Discussion
in the early days of this investigation (and other similar ones) it was often asked "why didn't the accusers say anything at the time?" Well it's showed many tmes since - and now confirmed once more - that they did say things at the time and were either not believed, ignored, to just told to shut up and forget about it. The whole thing is an absolute disgrace and no one - not the police, the BBC, the NHS, the media et al - comes out with any credit.
Langweilig said:
From what I heard on Radio 5 Live. His disgusting, perverted behaviour was reported to hospital staff. Their response was, "Don't worry. We know he's like that. Just ignore him."
May I make so bold as to ask if there's such a thing in UK law, as "guilt by association?"
As someone who lives but 120 yards from Stoke Mandeville hospital, these rumours were rife in 2001. There have been lodgers in my house, some who worked at the hospital, who were told things like “Saville’s coming tomorrow- make your self scarce”. Younger nurses were told to work elsewhere. May I make so bold as to ask if there's such a thing in UK law, as "guilt by association?"
I personally take comments from the hospital seniors that they didn’t know what Saville was up to with a large pinch of salt.
Bonefish Blues said:
Just heard on R4 that those who knew,even those in positions of power cannot be prosecuted providing they simply turned a blind eye.
I'm not in favour of creating extra law, by and large, but surely here is a gap that needs filling.
If in public office, there is a range of offences that can be considered. Unfortunately, this very rarely occurs. The authorities need to go after the senior figures who were or are still in authority to make any real changes.I'm not in favour of creating extra law, by and large, but surely here is a gap that needs filling.
Also on the Home Service was reference to the importance of being cynical and distrustful of the celebrity culture (I paraphrase).
Thanks for that Swisstoni. Perhaps we should all Email our MPs asking why that's rarely, if ever, used?
Rob Wilson, MP for Reading East was just on Today on Radio (around 8.30) 4 about how he wrote to Stoke Mandeville in 2012 about concerns made to him by constituents and how they seem to have fobbed him off, that lead to a short discussion on the public life aspect of closing ranks and covering up.
Rob Wilson, MP for Reading East was just on Today on Radio (around 8.30) 4 about how he wrote to Stoke Mandeville in 2012 about concerns made to him by constituents and how they seem to have fobbed him off, that lead to a short discussion on the public life aspect of closing ranks and covering up.
Rob Wilson MP will be sleeping with fishes in the Thames soon?:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy...
carinaman said:
Rob Wilson MP will be sleeping with fishes in the Thames soon?:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy...
Article is December 2013, is Wilson still with us?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy...
Yeah, he's just been on Today on Radio 4 saying how a senior person at Stoke Mandeville seems to have fobbed him off in a letter in 2012. It seems the Inquiry findings don't tally with the letter Rob Wilson MP got in 2012. I wonder if the BBC will be so keen to cover Patten seeming to lean on him? What's the difference?
number 46 said:
Patton needs to be sacked, he is just a classic example of the problem, too concerned with covering up and not with the real crime. He was the same over the Entwhistle carve-up and pay off.
The sack should be the least of his worries. He should be taken in and interviewed under caution. Sir Cliff Richard was collared as a result of two accusations.
V8 Fettler said:
If in public office, there is a range of offences that can be considered. Unfortunately, this very rarely occurs. The authorities need to go after the senior figures who were or are still in authority to make any real changes.
Also on the Home Service was reference to the importance of being cynical and distrustful of the celebrity culture (I paraphrase).
You might be thinking of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. It is used against police officers fairly frequently as it is a 'catch-all' offence. If you are involved in an incident of any type where there could be a lot of blame attached, it is best if you not only make records but keep a copy of them. Or rather, make a copy of them and keep the originals. There can be few officers, even down to the fairly lowly, where a note made at the time has not been a saviour. Also on the Home Service was reference to the importance of being cynical and distrustful of the celebrity culture (I paraphrase).
I've had a friend of mine charged with malfeasance, together with two or three others. There was no supporting evidence, it was just done to make it alleviate pressure from the high-ups. All in all, I know of five officers changed with it, a number under investigation for it and a much higher number threatened with it. Part of the risk when you are making decisions on an operational incident.
Or rather, just one of the risks you run when senior officers feel they are under threat when a job has gone wrong.
Misfeasance is much less common as an original charge. It is threatened a lot.
These are common law offences, and civil offences as well, the latter out of my knowledge. Punishment can be life.
If a senior officer used his authority to stop a prosecution against an offender for a serious offence, or even someone who could not be proved to have been guilty, then I would think that malfeasance is entirely suitable as a charge. In the case of Savile, if anyone, CPS, DPP, senior officer, did block prosecutions for inappropriate reasons and the abuse continued then that would bring pressure for a hefty punishment.
Still, with any luck, the press regulatory body will be installed and so revelations of misconduct will become fewer in years to come.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff