It annoys me that the Police have decided that these are not alleged incidents but crimes and that offences and not alleged offences were carried out and no one seems to be care. I'm aware that this will not be a poplar view however, until such cases are heard in a court of law they are alleged and not actual. If we cross the line where the police can decide the truth in such instances we are crossing a very important boundary and the Police should be very well aware of that.
The cases cannot now come to court as the defendant will not be able to defend himslef which puts the justice system in an unprecedented position. Lessons may well be learned from this but one thing is clear justice cannot now be provided because we can no longer ascertain his guilt or innocence, therefore we must ensure that such cases are not ignored as they quiote obviously were and not decide in absentia.
The politics of the situation are such that the government must be seen to be taking action but, they must ensure that their and everybody eles's actions are correct, in this age of 24 hour news it is more important than ever that we hold to our principles. Too often lines are being crossed blurred or just ignored, we do so at our peril.
Doesn't bother me at all and for the reason you pointed out - he's dead. These offences are now historical and the investigation is not about proving his guilt but about institutional failures at the BBC, hospitals, schools, the CPS and the police.
Hitler was never tried for his war crimes but we don't talk about them as being "alleged".
When the evidence collected is overwhelming and corroborated beyond any possibility of coincidence or false allegation like in this particular case I think we can safely drop the word alleged. The man was a monster.
It annoys me that the Police have decided that these are not alleged incidents but crimes and that offences and not alleged offences were carried out and no one seems to be care. I'm aware that this will not be a poplar view however, until such cases are heard in a court of law they are alleged and not actual. If we cross the line where the police can decide the truth in such instances we are crossing a very important boundary and the Police should be very well aware of that.
The cases cannot now come to court as the defendant will not be able to defend himslef which puts the justice system in an unprecedented position. Lessons may well be learned from this but one thing is clear justice cannot now be provided because we can no longer ascertain his guilt or innocence, therefore we must ensure that such cases are not ignored as they quiote obviously were and not decide in absentia.
The politics of the situation are such that the government must be seen to be taking action but, they must ensure that their and everybody eles's actions are correct, in this age of 24 hour news it is more important than ever that we hold to our principles. Too often lines are being crossed blurred or just ignored, we do so at our peril.
This has worried me as well - surely it is in these high profile cases that the legal system should be seen to work as it should. If he were alive (as I understand it) they would not be able to say anything like this, but you cannot commit liable against someone who is dead.
I do not for a moment suggest that he was not guilty of these horrendous crimes, but I do think that the police should stick to the rules or else the consequences would be very serious for our society as a whole.
My suspicious mind makes me wonder whether there is an attempt going on to look past the fact that they did not choose to investigate properly when he was alive and suggest that 'it is OK, we have decided that he was guilty, so, in a way, we got our man in the end'.
he was at it for decades-----and MANY people "looked the other way". When i was a kid many years ago it was always an urban legend that the real main nonces were in the Government---Judges----Obill ------people of power.
some Urban Legends arnt myths at all.
The thing is if the nonce scum bag was still alive---------ask yourself this---------would he still have been protected ? would it be still covered up ? would the BBC have come clean ? ---------not a f++kin chance.
You might want to look into the 'fairbank' investigation.
he was at it for decades-----and MANY people "looked the other way". When i was a kid many years ago it was always an urban legend that the real main nonces were in the Government---Judges----Obill ------people of power.
some Urban Legends arnt myths at all.
The thing is if the nonce scum bag was still alive---------ask yourself this---------would he still have been protected ? would it be still covered up ? would the BBC have come clean ? ---------not a f++kin chance.
You might want to look into the 'fairbank' investigation.
F Me, what a bunch of (alleged) sicko's live in the UK.
An appalling episode, has this individual's knighthood been taken away? I hope that the victims get some sense of justice in this, an appalling act of calculated abuse over 4 decades plus, preying on young people, His perverse gloating on tv, seems to taunt the viewer. The worst type of person, pissed in your tea, and then watched you drink it?.
It beggers belief really makes you wonder what kind of hold or power he had to be able to keep this quiet.
A friend's son is one of the runners at a legal firm and says that Saville was apparently not afraid to blackmail those in power and was very litigious so that's the power he had over influencers that enabled him to pursue his filthy deeds. All will be revealed in due course and there are people out there trying their damnest to kep a lid on this - its a right old royal battle out there!
"Offences were carried out at the BBC between 1965 and 2006"
How one bloke can get up to those sorts of things on a regular basis for 41 years at the same place and still get away with it baffles me.
How none of the victims complained during those 41 years is ridiculous
Some did complain but they were ignored.
The Crown Prosecution Service also published a review of a decision in 2009 not to charge Savile with sexual offences in relation to four complaints made to police in Surrey and Sussex.
That could well have been just one or two people - it is fair to assume the vast majority said nothing. Even if ignored would you then let it go ?
Or four people even.
And that was just in Surrey and Sussex. Remember this man lived in Yorkshire.
Exactly - why would people not complain at the time
Shame
Embarrassment
Being children and not fully understanding what was happening
Fear of being ignored or punished
Fear of not being believed
Threats from the abuser or reprisals
Wishing to blank out the abuse and so not wanting to bring the matter up
No confidence that the Police will act or the abuser be brought to justice
Did complain at the time but it was hushed up.
...and now that he is dead
And he was dead last Christmas when BBC newsnight editors killed a programme after women agreed to go on camera and talk about their experience so that their trust was abused again
edwina curey on the news just now said he got himself in charge ofthe wages and HR stuff ar Broodmore and knew who was fidling the OT-her words-----------so he had an angle there he looked for the week spots and used em--------------arc type peodo
This is an interesting point, and I agree with the core thoughts. It would be interesting to see what Legal Addick had to say about it. Having said that it is possible to reach a pardon posthumously for a conviction. Also in other countries a judge can make a finding categorically stating his judgement, which leaves no uncertainty as to the guilt of individuals even when the statute of limitations prevent conviction. One would assume as well that with capital offences, dna could prove certain cases and provide a verdict on suspects not convicted: Where DNA exists of suspects.
The above is getting away from the point. The Saville case provides an overbearing amount of evidence. I'm not in a position to judge it. But the police were, I found it particularly poor practice where the police were constantly briefing the press and stating their belief on his abuse and guilt. It is their job to present the evidence, which appears to clearly show him as a pathological abuser. Their judgement is acceptable at the end of an investigation, not constantly during it. By their unprofessional briefings, it is quite easy to observe a possible biased position towards evidence: I'm not so naive as to believe that this is possible, but during an investigation it is surely wrong to allow it to be led by an absolutely entrenched opinion.
Within this febrile atmosphere the police will get many things wrong. I'm not intelligent enough to create new and enlightened legislation. Is it needed? I've judged others before on why and when they've provided testimonies. Perhaps some empathy and compassion to all, especially from the football terraces, and just listening without pre-judging. This does not call for every possible high profile witness testimony to be subsequently believed unfettered.
Pardons are only issued where accusations have been brought to court and found to be correct (erroneously as it later transpires) posthumous or not, so I dont think that situation is similar enough. The point is not guilt or innocence, the point is who decides. Like StevieK, I'm of the opinion that this is a little face saving exercise by the Police for political expediency. On the face of it there is, as you rightly point out seemingly overwhelming evidence but it is the job of the Police to collect, collate and present that evidence through the crown prosecution service to a court of law and not to unilaterally sit in judgement.
Your comment about press briefings is another bug bear of mine, ok if named, but why would a public servant issue an anonymous press statement if it were not just to influence public opinion? In other countries this practice is illegal and the press have an obligation (rightly in my opinion) to name the source, also this would never have been done if the accused were alive. Your argument about entrenched opinions is I believe correct, poignant and well made.
There is a mechanism by which the case could be heard and that is a Judge led public enquiry, I dont think it could pronounce guilt or innocence but can based on the balance of probability provide a judgement. What use that would be I dont know, I suspect more than a police investigation because further light would be shone upon the actions and decisions of the Police in relation to previous investigations prosecutions or lack thereof.
Lastly Hitler, was he guilty? Well the evidence would seem incontrovertible however, could he not reasonably claim diminished responsibility by means of insanity, were he alive? This is exactly why posthumous prosecutions are not made.
"Offences were carried out at the BBC between 1965 and 2006"
How one bloke can get up to those sorts of things on a regular basis for 41 years at the same place and still get away with it baffles me.
How none of the victims complained during those 41 years is ridiculous
Some did complain but they were ignored.
The Crown Prosecution Service also published a review of a decision in 2009 not to charge Savile with sexual offences in relation to four complaints made to police in Surrey and Sussex.
That could well have been just one or two people - it is fair to assume the vast majority said nothing. Even if ignored would you then let it go ?
Or four people even.
And that was just in Surrey and Sussex. Remember this man lived in Yorkshire.
Exactly - why would people not complain at the time
Shame
Embarrassment
Being children and not fully understanding what was happening
Fear of being ignored or punished
Fear of not being believed
Threats from the abuser or reprisals
Wishing to blank out the abuse and so not wanting to bring the matter up
No confidence that the Police will act or the abuser be brought to justice
Did complain at the time but it was hushed up.
...and now that he is dead
It saddens me to read comments about why did people not speak up. As somebody who was sexually abused I can tell you that all but the last two of Henry's reasons were why I didn't speak up as an 11 year old and kept it quiet for years. If you add to Henry's list the fact that most children, myself included, who are abused, think that it is somehow their fault. It has only been because of the love of my wife and key family and friends that I was able to speak up to them. I never told my parents for fear that they would not be able to deal with the knowledge.
It is absolutely clear to me why people have come forward in droves since he died and since light has been shed on these matters. Its because they finally feel the courage to speak out because they now know that they are not alone - they have suffered alone for all these years blaming themselves, wondering if anyone will believe them, having to re-live the shame.
I said on an earlier thread that many more would come forward. I still don't think they have got to the end of the list.
As far as crime v allegations. Well every sensible person knows that these are just words. Did these things happen? Absolutely - of course they did? Hundreds of times over. It is unsatisfactory in the extreme that he wasn't prosecuted during his lifetime. We have no way of knowing who would have come forward at that stage if they knew there were others involved.
We can ignore the weight of truth or accept that he was one of the most prolific paedophiles that have ever come to light.
I wish that the person who abused me was still alive in some ways - however I can at least be content that he is dead and can't abuse anybody else.
Please remember though that NSPCC reckons that 1 in 6 young people between the ages of 11 and 16 have been abused. An absolutely horrifying statistic.
"Offences were carried out at the BBC between 1965 and 2006"
How one bloke can get up to those sorts of things on a regular basis for 41 years at the same place and still get away with it baffles me.
How none of the victims complained during those 41 years is ridiculous
Some did complain but they were ignored.
The Crown Prosecution Service also published a review of a decision in 2009 not to charge Savile with sexual offences in relation to four complaints made to police in Surrey and Sussex.
That could well have been just one or two people - it is fair to assume the vast majority said nothing. Even if ignored would you then let it go ?
Or four people even.
And that was just in Surrey and Sussex. Remember this man lived in Yorkshire.
Exactly - why would people not complain at the time
Shame
Embarrassment
Being children and not fully understanding what was happening
Fear of being ignored or punished
Fear of not being believed
Threats from the abuser or reprisals
Wishing to blank out the abuse and so not wanting to bring the matter up
No confidence that the Police will act or the abuser be brought to justice
Did complain at the time but it was hushed up.
...and now that he is dead
It saddens me to read comments about why did people not speak up. As somebody who was sexually abused I can tell you that all but the last two of Henry's reasons were why I didn't speak up as an 11 year old and kept it quiet for years. If you add to Henry's list the fact that most children, myself included, who are abused, think that it is somehow their fault. It has only been because of the love of my wife and key family and friends that I was able to speak up to them. I never told my parents for fear that they would not be able to deal with the knowledge.
It is absolutely clear to me why people have come forward in droves since he died and since light has been shed on these matters. Its because they finally feel the courage to speak out because they now know that they are not alone - they have suffered alone for all these years blaming themselves, wondering if anyone will believe them, having to re-live the shame.
I said on an earlier thread that many more would come forward. I still don't think they have got to the end of the list.
As far as crime v allegations. Well every sensible person knows that these are just words. Did these things happen? Absolutely - of course they did? Hundreds of times over. It is unsatisfactory in the extreme that he wasn't prosecuted during his lifetime. We have no way of knowing who would have come forward at that stage if they knew there were others involved.
We can ignore the weight of truth or accept that he was one of the most prolific paedophiles that have ever come to light.
I wish that the person who abused me was still alive in some ways - however I can at least be content that he is dead and can't abuse anybody else.
Please remember though that NSPCC reckons that 1 in 6 young people between the ages of 11 and 16 have been abused. An absolutely horrifying statistic.
Thank you Bing for posting that. Very brave and very informative. Something everyone whose posted on this thread, me included should ponder on.
Comments
best used in conjunction with the words large and breasts
Hitler was never tried for his war crimes but we don't talk about them as being "alleged".
I do not for a moment suggest that he was not guilty of these horrendous crimes, but I do think that the police should stick to the rules or else the consequences would be very serious for our society as a whole.
My suspicious mind makes me wonder whether there is an attempt going on to look past the fact that they did not choose to investigate properly when he was alive and suggest that 'it is OK, we have decided that he was guilty, so, in a way, we got our man in the end'.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/scotland-yard-investigating-allegations-senior-politicians-abused-children-in-the-1980s-and-used-connections-to-escape-justice-8411989.html
I hope that the victims get some sense of justice in this, an appalling act of calculated abuse over 4 decades plus, preying on young people, His perverse gloating on tv, seems to taunt the viewer. The worst type of person, pissed in your tea, and then watched you drink it?.
Your comment about press briefings is another bug bear of mine, ok if named, but why would a public servant issue an anonymous press statement if it were not just to influence public opinion? In other countries this practice is illegal and the press have an obligation (rightly in my opinion) to name the source, also this would never have been done if the accused were alive. Your argument about entrenched opinions is I believe correct, poignant and well made.
There is a mechanism by which the case could be heard and that is a Judge led public enquiry, I dont think it could pronounce guilt or innocence but can based on the balance of probability provide a judgement. What use that would be I dont know, I suspect more than a police investigation because further light would be shone upon the actions and decisions of the Police in relation to previous investigations prosecutions or lack thereof.
Lastly Hitler, was he guilty? Well the evidence would seem incontrovertible however, could he not reasonably claim diminished responsibility by means of insanity, were he alive? This is exactly why posthumous prosecutions are not made.
It is absolutely clear to me why people have come forward in droves since he died and since light has been shed on these matters. Its because they finally feel the courage to speak out because they now know that they are not alone - they have suffered alone for all these years blaming themselves, wondering if anyone will believe them, having to re-live the shame.
I said on an earlier thread that many more would come forward. I still don't think they have got to the end of the list.
As far as crime v allegations. Well every sensible person knows that these are just words. Did these things happen? Absolutely - of course they did? Hundreds of times over. It is unsatisfactory in the extreme that he wasn't prosecuted during his lifetime. We have no way of knowing who would have come forward at that stage if they knew there were others involved.
We can ignore the weight of truth or accept that he was one of the most prolific paedophiles that have ever come to light.
I wish that the person who abused me was still alive in some ways - however I can at least be content that he is dead and can't abuse anybody else.
Please remember though that NSPCC reckons that 1 in 6 young people between the ages of 11 and 16 have been abused. An absolutely horrifying statistic.