Savile again

[Big Tone]

Some good and leading questions there Calorific.

I’m more of a ‘don’t turn the other cheek because he’ll likely as not smack you on that side as well’ sort of person. I hate the modern notion that criminals and their behaviour can be reformed. Some, yes, if it’s out of desperation and nurture over nature. But it’s always a Pyrrhic victory IMO.

Mrs Dogooder: “See, he’s reformed”

Mr Noshitsherlock: “Yes, but look at the trail of devastation and life sentence for those affected which the c*nt left behind” You can’t tame a feral cat; but I digress...

 

[ajstoneservices]

BT every time I think I understand what you're saying you confuse me yet again

You have the unique gift of being able to argue for both sides in the same post with just a little ar$e kissing thrown in for good measure or effect.
Is that intentional?

 

[Big Tone]

BT every time I think I understand what you're saying you confuse me yet again

You have the unique gift of being able to argue for both sides in the same post with just a little ar$e kissing thrown in for good measure or effect.
Is that intentional?

Er no

I blow hot and cold because on the one hand there’s no facts but on the other hand there’s lots of allegations. So, as I say, my heart thinks one thing but my head rules. I’m not a sycophant and I don’t know the personalities on this board. What I’d really like is something along the lines of a DNA test to prove he did something.

But, essentially, we are all speculating on something which can never be proven one way or the other, so it was going to be a non-argument from the start really. Rather like a religion, I fear it will ultimately come down to whether you believe it or not. I personally do believe he was the things which have been said, but there’s no 100% about it, yet, despite what is being said.

Add:

If I may be so bold as to personalise it and state my dichotomy...

Alumni may look like the annoying barrister who knows how to get off on technicalities but I side with him because without evidence or proof, which we don’t have lest we forget, I don’t see how anyone can be 100% apart from those who were personally involved. Maybe there are cases where the sheer weight of numbers have convicted someone, I’m sure there are, but that still doesn’t in itself constitute proof.

Sooey threw his hat into the ring early, too early IMO, declaring he’s 100% certain and while I think he’s right about Savile I object to the notion that he or anyone else outside those with first hand knowledge can be 100% sure.

Tone

 

[sooey]

BT every time I think I understand what you're saying you confuse me yet again

You have the unique gift of being able to argue for both sides in the same post with just a little ar$e kissing thrown in for good measure or effect.
Is that intentional?

Spot on

 

[Big Tone]

Spot on

You 100% about that as well?

 

[sooey]

Where do you get this 100 % business from?
The standard of proof required in a court of law is certain beyond reasonable doubt. Which I am about Savile's guilt.
Do you believe that when a jury foreman says guilty that it's 100% certain he/she is right in all cases?

 

[Big Tone]

Where do you get this 100 % business from?
The standard of proof required in a court of law is certain beyond reasonable doubt. Which I am about Savile's guilt.

So am I, but it’s not for you or I to predict the outcome of an inquiry. You don’t seem to want an inquiry because he’s guilty as accused so there’s no point.

Do you believe that when a jury foreman says guilty that it's 100% certain he/she is right in all cases?

No, but the difference between us is that if, by some miracle, there is no case to answer I would accept that whereas you’d doubtless say it was a farce.

I don’t care how I’m perceived here, I am just trying to remain impartial and open minded. The trouble is we probably know, or rather have been told, too much about him. The best or only way to resolve it is probably like how they did with Michael Jackson when they found jurors who had no previous knowledge of the man and can make an informed decision. (Wasn’t easy either if you remember).

I’m not falling out with you no matter how much you or others mock me.

 

[Big Tone]

Where do you get this 100 % business from?

You have been saying all along, have you not, that you know he is guilty? That, to me, means you are 100% sure. Now you are saying “beyond reasonable doubt" i.e. <100% or <<100% to use a mathematical term.

Which is it please because if it’s anything less then it means there is, or can be, an element of doubt? If it is with 100% certainty you know he is guilty I’m sure we’d all like to know your very trusted and reliable source?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[sooey]

So am I, but it’s not for you or I to predict the outcome of an inquiry. You don’t seem to want an inquiry because he’s guilty as accused so there’s no point.

Where have I said that I don't want an inquiry, Savile was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, end of story, that's all you'll ever get. An inquiry is necessary to find out who else may have been involved and also the no small matter of how many victims there may have been. What the inquiry will not and can not do is find Savile guilty or innocent, that's for a court of law to decide which cannot apply here. If anything any inquiry can only find more evidence of his guilt.

No, but the difference between us is that if, by some miracle, there is no case to answer I would accept that whereas you’d doubtless say it was a farce.

So if this forthcoming inquiry completely exonerates Savile and by implication brands ALL of his victims liars or hallucinators you would accept that? It would probably kick up the biggest sh*tstorm in recent history considering all of the evidence against him that is already known.

You have been saying all along, have you not, that you know he is guilty? That, to me, means you are 100% sure. Now you are saying “beyond reasonable doubt" i.e. <100% or <<100% to use a mathematical term.

I believe beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. That means that if I was on a jury I would give him the thumbs down. That means that if all of the other jury members were in agreement he would be guilty and treated as such. Locked up, put on the child abuser register, disgraced etc. etc. This 100% thing is a figment of your imagination, in this country at least guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and I believe it has been here. The most important point being that that will never be tested in a court of law.

Which is it please because if it’s anything less then it means there is, or can be, an element of doubt? If it is with 100% certainty you know he is guilty I’m sure we’d all like to know your very trusted and reliable source?

You can't have it both ways.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. What is difficult to understand about that.

 

[sooey]

So am I, but it’s not for you or I to predict the outcome of an inquiry. You don’t seem to want an inquiry because he’s guilty as accused so there’s no point.

Bad thinking...the outcome of a police criminal inquiry is either lack of evidence to go any further or enough evidence to put before a jury, in other words a court case.
We already have more than enough evidence for a court case (but will never get one, hence the police stating at the start that they couldn't do a criminal inquiry but would compile a report) and any inquiry into Savile can only enhance that evidence not disprove it, and maybe reveal other offenders. Of course I would want to see that.

 

[Big Tone]

Okay, fair enough. But hang on a minute, I’ve been following what you have been saying and I don’t make a habit of getting in someone’s face for nothing. You did yourself no favours by stating early on, somewhere on page two, things like

Savile's guilt is indisputable

and

..it's undeniable what happened.

Well no and no! You weren’t there and you only had what was just starting to come out from the media.

Each ‘event’ has to be judged on its own merits, or should that be demerits? Not every claim is going to be true or without exaggeration but you were already swallowing each story hook, line and sinker. What’s more, or worse, after already making your mind up back then you still had ‘ifs’ yourself when you afterwards said

What I mean is if enough people come forward and it can be proven

So I hope at least you can see why I, and not just me, saw you as jumping the gun...

 

[sooey]

Read it again.
After writing "Savile's guilt is indisputable" and "it's undeniable what happened", both referring to Savile and which I stand by completely, I was then asked by alumni about Freddie Starr. My reply of "if enough people come forward and it can be proven" which you quoted out of context and which is shown below was referring to Starr. Notice also that at that stage I did not name him as Alumni didn't because there was only one person accusing him. I name him now only because it's already been widely reported.
Try to pay attention.

alumni wrote:

Have police interviewed a certain p**s poor comedian since allegations were made?

sooey replied

As far as I know there's only one person accusing him, so he has to be given the benefit of the doubt at the moment.
If enough other people come forward with similar accusations.....crucify the bstrd.
edit
that is badly put. What I mean is if enough people come forward and it can be proven that he was a beast then he should be crucified.

 

[sooey]

Also notice that the "if it can be proven" refers to a man who is alive and kicking and who can be taken to court if enough evidence comes up.

 

[Big Tone]

Ah, sorry about the out of context. I don’t like when someone does that to me either. It wasn’t a cheap shot, it’s just this thread is turning into War and Peace.

After writing "Savile's guilt is indisputable" and "it's undeniable what happened", both referring to Savile and which I stand by completely

You may stand by it but I maintain you don’t know and even less so back then; not to mention the thread before which goes back even longer ago.

 

[chapeau]

Re: The Beyond Reasonable Doubt standard.

Where is the doubt?