BBC Abuse Story

[andy-hughes]

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?

[andy-hughes]

Indeed - it is one thing to suspect someone of guilt, or even, with evidence, to know it to be true, but 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' is still the yarstick we use - no sign of that being applied here it seems.

[Zeuhl]

<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. >

You are confusing two different things aog

The FA charge was simply that Terry used 'Racist Language' which is contrary to their Rules and Regulations that Terry signed up to as a professional player.

Clearly he was guilty of this because the Court case you refer to had already found so!

In addition, the Magistrate described him as an 'unreliable' witness and called his explanation for using said 'Racist Language' 'ludicrous'.
However he was found not guilty of the specific offence of 'Racial Abuse'

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// trial-by-media ///

I would think that anyone who has been allegedly abused by this individual, would only be too happy to see him alive and facing them in the dock.

It is easy for some to blame the 'Media' in which they never fail to mention the Daily Mail and that 'evil villain' Rupert Murdock, when they themselves are only implicated by being fed-up with the continuous news coverage.

But it is at times like this that the Right-Wing press do sterling investigating journalism that look into the wrong doings in this country, which is more than can be expected from the Left-Wing press.

If this investigation can pull a few more low-life from underneath their rocks, then surely it has all been worth while?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - "If this investigation can pull a few more low-life from underneath their rocks, then surely it has all been worth while?"

If they are found guilty of an offence in a court of law, then yes, of course.

If their lives and reputations are ruined by unsubstantiated rumours designed to increase circulation - then no, of course not.
.

[FredPuli43]

Not worrying in the instant case because there are, and were, several witnesses to the sexual assaults and the evidence gets more extensive every day. Savile would be convicted by a jury now because the evidence is not of one or two girls, now women, but one of system; same ages, same circumstances, same method, over and over for decades.

What is far more worrying is the 'trial by Sun headline' which is where a tabloid digs up all manner of information about a suspect, none of it admissible in court, all written up to be slanted against the man; 'a neighbour said that he always was a bit odd' etc. This stuff is run before and after any arrest and even after committal for trial

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// If they are found guilty of an offence in a court of law, then yes, of course. ///

That goes without saying.

/// If their lives and reputations are ruined by unsubstantiated rumours designed to increase circulation - then no, of course
not. ///

And that is for the proposed inquires to discover, if they are really unsubstantiated rumours or actual fact.
.

[youngmafbog]

I raised this on here the other day, was shot down in flames.

I agree with you. Trial by media is wrong, but it is difficult to know where and expose story starts and ends.

What worries me is that is must prejudice a genuine case.

[youngmafbog]

Mud sticks though AOG.

[Mick-Talbot]

Accusations are not deemed more believable on a sliding scale where the more there are, the more truth can be attributed to them -


Really?

I am struggling to find the logic in that statement.

[andy-hughes]

Mick-Talbot

One person accuses JS of abuse - that must be a rumour.

One hundred people accuse JS of abuse - that must be the truth.

I don't think so.

[sandyRoe]

Not proof. But it must give more weight to the accusations.

[andy-hughes]

sandyRoe - a valid point, but it's the fine line between an assumption of guilt based on numbers, rather than evidence, which is something to be avoided at all costs.

After all, in the thirteenth century, the majority of the population would swear on a stack of bibles that the earth was flat - but a majority view does not turn a falsehood into a fact by virtue of sheer weight of numbers.

And that is the essential aspect of this ongoing situation that we need to keep in sight at all times.

[Mick-Talbot]

So is it just bad luck then , andy?
An orchestrated attempt to besmirch his name?
He was misunderstood?



No, I can't agree...most men live their whole lives without any accusations of this nature.


"Under the law, he is innocent"

He hasn't faced the courts, that does not make him innocent. That makes him one lucky bastard.

[Mick-Talbot]

That comparison, andy is ludicrous.

[andy-hughes]

mick-talbot -

"So is it just bad luck then , andy?
An orchestrated attempt to besmirch his name?
He was misunderstood?"

I have not suggested any of those viewpoints.

"He hasn't faced the courts, that does not make him innocent. That makes him one lucky bastard."

No - it makes him innocent - that's the way justice works - luck does not come into it.

[andy-hughes]

The comparison is perfectly valid Mick-Talbot.

It illustrates that just because a majority of people believe something to be true does not make it true, it simply makes it what they believe. the fact that so many of them believe it does not in fact make it true either - something is true, or it is not true, the number of people who believe it does not increase the degree of truth, because there is no degree of truth.

Saville is innocent until proven guilty - i am not saying that he is not guilty, I am saying that he remains inocent until proven guilty - and we are not at that stage yet, so condemnation by media is wrong.

[Mick-Talbot]

Saville is innocent until proven guilty


How is he ever going to be found guilty now?
Posthumous trial?

[ummmm]

Well the police seem to think he's guilty.

[andy-hughes]

The only point I keep hammering home is - our justice system works on an 'innocent until proven guilty' basis, and under that system, Jimmy Saville is innocent, and trial by media is unsavoury and undermines the spirit of the law.

I am inclined to believe that investigations will prove misconduct of the worst kind, but ... and again i say but ... until that day comes, he remains innocent under the law.

[jno]

as Mick Talbot says, he can never be found guilty because he's dead. There can be no trial. But I don't see why we should conclude from this that he never did any of the things he is said to have done.