If you check back over the life of the Savile story you will see that is EXACTLY what some people were after before they would give credence to victim statements and furthermore there is a section of people who could care less about the individuals involved and their guilt or innocence but see every "name in the frame" as a reason to circle the wagons and defend the Beeb (they are less vociferous, silent even, in the defence of other culpable organisations) regardless. This refusal to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence was demonstrated again with Hall where his version of events was sided with by a significant percentage in order to mitigate his longest employers from some responsibility. In effect they did as Hall did and disparaged the victims, cast doubt over why they had remained silent for so long and in many cases accused them of simply being after a civil settlement ie lying in order to get a pay-out.
Yes, I saw all that too Straker.
I suspect IF the victims have a case & sue the BBC for damages, they will be offered an out of court settlement wrapped up in a confidentially clause to stop them talking to the press.
It does look like Hall has moved his property into his wife's name - so HE will not be worth taking to a damages court.
But will will see how it all unfolds.
Remove the element of compensation from the aftermath of accusing a possible offender. Hall was sneaky and denied all wrongdoing, transferred his capital to his wife then admitted his guilt. Slimeball. Instead encourage genuine victims to come forward if everyone knows no goldmine is the prized outcome. He should serve a longer spell inside, be given no buriel plot and tagged.
It bugs me when people assume the BBC is one single entity. Staff move all the time to other media outlets. Only a few last the race with one company. It'd be like suing Cycle King because the person who mended my bike pumped my wheel incorrectly then got a new job at Halfords.
Remove the element of compensation from the aftermath of accusing a possible offender. Hall was sneaky and denied all wrongdoing, transferred his capital to his wife then admitted his guilt. Slimeball. Instead encourage genuine victims to come forward if everyone knows no goldmine is the prized outcome. He should serve a longer spell inside, be given no buriel plot and tagged.
Unfortunately because the law was not nearly as harsh on child molesters at the time the crimes were committed as they are today, financial compensation would have been the only other means of punishing Hall, while also providing some benefit to the victims. I wonder if the judge was aware he had transferred his wealth to his wife at the time of sentencing, because he hardly seems repentant or looking to make amends to his victims. Maybe his wife will desert him and he'll die a lonely, miserable death, which is about the only "justice" it seems will be brought to this whole sorry story. But if the sentence can be extended that seems to more fitting than the 15 months which will likely be reduced that he currently faces. That one of the victims was nine years old says it all, really.
It bugs me when people assume the BBC is one single entity. Staff move all the time to other media outlets. Only a few last the race with one company. It'd be like suing Cycle King because the person who mended my bike pumped my wheel incorrectly then got a new job at Halfords.
"The test is whether the tort is so closely connected with the employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable "
Cycle King would be stuffed (if the former employee was guilty)
Very difficult to prove though.
There's been countless rumours around over the years across many industries that those in position of power and wealth have abused that.
Entertainment has always attracted a lot of this, often down to the need for attention that performers have, it can sometimes indicate a deep seated flaw,
...but the victims are planning to claim damages from the BBC I understand, for the damage Hall did to their lives whilst he was in the BBC's employment - does this not make the BBC culpable if their damage claims are successful?
If it happens it happens and I have no control over that so what does my opinion matter?
Personally I think they should have come forward at the time.
... there are now two reports into the culture and practices of the BBC at that time which, regardless of what they find, is an indictment of sorts all by itself.
Wrong. What they find is actually the most important thing as it will be based on actual testimony and not just hearsay.
If you check back over the life of the Savile story you will see that is EXACTLY what some people were after before they would give credence to victim statements and furthermore there is a section of people who could care less about the individuals involved and their guilt or innocence but see every "name in the frame" as a reason to circle the wagons and defend the Beeb (they are less vociferous, silent even, in the defence of other culpable organisations) regardless.
At the time, when these 'BBC defenders' [sic] were doing as you say, the counter-argument put forward was "This is the broadcasting forum. What he did in other premises is not relevant here" and now you're using that argument against 'us' (ie 'BBC defenders' [sic]. Somewhat hypocritical.
OTOH 'we' have always said that what he did on properties other than the BBC's is far worse but, again, that's irrelevant on a "broadcasting" forum.
This refusal to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence was demonstrated again with Hall where his version of events was sided with by a significant percentage in order to mitigate his longest employers from some responsibility.
Once again, no-one can act on "hearsay"; only actual evidence. Innocent until proven... etc.
Pick A or B, you can't have both in this hypothetical scenario.
I hope he dies in prison, scum like him deserve no mercy or sympathy, if it was your kid he molested I don't think you would be so forgiving.
Hall is a disgusting rapist/molestor and it appears his transfer ruse regarding assets may be nullified due to lawyers acting for the victims who are seeking a court order to nullify any transfer of assets.
I've probably missed it but haven't heard of any of the victims taking action against the NHS or other institutions where Savile was allegedly active.He did work for Radio Luxembourg, Tyne Tees and Granada for instance, not to mention Mecca dance halls in the north.Perhaps he kept his nose ''clean'' there.
The broadcaster was also charged with rape, but he pleaded not guilty to the allegation last month.
Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, told the court today that the "most senior level" of the Crown Prosecution Service had decided that the rape charge should lie on file.
"In light of the guilty pleas already entered, the complainant no longer wishes to give evidence on the allegation of rape, and we have concluded
that it would not be in the public interest to take steps to make her give evidence in court. As such, we will not be proceeding with this charge.”
Libel - "A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation."
Libel - "A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation."
His reputation is mud now anyway.
Pretty sure none of those victims have consent so I would class it as rape but that's my personal opinion, he's free to sue me if he is still alive when he comes out. I hoping he shuffles off this mortal coil on the day he is released.
Pretty sure none of those victims have consent so I would class it as rape but that's my personal opinion, he's free to sue me if he is still alive when he comes out. I hoping he shuffles off this mortal coil on the day he is released.
Your personal opinion can get you in just as much trouble as anything else you say if it is incorrect. Though what he did is detestable, he is not a convicted rapist, not even for "statutory rape" i.e of someone under 13. Fact.
You may not care if he wants to sue you or not but the forum in which you have posted may do. Your comment was unwise IMO.
I've probably missed it but haven't heard of any of the victims taking action against the NHS or other institutions where Savile was allegedly active.He did work for Radio Luxembourg, Tyne Tees and Granada for instance, not to mention Mecca dance halls in the north.Perhaps he kept his nose ''clean'' there.
Jimmy Savile sex abuse victims are preparing to launch legal action against Barnardo’s and Mind after being abused at a girls’ school run by the *charities.
Lawyers acting for two victims have written to Radio *Luxembourg, where Savile worked between 1958 and 1967, telling of their intention to sue.
.... I would class it as rape but that's my personal opinion .....
The publication of your personal opinion is unwise;
you are surely aware of the cases against those who have defamed via Twitter etc. - one case was far less explicit than your, now repeated, allegation.
Comments
Yes, I saw all that too Straker.
I suspect IF the victims have a case & sue the BBC for damages, they will be offered an out of court settlement wrapped up in a confidentially clause to stop them talking to the press.
It does look like Hall has moved his property into his wife's name - so HE will not be worth taking to a damages court.
But will will see how it all unfolds.
Unfortunately because the law was not nearly as harsh on child molesters at the time the crimes were committed as they are today, financial compensation would have been the only other means of punishing Hall, while also providing some benefit to the victims. I wonder if the judge was aware he had transferred his wealth to his wife at the time of sentencing, because he hardly seems repentant or looking to make amends to his victims. Maybe his wife will desert him and he'll die a lonely, miserable death, which is about the only "justice" it seems will be brought to this whole sorry story. But if the sentence can be extended that seems to more fitting than the 15 months which will likely be reduced that he currently faces. That one of the victims was nine years old says it all, really.
Vicarious Liability.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803115632176
Cycle King would be stuffed (if the former employee was guilty)
Very difficult to prove though.
There's been countless rumours around over the years across many industries that those in position of power and wealth have abused that.
Entertainment has always attracted a lot of this, often down to the need for attention that performers have, it can sometimes indicate a deep seated flaw,
If it happens it happens and I have no control over that so what does my opinion matter?
Personally I think they should have come forward at the time.
Wrong. What they find is actually the most important thing as it will be based on actual testimony and not just hearsay.
At the time, when these 'BBC defenders' [sic] were doing as you say, the counter-argument put forward was "This is the broadcasting forum. What he did in other premises is not relevant here" and now you're using that argument against 'us' (ie 'BBC defenders' [sic]. Somewhat hypocritical.
OTOH 'we' have always said that what he did on properties other than the BBC's is far worse but, again, that's irrelevant on a "broadcasting" forum.
Once again, no-one can act on "hearsay"; only actual evidence. Innocent until proven... etc.
And really, that's the real tragedy here, isn't it?
I hope he dies in prison, scum like him deserve no mercy or sympathy, if it was your kid he molested I don't think you would be so forgiving.
Hall is a disgusting rapist/molestor and it appears his transfer ruse regarding assets may be nullified due to lawyers acting for the victims who are seeking a court order to nullify any transfer of assets.
Remember anyone can make a complaint if they feel a sentence is unduly lienent,
Stuart Hall admits indecently assaulting 13 girls, one aged nine
Libel - "A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation."
His reputation is mud now anyway.
Pretty sure none of those victims have consent so I would class it as rape but that's my personal opinion, he's free to sue me if he is still alive when he comes out. I hoping he shuffles off this mortal coil on the day he is released.
Your personal opinion can get you in just as much trouble as anything else you say if it is incorrect. Though what he did is detestable, he is not a convicted rapist, not even for "statutory rape" i.e of someone under 13. Fact.
You may not care if he wants to sue you or not but the forum in which you have posted may do. Your comment was unwise IMO.
Thought I'd keep you in the loop...
you are surely aware of the cases against those who have defamed via Twitter etc. - one case was far less explicit than your, now repeated, allegation.
I agree with the first comment, but think you should possibly remove the second comment, if it is now possible.