So many threads started on this - apologies; don't know how to combine them; techno illiterate. So let's continue them here.
David Smith killed himself (we assume) or the stress killed him (same thing)... we are all to blame.
Even those of us who have tried for years to bring the attention of the law makers and media editors to this ghastly, appalling social disease.
We have failed.
As for those who encourage it for their own reasons, be they laziness, bigotry, hatred or simply lack of interest. Be it hope for cash - compensation, promotion, bonuses, kudos, career success...
There's no point in suggesting to them that we are all directly responsible for this poor man's death. And for the deaths of many others (I met several during my mini fiasco 13 years ago)... who decided to kill themselves rather than face the judicial system, the prison years and the aftermath (I personally wear a bell around my neck and chant Unclean Unclean when shopping)...
The law CAN be changed (being gay was a crime until I reached my 20s). Victim Support CAN be told to support victims of false allegations and other spurious crimes. Police CAN be held to individual accountability. Media CAN be told to report responsibly.
But will they?
No.

JK2006 wrote:
we are all directly responsible for this poor man's death.

No, we are not !

"Smith was a prolific sex offender whose first conviction was in 1966. He had 22 convictions for sexual offences against young boys".
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24722248

Are we all so paranoid now that we are supposed to assume that someone is innocent even when they have ALREADY been convicted of the same offence 22 times ?

OK, so it is just possible that he was innocent this time - but very highly unlikely.

I'm afraid that you are all now "so tainted" with "false allegations" that you cannot see the facts when they hit you in the face with a shovel !

Ah but you're assuming we think he was innocent; we don't (or certainly I don't) as we don't know enough about the allegation - although I'm sure you agree ITK that everyone should be presumed guilty until or unless proven guilty? I'm joking; I know you don't, like everyone else; only the Judiciary bother to pretend anymore - everyone else simply goes with the GUILTY assumptions.

No; the point I'm making is that the social attitude towards sex remains superficial, instinctive, condemnatory and vicious.

His initial convitions - as serious as they were - hardly made big news. This time he has become the first Yewtree trial. Without the tenuous Jimmy Saville link this would barely make a local press article.

Whether David Smith was innocent or not became irrelevant as he had already been judged and found guilty by the great British Press - and as the photos show, hounded and publically outed.
It is doubtful that he could have received a fair trial on this charge, as once again it refers to historic charges, that just cannot be proved.
Sexual abuse against a child is horrific, but is not a capital offence. The way the media handle these cases is turning it into a death sentence by either murder or suicide.
I fear for people such as Rolf Harris and Max Clifford for the danger and intense mental anguish they face.

In The Know (as always) wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
we are all directly responsible for this poor man's death.

No, we are not !

"Smith was a prolific sex offender whose first conviction was in 1966. He had 22 convictions for sexual offences against young boys".
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24722248

Are we all so paranoid now that we are supposed to assume that someone is innocent even when they have ALREADY been convicted of the same offence 22 times ?

OK, so it is just possible that he was innocent this time - but very highly unlikely.

I'm afraid that you are all now "so tainted" with "false allegations" that you cannot see the facts when they hit you in the face with a shovel !

You're a font of knowledge ITK

In The Know (as always) wrote:
"Smith was a prolific sex offender whose first conviction was in 1966. He had 22 convictions for sexual offences against young boys".
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24722248

Are we all so paranoid now that we are supposed to assume that someone is innocent even when they have ALREADY been convicted of the same offence 22 times ?

OK, so it is just possible that he was innocent this time - but very highly unlikely.

I'm afraid that you are all now "so tainted" with "false allegations" that you cannot see the facts when they hit you in the face with a shovel !

I think traditionally there actually is supposed to be a presumption of innocence i.e "innocent until proven guilty", his previous convictions do seem to make it seem far more likely that he could very well be guilty of this offence/these offences aswell but it hadn't yet been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

I haven't read details of his previous convictions, but he seems to have a long record and history of sexual offences. But why the need to link him in with Jimmy Savile and lable him 'Jimmy Savile's' cab driver when that is streaching the truth at best? Was it to add some credibility to the 'Savile' allegations' and Operation Yewtree by throwing a real life previously convicted serial sex offender into the mix rather than handle it separately cause he had more or less nothing to do with Jimmy Savile or show business? That would not surprise me.

Whether he was actually guilty of this accusation/these accusations or not, and whatever his previous convictions were for (he had served his time for those obviously), I still think that it is very wrong to have a culture where accused people are driven to suicide or death by ill health due to overly excessive stress before they are able to stand trial for what they have been accused of.

Yes he was old and I haven't read what the actual cause of death was yet, but if it was related to this, that would still be bad, regardless of his past behavior.

And if he was still deemed a threat to the public why release him in the first place?

I think regardless of whether he was guilty or not, the media do need to calm down, last year and the publicity around Operation Yewtree was ridiculous...

I feel sorry for his elderly mother, for whom he was the only carer.

robbiex wrote:
I feel sorry for his elderly mother, for whom he was the only carer.

So do I ..... Not only has suffered shame after his 22 convictions but now she suffers this too

What rattles me is the "Jimmy Savile Chauffeur" they keep going on about. He was not exclusive to Jimmy Saviles chauffeur. The fella was employed by the BBC to run "people" to the BBC Studios & he was NOT Jimmy Savile's chauffeur & neither was Ray Teret come to that.

Mr Teret was bound to become another scapegoat, as he spent time with Jimmy Savile in the 62 - 64 period in the clubs etc. Clubs that didn't actually allow under 21s, half the time, let alone under 18s. So, where under 16s come in (& the same with Top Of The Pops). Under 16s were not supposed to be there. If they were there (pretending to be over 16, 18, 21 or whatever) then they were pretending to be adults.

Compare to today I don't see various 15 year olds (who are pregnant by the local 30 year old stud, taking those men to court...

And, of course, it's probably NOT the first death directly linked to the Savile situation; dozens of heart patients must have died because the money left to Leeds Hospital by Jimmy Savile has been blocked and the cash (£4 million, I seem to recall) has not been spent equipping a new unit to save heart patient lives.

bh wrote:
Mr Teret was bound to become another scapegoat


... again, blanket assumptions !

Do you believe anyone has ever committed a crime ???

Innocent until proven guilty?
And, in many cases, after being found guilty.

Anon wrote:
I think traditionally there actually is supposed to be a presumption of innocence i.e "innocent until proven guilty", his previous convictions do seem to make it seem far more likely that he could very well be guilty of this offence/these offences aswell but it hadn't yet been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Indeed.

... and maybe if he were "going straight" he should have avoided hanging round swimming pool changing rooms with young boys; inviting a 12 year old back to his flat; and then (on separate occasion) taking the 12 year old to the BBC.

There's no smoke without fire (esp when there have been 22 fires in the same place previously !)

We are (all) assuming suicide ... if indeed he were innocent (on this one occasion !) why did he not face a Jury ? I have great faith in the Jury system (in the absence of anything better). They can usually see through a liar very very quickly.

JK2006 wrote:
And, of course, it's probably NOT the first death directly linked to the Savile situation; dozens of heart patients must have died because the money left to Leeds Hospital by Jimmy Savile has been blocked and the cash (£4 million, I seem to recall) has not been spent equipping a new unit to save heart patient lives.


And with resources being limited someone somewhere must surely have been neglected by funds and time being poured into the Savile farce.

Meanwhile....a five year old tells his mother and teacher that his father is abusing him on access visits, the child is taken to a police station after school and is seen at six o clock and then because the (hungry and tired) child does not disclose to a stranger in the short time allowed the access visits are ordered to continue.

In The Know (as always) wrote:
[quote]Anon wrote:

We are (all) assuming suicide ... if indeed he were innocent (on this one occasion !) why did he not face a Jury ? I have great faith in the Jury system (in the absence of anything better). They can usually see through a liar very very quickly.

bh wrote:
Compare to today I don't see various 15 year olds (who are pregnant by the local 30 year old stud, taking those men to court...

They would if someone made a complaint...

The revelations - supposedly to show us how great the system is - of his previous offences actually reveal a lot more than that.
jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/...ng-me-backwards.html

Smith had no link to Sir Jimmy Savile.
His link to the BBC was tenuous to say the least - possibly non-existent

It is now patently obvious "The Savile Police" threw this otherwise completely unrelated historic allegation into the Yewtree pot in order to boost the credibility of this sham operation - someone with previous 'sex' convictions, unlike their celebrity scalps Messrs Clifford, Starr, Travis etc.

I'm not surprised though - nothing would shock me about this debacle.

And now they all have blood on their hands as well as the shitty smears of abject corruption.

In The Know (as always) wrote:

... There's no smoke without fire (esp when there have been 22 fires in the same place previously !)...

OK. The only slight problem is that he wasn't on trial for the previous 22 incidents. His trial was intended to establish whether or not he was guilty this time. Should we, perhaps, dispense with the law altogether for defendants with previous convictions?

In The Know (as always) wrote:

...I have great faith in the Jury system (in the absence of anything better)...

Providing, it seems, that the jury takes as its first principle the maxim "There's no smoke without fire".

Brilliant.

Anon wrote:
bh wrote:
Compare to today I don't see various 15 year olds (who are pregnant by the local 30 year old stud, taking those men to court...

They would if someone made a complaint...
I thought they were just sperm donors! Those lovely girls that have 3 or 4 different kids (by different studs) by the time they reach 30 & never will go to work & will always sponge off the State. ITK hates 'em too!

In their case, why take the fella to court? There's more to be made out of maintenance & the fella visting their kid, once a week. Awful stuff.

Back on the Ray Teret front...ITK, he's been to Jail before, for having under age sex, though the girl in question (back in 1999) did tell the Court, she consented (even though she was under age). So, in that case why waste Prison space, with such a small crime? Hardly a dangerous criminal was he? And probably still isn't.