Simple Yes/No

[calorific]

No need to discuss. Straightforward anonymous vote.

(Edit - Er, stupidly I voted yes by mistake But the rest of you are anonymous. What a pillock )

 

[sooey]

Wot a maroon and you a maths teacher.

 

[big-all]

guilt is not the problem its the scale thats the question

it can be from an inappropritate touch on one occasion deserving a warning
to far more evil molestation violation and rape
so simple guilty means nothing unless you specify what

 

[sooey]

For the purposes of this poll I think you can take it as being more evil molestation at the least.

 

[big-all]

For the purposes of this poll I think you can take it as being more evil molestation at the least.

yes i think that is the intention for which i would agree
but to be honest whilst i personally think at present he was quite evil we need to wait for all information and facts to come forward to allow an honest opinion

if we take 1 as being innocent and 10 as being a hanging offense i look at 7 as being the level he is presently at

 

[wotan]

There was something strange about Savills demeanor when presenting the badges to the youngsters on his show, he appeared ill at ease, and avoided physical contact with them, my personal opinion was that he was trying to hide his true feelings.

Wotan

 

[sooey]

His own sisters grandaughter is accusing him of messing with her now, she reckons his close family all knew but kept schtum because of the money they got out of him.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-sickening-twist--bribed-sister-cover-up.html

 

[Space cat]

What I'm almost hearing is something along the lines of:

"If enough people say that somebody is a paedophile then they probably are one."

Does that sound familiar? Until those witnesses have been properly cross-examined in a court of law, he was innocent.

 

[calorific]

Now then sooey. You now full well that the apologists for him on here won't accept that as evidence as it's not been heard in a court of law and also cannot be commented on until a jury has returned a guilty verdict.

 

[pred]

No smoke without fire!!

 

[calorific]

What I'm almost hearing is something along the lines of:

"If enough people say that somebody is a paedophile then they probably are one."

Does that sound familiar? Until those witnesses have been properly cross-examined in a court of law, he was innocent.

Unless Saville's grand neice sues the paper about the claim that she has said that he not only abused her when she was a very young child but also raped her when she was 15, then it seems to be admissable evidence.

 

[sooey]

"If enough people say that somebody is a paedophile then they probably are one."

Yes, they probably are, at which stage a living person would be taken to court to see if they really are.

Does that sound familiar? Until those witnesses have been properly cross-examined in a court of law, he was innocent.

Which can't apply here, so probably is all we're ever going to get.
So does that mean a criminal who avoids prosecution during his life is forever innocent, no matter what "proof" of his guilt comes out after his death?

 

[calorific]

, so probably is all we're ever going to get.

Probability is measured on a scale from 0 to 1. The 1 value means "certain".

So, I estimate from the given data that-

p(saville was a prolific paedophile) = 0.999999...(recurring)

 

[Space cat]

So does that mean a criminal who avoids prosecution during his life is forever innocent, no matter what "proof" of his guilt comes out after his death?

I see no reason why a criminal trial cannot be conducted just because the accused is dead. Witnesses can still be cross-examined under oath in front of a judge. I'm not trying to defend the man but justice should be seen to be done. There's no rush. If he was guilty, he won't be re-offending any time soon.

 

[sooey]

I see no reason why a criminal trial cannot be conducted just because the accused is dead.

How many witnesses would be called? there are potentially very many.
How much would it all cost?
What would the sentence be if he was found guilty?
It would be another great earner for the legal profession if we started pointlessly trying dead people.