re: Operation Yewtree
 

He isn't, though, is he? Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about rumours and whether Richard should go to the police. We'd be talking about his jail sentence and whether he'd be safer locked up away from the rest of the inmates.

No conviction = not guilty. Simples.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

If it's just a rumour for which you have no evidence and it doesn't warrant going to the police then maybe it's better not to broadcast the rumour on the internet?

re: Operation Yewtree
 

As he is now dead & and beyond the law, If anything had happen, perhaps it would serve the community better if any investigation was focused on the I knew but did nothing brigade. Just a thought .

re: Operation Yewtree
 

Could it be the case that he's not guilty only because he hasn't been caught yet.

If only.
I'm sure there's plenty of guilty people out there who think the same.

What I'm saying is. I really don't follow your way of thinking of guilty people are innocent, because they haven't been arrested and tried yet.

you make it sound like fact.

If you witnessed an assault. is the accused automatically guilty?
or are they innocent because they haven't been through the legal process yet?

---------- Post added at 09:07 ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 ----------

I'm certain that if all this about Saville is true, then there are other celebrities involved.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

You don't follow, because you haven't latched on to the single most important fact in this context - you and I are not having a private conversation here, we are posting words on a public forum, and there are laws protecting people's reputations against what might be written about them.

You can think whatever you like about someone's guilt or innocence provided what you think does not cause that person's legal rights to be infringed.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

Ok. now I understand your thinking.

so do you think Saville is guilty?

re: Operation Yewtree
 

The thing is, there is the concept of Guilty and the legally defined concept of Guilty. The legally defined concept of Guilty requires evidence. In life, people can be guilty without fulfilling the legal definition of being guilty.

Let me give an example of that. A few years ago, my mother served on a jury trying a local drug dealer. He was only a small time dealer, but the evidence presented was apparently convincing. The police had, however, handled some of the evidence incorrectly (I don't know the ins and outs of it), so that evidence was inadmissable.

The judge made a point (in his summing up) of telling the defendant that he believed the defendant was guilty but was unable to find him guilty because of the way the Police had mishandled the evidence, and chastised the Police.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

Based on what I've read over the past couple of days, I believe what's being said about him.

---------- Post added at 09:51 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------

Very true, but as I posted above, it pays to keep that distinction in mind when you are discussing someone's alleged guilt in a public space. There are only a very few public spaces where anybody has the right to allege someone's guilt without fear of recourse, and a judge speaking from the bench is one of them (also, a news reporter quoting him, with certain limitations).

re: Operation Yewtree
 

This is it. Gary just asked the wrong question. Instead of asking 'is he guilty?' he should have asked 'do you think he did it?'.

Jimmy Savile, do you think he did it?
 

After days of allegations and last night documentary it would be interesting to see how people are learning.

Re: Jimmy Savile, do you think he did it?
 

It'd be good to hear both sides of the story before deciding, but that can never happen now.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

In my opinion, there's too many people coming out with stories and allegations that are so similar that it can't be a coincidence. There's also so much that has been said (or reported to have been said) and written by Savile which points towards it being true

I suppose we'll never know absolutely certain, but I have very little doubt that the allegations are true. To me, the real question isn't if the allegations are true, but rather what the scale of the abuse was.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

I find the fact that this thread has a poll on whether Sir Jimmy Saville is guilty or not, to be both totally irrelevant and in poor taste.

re: Operation Yewtree
 

VERY poor taste

re: Operation Yewtree
 

Is the inverstigation poor taste?
Is the victims accounts poor taste?
Is the 'documentary' poor taste?
Is what he is alleged to have done, poor taste?

If more than one of the above is a yes, then is it because he is dead?