When I'm nicked I want Anna Raccoon as my 'brief'!

An irritating morning today because, as usual, I left the house at 6.30 to go for my daily swim - er, have I mentioned lately that  ... oh, right! - and the road to the swimming pool was closed presumably due to flooding from the tropical rainfall we have experienced lately - God, life is tough down here in the south west!  Anyway, my usual time table has been completely upset which has put me in a real 'Mr. Grumpy' mood.  However, all my irritations were soothed away by Ms. Raccoon's forensic examination of what sounds like yet another piece of televisual tosh masquerading as 'investigative journalism'.  You may have noticed that I have become somewhat fixated with God recently.  Whether this is due to intellectual curiosity or the knowledge that I am getting closer to finding the answer to 'The Great Question', I cannot say, but anyway I thank Him profusely for letting us invent this 'internet-thingie' which allows the likes of Ms. Raccoon to publicly 'slice 'n' dice' the sort of tripe that TV serves up especially when some moral hot-air balloon has arisen on a gust of popular hysteria.  Please, take a few minutes to read her summary of what was, apparently, a TV "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing".  She does not prove Jimmy Savile's innocence because she has no intention of doing so.  What she does do with scalpel-like accuracy is to lay bare the screamingly obvious lack of even minimal proof of any the accusations, or perhaps 'innuendos' is a better word, so far made against the man. Her post is entitled "Trial by Posthumous Innuendo" and if like me you loathe and distrust mobs led, fed and encouraged by thrid-rate TV programmes then it is essential reading.

Comments

[Andra]

Couldn't you walk or possibly swim?

[rogerh]

There is no evidence:-

Because there really is none
or....
I shredded it
I hid it
I filed it under xxxxxx
I sent it to archive
I put a different interpretation on it
I didn't think it relevant
The Minister is not minded to proceed
I am scared of the libel lawyers
I don't want my daughter torn to shreds by a hot-shot barrister

Ms Racoon is right (in a narrow sense) to point out the lack of solid evidence - but in these cases there rarely is. For similar reasons there is no evidence that money will buy you a seat in the House of Lords. Legal evidence is not the same as scientific evidence, not by a long chalk. Remember the law is a very clumsy and imperfect implement designed to protect the powerful, seldom little girls. So yes, any competent barrister can get a guilty person off given a lot less than half a chance.

The most unpleasant aspect of this tale is that no-one blew the whistle while the alleged cover-ups continued - anyone surprised?

[David Duff]

Thus it is and always has been with human affairs - very, very messy. But I think the main point that Ms. Raccoon is making is that very many of the complainants are simply lying through their teeth and jumping on what might be a very lucrative bandwagon. I agree with you concerning the vagaries of the legal system but what else is there? And all the more reason to cling, sometimes with gritted teeth, to the old adage - innocent until proven guilty.