Tidgy

So, now we live in a society of guilty untill proven innocent then.

This whole jimmy savil thing, which on personal level i do think he was up to things he shouldn't be i might add, but the press seem to be reporting him as guilty all the time.

In the eyes of the law he has done nothing and is totaly innocent, we live in a society of innocent until proven guilty.

So now his alleged victims want to sue the bbc and his estate, how on earth can you sue for an allegation?

jonc

Trial by media seems to be way things goes these days.

Tidgy

yeah i agree jon, its a sorry state of affairs

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Because it's pretty clear that everyone knew about it but turned a blind eye.

Tidgy

turned a blind eye to what exactly? again he has been found guilty of nothing, these are accusations, not convictions.

or do you think accusations should be enough to ascertain guilt now?

ScoobyWon't

Has any evidence been presented?

Tidgy

Not heard of any other than 'victim statements'

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

This is really difficult as we all know by now that he was a repeat offender, but Tidgy is absolutely right... he has not been found guilty in the eyes of the law and therefore is technically inoocent!

Don't see how anyone can sue anyone until such time that he is found guilty in a court of law!

RA Dunk

I think he was a bit of a perv but can't help but think a lot of the allegations are from people either looking for attention or looking for a claim.

Tidgy

Tbh i dont think he's innocent, maybe not guilty on all accusations (folks will have jumped on the bandwagon spome what, especialy sueing is now on the cards), but some at least are probably genuin.

The truth of which and what will never be known unless someone finds some video or photographic proof.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

There has to be some of that doesn't there? My thoughts exactly.

davyboy

I actually know someone he asked if they wanted to see his private room at Stoke Mandeville. They were 13.

Fantom

Even if the worst is true, you can't get justice from a dead man. Therefore it all comes down to the £4m estate.

dazdavies

iTrader: (22)

A bit like speeding convictions. The burden is on you to prove your innocence not on the police to prove your guilt.

Clarebabes

I never liked Jimmy Savile, I thought there was something not right about him and the way he looked and spoke to young girls on Jim'll Fix it etc. OK, he's not been found guilty of anything, so not a convicted pedophile, but not a very nice man all the same. Think there's video proof of his groping and leering.

Anyway, what I don't like is the fact that loads of DJs and TV stars from back in the day have now found themselves being arrested because of accusations from years ago. I am particularly thinking about a couple of DJs who were mega stars in their time who probably had a bit of a fling with some teenagers who were throwing themselves at them. I might be wrong, but it must have been hard to resist those nubile young girls who would do anything to be with them! Of course, they are guilty too, as is Stuart Hall etc.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

THIS^^^
Brought to you by Lying Labour, who even went as far as to influence the ECHR, they were so desperate for YOUR money...

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Let's not forget that people did come forward while he was alive, but for reasons we don't know the investigation was dropped or never went ahead.

Truss

iTrader: (2)

Thats why i personally think the BBC/media/whoever covered it up should foot the compo bill.
Someone covered for him, and as he can't defend himself the people responisble for "allowing" these things to happen should pay for it.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

What if it "went away" because there was neither proof nor case to answer?

nyscooby

iTrader: (12)

Its that time of the night when i post something either stupid or profound..... so here goes.

I was 22 years old when Jimmy Saville sexually touched my bottom. I wasn't in the same room or even the same building but i was in Leeds and some old guy with white hair and a evil grin was stood near me.

I want the BBC to post my cheque off as soon as possible.

He also gave me whip lash and i took a loan with PPI off him.

The Dogs B******s

I hope you are ok after all these years.

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

As I see it these are Civil claims against his estate and others for damages and are not criminal prosecutions.

The burden of proof is lower (balance of probabilities for civil against beyond reasonable doubt for criminal) and represent a gamble for the lawyers who are working on a no win no fee basis........

If the lawyers win then they are in the money......

Cynical me.

Shaun

Leslie

Certainly no one should be assumed to be guilty unless they have been tried by a court and that was the verdict afterwards.

All the evidence has to be presented and assessed in a lawful manner.

Les