BBC Still Putting Saville On The Air

123457»

Comments

  • calico_piecalico_pie Posts: 10,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    hendero wrote: »
    In one there were ten witnesses with stories that fit a pattern, in the other there was one witness who was apparently well known to be unreliable.

    I see. So if I can find one or two witnesses saying you did something, its probably nothing. But if I can find 10 saying it, I've got you bang to rights!

    (None of this is to suggest that Saville is innocent - by the sounds of it he almost certainly is not. It is simply to do with why NN may or may not have gone ahead with the story.)
  • henderohendero Posts: 11,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    calico_pie wrote: »
    I see. So if I can find one or two witnesses saying you did something, its probably nothing. But if I can find 10 saying it, I've got you bang to rights!

    If the one witness has a history of being unreliable, probably best to do some more research. If ten witnesses, with no history of being unreliable, all tell the same story about an individual, that us quite a different matter.

    Anyway, I suspect this is turning into another the BBC cannot be faulted no matter what thread, so I'll leave it there.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    hendero wrote: »
    If the one witness has a history of being unreliable, probably best to do some more research. If ten witnesses, with no history of being unreliable, all tell the same story about an individual, that us quite a different matter.

    .

    Who's to say those ten girls were any more reliable than the one bloke?

    They could have been in it together for all the newsnight editor knew!

    Also, the second report wasn't done by Newsnight, but they did edit it to remove the name.

    Also, how could Newsnight go to air and report the Saville accusations as fact when nobody else could??!!

    Still think it's a cover up?

    Will you actually answer the awkward questions?

    "BBC cannot be faulted "

    If you'd actually bothered to read my post 151 then you'd notice that i pointed to an occassion when they DID get it wrong for goodness sake!:confused:
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    To me one of the most telling aspects was that after the Exposure programme we had a series of BBC programmes investigating other BBC programmes which I doubt could have happened anywhere else. I don't recall News International titles investigating the News of the World over phone hacking.
  • calico_piecalico_pie Posts: 10,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    hendero wrote: »
    If the one witness has a history of being unreliable, probably best to do some more research. If ten witnesses, with no history of being unreliable, all tell the same story about an individual, that us quite a different matter.

    Anyway, I suspect this is turning into another the BBC cannot be faulted no matter what thread, so I'll leave it there.

    Actually, its exactly the same. Your own words give you away - "tell the same story". Ten people "telling the same story" isn't going to stand up in court without the evidence to back the story up.

    I'm certainly not saying the BBC cannot be faulted no matter what. But I do think its perfectly plausible that they dropped the story for valid reasons, such as having question marks over certain aspects of the story. Without being privvy to the details, I don't see how anyone could think any different.
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Can anyone explain why it is necessary for the police to carry out ''dawn raids'' when it is highly unlikely people like Clifford and Hall would abscond ? The normal practice would be to ask them to attend a local police station with their solicitor. Seems rather over-dramatic.
  • cyril-furrcyril-furr Posts: 1,518
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ftv wrote: »
    Can anyone explain why it is necessary for the police to carry out ''dawn raids'' when it is highly unlikely people like Clifford and Hall would abscond ? The normal practice would be to ask them to attend a local police station with their solicitor. Seems rather over-dramatic.

    More overtime for the cops, I expect:) More likely, so the person being visited is less likely to fight back or hide evidence?
  • NilremNilrem Posts: 6,938
    Forum Member
    cyril-furr wrote: »
    More overtime for the cops, I expect:) More likely, so the person being visited is less likely to fight back or hide evidence?

    Or just be "in" :)

    But aye, doing it early in the morning when they are likely to be in bed tends to mean they aren't going to be up and about to do a quick disposal of evidence (be it flushing it down the loo, or throwing papers onto a fire/into a shredder), but also as I say, it means you get them before they leave the house for the day, so you don't end up trying to chase them around appointments (or someone giving them a call and letting them have a good head start)
  • nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It probably also means that the target has had a nights rest and so shouldn't need a break for the rest of the day.

    You can just imagine arresting them at 4 O'Clock in the afternoon and needing to break the interview at about 9 in the evening so they can rest.

    That would seriously cut into the time they could hold them for.

    If they arrest them at 6 O'Clock in the morning then they've got all day to interview them.
  • DVDfeverDVDfever Posts: 18,535
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ftv wrote: »
    Can anyone explain why it is necessary for the police to carry out ''dawn raids'' when it is highly unlikely people like Clifford and Hall would abscond ? The normal practice would be to ask them to attend a local police station with their solicitor. Seems rather over-dramatic.

    To make themselves feel important for five minutes.
  • exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    ftv wrote: »
    Can anyone explain why it is necessary for the police to carry out ''dawn raids'' when it is highly unlikely people like Clifford and Hall would abscond ? The normal practice would be to ask them to attend a local police station with their solicitor. Seems rather over-dramatic.

    Early bird catches the worm(s) :)

    Also by asking them to pop in later gives whoever it is time to create an alibi, hide evidence etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.