News5 mins ago
Jimmy Savile And The Nhs
http://
It seems that there can't have been many NHS establishments that this vile pervert didn't commit offences in. I hope some heads roll after the report is made public next January.
It seems that there can't have been many NHS establishments that this vile pervert didn't commit offences in. I hope some heads roll after the report is made public next January.
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. 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 --
When he was alive he was well protected by royalty and by Maggie and other MPs. He was well protected at all times, pity his victims (sorry, ALLEGED victims)weren't so well protected from him. He had friends in very high places. He was untouchable. Pity he's now dead and unable to face up to the allegations.
And you have absolute evidence of this janbee? The whole of your post comes under alleged.
Or are you going by the media trial?
I suspect that there is the evidence but given that a Court has not found him guilty and a premise of our great Land is innocent until proven guilty I get rather irritated at peoples assumption that the media trial is absolute.
Or are you going by the media trial?
I suspect that there is the evidence but given that a Court has not found him guilty and a premise of our great Land is innocent until proven guilty I get rather irritated at peoples assumption that the media trial is absolute.
If Savile is innocent of being a paedophile and pervert, than I am Queen of the May.
There is ample evidence that Savile was a serial and serious abuser, and was active for over 60 years. But I suppose that there will always be some people that think there is a chance that all that overwhelming evidence can't be taken seriously, because we can't dig him and put him in the dock and try him. See this link ::
http://
Keep sticking your heads in the sand if you like but nobody will take you seriously.
There is ample evidence that Savile was a serial and serious abuser, and was active for over 60 years. But I suppose that there will always be some people that think there is a chance that all that overwhelming evidence can't be taken seriously, because we can't dig him and put him in the dock and try him. See this link ::
http://
Keep sticking your heads in the sand if you like but nobody will take you seriously.
-- answer removed --
I'm glad that you are convinced of some of his guilt at least DB. It will be up to the Enquiry to decide the extent of his guilt, and then we can see what he was guilty or or not.
But just because the perpetrator is dead and cannot be tried in a court of law doesn't preclude an official Enquiry coming to the conclusion that someone like Savile was guilty. All the evidence needs to be weighed up. Reports have already been published earlier this year. A direct quote from the BBC link ::
"The investigation at Leeds, published earlier this year, found patients, including teenagers recovering from surgery, had been abused in their beds and one 10-year-old boy had been sexually assaulted while waiting on a trolley for an X-ray on his broken arm"
This Enquiry isn't "trial by media" in any shape or form, as has been suggested by someone on here today.
But just because the perpetrator is dead and cannot be tried in a court of law doesn't preclude an official Enquiry coming to the conclusion that someone like Savile was guilty. All the evidence needs to be weighed up. Reports have already been published earlier this year. A direct quote from the BBC link ::
"The investigation at Leeds, published earlier this year, found patients, including teenagers recovering from surgery, had been abused in their beds and one 10-year-old boy had been sexually assaulted while waiting on a trolley for an X-ray on his broken arm"
This Enquiry isn't "trial by media" in any shape or form, as has been suggested by someone on here today.
It is not a Court trial though is it Mickey? Unless it is done through the Courts it is always open to misuse, misinterpretation and may not be impartial.
My preference wold be to hold a 'trial' even after someone is dead.
I also see you chose to ignore the other part of one of my posts where I said I suspect there is enough evidence. But then if you had acknowledged it then I guess your dig would have been fruitless.
My preference wold be to hold a 'trial' even after someone is dead.
I also see you chose to ignore the other part of one of my posts where I said I suspect there is enough evidence. But then if you had acknowledged it then I guess your dig would have been fruitless.
As I have pointed out YMB, a Court of Law does not have a monopoly of finding out the truth. But quite how a trial of a dead person could go ahead is beyond me.
At the end of this Enquiry, I am fully expecting that Savile will be found to have been one of our most prolific, or perhaps THE most prolific of sex abusers, and that will conclusive enough for me, and I suspect, for most other people. If you want to continue to be sceptical, well, that is up to you.
At the end of this Enquiry, I am fully expecting that Savile will be found to have been one of our most prolific, or perhaps THE most prolific of sex abusers, and that will conclusive enough for me, and I suspect, for most other people. If you want to continue to be sceptical, well, that is up to you.
I'm with you Mikey. If it were just one or two allegations, maybe even 3 or 4, then I MAY have had my doubts, but the figure is now in the dozens if not now in three figures. This is more than just a few little allegations. Sadly, he'll never be made to pay for his crimes. Ok ok, before some people get their knickers in a knot...ALLEGED crimes. !
1 to 14 of 14
