How do you remember precisely what you were doing and where you were 30 years ago to establish your innocence?
I'm pretty sure that the burden of proof in criminal cases is stacked in the other direction - the onus is on the prosecution to proof where someone was 30 years ago, and to do so beyond reasonable doubt, which indeed could be pretty tough with the passing of time.
What I can't get my head round is the Ken Barlow case, some 61 year woman has been sat watching corrie for 45 years and then all of a sudden decides "Hey he raped me 45 years ago i best go to the police" something dosen't stack up..I can't remember where i was last week never mind 46 years ago ( mind you i'm only 44 so that would be difficult :))
I really don't know Keith lemon gets away with what he does on Celeb Juice....Will Holly make a complaint in 40 years that he touched her bum....Its mad
Tell you whats mad crazant.... a society where am atmosphere has existed for 45 years where someone who has been the victim of one of the worst imaginable crimes agaisnt the person has not felt able to come forward and receive support and ultimately justice.
If there was only one good thing about Jimmy Savilles vile life, its that he has now created an environment where people are listening to these things and not just brushing them under the table. Think Stuart Hall....total denial, but eventually faced with a litany of complaints from people who could not possibly have compared notes and have delviered pretty much identical accounts of his behaviour he has been forced to cough to it. I hope he spends his remaining days in precisely the way he deserves, along with the rest of these callous twunts.
......and breathe
spot on BB 👿
there are thousands of victims who will be empowered , it starts with the so called celebs, but i'm sure it will bring about long overdue cultural change regarding abuse of power.There will be many worried creeps, and so they should be......
Thought so!
If there was only one good thing about Jimmy Savilles vile life, its that he has now created an environment where people are listening to these things and not just brushing them under the table.
So all his charity work , Stoke Mandeville hospital etc counts for nothing now does it ?
So all his charity work , Stoke Mandeville hospital etc counts for nothing now does it ?
Yep, call me old fashioned and I don't know about you, but the fact he was using it as a way to access the vulnerable to satiate his own filthy desires does rather undermine its value IMHO. I guess that may well by why the trustees of the various charities concerned have chosen to wind them up quick sharp. Whatderyer reckon?
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-22445759 ]If you ever wanted a timely reminder of how these bastards get away with stuff because no one believes the kids and how thats now changing this is it. [/url]
Well I'm sure that his name attached to any charity now is pretty crap but the fact remains that because of his charity work many people have benefited . I'm in no way defending his "other stuff"
i agree with BB-- these are devious people , who use all available smokescreens to hide their real intent-- selfish in the worst possible way
Charity is a strange one, they rely on publicity, so are never to slow to adopt celebs and the like-- morality takes a distant priority.
in an ideal world, charity should not be covering for the shortfalls of the state-- thats going back to victorianna and the deserving and undeserving...
because of his charity work many people have [s]benefited[/s]been exposed to abuse when they should have been protected and safe
FTFY
In fact to put it more bluntly, how many little boys or little girls whose lives have been ruined do you reckon is acceptable then? Where do you draw the balance.... are you really actually therefore saying that there is an equation where A = Abuse and £x = funds raised and is expressed as
A/£x = 0 ?????
Really??? Are you????
You really are making a leap from what I said to get to what you just posted .
There are people who would be worse off today if he had never lived , just as there are many whose lives have been ruined .
All your equations and question marks would be better addressed to God than me , I don't make those decisions.
Ramsey Neil - there is no god.
Its actually a made up story.
Tarbuck- Davidson- Saville- very vocal in their support for capital punishment .....
You will need to drag up some proof of that statement.
Anything will do.
(Or you could ignore the request obviously)
There are people who would be worse off today if he had never lived , just as there are many whose lives have been ruined .
Hmmm.... seems fairly possible he was using the charity work mainly as a shield against criticism of his behaviour (where have we seen that before?), and as a means of 'access' to vulnerable people. Not sure you can really argue there are many positives to be taken from that.
You really are making a leap from what I said to get to what you just posted .
No.... sorry I am not. Its very direct.
You are saying his charity work has benefited many, I and many others including the trustees of the very charities he founded are saying that he used it as a shield for his paedaphilia and to gain access to the vulnerable.
With that in mind I am simply asking if you are actually saying that there is a trade off between good works and evil ones that tips the scale? I rather hope you aren't in fact.
My simplistic perspective, is that I'd would prefer that money had never been raised and that not one of his victims had suffered at his hands in return. That in my opinion would be the only satisfactory outcome.
I don't understand why you must have a scale that needs tipping . He did good and he did bad , he will be remembered for the bad he did , which in most peoples opinion , mine included , massively outweighs the good .
crazant - Member
What I can't get my head round is the Ken Barlow case, some 61 year woman has been sat watching corrie for 45 years and then all of a sudden decides "Hey he raped me 45 years ago i best go to the police" something dosen't stack up..I can't remember where i was last week never mind 46 years ago ( mind you i'm only 44 so that would be difficult :))I really don't know Keith lemon gets away with what he does on Celeb Juice....Will Holly make a complaint in 40 years that he touched her bum....Its mad
Or just maybe his business partner (the one not convicted of rape.yet) at Ridings Publishing mentioned something to soften his punishment.
What I can't get my head round is the Ken Barlow case, some 61 year woman has been sat watching corrie for 45 years and then all of a sudden decides "Hey he raped me 45 years ago i best go to the police" something dosen't stack up..I can't remember where i was last week never mind 46 years ago ( mind you i'm only 44 so that would be difficult :))
Yeah but something like being raped may be a bit harder to forget?
The cynic in me says it is people jumping on the bandwagon but it could simply be that the Saville cases have made people realise that they weren't a one off and that something will be done.
.I can't remember where i was last week never mind 46 years ago
I'm thinking that maaaaaaaybe..... If you'd been raped, last week may have been a bit more easy to remember.
And being raped by someone who has been on prime time TV three times a week, every week, for the last 53 years, would keep it fairly fresh in your memory too.
Don't you think ?
edlong - Member
"How do you remember precisely what you were doing and where you were 30 years ago to establish your innocence?"
I'm pretty sure that the burden of proof in criminal cases is stacked in the other direction - the onus is on the prosecution to proof where someone was 30 years ago, and to do so beyond reasonable doubt, which indeed could be pretty tough with the passing of time.
Agree, but they are being convicted in the public eye before any prosecution occurs. And I'm happy to see it happen to the creeps, and the more people who come forward the better because it strengthens the cases, but in those numbers there's bound to be a few wrongful accusations. My concern is at what stage a name is made public - after one complaint or several corroborating ones?
Difficult, isn't it.
If someone comes forward with an allegation, and on that back of that other unconnected victims also come forward with corroborating stories, that's probably enough to secure a conviction. One claim in isolation, probably not so. Which I guess justifies naming them when they're accused. Bit of a sod to be dragged through the mud if you're innocent though.
