I agree with you that the accused should have privacy until found guilty, but the way you initially said it was as if the accuser should now have to pay for making a false allegation when we don't know that to be true.
Jimmy Savile and Operation Yewtree
- Thread starter 17Larsson
- Start date
I agree with you that the accused should have privacy until found guilty, but the way you initially said it was as if the accuser should now have to pay for making a false allegation when we don't know that to be true.
No - I think if one is named, the other ought to be. Or both should remain annonymous.
There's plenty of them in this thread.
I couldn't disagree with you more. In a child sex trial the identity of the CHILD is of much more importance to be kept hidden than anything else. Their right to secrecy is paramount and takes precedence over everything else.
Who? He's only been found not guilty a while ago and I haven't read anyone say that they think he still did it.
Oh I don't dispute that. Trial by media in this country is farcical.
I'm not arguing with that - but there's no need to named the accused either because if he is found not guilty, there's still enough people out there that will make his life a misery.
I think we all agree that it would be better in a case like this if both parties were kept anonymous, but if it has to be one or the other then I'd worry more about hte child regardless of the verdict.
Horrible business all this. Can't see that man working in show business again.
I think there should be anonymity for all concerned. However, I think the whole system needs a rehaul. Too many people are getting off lightly when convicted and that puts people off reporting it in the first place.
One of the big problems is in cases such as my understanding of this one, there's no physical evidence due to the time delay between the alleged offence and the reporting of it. With the burden of evidence for a conviction rightfully high it really comes down to one persons word against the other. If it wasn't for the media publicising the 'offender's' name then there would be no way of other victims of the same offender to come forward and thus back up what was otherwise one word against another.
I hope that makes sense to anyone other than me.
Pex on 1190, sounds says he is surprised implying he thinks he is guilty.
So, what did Pex expect?
Alright, I must admit I only skimmed the thread and everyone was going on about how awful it all sounded, which sounded like people thought he was guilty. A lot of people often do assume anyone facing these allegations are guilty -maybe not in this thread- particularly when it is in a Jimmy Savile thread.
Presumably that he would be found guilty. The outcome was surely fairly binary.
What would be the motive for this young girl to make these allegations, unlike most of you I have no idea who the alleged victim is?
Isn't that what might have swung it in his favour, when Jimmy Saville was named the victims came out from all over the place, there don't seem to be others. If there had different verdict? Who knows.
Who knows.
Based on the evidence reported by the media, I think serious questions need to be asked as to why the case went to court. Initially it was dropped by the CPS, so you have to wonder whether the current climate of sex abuse claims affected their decision to reconsider it. The accuser wasn't able to provide any details that might back up her case (and you can guess what they might be) and as you allude to, her story and evidence to both the police and the court were unreliable. Her mother even inquired to the police on whether or not the accuser would be able to sell the story to the papers. Who in their right mind felt that there was enough evidence for a conviction?
The most important principle of the justice system is fairness, so while the point you have made -- about the publicity of the accused allowing for other victims to come forward -- is certainly true, it has to be asked whether this overrides the arguments for defendant anonymity. The two main arguments for defendant anonymity are based around 1.) the fact that sex crimes carry a unique level of stigma that has a tendency to stick to those found not guilty, and 2.) the principle of fairness (i.e. if the accuser is to be anonymous, the accused should be also). The latter argument alone is enough to convince me. The current system, with its unbalance of fairness, is counter to one of the main principles of English jurisprudence, and it's important to remember that the accuser isn't supposed to have any advantage over the accused. If it's advantageous for the accuser to have the possibility of other victims coming forward to back up his or her story, it is unfair that the accused isn't afforded the advantage of the publicity of the accuser's identity encouraging witnesses to come forward with evidence that be useful to the accused's case.
But no matter how good a case is made in favour of it, it'll never happen, such is the aggressiveness of the lobby against it.
I did expect him to be found guilty. When I first heard his name come up (before it was released in the press) I googled his name and saw he had been arrested for it in the past but they dropped him due to insufficient evidence. I'm not sure if it was the same allegations.
I would be still pretty sceptical of his innocence if I'm honest, and that's without even having read a lot about the case or knowing much of the details. I guess it's just a natural reaction on my part, rightly or wrongly.
Hard to know what the motivation is. If it was for money then it would hardly have gone to court so I don't think that's the reason. That leaves that she either told the truth, has some other reason to lie or was confused.
I don't know who she is either and nor do I want to know.
It certainly wouldn't have helped his case if there were multiple accusers all telling a similar story.
I agree with you that anonymity would be better for both despite the advantages in certain cases. It won't happen though unless the accused is related in some way to the victim.
Or maybe you should just simply stop using the Internet, and start talking to people in real life.
It's going to be difficult for him to continue his career, I imagine. It seems the plan is for him to return to his role in Coronation Street but I'm not sure how well that's going to work. They will inevitably be restricted in the storylines they can write for his character, as a result of this.
Big pay off in a few months after very very limited screen time. ITV are a commercial network so I suppose it's hard to be too harsh on them for wanting to protect their interests. I would imagine Corrie as a product has already taken a huge battering with all this craic.
What an incredibly odd thing to say. Did you have a point? Because there seems little point to your presence here.
I think that there are many details regarding the case that have been suppressed to maintain the privacy of the victim/alleged victim. Whatever they are may well have influenced the outcome but even if they didn't, beyond a reasonable doubt is a hard standard to reach with so much time having passed and no physical evidence especially when no other victims have come forward that we know about.
The Coronation Street writers should introduce a rape story line for him.
I have to say that, sadly, some children make these allegations for whatever reasons. Attention, spite etc
My sister works with such children.
I can't go into details unfortunately but rest assured, it happens.
It's quite horrendous really.
I'm not sure that would be a great idea, Jippy.
I don't think they could write anything remotely dark for him again. They could potentially have him be a saintly character that nothing every happens to but anything else would be a test of the audience's ability to forget, that I doubt they'd want to risk.
I don't think Jippy was being entirely serious with his suggestion
I thought responding to him with the tone of a parent patronising a child would be sufficient to imply that I got that...
I wasn't but it is about the only way they could ever make that show interesting.
There is teacher on trial from my old school who is up on kiddy fiddling charges. With it commenting on this case, of which I have no knowledge, it wouldn't surprise me that a religious school where everyday violence and mental cruelty were the norm also had darker secrets.
That's a fact. For people who get off on bullying kids and beating them it's probably not as big of a jump to sexually assaulting them as it would be for the rest of us.
There are rumors that more people will be charged. We will see.
Posting on a forum dedicated to this sort of stuff has reminded me how physically and mentally abusive the Brothers and Teachers were. Punishments that would now be considered barbaric and probably be criminal offenses. Plus weird stuff like not being allowed to wear underwear when doing sport, even in the middle of winter. Compulsory naked group showers after sport with teachers standing and watching. Lots of hitting with shoes and straps and even a mini cricket bat (nicknamed bottomslayer). Fecking weirdos.
This explains some of your outbursts in the mod forum.
Bloody hell Wibble. That is awful.
