RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (Full Version)

All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics



Message


UTB -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (8/2/2014 8:27:29 PM)

Well.. my first thought was "what the fuck?". Thinking about it, though, I can imagine in instances where the defendant has gotten off on a technicality or something that this might be of use...




Dpp1978 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/2/2014 3:03:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

Well.. my first thought was "what the fuck?". Thinking about it, though, I can imagine in instances where the defendant has gotten off on a technicality or something that this might be of use...


A "not proven" verdict is still an acquittal, and on receiving one the accused is still set free and any double jeopardy rights will still attach. It merely means that while they aren't actually sure of innocence, they aren't sure enough of guilt to convict. As noted by Scruffybobby, there is a certain amount of controversy about it.

It is mostly about the public perception such a verdict brings. A not proven verdict might stigmatise a completely innocent party in a way a not guilty verdict wouldn't. So in a case like the one we are discussing while they may have cleared their name in the eyes of the law, if the case is declared not proven, there may be some lingering doubt in the eyes of public perception.

There is of course the counter argument that there is no way for a court to state the accused is completely innocent. It has been argued by legal theorists, particularly in America, that a not guilty verdict, where a not proven verdict is available, does just that. It is one of the more interesting debates in jurisprudence.

I suspect what you were going, "What the fuck?" over was the notion that this might be used to invoke double jeopardy. This does not do that. However it doesn't have to.

Double jeopardy was pretty well abolished under English law in 2003 and under Scottish law in 2011. If there is compelling new evidence that could convict a person who was acquitted for a crime, they can be re-charged and re-tried for the same offence. It has (for example) allowed DNA evidence, which was unavailable at the time of the original trial, to be used to convict a person where without it they walked free.




Brooksy84 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (21/2/2014 8:03:18 AM)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ian-watkins-took-picture-child-3167900

This is pretty disgraceful if correct. With some of the criticism of how certain cases have gone to trial that probably never should have, it's worth considering what the flip side is: a world where a celebrity is considered beyond investigation. Much like the one Saville lived in.




MrsFinkelstein -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/3/2014 7:46:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brooksy84

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ian-watkins-took-picture-child-3167900

This is pretty disgraceful if correct. With some of the criticism of how certain cases have gone to trial that probably never should have, it's worth considering what the flip side is: a world where a celebrity is considered beyond investigation. Much like the one Saville lived in.


I'd say the Watkins and Saville cases are a world away from the more recent other ones we've seen (William Roache and DLT), where the allegations only surfaced 40+ years later.

I do have issues with the decision to pursue a conviction with DLT on 2 charges, when he's been cleared on 10 others, I just see that as unlikely to end with a conviction and just waste more money.

I'm not saying cases shouldn't be pursued generally - just in this individual sitation, it does seem to be verging on a witch hunt now. And all to assuage guilt re Saville.




MrsFinkelstein -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2014 8:19:34 AM)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27192600

I would imagine there are a fair few sighs of relief at the DPP - finally a conviction from Yewtree!

I must admit to not following the Max Clifford case as I've always thought the man was a twat, but obviously the evidence was a lot stronger than in the Roache/DLT cases.





Mister Coe -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (29/4/2014 9:47:50 PM)

So, a man who made a living through exploiting the sleazier aspects of life is now a convicted sex case?

[sm=happy07.gif]




Super Hans -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (30/4/2014 8:53:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

So, a man who made a living through exploiting the sleazier aspects of life is now a convicted sex case?

[sm=happy07.gif]


PR man to all the sleaze ridden celebs, who will now be PR man to the sleaze ridden PR man?[:D]




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (10/5/2014 8:48:58 AM)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27340134

Even if the relationship started when she was 18 as Harris claims it is pretty damning of his character that he would start an affair with the daughter of a close friend.




emogeek -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (30/6/2014 3:02:22 PM)

Rolf has been found guilty....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28094561




fuzzy -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (30/6/2014 6:36:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: emogeek

Rolf has been found guilty....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28094561


Genuinely gutted about this, always been a fan of Rolf, especially as an artist. He was the last person I'd expect to see in a Yewtree investigation, goes to show how much we really know about the celebrities we see on TV everyday.

Looking at the convictions in the case, and other celebrities charged with similar offences, I do wonder how the courts can get a conviction on what appears to be one person's account of events against another. I'm no legal expert, but surely there'd need to be significant evidence to convict seeing as these were historic allegations with presumably little or no physical evidence.




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (30/6/2014 9:06:37 PM)

I believe it begins with proving the person was at the place the allegation is alleged to have occurred at the time it occurred and moves on from there. At the end of the day it is down to who the jury believe more and the fact that in this case all the charges were upheld and it was a unanimous verdict suggests that Rolf Harris' account was not believed. The jury in this case could not be said to have just jumped to a conclusion which many seem to do as 36 hours of deliberation is pretty comprehensive. It is a shame as it is more of my childhood soured by this (as well as people whose lives were damaged by his actions).[&o]




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (30/6/2014 9:56:04 PM)

It's also why, as they've noted with Stuart Hall, and again here, the name being out there has been a key factor - it brings in enough evidence and enough attacks to show a pattern of behaviour, abuse happening over and over again.

Depressingly, one of the reporters on the Beeb suggested that, with the recent successful convictions, there will be several more charges made against recognisable faces.




jonson -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/7/2014 7:57:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49


Depressingly, one of the reporters on the Beeb suggested that, with the recent successful convictions, there will be several more charges made against recognisable faces.


What I find more depressing is the fact I start doubting these people who come forward.
I don't want to say "celebrity witch hunt" because if they are indeed guilty, they can rot in a jail cell, but they need a celebrity abuse amnesty where if you don't come forward by the end of July, they'll ignore anything that happened over 30 years ago.
It almost seems like it gets reported as a victory for the prosecutors and police rather than the victims. It's all rather distasteful.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/7/2014 10:13:15 AM)

I disagree on that - I do think they've been careful to keep the victims to the forefront - much of yesterdays coverage focussed on the NSPCC eg. And on the amnesty too - I shudder to think how these people have had to shape their lives around this hideous secret all these years.




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/7/2014 10:26:07 AM)

The thing is that many people have had lives destroyed by these events (although at the same time some of the charges seem to relate to a pinched bottom which in the scale of thing is unpleasant and ill mannered but not a mentally scarring event). Rolf Harris for instance has a string of victims behind him who have suffered bulimia, depression and other mental illness all of which are seen to stem from this point. Instance of modern child abuse being reported has also increased and as such it is showing that people cannot hide from their actions. I agree that the police and prosecution need to be more careful with their prosecutions as in quite a few cases there have been some cases raised which even from a layman point of view are not deserving of prosecution but at the same time there have been some very serious incident raised as well. In many ways it is a good thing that there is nowhere to hide for the perpetrators of serious acts but I tend to think the serious acts are the ones which should be prosecuted and not the type which were one slap on the bottom forty years ago.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/7/2014 11:24:43 AM)

So to ensure they are trying an actual individual abuser as opposed to the attitudes of the 60s/70s as a whole.




fuzzy -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/7/2014 1:54:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

In many ways it is a good thing that there is nowhere to hide for the perpetrators of serious acts but I tend to think the serious acts are the ones which should be prosecuted and not the type which were one slap on the bottom forty years ago.


That fact that they could get a prosecution on this charge still baffles me. The case in question was 30-40 years ago. Like a previous poster pointed out, some of these convictions seem to be based on the 'where there's smoke...' principle, but that's not enough to get a conviction surely?




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/7/2014 2:47:06 PM)

Which convictions do you think are based on that? There haven't been that many.

Possible investigations where court cases didn't go ahead, or cases where the accused was found innocent? [:)]




sanchia -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/7/2014 3:36:31 PM)

The ones I was thinking of primarily were the Dave Lee Travis ones where some of the charges appear to have been related to pinched bottoms and he was found not guilty on them (although I understand there are a couple of retrial charges pending). It raises the question of why these are added to the pot when the chance of a conviction is minute to say the least and it takes the focus away from serious allegations. I do not like the man but in many respects the allegations against him appear inflated and unjustified from the evidence presented in his previous trial and does seem more an attack on the attitudes of the day rather than a serious court case.




elab49 -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (1/7/2014 4:01:58 PM)

Should have been a 'maybe' at the end of that last sentence in my post - apologies. [:)]




SQUATCH -> RE: Allegations of Jimmy Saville (4/7/2014 1:53:15 PM)

There's a half man half biscuit song which refers to Saville and mandiville hospital, from back in the day




Page: <<   < prev  21 22 23 24 [25]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125