No jail this time, just a community order.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828

No jail this time, just a community order.... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828

Oh, I completely agree.



But even if it was intended for a wider audience ... Should Kelvin MacKenzie go to jail for what he said about Liverpool fans at Hillsborough?



Agreed and agreed. Go back to the Tom Daley incident during the Games – a teenager, living on their own in a bedsit? We're talking about someone who needs help to get their life sorted out rather than a prison sentence. Fortunately, there was no conviction there.

Wonder if anyone joking/commenting about Jimmy Saville will suffer the same fate???

It is a slippery slope and some of the prosecutions that came from last years riots were equally farcical (as in what was posted on the net) and it could indeed be used for more political purposes very soon and perhaps that is what the powers at be actually want.

Could make the next election and any vote on EEC membership "interesting".

I the case of Savile, it's reported today that the police are investigating well over 100 allegations of sexual offences.

My question is, why? I'm not saying somebody shouldn't, but how is it a police matter, if the alleged offender is dead? You can't prosecute a corpse.

I'd be happier if our severely stretched police resources were spent just on investigations that might lead to some villains being apprehended and dealt with.

No, but you can prosecute those who may have 'aided and abetted' in any crimes and who withheld or suppressed evidence.

But surely you need a crime to have been committed in the first place? As regards inchoate offences how can you charge anyone with aiding and abetting an offence unless somebody is guilty of that offence?

As for withholding or suppressing evidence, nobody has any legal duty to come forward with evidence they may have about such offences, it may be morally reprehensible but it's no crime.

As for "suppressing evidence" there would presumably have to be an ongoing police investigation into offences from which someone then "suppressed" evidence they held, but isn't it the case that none of this hundred or so ever complained to the police, so there were no police investigations? If you don't mean physical evidence, then no, there's no law against keeping schtumm, you can suppress whatever knowledge you like.

Hey what a surprise, a pretty little white girl goes missing and the whole female population of the UK outpours it's grief and over-reacts to just about anything related to the case. Yet again a MAN's name and face is plastered everywhere for all to see before he's even been found guilty. Terrible what happened to the girl, but the over-reaction does my f8cking head in

But there have been police investigations into Savile previously, twice in Jersey for example. What if people lied to the police and helped to pervert the course of justice during those investigations ? I'm not saying that they did but, for example, I reckon the Haut de la Garenne case would have opened a big can of worms with Savile just the tip of the iceberg if the whole truth had been revealed.

As opposed to some individual who claims that "the whole female population of the UK" is involved? What – 100% of females of these islands? Really? You did a survey?

A bit of hyperbolic overthetopness, methinks.

And obviously nothing at all like the males being held back by police from the van carrying the accused to court yesterday – oh no, sirree. That behaviour was entirely under the top, wasn't it?

A shame, because you had a couple of otherwise valid points.

Then of course they should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice!

How is investigating 120 (current count) unrelated cases relevant to that?

Because...

1. It may well lead to new lines of enquiry; and

2. It may well unearth new information on some people who are still alive and perhaps still actively pursuing such activities

I don't think the investigation is purely about Savile, more about what they may uncover from a wider perspective if they dig deep enough. It is probably unlikely that Savile acted alone in his 'predatory sexual offences' (as described today by the Met Police). If the vilification of Savile brings other guilty parties to justice then thats fine in my view.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with this thread so better let it rest there really.

Apparently, the police have already found him guilty so no need for any further investigation!

A Wigan Athletic fans forum has had rumours about Jimmy Savile on various threads for a couple of years now. A more recent one has allegations wrt another 70s R1 DJ, who also presented childrens TV shows, based on his own memoirs!

The quotes I've seen from his autobiography – published in 1974 or '76 – are pretty clear. He also asserted that, in effect, 'everyone else was doing it', including the police.

As it happens (so to speak), I heard around 18 years ago, from a former [iTelegraph[/i TV critic who had recently moved to the [iMail[/i as the film critic. His take on it was that Savile knew where other people's skeletons were hidden.

That argument realistically only holds up for so long really though doesnt it.

The people who Savile may have had dirt on some people in the 70's, 80's and early 90's werent the same people who would bring it to light in the late 90's and the last decade.