But surely you need a crime to have been committed in the first place? As regards inchoate offences how can you charge anyone with aiding and abetting an offence unless somebody is guilty of that offence?

As for withholding or suppressing evidence, nobody has any legal duty to come forward with evidence they may have about such offences, it may be morally reprehensible but it's no crime.

As for "suppressing evidence" there would presumably have to be an ongoing police investigation into offences from which someone then "suppressed" evidence they held, but isn't it the case that none of this hundred or so ever complained to the police, so there were no police investigations? If you don't mean physical evidence, then no, there's no law against keeping schtumm, you can suppress whatever knowledge you like.

Hey what a surprise, a pretty little white girl goes missing and the whole female population of the UK outpours it's grief and over-reacts to just about anything related to the case. Yet again a MAN's name and face is plastered everywhere for all to see before he's even been found guilty. Terrible what happened to the girl, but the over-reaction does my f8cking head in

But there have been police investigations into Savile previously, twice in Jersey for example. What if people lied to the police and helped to pervert the course of justice during those investigations ? I'm not saying that they did but, for example, I reckon the Haut de la Garenne case would have opened a big can of worms with Savile just the tip of the iceberg if the whole truth had been revealed.

As opposed to some individual who claims that "the whole female population of the UK" is involved? What – 100% of females of these islands? Really? You did a survey?

A bit of hyperbolic overthetopness, methinks.

And obviously nothing at all like the males being held back by police from the van carrying the accused to court yesterday – oh no, sirree. That behaviour was entirely under the top, wasn't it?

A shame, because you had a couple of otherwise valid points.

Then of course they should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice!

How is investigating 120 (current count) unrelated cases relevant to that?

Because...

1. It may well lead to new lines of enquiry; and

2. It may well unearth new information on some people who are still alive and perhaps still actively pursuing such activities

I don't think the investigation is purely about Savile, more about what they may uncover from a wider perspective if they dig deep enough. It is probably unlikely that Savile acted alone in his 'predatory sexual offences' (as described today by the Met Police). If the vilification of Savile brings other guilty parties to justice then thats fine in my view.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with this thread so better let it rest there really.

Apparently, the police have already found him guilty so no need for any further investigation! www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19887019 Quote "At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Savile was a predatory sex offender," said Commander Peter Spindler, head of specialist crime investigations, in an interview with the BBC.'" How a police chief can come out with a statement like this is unbelievable.

Apparently, the police have already found him guilty so no need for any further investigation! www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19887019 Quote "At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Savile was a predatory sex offender," said Commander Peter Spindler, head of specialist crime investigations, in an interview with the BBC.'" How a police chief can come out with a statement like this is unbelievable.

A Wigan Athletic fans forum has had rumours about Jimmy Savile on various threads for a couple of years now. A more recent one has allegations wrt another 70s R1 DJ, who also presented childrens TV shows, based on his own memoirs!

The quotes I've seen from his autobiography – published in 1974 or '76 – are pretty clear. He also asserted that, in effect, 'everyone else was doing it', including the police.

As it happens (so to speak), I heard around 18 years ago, from a former [iTelegraph[/i TV critic who had recently moved to the [iMail[/i as the film critic. His take on it was that Savile knew where other people's skeletons were hidden.

That argument realistically only holds up for so long really though doesnt it.

The people who Savile may have had dirt on some people in the 70's, 80's and early 90's werent the same people who would bring it to light in the late 90's and the last decade.

I suspect that, by then, his celebrity and his 'charidee work' made it more difficult to come out and say anything.

There is a story that a newspaper was going to publish something, but he simply said: 'go ahead: just think of all the money Stoke Manderville will lose'. They didn't publish.

There are a lot of things which are coming out which there doesnt seem to be any evidence for, or seem to be taking on a different tone which has meant this story has begun to eat itself, where every remark is looked at in the context of being spoken by a highly active paedophile/conspiracy/coverup which in turn becomes evidence of a highly active paedophile/conspiracy/coverup

You're big enough and oracle-like enough to be aware that "whole female population" was obviously a deliberate exaggeration. But nice of you to have one of your typical "overthetopness" holier-than-thou rants before admitting somebody has made a valid point.



The females thing was merely a reference to my facebook feed being filled with "hang this sick murderer" statuses even before he was charged of anything. P*sses me off. If it was anyone but a lil white girl they wouldn't be d.

I hear Saville's family will be dismantling his headstone out of respect for public opinion.

Pathetic

So you know someone that helped harbour a sex criminal?

I remember reading a quote by a senior police officer in a very thinly veiled reference to Saville circa 1980 "The public think he's a saint, we'd never get a conviction based on the testimony of a few lasses".

It partly reflects the way the polarised view that the public have towards celebrities. They're either saints or sinners, nothing in between. The idea that someone could raise millions for charity, run marathons, put in hours of voluntary work every week and also have a very dark side just didnt compute.

Your 'valid point' and your comments about the female population were not one and the same.





These are valid points.

However, I've seen male posters on Facebook etc doing the same. And it could also be noted that pretty much all of the editors doing the stirring of public emotions through the media are, erm, male. And that obviously applies to the selectiveness of what constitutes a 'sexy' picture for the front page of a newspaper.



Made me wonder if there was a reason he had asked for his coffin to be encased in concrete.



No.

I have met and talked to someone who told me something that was, however easy one found it to believe, nothing other than hearsay.

But doesn't that make his sentence even more grotesque?

Presumably he would have benefited from some form of 'discount' for pleading guilty which means the sentencer was inclined to give an even longer sentence.

He got the usual one third discount for pleading guilty.

And what was JLC's sentence for actual abuse?

Now, I suspect that the community sentence handed down to Collins will have a positive effect (that and the damage to his career). But what it does make this other sentence look even more ridiculous.

Along with the epitaph, "It was good while it lasted"?

Thats the kind of thing i was talking about when I said.[i There are a lot of things which are coming out which there doesnt seem to be any evidence for, or seem to be taking on a different tone which has meant this story has begun to eat itself, where every remark is looked at in the context of being spoken by a highly active paedophile/conspiracy/coverup which in turn becomes evidence of a highly active paedophile/conspiracy/coverup[/i

He was encased in concrete because for some reason there was some incorrect information put out that the coffin was made of gold and some of his possessions (like jewelry etc) had been buried with him.

You know better than most that it is pointless trying to compare sentencing for completely different offences.

Also, you (presumably, like me) still have no idea what it was that was said, that got that accused sent down.

Yet you still argue one is worse than the other.

Is a physical act [ialways [/iworse than verbal offending? I wouldn't say so. But the law is often on the face of it like this, in that you could pick out a whole host of "lenient looking" sentences for a range of varying offences, and an equal number of "severe" looking sentences for a different range of offences, and say "Look at X, he should surely have got more than Y, as X is plainly far worse than Y". It's just pointless.

Indeed. But it's been exercising plenty of people on the intertubes since yesterday, so it kind of takes on a life of its own.



Indeed.



I should perhaps have made myself clearer. I was meaning to 'argue' that, given the number of people comparing the two, then it will inevitably [uappear[/u that the community sentence was 'light'.

I would, however, still maintain that, unless it involved incitement, what words can merit such a sentence?

And then the comparison is fair. Because if one allows that a non-custodial sentence is appropriate (or at least possibly appropriate, depending on one's personal view), then what words are so offensive that they merit such a sentence?

Who has decided what if merely offensive – and what is so über offensive that prison is the answer? Who has drawn the line? How was it drawn? Why is any comment/opinion ever a crime? How is 'offensiveness' weighed?

And so forth.