Options
Is it natural Justice to slander the Dead without reasonable proof?
bethwaddel
Posts: 295 Forum Member
✭
We live in a society that looks to see worse in people, that sells papers and gets TV ratings, based on rumour, innuendo and jealousy, do people feel comfortable with this?
0
Comments
Where are the metaphors ? I don't see any.
The Jimmy Savile programme has not even been aired yet. I understand that he had an injunction of some sort in place so maybe that constrained some people from making complaints against him while he was alive.
It would have been much better to have taken action against him when he was alive, nevertheless if the allegations can be substantiated then they should be made public, as should the details of any people involved in shielding him.
And no reason for his alleged victims not to complain/report it. No injunction would have protected him.
There's no closure, so where's the justice?
Unless you consider people saying to you "Yeah, right. Sure (s)he did" as closure.
I dont disagree, i agree if hes done something wrong it should come out he shouldnt be protected because hes a celeb and those who let him knowingly continue should be worried as well.
Mixing metaphors
Natural justice/slandering the dead, with no connection??
Another of the girls accused him at the time and was put into solitary for days for telling lies (she was in a children's home which JS regularly visited).
All I will say is that I am not prepared to make a judgement based on a TV programme, which has been made with the intent of making a profit and which i feel will not be impartial and will probably be bias.
If they were to hold a proper independent investigation I would give it more consideration but I refuse to take everything in this programme as the gospel truth.
I am not ruling out he could have done these things but I will also not think beyond all reasonable doubt he did, because of one TV programme where the person in question has no right to reply.
Has anybody yet come up with evidence that there actually was an injunction? (not that one would have prevented a criminal complaint being made anyway).
I am saying I will not make a judgement as I do not trust the evidence is giving me an impartial insight. You can think what you want, that is your right.
It seems people want me to take this programme as gospel, why should I?
No certainly not as they could have an agenda (and probably would), the only thing I would trust is a legal investigation with a prosecution and a defence.
" 'You just didn’t mess with Jim. He was the governor, because after all he had been the first great club DJ, he had been the originator of Top Of The Pops and you just let him have his turf."
So basically an admission there was an element amongst some, that he was respected and so people turned a blind eye to what he was doing because of that.
Im not sure how she would know, people dont usually do this on their own doorsteps with witnesses do they?
Former PA isn't comfortable with the idea that she spent years working for a sex offender shocker.
Next, denial isn't a river in Egypt.
These are allegations that have to be taken seriously, always, whether the perpetrator is dead or alive. The women's stories corroborate eachother, apparently, and at the time they were interviewed none of them had heard any of the other women's stories.