Operation Yewtree - Page 21

07-10-2012, 14:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

But this is it. Testimony from the alleged victim(s) does count as evidence. Obviously there will be questions of how reliable the accuser's account is and that would decide if the CPS feels they can press ahead with a prosecution and then if it's enough to convince a jury. The more reliable accusers you have the better.

Yes it does count,and then that evidence has to be checked and verified, simply saying jimmy savile abused me is not enough no matter how fine and upstanding that citizen is .He may well have abused all these people but unfortunately unless someone has been writing stuff down or has a list of times and dates then i fear it will never go any further than a "she said" accusation

Gary L · 07-10-2012, 14:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

unless someone has been writing stuff down or has a list of times and dates

That's not proof.
Sept 17th 1976 at the BBC studios doing TOTP.
she was there, he was there.

07-10-2012, 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

That's not proof.
Sept 17th 1976 at the BBC studios doing TOTP.
she was there, he was there.

Of course it is .for example one of the alleged victims may still have a ticket stub that proves she was at TOTP and records would show that JS was there or not ,that would add credence to her claim ,even a diary entry saying what had happened would be accepted,certainly a lot better than the 'evidence'we have at the moment

Now if your intention is to be deliberately stupid you are doing a good job

Gary L · 07-10-2012, 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

Of course it is .for example one of the alleged victims may still have a ticket stub that proves she was at TOTP and records would show that JS was there or not ,that would add credence to her claim ,even a diary entry saying what had happened would be accepted,certainly a lot better than the 'evidence'we have at the moment

But. it's not proof. unless you're not after solid proof anymore, and have settled for credence now.

Quote:

Now if your intention is to be deliberately stupid you are doing a good job

I'm not deliberately stupid. I'm just naturally stupid.

**Paul** · 07-10-2012, 15:32

And thats enough of this stupid conversation. Both of you grow up and get back to the topic, not petty meaningless agruments for the sake of it.

Vieil Homme · 07-10-2012, 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

That has to be the most poorly written pointless piece of drivel I've read in a long time. I'm not even sure it tries to make a point, other than the succinct summary of 'Jimmy Savile was not a nice man'. Well, guess what: We know that Jimmy Savile was not a nice man.

A question was asked... why it had only come out now...

In bold print was: because Britain's libel laws too often help make those like Savile untouchable.

The artical may be in your opinion poorly written pointless piece of drivel but Brian Hitchen writes for a living. I just love the word succinct

Ramrod · 07-10-2012, 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

we need some proof not the story of a ship captain who wasn't even interviewed by Hitchen, and allegedly through him off because he had shifty eyes and refused to dress for dinner.

It would seem that he was thrown off the ship because allegations about his conduct towards a 14yo girl made by her parents........

07-10-2012, 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

It would seem that he was thrown off the ship because allegations about his conduct towards a 14yo girl made by her parents........

Says who ? presumably if such an event took place it would be in the ships log ,but Hitchen would sooner rely on a story told to him by someone who was not the ships captain

Again more hearsay and rumour

Sparkle · 07-10-2012, 15:46

Like noone saw this coming...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-victims.html

Lets see how many more "vitims" come forward to claim their share of the compo.

**Damien** · 07-10-2012, 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

Yes it does count,and then that evidence has to be checked and verified, simply saying jimmy savile abused me is not enough no matter how fine and upstanding that citizen is .He may well have abused all these people but unfortunately unless someone has been writing stuff down or has a list of times and dates then i fear it will never go any further than a "she said" accusation

That evidence has to be verified by what? The Jury decides if it's reliable or not. They will check if the accuser was in the place they said and such but they don't need CCTV footage or DNA evidence. Think about the times when people are convicted of historical abuse, they pretty much only had accusers' testimony.

07-10-2012, 15:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vieil Homme

A question was asked... why it had only come out now...

In bold print was: because Britain's libel laws too often help make those like Savile untouchable.

So why didn't he answer the question he asked then ? blaming libel laws is easy or maybe he forgets that libel laws are there to protect people from hacks like him

danielf · 07-10-2012, 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vieil Homme

A question was asked... why it had only come out now...

In bold print was: because Britain's libel laws too often help make those like Savile untouchable.

The artical may be in your opinion poorly written pointless piece of drivel but Brian Hitchen writes for a living.

He may write for a living, but I think there's a reason he writes for The Express. Rhetorically, the piece is utter crap. There is nothing in the article to back up the claim. There's is just the claim. The article then meanders forth with some totally unrelated musings and factoids (or not), before another claim that doesn't bear any relation to the surroundding narrative is inserted. Then you come to the end of the article and you ask yourself 'what have I learned from this article', and the answer is 'not much more than the fact the Jimmy Savile was not a nice man'. Well wow! Well done Brain Hitchen!

Vieil Homme · 07-10-2012, 15:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

Every single piece of "evidence" that has been given at the moment sounds to me like something you would hear in a small village in N Wales where there is an eccentric man who looks and acts a 'bit weird' ,people think he dresses funny ,eats cats and only comes out at night ,children ring his door bell for a dare and run away .Jimmy Savile may not have been a nice man ,he may have been eccentric and not everyone's cup of tea but when leveling accusations of pedophilia at him we need some proof not the story of a ship captain who wasn't even interviewed by Hitchen, and allegedly through him off because he had shifty eyes and refused to dress for dinner.

I think you will find he bravely threw Savile off his ship because he was a pervert ie pushing his attentions onto a 14 year old girl. I say bravely because Savile used to get free travel until this incident.

TheDaddy · 07-10-2012, 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

What kind of proof would you like?

pictures, erm no guess not...

Vieil Homme · 07-10-2012, 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

He may write for a living, but I think there's a reason he writes for The Express. Rhetorically, the piece is utter crap. There is nothing in the article to back up the claim. There's is just the claim. The article then meanders forth with some totally unrelated musings and factoids (or not), before another claim that doesn't bear any relation to the surroundding narrative is inserted. Then you come to the end of the article and you ask yourself 'what have I learned from this article', and the answer is 'not much more than the fact the Jimmy Savile was not a nice man'. Well wow! Well done Brain Hitchen!

Ok no problem. I defend your right to be wrong. I have been aware Savile was not to be left alone with children from the early 80s and was amazed to see him on television with children