Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News1 min ago
BBC Abuse Story
47 Answers
I know that this story is gaterhing momentum daily, but is anyone else uncomfortable with the rising vitriol of what is in effect a trial-by-media?
Accusations are not deemed more believable on a sliding scale where the more there are, the more truth can be attributed to them - but that seems to be the approach that tne nation is being fed through its media.
We do still work on an 'innocent until proven guilty' system of justice, not, as it appears, a 'no smoke without fire' system which is pervading the nation at the moment.
When Jimmy Saville's picture was shown to the Have I Got News For You audience, there was a chorus of boos.
Let's remember, this is someone who is under investigation, and as yet, not proven guilty of any offence, and is no longer alive to mount a defence.
Under the law, he is innocent, as is John Peel, Freddie Starr, and so on. The only individual found guity of child sex abuse is Gary Glitter, and again, that was not this offence, and an offence once proven does not give the media carte blanche to pronounce guilt on any subsequent rumour that may surface.
I find this worrying - anyone else?
Accusations are not deemed more believable on a sliding scale where the more there are, the more truth can be attributed to them - but that seems to be the approach that tne nation is being fed through its media.
We do still work on an 'innocent until proven guilty' system of justice, not, as it appears, a 'no smoke without fire' system which is pervading the nation at the moment.
When Jimmy Saville's picture was shown to the Have I Got News For You audience, there was a chorus of boos.
Let's remember, this is someone who is under investigation, and as yet, not proven guilty of any offence, and is no longer alive to mount a defence.
Under the law, he is innocent, as is John Peel, Freddie Starr, and so on. The only individual found guity of child sex abuse is Gary Glitter, and again, that was not this offence, and an offence once proven does not give the media carte blanche to pronounce guilt on any subsequent rumour that may surface.
I find this worrying - anyone else?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A certain crooked Australian has been gunning for the BBC for a very long time (they being an antidote to his despicable media dominance). A recent fall from grace has weakened his case, but I have no doubt that his Dirty Tricks department are fanning the flames of this for all their worth in order to bad-mouth the BBC.
It's understandable in a way, because some people 'follow the crowd' and some will make up their mind as to someone's guilt whether they have been convicted or not.
Take for instance Steve Gerrard. Cleared of causing actual bodily harm, but in the 'Court of YouTube' some (including, I admit me) have found him very guilty indeed.
It's like the crowds to hang around outside courts to boo defendents. Human nature I'm afraid.
Take for instance Steve Gerrard. Cleared of causing actual bodily harm, but in the 'Court of YouTube' some (including, I admit me) have found him very guilty indeed.
It's like the crowds to hang around outside courts to boo defendents. Human nature I'm afraid.
I agree with you. Trial by media is becoming the rule, rather than trial by law.
I have much sympathy for any person abused by any one but these reports should be made to the authorities rather than the press. If, as would appear probable, Jimmy Saville was as black as he has been painted I would support the removal of his honours from historical records but he is dead and therefore beyond punishment in this world. I hope, however, that those who were aware of any mis-doing but did nothing are brought to book. "In order for evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke)
I have much sympathy for any person abused by any one but these reports should be made to the authorities rather than the press. If, as would appear probable, Jimmy Saville was as black as he has been painted I would support the removal of his honours from historical records but he is dead and therefore beyond punishment in this world. I hope, however, that those who were aware of any mis-doing but did nothing are brought to book. "In order for evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to do nothing" (Edmund Burke)
andy-hughes
I tell you what IS beginning to grate...it's the moral high road that the Daily Mail is taking in its criticism of the BBC in this saga.
I absolutely do not believe for a split second that these rumours weren't know by the DM showbiz editors over the years. The stance the paper is taking now is that those who heard the rumours at the BBC were somehow complicit in covering the story up.
Why did no national newspaper over the past 40 years print the story? What were THEY afraid of?
I tell you what IS beginning to grate...it's the moral high road that the Daily Mail is taking in its criticism of the BBC in this saga.
I absolutely do not believe for a split second that these rumours weren't know by the DM showbiz editors over the years. The stance the paper is taking now is that those who heard the rumours at the BBC were somehow complicit in covering the story up.
Why did no national newspaper over the past 40 years print the story? What were THEY afraid of?
oh, and to answer your question, andy: yes. But I think it's inevitable as more and more allegations appear (in part urged on by the media; but it was after all the media that uncovered his claimed misdeeds in the first place). If only a couple of allegations had been made against him, I doubt there would be anything like the current hatefest.
Plus the fact that as these things go on, people start to turn up looking only for money. I hope those will be weeded out.
But there have been a lot of allegations; and I suspect that the fact he's unable to mount a defence is extremely good luck for him, rather than something which should be held against his accusers.
Plus the fact that as these things go on, people start to turn up looking only for money. I hope those will be weeded out.
But there have been a lot of allegations; and I suspect that the fact he's unable to mount a defence is extremely good luck for him, rather than something which should be held against his accusers.
-- answer removed --
sp1814
/// It's understandable in a way, because some people 'follow the crowd' and some will make up their mind as to someone's guilt whether they have been convicted or not. ///
Or even when they have been found 'NOT GUILTY' by a court of law it seems, the FA and quite a few on AB. for starters.
I am referring of course to John Terry.
/// It's understandable in a way, because some people 'follow the crowd' and some will make up their mind as to someone's guilt whether they have been convicted or not. ///
Or even when they have been found 'NOT GUILTY' by a court of law it seems, the FA and quite a few on AB. for starters.
I am referring of course to John Terry.
Brenden - i too remember that case.
The Daile Express published a seriously poisonous character assasination of Liberace, who, being alive, was able to take legal redress, and as you say, was given a retraction, costs and damages.
History did indeed prove the substance of the paper's claim, if not the vitrio with which it was offered - and if the same were to occur here, then that would be perfectly acceptable, but my point is that the nation are judge jury and executioner, based on information supplied by a media which itself must have been at least as aware and complicit as the BBC. It's either or neither, so as sp1814 points out, the mdeia huffing and puffing could yet prove to be their own downfall.
Beware lest you chase your quarry over the cliff, as the saying goes.
The Daile Express published a seriously poisonous character assasination of Liberace, who, being alive, was able to take legal redress, and as you say, was given a retraction, costs and damages.
History did indeed prove the substance of the paper's claim, if not the vitrio with which it was offered - and if the same were to occur here, then that would be perfectly acceptable, but my point is that the nation are judge jury and executioner, based on information supplied by a media which itself must have been at least as aware and complicit as the BBC. It's either or neither, so as sp1814 points out, the mdeia huffing and puffing could yet prove to be their own downfall.
Beware lest you chase your quarry over the cliff, as the saying goes.
The aligations against Jimmy Saville for child abuse ie mollesting under age girls should be kept separate from stories that are now coming to light about DJ's in the 70's and 80's groping girls who are over the age of consent. They are two completely different issues. It's the child abuse that people should be focussed on, the other stuff is just people jumping on the bandwagon.
