/ Jimmy Saville/NHS

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
1906johns - on 11 Jan 2013
I saw that stoke mandeville hospital have put together an enquiry to the antics of one Mr Saville - now the first thing that struck me when i saw this on the news today was surely they could put the cash used to fund a pointless excercise into dredging the past up into, err important things like saving lives - especially when everyone is complaining about budgets being so tight, what are your thoughts on this ?
Pursued by a bear - on 11 Jan 2013
In reply to 1906johns: The enquiry will be run by administrators. If you object to them doing this you could ask for them to be transferred to nursing...

T.
Jim C - on 11 Jan 2013
In reply to 1906johns: if it had been my child , I guess I would not think it was pointless. No lives were lost (unless there are victims that were driven to suicide) but many lives will have been ruined. On balance, I think they should find out what went on.
Jim C - on 11 Jan 2013
In reply to Jim C:
and it REALLY pisses me off that whilst his family has destroyed his memorial out of respect, there are still some who are prepared to host a site respecting him, and showing him when he got his knighthood. This photo of him smiling out at his victims, is a major disrespect to the victims, and this chap has been asked to remove it , but has refused to do so. his memorial is still up there for abusers across the world to visit, they could not even have done that at the real grave, so I think that this job is not done until this virtual memorial is also destroyed, so if there are any hackers out there please feel free to attach this particular entry, not the site because my own family graves/ photos are on there.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=79495418
Hat Dude on 11 Jan 2013
In reply to 1906johns:

Yea right let's forget about it
It'll never happen again if we do that
1906johns - on 11 Jan 2013
In reply to Hat Dude: not what i meant - there is already a whole host of these investigations happening, the BBC and the police for example so my point was why waste more budget money that could be better used elsewhere going over whats already being investigated ...
birdie num num - on 11 Jan 2013
In reply to 1906johns:
They need someone to fix it to get some investigators in for them
Pekkie - on 11 Jan 2013
In reply to 1906johns:
> 'now the first thing that struck me'

After that first uncharitable thought you should have sat down and thought about it for ten minutes. Then you might have realised that the important thing is to find out what went wrong and ensure that it can't happen again. Just a thought of my own; I've been to Stoke Mandeville. He was doing IT in a place like that?
altirando - on 12 Jan 2013
In reply to 1906johns: I was told about Savile by a colleague way back in the late seventies, who had done a little amateur djing. If the rumours had spread that far, many people must have known. It is important that everyone in the future won't feel constrained to keep quiet just because some person is 'famous'.
Offwidth - on 12 Jan 2013
In reply to altirando:

It has little to do with fame and very much to do with the population acting as ostriches for decades. Look at the front page of the independant yesterday with estimates that only 1 in 100 rapes results in prosecution. Then think of various churches response to known paeodphiles at that time, often just moving them to a new area. Then see how we've looked after young people in care; even ignoring them when they warn us they are beng groomed or in some cases raped. I've said here before, that people have forgotten what things were like then (and only really starting to change significantly in recent years); Saville was widely rumoured to be just another famous letch (the stuff with kids just wasn't widely known).
elsewhere on 12 Jan 2013
In reply to 1906johns:
The report this week criticises the investigation in 2009 which is very relevant to how long ago crimes are dealt with now and in the future.
Indy - on 13 Jan 2013
In reply to 1906johns:

I guess that they want to be clear in there own minds what was likely to have happened as an explosive cocktail of lawyers, decades old allegations, few if any hard facts coupled with potentially millions up for grabs in compensation could lead people astray.

Sorry to say despite the passage of time since this story broke I'm still cynical as to some peoples motives


Indy - on 13 Jan 2013
In reply to Pekkie:
> (In reply to 1906johns)
> [...
>the important thing is to find out what went wrong and >ensure that it can't happen again.

I think that it's worth bearing in mind that we live in a VERY VERY different world now to that of the 70s. My parents have pictures of me and my brother and sister running around naked at the beach in the bath etc which were sent for developing at the local chemist. Wonder how long it would take NOW between dropping off such perfectly innocent pictures and getting a knock at the door.

Indy - on 13 Jan 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to altirando)
>
> Look at the front page of the independant yesterday with >estimates that only 1 in 100 rapes results in prosecution.
What I think this highlights is more the difference as to what the law and individuals consider to be rape.

Remember reading a few years back a woman had had consentual sex with a co-worker at a Christmas party. A few days later reality dawns after co-worker boasts of 'conquest'. Woman embarrassed revokes consent says she was taken advantage of after getting tippsy. Reports rape.... police take no action.

Tiberius - on 13 Jan 2013
In reply to Indy:

A few years ago I remember a case where a woman claimed she only had sex because she was drunk. The judge in that case said that 'even drunken consent is consent' and the case was thrown out.

More recently I seem to remember a similar case where the judge said that the drunken woman was 'in no state to give consent'.

It's unclear in my view, I guess it depends on the mood of the presiding judge/jury and how good the relevant lawyer is.
Indy - on 13 Jan 2013
In reply to Tiberius:

Completely agree flat out drunk/unconscious IS rape but I think in the case I site above it was that consent can't be withdrawn after the fact.

I'm not sure but can there be a grey area to this or is that just the male side of me???
off-duty - on 13 Jan 2013
In reply to Indy:
> (In reply to Offwidth)
> [...]
> What I think this highlights is more the difference as to what the law and individuals consider to be rape.
>
> Remember reading a few years back a woman had had consentual sex with a co-worker at a Christmas party. A few days later reality dawns after co-worker boasts of 'conquest'. Woman embarrassed revokes consent says she was taken advantage of after getting tippsy. Reports rape.... police take no action.

I suspect (if it is the cases I recall) it was more likely that the police did take action and the report you were reading followed the acquittal of the defendant at court.
Though if a womane came in and reported the circumstances as baldly as that:- ie "I said yes but I was drunk" the chances are that there wouldn't be a decision to charge.
1906johns - on 13 Jan 2013
In reply to Indy: I don't think there can be a grey area at all, whats done is done and whatever mindset one was in at the time of the action IS the mens rea of the crime
Indy - on 13 Jan 2013
In reply to Tiberius:

I read about the case in a broadsheet where a barrister was giving there reason as to why figures looked so bad.

Most people think all rapes involve a woman being dragged into bushes/dark alley by a stranger late at night subjected to violence and then raped but in fact the vast majority happen between people that know each other.

Its hard not to see alcohol as problematic.
Indy - on 13 Jan 2013
In reply to 1906johns:
> (In reply to Indy) I don't think there can be a grey area >at all.
In an ideal world your right but when it comes to human emotions, interactions it isn't always going to be clear cut.


Offwidth - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Indy:

You've clearly proving my point... another ostrich. Your focus on those making up stories rather than the genuine victims is morally odd but far too common. Whats your excuse for the priests?
Morgan Woods - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Jim C:
> (In reply to Jim C)
> aThis photo of him smiling out at his victims, is a major disrespect to the victims, and this chap has been asked to remove it , but has refused to do so.
> http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=79495418

so somebody has a photo of JS on his website and you think they should be forced to take it down? Does the same extend to anybody accused of a crime? Or is it the fact he is smiling?
graeme jackson - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to Morgan Woods:
> (In reply to Jim C)
> [...]
>
> so somebody has a photo of JS on his website and you think they should be forced to take it down? Does the same extend to anybody accused of a crime? Or is it the fact he is smiling?

Google display hundreds of pictures of Gary glitter smiling. Should they be brought to task?

ads.ukclimbing.com
Tiberius - on 14 Jan 2013
In reply to graeme jackson:
> Google display hundreds of pictures of Gary glitter smiling. Should they be brought to task?

Hell I'm sure you can find pictures of Stalin and Hitler smiling if you look.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.