11 minutes to read and consider his viewpoints. A remarkable brain.

Reply

They might be some of the opportunists using it, but crediting them with its creation is probably to ascribe a divine capability too far

Try a chill pill. It helps one with control of one’s pen.

Reply

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond so fully. I might not entirely agree with you on all you have said, but we’re mainly dealing with the shades and shadows, something that can be difficult to do properly in a solely written forum, so I doubt if there is much to be gained from prolonging this further

However, might I ask you to just have another think – not here! – about some of the ‘spirit of the age’ content, if I might call it that? I’m not sure how old you are, but some of the stuff related to the >18 non patient complaints would, for many people then of that age, have barely raised an eyebrow at the time, and for old duffers like me, the retrospective application of today’s more puritan standards, with its implicit ascribing of some sort of criminal standard of mens rea, both then, and possibly even now, to people of that generation, really is a bit too much to stomach.

Have a good evening…

Reply

“I would not accept that much of the behaviour being complained about was part and parcel of normal life. Savile’s reported behaviour often went considerably beyond the over-familiarity that might possibly be excused on that basis. Your observation that Savile was “not necessarily a saint and may have done some of the other more serious things alleged” suggests that you appreciate that. I’m unwilling simply to allow Savile th excuse that the behaviour reported was “normal”.”

Who is suggesting that the behaviour reported by his accusers was “normal”. If he did what they say he did –he was a monster. The issue is if the truth is being told about went on–if anything did.

“The more important question, though, is whether It’s fair to judge him on the basis of sometimes incomplete evidence of his behaviour when he’s no longer around to defend himself. Savile’s canniness and willingness to exploit his wealth and influence appears to have been at least partly responsible for the incompleteness of that evidence, along with the frailness of many of those who reported on his attentions.”

Sometimes incomplete evidence?–how about NO evidence beyond accusations themselves. Accusations contained in stories that are full of holes and inconsistencies and many of which have proven to be outright lies–see Moor Larkin’s blog for much, much moor info.

“Savile’s canniness and willingness to exploit his wealth and influence appears to have been at least partly responsible for the incompleteness of that evidence,”

Savile’s supposed guilt is what you are trying to show from the evidence. You simply beg the question by assuming his guilt on the basis of accusations that have zero corroboration and then declare that the very thinness of the “evidence” is proof of what a crafty fellow Savile was.

“along with the frailness of many of those who reported on his attentions.”–Frailness or otherwise is not a criterion of proof. It might be a criteria to induce sympathy–IF you can prove the “frail” person actually WAS a victim. You have to prove guilt first on the basis of real evidence –not accusation alone. Then you can concern yourself with sympathy. Not before.

“The tone of argument often adopted here suggests that complainants choose to expose themselves and their intimate experiences to public scrutiny, criticism and attack simply for reasons of financial gain or attention. Reports made by individuals anxious that the evidence of vulnerable victims would otherwise be uncorroborated and disregarded are mocked. From the comments here you would never imagine that any victim could be motivated by a desire for justice and truth (whether or not accompanied by anger and bitterness), or by a concern for the protection of others in a similar situation of vulnerability. (Even a desire for compensation is not a mean thing in itself when the damage to a life, and to others’ lives is considered.)”

In terms of the accusations I don’t give a monkeys about what motivates the victims or their supporters. I’m not going to believe anyone because of their motivations. I want EVIDENCE–real evidence not unsupported allegations. None of the accusers have supplied any hard, corroborated evidence. They have supplied exactly the kind of statements supplied by greedy, vindictive and troubled people many times throughout history in panics, show-trials and witch hunts. Many of the accusers have already been found out as liars. The sheer number of accusations has now reached beyond the point of being ludicrous. Add to this the fact that anyone who looks around can see that a radical Marxist hate cult (political feminism) is happily making use of the whole mess in service of their rotten Marxian cause– to further demonise men and portray the past as an era when women and children could be molested at will .

“Unlike you I have not myself prepared reports for public consumption, but I have been close to investigations of “things that have gone wrong” (not in the area of sexual abuse).”

Well I hope you showed a better grasp of logic in those circs that you have on this blog.

” I’ve seen how, at least for a very long time, and some times indefinitely, culpable rogues were able to characterise genuine victims as naive, unreliable and even dishonest.”

Since Savile died before any of this crazy crap emerged he never said anything about anything. Are you suggesting that I and those on here who also do not believe are the “culpable rogues”? Let me make it clear. What you are suggesting is that the people of past decades were scum who couldn’t have cared less about supposed vulnerable children sobbing in front of them and who were more interested in not rocking the boat vis a vis a very minor celeb. And that this happened hundreds of times. Not just nurses and teachers but the children’s own parents did not give a damn about the distress of their small offspring. You are suggesting that the BBC was so in awe of a very minor celeb (thanks to Moor Larkin we in fact know that Jimmy Saville was treated with contempt by the BBC in the sixties) that they allowed him –supposedly- to commit more than a thousand “sex crimes” on their premises. Far from being just another celeb, you would have us believe that Savile apparently drew more water at the BBC than the Director-General? That Savile could walk in and out of dozens UK hospitals at his leisure, molesting when and where he liked, visiting morgues to have sex with corpses (and being noticed by yet another set of nurses who said nothing),plus abusing some of Britain’s most crazy and dangerous women in Broadmoor. And nobody ever said a God-damned thing in over 40 years. Making Jimbo the all-time champion pervert and sex molester and the only one who had several successful parallel careers going on at the same time as his most extensive period of criminal activity. And even the vast majority of his victims said nothing for 40 years–because–despite many successful prosecutions of rapists/molesters over that 40 year span–none of them thought they would be believed when faced with Jimmy–The Supernatural Celeb–Savile.

“Your comment about reporting what you know suggests that you’re aware of the problems of putting out into the public domain opinions that you cannot prove, whether because of the threat of libel or the potential damage if you have made a mistake. But a report that draws conclusions must still be fair to all parties. As long as the evidence is properly presented, its limitations taken into account and the conclusions consistent with it, there is no reason why a report should not be judgmental.”

The key word is evidence. Unsupported accusation is not evidence. It has already been shown that numbers don’t matter if “victim” accounts are self-selected and have no evidence beyond the recounting of the tale itself. A report can be as judgemental as it likes if you have the bloke bang to rights with good old-fashioned corroborated evidence.

“Some accusations made against Savile may be wrong.”

That’s mighty big of you.

“But it is impossible to accept that nothing happened.”

You don’t have to “accept” anything. Prove something. All you are saying is “no smoke without fire”. When it is obvious that there are lots of interested parties trying to blow smoke into the eyes and up the arse of the British public.

” Savile did not have to face criminal charges while he was alive and he appears to have used his wealth, influence and the libel laws to avoid having even the balance of probability tested in the civil courts.”

Once again Jimmy the Mighty triumphs over the forces of good. Please consider some great libel trials of our glorious past and then tell me that the British press was quaking in its boots at the prospect of what Savile’s libel lawyers would do to them.

” Savile’s freedom is no longer at stake and his posthumous reputation is not entitled to the protection of the principle of beyond reasonable doubt. ”

Tell us about it. So are you admitting that if beyond reasonable doubt was the standard in use–as it should be–his reputation would not now be ruined probably for all time?.

“Now his death puts him beyond the fear of losing his liberty, his victims”

Begging the question again–assuming his guilt without having demonstrated it.

” are entitled to equal protection and justice from the law and to a fair hearing of their version of events. Rightly Savile’s estate does not have the claim to preferential protection in law that an unconvicted Savile would have enjoyed.”

His estate–which was going to charity will end up in lawdogs pockets. The “victims” are entitled to a fair hearing even of crazy crap. But fair hearing alone is not proof of the supposed crimes against them.

“The media may have presented some evidence to the public less than critically now that they no longer feel constrained by the hand of Savile’s lawyers on the edge of their pockets”

Again the mighty lawyers of mighty Jim. J Noble Daggert of Near-Yeo County perhaps?.

” but I question your assumption that the public have been gullible in their response to what they have been told. The public are not all fools.”

This blog proves that.

“Certainly some people may be too angry or too self-interested to weigh the evidence fairly,”

And you have?

“but you shouldn’t simply dismiss the public’s capacity to judge for themselves where the balance of probability lies.”

Lies being the operative word. We have trial by Jury in this country –not trial by mob. Or am I living in the past.

“They haven’t swallowed the hook, line and sinker, as you put it. They strongly suspect, not without grounds, that there’s more still where that came from, and it’s not unreasonable either for them to be less willing to listen to those who insisted that there was nothing there in the first place.”

You now speak for the British people–and their voice is imperial.

“Practically speaking, I find it hard to believe that we’re now at the point where more people are likely to be failed by the justice process and be wrongly convicted than might otherwise have been the case. The checks and balances are still there. ”

After the kicking that the CPS second-eleven team got in the cases up to William Roche they brought in their very best female con-squad. And made legal theatre and emotion the basis of their prosecution. Works a shitload better on carefully selected juries than old-fashioned crap like logic and real proof.

“There is a long way to go before many of those suspected of involvement in confirmed cases of abuse and concealment are brought to trial, if ever.”

“Confirmed cases”–again assuming guilt before it has been proved and then using said assumption as a basis to declaim how many other cases are out their. This logic thing eludes you a bit doesn’t it? The idea of a real trial is to establish guilt/innocence. The idea of a show trial is to condemn publicly those the regime wants to condemn. In the case of the paedo-panic the regime has been somewhat hijacked by entryist Marxist feminists but whatever.

Reply