shouting at the top of our fingers about how Jimmy Savile is (TECHNICALLY) an innocent man?
Shut the f*ck up.
He is very very likely guilty but there is no cast iron proof - that has been made public instead a huge number of accusations. Is the evidence against him on a case by case basis as strong as Roche DTL devillers or is it beyond reasonable doubt?And, is why I'm baffled, branding him 'innocent' is of equal value. Like the artist who spoke out to say what the 9/11 terrorists achieved was a visual masterpiece, while technically true (we pay money to cinemas to see equal devastation) nobody appreciated being told that. And he was, legally, punched in the mouth (sure he was sued by the family of a victim - and certainly dragged by his teeth through the media)
And so, here were are, shouting at the top of our fingers about how Jimmy Savile is (TECHNICALLY) an innocent man?
Shut the f*ck up.
Do you think These recent celebs who have had their innocence affirmed are in your eyes actually guilty?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy...
Telegraph article said:
Young victims of Jimmy Savile’s predatory sexual advances were made to feel that they should be “grateful” for his attentions, a new study shows.
Detailed interviews with victims show how several attempted to speak out but were laughed at, accused of lying or even told they were “lucky”.
Maybe some food for thought here for those who keep wondering whether or why not Savile's victims didn't report his crimes earlier. In many cases they did report the crime but weren't believed.Detailed interviews with victims show how several attempted to speak out but were laughed at, accused of lying or even told they were “lucky”.
unrepentant said:
petemurphy said:
dlt to face a retrial - what a waste of money and there goes his life for another year.
(unless he did it that is)
Ridiculous waste of your money. CPS in face saving mode now desperate to get a conviction of some sort against anyone. (unless he did it that is)
aw51 121565 said:
And if they do 'succeed', they'll no doubt be inspired to keep this charade going even longer (he writes cynically).
Fair point! I'm sure many "bad things" are happening in the world every year which should be pursued, but trawling over this shaky old stuff at huge public expense just looks like a witch-hunt.Savile estate of 4 million turned over to provide compensation for the "victims" . Silly me, I actually thought proving you were actually abused was required before you get a shed load of cash
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26352161
Lawyers said the announcement was good news for the more than 140 people who have made compensation claims.
Sorry, but this rather stinks to me. Think I might go put myself dow for a chunk, seem to recall him touching me inappropriately when I was a lad, I am still very traumatised from it you know.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26352161
Lawyers said the announcement was good news for the more than 140 people who have made compensation claims.
Sorry, but this rather stinks to me. Think I might go put myself dow for a chunk, seem to recall him touching me inappropriately when I was a lad, I am still very traumatised from it you know.
Yes I'm sure that all is required as a burden of proof is to rock up and say that Jimmy touched you.
I'm sure that nobody will have had the sense to put in a place any sort of mechanism to check whether your story might be true. When it happened, where it happened, what the circumastances were and to check that against the records they have of JS's movements and locations at the time as well as cross referencing his MO with the other victims that have come forward.
No siree - just turning up and saying that he touched you is surely more than enough to get a big cash payout.
I'm sure that nobody will have had the sense to put in a place any sort of mechanism to check whether your story might be true. When it happened, where it happened, what the circumastances were and to check that against the records they have of JS's movements and locations at the time as well as cross referencing his MO with the other victims that have come forward.
No siree - just turning up and saying that he touched you is surely more than enough to get a big cash payout.
grumbledoak said:
I am quite sure the aforementioned lawyers will spend most of it on themselves administering this process in minute detail.
Wouldn't be at all surprised at that. "We have an important responsibility to all of the victims and to the estate". I can hear the cash register from here... Ozzie Osmond said:
grumbledoak said:
I am quite sure the aforementioned lawyers will spend most of it on themselves administering this process in minute detail.
Wouldn't be at all surprised at that. "We have an important responsibility to all of the victims and to the estate". I can hear the cash register from here... Telegraph article 2013 said:
The late judge, Sir Ronald Waterhouse, took evidence over three years, and in 2000 produced a report, “Lost in Care”. His tribunal had cost millions and ultimately achieved little, other than fat fees for lawyers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff