The laws of libel and slander perhaps where the defendant has to prove the veracity of their statements on a balance of probability.
Well that's the point, isn't it? You can't libel the dead.
of course he did charity work, so he must be okay?
[quote=Junkyard ]
Its eye witness testimony however you wish to caricature it-
Thankfully, we have a place where such testimony can be scrutinised fairly and can be cross-examined. It's called a courtroom.
You've got to admire the balls of Gambacini; he goes on TV to say he knew that Jimmy was a child abuser and somehow manages to excuse the fact that he didn't call the police. Mind you, some of the stuff he said is just nonsensical:
He said Sir Jimmy was "about to be exposed" by one newspaper, but to prevent its publication he gave an interview to a rival tabloid which had the effect of stopping the negative piece.
How does that work? Surely it'd be even better if you could stick it to a rival by showing that their puff-piece interview was with a paedophile celeb.
[quote=surroundedbyhills > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19788721
Surrey Police questions JS in 2007.
I'm sure that we could come up with an extensive list of teachers, social workers, nurses, doctors and other professions all of whom have had accusations levelled at them. In the overwhelming majority of cases these are determined to be completely unfounded.
it must be true..
the evidence..
some people say they were involved and chose not to come forward until 30-40 years after it happened and then after he was dead and then chose not to tell the authorities but all felt the best way to reveal thier ordeal was to a specific tv producer at the same time from whom they probably have recieved no reward or expences for thier time
some people say they saw it
some people say they know someone who saw it
some people say the know someone who read that somebody knew someone had seen it.
having reviewed that evidence Ester says its true..
Much easier to get an audience by running to the media desperate for a bit of sensationalism??
Some interesting aspersions you are casting about these people who may well be victims of abuse.
what does this mean?
I means that you have been verbalised. 🙂
It's an honour. Don't take the responsibility lightly.
Some interesting aspersions you are casting about these people who may well be victims of abuse.
is it not the STW method of analysis
[quote=grum ]Some interesting aspersions you are casting about these people who may well be victims of abuse.
You're right. It would be much better if I waited until they were dead and then named them all individually. Silly me.
[img] 
[/img]
Maybe we could ask Esther to weigh up the aspersions, and pass judgement. Seeing as she seems to have put herself forward as some sort of Daily Mail reading, Middle England Judge Dredd, dispensing justice on her selective reading of the facts/hearsay/gossip/blatently made up stuff
You're right. It would be much better if I waited until they were dead and then named them all individually. Silly me.
I think flippantly dismissing the reasons why victims might not feel happy to come forward about being abused even years later is pretty offensive TBH. I agree that participating in a crappy ITV programme probably isn't the best way of doing it.
You're casting aspersions about the motivations of the people involved in this programme while complaining about people casting aspersions about Jimmy Saville. I would suggest the people in the programme probably have rather more basis for their aspersions than you do.
[quote=grum ]You're casting aspersions about the motivations of the people involved in this programme while complaining about people casting aspersions about Jimmy Saville.
Call it post-ironic.
Call it post-ironic.
I prefer the traditional term 'hypocrisy'.
I would suggest the people in the programme probably have rather more basis for their aspersions than you do.
and you know that how?
Given that nobody can be done for libel or slander, the level of proof required to make these allegations is... erm... non-existent
Given that nobody can be done for libel or slander, the level of proof required to make these allegations is... erm... non-existent
I'm willing to accept there might be a tiny minority of nutjobs who are willing to make up stuff like this for 5 minutes of 'fame', but a whole host of them? Really?
Seems very unlikely to me, especially when combined with the persistent rumours about him (which admittedly mostly amount to hearsay). First hand testimony isn't hearsay though.
atlaz - Member
You've got to admire the balls of Gambacini; he goes on TV to say he knew that Jimmy was a child abuser and somehow manages to excuse the fact that he didn't call the police.
Can anyone in possession of more than the barrack room law book clarify this one for me please:
If it turns out that there is hard evidence, sufficient to have convicted Sir Jimmy if he were still alive (not sure if a dead person can be convicted, suspect not as they cannot offer a defence, but that has not stopped history damning a good many people after their deaths), can Gambo be charged with an offence such as an Accessory After the Fact or Aiding and Abetting?
Ta.
Well ... lets just hope that you don't find yourself on the end of any 'persistent rumours' eh? If that's what's now deemed an acceptable level of proof required for a guilty verdict
Case dismissed!
lets just hope that you don't find yourself on the end of any 'persistent rumours' eh?
In fairness binbins, I don't think grum is saying that rumour enough is reason to decide.
Well ... lets just hope that you don't find yourself on the end of any 'persistent rumours' eh? If that's what's now deemed an acceptable level of proof required for a guilty verdict
Persistent rumours is one thing binners. Several people all giving first hand accounts of abuse is a very different thing IMO.
Your opinion seems to be mainly based on how much you hate Esther Rantzen, which is reasonable I suppose.
If only there had been any other cases exposed recently of trial by media getting the facts wrong? Maybe one where people had unfounded, unproven accusations made against them then splashed all over the popular media, clearly stating it as [b]THE TRUTH[/b]
I can't think of any though. 🙄
Ah I see, because the police and The Sun lied about Hillsborough, Jimmy Saville definitely isn't a paedo. I see your logic.
I'm not saying he definitely is, or that this TV programme is a great idea by any means - but deciding the participants are all publicity-hungry fantasists is also a bit much IMO.
On the balance of probabilities I would say it is more likely that they are not lying - but who knows?
Ah I see, because the police and The Sun lied about Hillsborough, Jimmy Saville definitely isn't a paedo. I see your logic.
The police and the Sun can answer back...
You're spectacularly missing the point.
but who knows?
Ah... your edit shows you've finally got it. THAT is the point. We don't know. Not you. Not me. And certainly not Esther bloody Rantzen.
You start trying people by media, you might as well just start assembling lynch mobs in the street and we can conduct 'justice' in that fashion from here on in
The police and the Sun can answer back...
Yup, and I feel uncomfortable about this programme too.
You're spectacularly missing the point.
There's only one way to settle this......
Is there? What? We start opposing rumours and see who most people believe 24 hours later? 😉
If only there had been any other cases exposed recently of trial by media getting the facts wrong?
I particularly liked the recent balls-up by The Sunday Times questioning if there was only "100 cod left in the North Sea" 😆
Apparently the journo make an unscientific leap relating the the age of mature Cod while browsing the data. I guess the Editor must have have been out-of-office that day. BTW, they reckon there's ~half-a-billion mature Cod in the North Sea.
Oh, and the "diseased" Scottish farmed salmon that was utterly groundless media-storming. Nearly wiped out the industry that one.
Fish Fiddler 😉
You start trying people by media, you might as well just start assembling lynch mobs in the street and we can conduct 'justice' in that fashion from here on in
You really need to calm down the wallsof democracy are not crumbling because of this
Like World in action did for the Guilford 4 and Birmingham 6 that sort of terrible lynch mob justice?
Like Journalists takling down the President in Watergate? That sort of lynch mob?
You seem to be objecting to the method of the discussion rather than actually considering whether what they say ois true
I hate the sun so if they print anything i should ignore its accuracy because they lied about Hilsborough?
It makes no sense to assume this.
Is he guilty I dont know but the method of the airing is not the critical factor its what the evidence says - yes it is unfortunate he is dead and he canot answer back and that should raise suspsicion . However to just assume it must be a lie and to not listen seems a huge leap made for reasons that are unclear [ logically] to me
Its not ideal, its not a trial but that does not make it true or false
I guess that as long as the accusers aren't being paid a fee, Esther is so outraged that she's working for free and ITV hand over the dossier of evidence to the police then we can expect some sort of justice. Otherwise, it's just folk lining their pockets at the expense of a dead man.
FWIW, I'm not being paid for my opinion either.
yes it is [s]unfortunate[/s] very very convenient indeed he is dead and he cannot answer back and that should [s]raise suspsicion[/s] set the alarm bells ringing from a few hundred miles away
Or is 8pm on ITV now the prime place to be putting our world weary cynicism to one side, and just accepting what we're being told
Its not ideal, its not a trial but that does not make it true or false
Well... Esthers statement is pretty clear....
[i]Rantzen said the testimony given by the women offers concrete evidence the allegations against Saville were true: "What these women say is so matter of fact, they corroborate each other. The style of the abuse and the attack on them was consistent one with each other.
"I'm afraid the jury isn't out any more and what upsets me so much is that not one of these children could ask for help. The abuse of power was as great as the sexual abuse."[/i]
Concrete 'evidence'? the 'jury' isn't out any more?
Oh, the ironing 🙄
Fish Fiddler
I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't use "fish fingerer".
Or is that too much?
It's all codswallop.
Was it an all girls school? Daily Mail reports he had girls sent up and he'd select from these. The writer worded it spot on for maximum character assination.
Sir Philip of Schofield is casting doubt on the logistics of it all on the BBC website.
I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't use "fish fingerer".
Or is that too much?
have you ever seen skate for sale ?
you will know why certain parts are removed
Schofields just trying to stop the Gordon the Gopher beastiality rumours coming out
Trial by ITV.....the same people that bring you Peter Andre 'My Life'.
Classic.
Sir Philip of Schofield is casting doubt on the logistics of it all on the BBC website.
Schofield vs Rantzen - who to believe? They're both such intellectual/moral heavyweights.
SIR Philip Schofield?!
This must have done to protect his "Argos" style joolri
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-15717221
rudebwoy - Member
I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't use "fish fingerer".
Or is that too much?
have you ever seen skate for sale ?you will know why certain parts are removed
We once had a guy apply for a job as a skate(board) rep, who had been traumatised by 'discovering' a workmate sexually abusing a skate.
Couldn't fail to hire him with that qualification.
