Jimmy Saville

[LastMagicBean]

The experienced QC, faced with the same evidence, felt adamant there was definitely a case to answer.

Ah, you mean the QC who represents Spearmint Rhino. No exploitation of women there eh?

Of all the QCs around, they land on him to give a reasoned view.

F*ck all to do with it. He's an experienced QC.

Regardless of how the jury vote, a case to answer is a case to answer.

 

[ajstoneservices]

The experienced QC, faced with the same evidence, felt adamant there was definitely a case to answer.

Anyway, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

And yet we now know that 5 separate police forces and the cps thought differently.

 

[alumni]

The experienced QC, faced with the same evidence, felt adamant there was definitely a case to answer.

Ah, you mean the QC who represents Spearmint Rhino. No exploitation of women there eh?

Of all the QCs around, they land on him to give a reasoned view.

F*ck all to do with it. He's an experienced QC.

Regardless of how the jury vote, a case to answer is a case to answer.

So, trial by tv is the way to go eh?
People making accusations whilst saying they refuse to give evidence is perfectly fine by you is it?

The clincher for you must be Esther Rantzen saying she thinks he did it.
Care to explain what relevance her opinion has to the actual facts?

 

[sooey]

Do you believe all of those women were lying?

 

[sooey]

The experienced QC, faced with the same evidence, felt adamant there was definitely a case to answer.

Anyway, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

And yet we now know that 5 separate police forces and the cps thought differently.

If one person makes an historical abuse claim, it's only their word against the alleged offenders and the cps won't go to trial because a jury won't take one persons word over anothers.
If a number of different people make the same claim that's a different story.

 

[alumni]

The experienced QC, faced with the same evidence, felt adamant there was definitely a case to answer.

Anyway, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

And yet we now know that 5 separate police forces and the cps thought differently.

If one person makes an historical abuse claim, it's only their word against the alleged offenders and the cps won't go to trial because a jury won't take one persons word over anothers.
If a number of different people make the same claim that's a different story.

A story is a story.

 

[sooey]

Why don't you answer the question directly? Do you think all of those women were lying?

 

[ajstoneservices]

The Police forces were looking into, as we are led to believe, five separate allegations. How many of them were passed to the cps we don't as yet know.

Juries in the main are made up of people like you and me, you would clearly seek to convict on the evidence you have seen. The evidence that I've have seen is questionable and for that reason I couldn't convict. So yes, the cps have to look at the available evidence to decide if there is a reasonable chance of a conviction before charging someone.

At the moment we have trial by media and public opinion based on historic memory which is so often shown to be fallible.

 

[Big Tone]

The last time I looked I was in England; not back in the days of drowning witches or some third world country where a Chief’s belief trumps law.

We have these laws and due processes which can be used, so why didn’t they use them sooner? For all our so-called civilization the Internet is mostly used for porn and television has become the new choice of preference for trial by media; as ajstoneservices just said.

I’m not supporting Saville, I thought he was a creep, but I’m stunned at how people can act like judge, jury and executioner before he and all the facts and evidence are ousted.

You may well be proved right sooey, and I don’t want to personalise it, but with respect I don’t think I’d want you on a jury.

 

[alumni]

Why don't you answer the question directly? Do you think all of those women were lying?

Based on the TV programme. I don't know. How could i?

You see, i don't jump to conclusions and make assumptions on stories that have not been verified/investigated/tested.

Clearly, you do.

 

[sooey]

OK AJ so you think those women were lying then, or somehow all of them misremember being abused as kids?
I don't, and if they were telling the truth he was a paedo, simple as that.
It seems he was quite open about it as well, so there must be an awful lot of people who either condoned or colluded with his behaviour by turning a blind eye or worse.
It follows that there will be a lot of people who would like this story to go away.

 

[alumni]

OK AJ so you think those women were lying then, or somehow all of them misremember being abused as kids?
I don't, and if they were telling the truth he was a paedo, simple as that.
It seems he was quite open about it as well, so there must be an awful lot of people who either condoned or colluded with his behaviour by turning a blind eye or worse.
It follows that there will be a lot of people who would like this story to go away.

Have you ever been wrongly accused of something that could have a serious impact on your life/welfare/wellbeing?
Have you ever been arrested?

Do you know why the Legal structure is what it is?

 

[sooey]

The clincher for you must be Esther Rantzen saying she thinks he did it.
Care to explain what relevance her opinion has to the actual facts?

Yet another wild assumption from the idiot who accuses me of making them.
The clincher for me is the women who tell their stories of being abused by that pervert, and going into explicit detail about an episode which has obviously scarred their lives.

 

[sooey]

OK AJ so you think those women were lying then, or somehow all of them misremember being abused as kids?
I don't, and if they were telling the truth he was a paedo, simple as that.
It seems he was quite open about it as well, so there must be an awful lot of people who either condoned or colluded with his behaviour by turning a blind eye or worse.
It follows that there will be a lot of people who would like this story to go away.

Have you ever been wrongly accused of something that could have a serious impact on your life/welfare/wellbeing?
Have you ever been arrested?

Do you know why the Legal structure is what it is?

Don't be so stupidly patronising.
There is never going to be a trial, we can never go through the full legal process, and there is no physical evidence after all of this time.
It can only now be a question of whether people believe the numerous alleged victims or not.
Why would they all lie?????

 

[alumni]

The clincher for you must be Esther Rantzen saying she thinks he did it.
Care to explain what relevance her opinion has to the actual facts?

Yet another wild assumption from the idiot who accuses me of making them.
The clincher for me is the women who tell their stories of being abused by that pervert, and going into explicit detail about an episode which has obviously scarred their lives.

Here we go with the insults to try and add validity to your assumptions.

Sod due process and investigation of facts, the scouser says he dun it so thats that.

For someone who banged his drum so loudly about facts and truth on a recent topic and was happy to castigate people who believed only what the press fed them.
Very strange.