Proving how they can be, at their finest, the best paper in Britain, Tom Rawstorne's article in Saturday Report on Gambo is perfect, fair, clear and essential reading.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2983606...t-proved-guilty.html

Couldn't resist slipping in a mention of JS in there could they.

"On September 12, Michael Salmon, a former consultant at Stoke Mandeville Hospital — where Jimmy Savile abused scores of victims — was charged with rape and indecent assault".

Excellent article!

Yes since I've heard the entire saga in detail, personally, from Gambo himself, I was amazed by how accurate the coverage was (apart from that expected inaccurate dig at Savile - or does death indeed disqualify ones right to be innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law?).

And Matthew Parris in today's (Saturday) Times is very supportive too; he makes the point that the farce has finally converted on-the-fence observers into critics of the legal establishment.

JK2006 wrote:
does death indeed disqualify ones right to be innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law?)

No, but it makes the court irrelevant - as libel laws simply do not apply.

As anyone can say what they wish - about those who have died.

Indeed yes; and very unfair it is too. I suspect that dead people, if they know, don't care. But it's awful for relations and friends whose memories are fond and happy, such as that nice lady on the Today programme who worked with Savile for 40 years and saw or heard nothing unpleasant. But I think yer average, semi brain celled member of the public is just beginning to go "hold on a moment". You cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Unfair - maybe.

But just consider, for a moment, a world in which it was possible to sue/take legal action against the deceased.

Our flawed legal system would also die - but the placing of the deceased outside the law goes back to the Romans and the Greeks.

Its probably right.

I'm not suggesting taking legal action against the deceased; I'm suggesting that they should not be presumed guilty.

Fair enough JK - but when I'm dead, they can accuse me of anything, and presume me to be guilty. Of all imaginable crimes.

Whether its legal, illegal and/or unfair - in any of the world's jurisdictions.


I have walked around Higate Cemetery.... how many of those were guilty/innocent of what? Nevertheless - full of accomplished men and women.


But nobody really cares -

SP17 wrote:
Unfair - maybe.

But just consider, for a moment, a world in which it was possible to sue/take legal action against the deceased.

Our flawed legal system would also die - but the placing of the deceased outside the law goes back to the Romans and the Greeks.

Its probably right.





the laws of libel do apply to the deceased in France and relatives can sue.
But then I doubt French tabloids are as fixated as the British ones are

Correct Hedda - most sensible countries say "5 weeks below the absurd age of consent when the victim consented? Spend a fortune pursuing a corpse? Bollocks. There are better ways to spend tax monies".

SP17 wrote:
Unfair - maybe.

But just consider, for a moment, a world in which it was possible to sue/take legal action against the deceased.

Our flawed legal system would also die - but the placing of the deceased outside the law goes back to the Romans and the Greeks.

Its probably right.





Why would the legal system die, SP? I am a bit lost.

hedda wrote:
SP17 wrote:
Unfair - maybe.

But just consider, for a moment, a world in which it was possible to sue/take legal action against the deceased.

Our flawed legal system would also die - but the placing of the deceased outside the law goes back to the Romans and the Greeks.

Its probably right.





the laws of libel do apply to the deceased in France and relatives can sue


Correct hedda - and, also, in Quebec and Germany.....

But handled with a huge bias towards logic

Rulings for the deceased are as rare as hens' teeth

And David Rose has a good Savile feature in tomorrow'#s Sunday Times

I misled MPs on £40m Savile bill, admits Hunt after he claimed the paedophile's charities would pay victims compensation when actually it's the taxpayer

Jeremy Hunt is to issue an apology after misleading House of Commons
Last week he pledged Jimmy Savile's charities would pay compensation
But it has been revealed that the charities are exempt and NHS is liable
A further bill, which may be as large, will be met by BBC licence fee payers
Savile estate is effectively bankrupt, while BBC agreed to pay damages

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday

Read more
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984581...ally-s-taxpayer.html

It is quite extraordinary that Hunt was not aware of this; every visitor to this board, most readers of the Mail on Sunday, all Anna Raccoon's readers and, I suspect, most of the country knew the figures were wildly exaggerated rather like the claims, I suspect. This really has become a case of "The Emperor's New Clothes". We feel rather like the small boy who mentioned he was naked.

As suspected, David Rose got much of his facts from the research by the divine Raccoon, who has been slogging away, digging up real detail instead of fantasies and good stories. My only problem with David's excellent feature is that it avoids the stunning information culled by Anna through reading the NHS and other reports. These direct quotes illustrate just how absurd the situation has become.

Anna Raccoon never ceases to amaze the way she actually researches...yet some criticise her for that and not just accepting the fantasy..

so 40 million quid, his 4 million estate eaten up by lawyers, what another 7 million quid for reports...now looking at least 50 million pounds but not counting police costs etc etc.

what a scam!!

my feeling is that the majority of people see this for what it is..a giant rip-off and the worm will turn eventually (as it always does )

The daily mail is the worst paper in the world. It makes people feel angry and promotes hatred around the country. It represents everything bad about this country.