Prudent move (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Prudent move
11:35am Thursday 18th October 2012 in Letters By Reader's letter
THE mounting number of Jimmy Savile revelations include the words “there were rumours” uttered by executives in the BBC and other organisations.
Apparently the rumours were not supported by the often repeated “evidence” and could not be investigated.
Surely if there had been any concern at all by anybody, it would have been prudent to find the source of the rumour/rumours and thereby evidence of his alleged foul deeds.
J Beisly, Osprey Close, York.
Comments(8)
Seadog
says...
6:24pm Thu 18 Oct 12
Magicman!
says...
4:12am Fri 19 Oct 12
It has started off with one TV programme stating 2 people who say they were abused - and then suddenly a whole raft of people come out of the woodwork staing the same thing. Because the guy's dead they can't get real justice if the allegations are proven true which likely means they're not after justice but money - just like that kid who's parents made him say Micheal Jackson abused him.
CHISSY1
says...
10:55am Fri 19 Oct 12
Magicman! wrote:"I agree with you on that one".
Surely if people had been abused by Savile, they would have come forward whilst he was, um, ALIVE - so as then to see him get punished.
It has started off with one TV programme stating 2 people who say they were abused - and then suddenly a whole raft of people come out of the woodwork staing the same thing. Because the guy's dead they can't get real justice if the allegations are proven true which likely means they're not after justice but money - just like that kid who's parents made him say Micheal Jackson abused him.
Firedrake
says...
11:47am Fri 19 Oct 12
Ichabod76
says...
5:30pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Firedrake wrote:I don't believe that all of the 400 or so people who are accusing him of abuse
Unfortunately some people are too afraid to come forward at the time - which may be what was going on here.
would be too scared to come forward
maybe 75% but that still leaves 100 or so people that would have to have been taken seriously not just brushed under the carpet
I also fear this is only about money
Seadog
says...
8:09pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Perhaps "real" lawyers don't read the Press on-line and are therefore unable to comment.
capt spaulding
says...
1:27pm Sat 20 Oct 12
Firedrake says...
4:25pm Thu 18 Oct 12
It certainly does look pretty bad for Savile (no smoke without fire and all that - although that can be a dangerous assumption) but I am a little uneasy at the way the media are openly stating as fact information which still needs to be tested objectively through the promised investigations. After all, if he were still alive and facing charges, about two thirds of what's been stated publically would be held in contempt of court for fear of prejudicing a jury and making a fair trial impossible.
I know it isn't possible to "libel the dead" under English law (not sure about Scottish) and this presumably accounts for the unrestrained "mediafest" around the case (JS is hardly in a position sue!) but I'd be intrigued to know what - if any - legal mechanisms exist to ensure that even a posthumous investigation is fair as it is rigorous.
Any (real) lawyers out there care to explain?