Operation Yewtree

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I agree, people should be exposed if they are guilty of sexually abusing children, dead or alive.

How can a dead person be found guilty Richard? Explain that one please?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Well i hope they have proof, there is nothing worse in my eye's than attacking someones character after they have passed away and cannot defend themselves

There are reasons for this contained within the reports.

Originally Posted by Sirius

A quote from the BBC story on this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19776872

The BBC say that no formal complaints were received, so no investigation took place. They are now using this to say that, according to their records, nothing untoward took place.

There are reasons, however, as to why victims of child sex abuse don't complain at the time, if ever, mainly fear.

BBC staff say that they were afraid to speak out because he is said to have had a lot of influence and they feared losing their jobs.

Again, this is all contained in the reports.

---------- Post added at 21:45 ---------- Previous post was at 21:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

How can a dead person be found guilty Richard? Explain that one please?

I see what you're saying, a dead person can't be found guilty in a court of law.

By guilty, I meant the actual meaning of the word as defined in the dictionary.

The best we can do is look at all the available evidence and make a decision based on that.

Personally, i'm keeping an open mind, at least until i've seen the documentary.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

How can a dead person be found guilty Richard? Explain that one please?

Is it not possible if the person is not breathing?

Is it possible to find a dead person not guilty?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

By guilty, I meant the actual meaning of the word as defined in the dictionary.

The best we can do is look at all the available evidence and make a decision based on that.

Let's have a look then....(from dictionary.com)

having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable: The jury found her guilty of murder.

So trial by armchair expert then?

Just because a number of people make claims about someone is not good enough reason to consider someone 'guilty' by any definition. Innocent peoples' lives have been ruined for such things.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Personally, i'm keeping an open mind, at least until i've seen the documentary.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Russ

Let's have a look then....(from dictionary.com)



So trial by armchair expert then?

Just because a number of people make claims about someone is not good enough reason to consider someone 'guilty' by any definition. Innocent peoples' lives have been ruined for such things.

You're just being pedantic and playing semantics now.

Also, I don't see why you're confused that i'm keeping an open mind. I've not suggested that I believe that he carried out these acts or not. The truth is, I don't know.

I do know that his private persona was VERY different to his public persona. Very arrogant and bad tempered....

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Personally, i'm keeping an open mind, at least until i've seen the documentary.

so you'll be basing your opinion on a documentary specifically made and biased to show his guilt,how very open minded

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You're just being pedantic and playing semantics now.

Really? Have you read what you've posted? You've said that people should have their guilt exposed whether they are alive or dead. How the hell can anyone be guilty if their side of the story has not been considered, or even heard?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Also, I don't see why you're confused that i'm keeping an open mind. I've not suggested that I believe that he carried out these acts or not. The truth is, I don't know.

I think martyh sums it up perfectly above.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I do know that his private persona was VERY different to his public persona. Very arrogant and bad tempered....

As is the case with many people.

[Gary L]

Interesting thread this.
we seem to be defending a dead man who is accused of being a paedophile whilst he was alive. because he's dead. and because the 'victims' are not children anymore?

[Stuart]

Personally,I don't know whether I think he was a paedophile or not. I think his personal life was a little weird but that does not mean he was a paedophile, any more than it did (say) for Kenneth Williams or Frankie Howerd.

I hope that, if he is, this documentary helps his victims get closure. If he isn't, ITV have just launched an attack on someone who has probably raised more cash for charities than almost anyone else in the country.

Either way, I hope the charities he was involved with are not too badly damaged by this.

---------- Post added at 22:37 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

As is the case with many people.

Indeed, I have it on good authority that Bruce Forsyth can actually be quite moody, and I know at least one ex-camera supervisor who absolutely refused to work with Ruby Wax because she only ever treated him like dirt.

[Chad]

Originally Posted by Stuart

Personally,I don't know whether I think he was a paedophile or not. I think his personal life was a little weird but that does not mean he was a paedophile, any more than it did (say) for Kenneth Williams or Frankie Howerd.

I hope that, if he is, this documentary helps his victims get closure. If he isn't, ITV have just launched an attack on someone who has probably raised more cash for charities than almost anyone else in the country.

Either way, I hope the charities he was involved with are not too badly damaged by this.

---------- Post added at 22:37 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------



Indeed, I have it on good authority that Bruce Forsyth can actually be quite moody, and I know at least one ex-camera supervisor who absolutely refused to work with Ruby Wax because she only ever treated him like dirt.

Justin Lee Collins isn't stinking of roses right now either

[idi banashapan]

I'm sure there was something about Saville abusing a minor years and years ago - something was said during the filming of Have I Got News For You and things started to leak out about him, but it seemed to get brushed under the carpet. maybe I'm making it up, but I'm sure the interwebz will hold something somewhere if I'm right....

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

so you'll be basing your opinion on a documentary specifically made and biased to show his guilt,how very open minded

I'm not sure why a documentary would be biased just because it aims to make a point. It would be biased if it deliberately misrepresents the facts or is highly selective in the facts it reports on. We'll have to wait and see how credible the evidence (and sources) are before passing judgement.

Originally Posted by danielf

I'm not sure why a documentary would be biased just because it aims to make a point. It would be biased if it deliberately misrepresents the facts or is highly selective in the facts it reports on. We'll have to wait and see how credible the evidence (and sources) are before passing judgement.

I don't see the point in making it if it isn't going to biased against him ,unless they are trying to prove his innocence which in this instance is not the case ,they have made the program to illustrate his guilt as they see it ,so i would say it will be very one sided ,but as you say, we will see .
Whatever happens the damage is done now and the family are going to have a very tough time proving otherwise

[Chad]

A very interesting quote from Esther Rantzen on the BBC website. Lets not forget than Rantzen is the founder of the child protection charity ChildLine, so this subject will be very close to her heart.

"Esther Rantzen who worked as a television presenter at the BBC at the same time Savile was at the height of his fame in the 1970s, said there were rumours about the star.

After watching the alleged victims' evidence as part of the documentary, Rantzen said she believed the testimonies and now thinks the rumours were true.

"Before I watched these I had absolutely decided I would not make up my mind because he's not here to defend himself - it seems utterly unfair," she said.

"I must say that 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."

Originally Posted by Chad

A very interesting quote from Esther Rantzen on the BBC website. Lets not forget than Rantzen is the founder of the child protection charity ChildLine, so this subject will be very close to her heart.

"Esther Rantzen who worked as a television presenter at the BBC at the same time Savile was at the height of his fame in the 1970s, said there were rumours about the star.

After watching the alleged victims' evidence as part of the documentary, Rantzen said she believed the testimonies and now thinks the rumours were true.

"Before I watched these I had absolutely decided I would not make up my mind because he's not here to defend himself - it seems utterly unfair," she said.

"I must say that 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."

Maybe someone a bit more neutral may be better to comment ?