ChatterBank2 mins ago
Jimmy Saville
Think of it this way...Jimmy Saville.
Whilst he was alive, he raised about £40m for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. He was a hero. A national treasure. He earned an O.B.E.
Then he was knighted.
If in the 1970s, Stoke Mandeville decided to erect a statue in honour of him, knowing what we now know - isn’t it understandable that people would want it removed?
Wouldn’t the children of those that Saville abused not want to see a public monument to him?
Whilst he was alive, he raised about £40m for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. He was a hero. A national treasure. He earned an O.B.E.
Then he was knighted.
If in the 1970s, Stoke Mandeville decided to erect a statue in honour of him, knowing what we now know - isn’t it understandable that people would want it removed?
Wouldn’t the children of those that Saville abused not want to see a public monument to him?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. 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.
-- answer removed --
retro - you should at least get a geography star
Your confusion of China and Chile - different continents old boy was geo spasmodic
Mushroom - HI mushie - has mentioned the legal aspect
Mansfield 1760 - the air of eengland is to pure for a slave to breathe - hence not lawful
the only wiki ref I can find is
https:/ /en.wik ipedia. org/wik i/Somer set_v_S tewart
[Slavery had never been authorized by statute in England and Wales, and Lord Mansfield's decision found it also unsupported in common law. [
carry on boys and girls
Your confusion of China and Chile - different continents old boy was geo spasmodic
Mushroom - HI mushie - has mentioned the legal aspect
Mansfield 1760 - the air of eengland is to pure for a slave to breathe - hence not lawful
the only wiki ref I can find is
https:/
[Slavery had never been authorized by statute in England and Wales, and Lord Mansfield's decision found it also unsupported in common law. [
carry on boys and girls
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
//retro - you should at least get a geography star
Your confusion of China and Chile - different continents old boy was geo spasmodic//
How I wish, like you, my eyesight could match 'Catseyes' Cunningham'.
Have you ever tried typing from an article when you have mislaid your glasses.? If I had been wearing my glasses I wouldn't have mislaid them. :-)
DT - // tuff, Andy - the man was a pervert, nothing more that can be said...should have been chopped up and fed to the pigs. //
If you think his actions make him a butt for 'humour' - regardless of dragging an innocent singer into your nasty scenario, then you must need someone to laugh at you to a degree that is less than healthy.
Savile's actions were deplorable - but that is never going to make them amusing - never.
If you think his actions make him a butt for 'humour' - regardless of dragging an innocent singer into your nasty scenario, then you must need someone to laugh at you to a degree that is less than healthy.
Savile's actions were deplorable - but that is never going to make them amusing - never.
// the only wiki ref I can find is
https:/ /en.wik ipedia. org/wik i/Somer set_v_S tewart
[Slavery had never been authorized by statute in England and Wales, and Lord Mansfield's decision found it also unsupported in common law. [ //
by which time, Colston had been dead for nearly 50 years. law is rarely applied retrospectively and this was not the exception. whatever Colston did, there was no law in his lifetime that criminalized it.
https:/
[Slavery had never been authorized by statute in England and Wales, and Lord Mansfield's decision found it also unsupported in common law. [ //
by which time, Colston had been dead for nearly 50 years. law is rarely applied retrospectively and this was not the exception. whatever Colston did, there was no law in his lifetime that criminalized it.
post thingey legislation
War Crimes Act - 199-
their lordships did NOT like that bill at all and eventually passed with the help of hte Parliament Acr 1949
Burmah OIl Act - 1964 - negated a court judgement that the burning of the oil fields in 1942 - no, really - was NOT an act of war - it was an act of defence and so claimable against the govt
rretro active by the arch liberal Harold Wilson of course
War Crimes Act - 199-
their lordships did NOT like that bill at all and eventually passed with the help of hte Parliament Acr 1949
Burmah OIl Act - 1964 - negated a court judgement that the burning of the oil fields in 1942 - no, really - was NOT an act of war - it was an act of defence and so claimable against the govt
rretro active by the arch liberal Harold Wilson of course
New Judge - // /knowing what we now know//
You mean knowing what other people have alleged, surely. //
Indeed.
It is easy to get carried away on a tide of pubic opinion, media frenzy and human emotion, and forget that Savile remains uncharged, and any accusations unproven.
Which makes 'feeding him to the pigs' - apart from being a hysterical hyperbolic over-reaction, not the way justice is dealt with here.
You mean knowing what other people have alleged, surely. //
Indeed.
It is easy to get carried away on a tide of pubic opinion, media frenzy and human emotion, and forget that Savile remains uncharged, and any accusations unproven.
Which makes 'feeding him to the pigs' - apart from being a hysterical hyperbolic over-reaction, not the way justice is dealt with here.
clay cross councillor indemnification 1973
// / law is rarely applied retrospectively … // - well all cases are after the fact if you think about it .....
statutes will not be retrospective unless it is directly stated in the act - loud squawking when the bill is discussed see above
( cant remember the case but their Lordships stated they would never infer it was retrospective sort of to make it even better)
// / law is rarely applied retrospectively … // - well all cases are after the fact if you think about it .....
statutes will not be retrospective unless it is directly stated in the act - loud squawking when the bill is discussed see above
( cant remember the case but their Lordships stated they would never infer it was retrospective sort of to make it even better)