Who's being unreasonable here?

[headfairy]

My sister's arguing the BBC should lose the licence fee over the Savile disgrace. I feel heads must roll, senior heads at that but I don't think we should effectively get rid of the BBC in its current form over this.

This is the bit I may well be very unreasonable about, I dunno... But why should the BBC be scrapped when apparently no one in the Catholic church has been made to pay for the decades of abuse on young children and the complicit actions of the senior ranks in allowing it to carry on?

your sister is stupid, what was the bbc supposed to do?

Ah, I see you said they're not all after money, even so, what I said still stands (if you twist it a bit )

The allegations are from years ago, but they have only now come to light? Again, I am on the fence completely as there can be no defence, deniel, alibi or any true argument in court - whatever happened to innocent until proved guilty r are we heading back to the dark ages?

The allegations are from years ago, but they have only now come to light?

No. Read the article.

And of course every person who has gone to the press before claiming all sorts have always been telling the truth

Have you read the article?

Are you thinking there's some kind of conspiracy between the people coming forward cricket, or is it more because they're after attention/money/got nowt else to do.

Splitting hairs, but doesn't the presumption of innocence only apply to the living when they're in court?

People can make up their own minds about any evidence they hear, even if he was alive and taken to court, that doesn't mean they came to the right decision.

Let me just excerpt the bits from the article that mention verifiable police involvement.

^Police came knocking on Top of the Pops door again in 1971 following the suicide of Clair McAlpine, a dancer who went by the stage name Samantha Claire on the show.
...
In the late 1970s, police were contacted again ? this time by a nurse concerned at his behaviour at Stoke Mandeville in Buckinghamshire.
...
In 2007, Surrey police questioned Savile over allegations of child sex abuse in the 1970s. The matter was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which advised there was insufficient evidence to take further action.^

I've read it ans whilst there are points that suggest something was not right in his behaviour, it just seems convenient that suddenly so many victims have come to light all ready and willing to sue the BBC and NHS hospitals when there can not be any defence offered by the accused man. Where were they all before action that would result in a monetary reward was in sight?

My dh, friends and colleagues all share my scepticism so I will leave this thread to the witch hunt that this thread is...

So, let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that all the alleged victims are lying and in it for the money? Or that some of them are? Are you saying that none of the allegations are true?

Ah, you've given up because you don't like being presented with facts. Fair enough.

cricketballs it took me 25 years to be able to report my rape. Twenty five years before I felt capable of going to the police. And that wasn't involving someone rich, famous, and powerful.

JS was friends with a member of my family. I said that on the threads when he died, and I also said that this would come out way back then. He was a terrible, terrible person, and I am not even remotely surprised that it has taken his death for his victims to feel brave enough to come forward.

You also need to remember that there was a number of reports of this years ago, and there was insufficient evidence. Also, that these were vulnerable children he targeted, not adults. Children who were even more unlikely to be listened to than most children.

Money has nothing to do with it. To even suggest it does is disgusting and ignorant.

Your DH, friends and colleagues are all only looking at it from one perspective cricket.

I don't feel like I'm on a witch hunt when I make the choice to believe the victims of this man, and if I am, I can live with that.

It is, in any case, utter wibble to suggest that taking allegations seriously and pursuing them amounts to deciding someone is guilty. If that were the case the police could never investigate anything, could they?

If someone accuses someone else of murder, and the police examine this allegation and question the person accused, does that mean they've decided that person is guilty?

Agree, it's what the police are there for MBL.

I wonder what happens when the person's dead though, do the police just give what they have to an inquiry, or is there something like an inquest which deals with situations that can't be resolved by a prosecution?

I'm trying to think of when a person who's been accused of a crime has died before getting to court, but can only think of Oliver Cromwell being dug up and beheaded

I don't know, Zigzag, I was just wondering that. I guess someone is going to have to come to some kind of formal conclusion in the criminal case sense for the civil actions to stand up.

Apparently (Mind, it's a link to the daily wail) the 'police will produce a joint report with the NSPCC to look to see what lessons can be learned and what conclusions can be drawn, which can be shared with other agencies.'

They're probably all lessons that have been learnt the hard way already, which is where the 'it was a different time' argument comes into it.

It's the people that go to the press rather than the police that I'm sceptical about. Like the ones who accused Freddie Starr