Marilyn Stowe Blog

Dominic Carman on October 8, 2012 at 6:44 pm

Please don’t try and defend the indefensible by drawing a parallel with the regicide of Charles the First. No, the Rule of Law cannot apply because Savile is dead. But using common sense, via an overwhelming weight of powerful evidence from a multiplicity of independent sources – none of whom stand to gain personally or financially – makes your conclusion of RIP Sir Jimmy Savile appear at best hollow, and at worst, extremely insulting and insensitive to his scores of victims.

1. 

   Marilyn Stowe on October 8, 2012 at 7:05 pm

   Dominic
   Thanks for your comment.
   There were many people post the Civil War who agreed with the execution of Charles 1. Times subsequently changed and Oliver Cromwell the hero became a villain.
   If you reread my post I don’t defend Sir Jimmy Saville of the allegations made against him nor the allegations themselves. They are appalling. I do however defend his right to a fair trial rather than a posthumous verdict reached by the media on untested evidence when he cannot defend himself. There are many people who have been acquitted despite apparently overwhelming evidence against them. The time for all those allegations to be tested was during his lifetime.
   I absolutely defend the operation of the Rule of Law in this country, and the right to a fair trial no matter how sickening the allegations or how numerous the charges because it is of fundamental importance to a free society. I am surprised you do not.
   Marilyn

Dominic Carman on October 8, 2012 at 8:30 pm

Marilyn, a few points:

1. Having studied the English Civil War and its aftermath, I am reasonably familiar with the narrative of events between 1649 and 1660 (not least from Geoffrey Robertson’s excellent book, the Tyrannicide Brief, which recounts the story of the prosecuting barrister in Charles’s trial, John Cooke, who was tried and brutally executed in 1660).

But the historical parallel between Savile and Cromwell is flawed. Your reasoning is predicated upon shifting public opinion – O tempora, O mores. The flaw in the argument is that whereas Cromwell went from hero to villain because of a sea-change of public opinion following the return of Charles II, public opinion (and the law) concerning Savile’s alleged crimes – serial rape and paedophelia on a chronic scale over several decades – remained constant in this country during Savile’s adulthood. Whereas everyone knew and understood Cromwell’s actions, the general public, beyond his victims and accomplices, was in the dark about Savile’s crimes until his death. Those journalists and BBC employees, who did know, entered a conspiracy of silence for reasons they have yet to explain in adequate detail. The BBC investigation, which will follow police enquiries into his crimes, may shed further light on this.

2. Of course, the Rule of Law remains paramount in a civilised society, and I too defend it. But the law cannot run its course when the guilty party is dead. His right to a fair trial went with Savile to the grave. Instead, we have to look at the weight of evidence and reach a reasonable conclusion, based upon the collective testimony, painfully given by a large number of women, and some men. It is simply inconceivable to doubt the personal testimony of so many victims, so painfully given. Hitler, Stalin and Mao Zedong were never tested through a court, yet their crimes are beyond question because of the weight of historical evidence, largely based upon personal testimony. Savile seems destined to join their ranks as one who escaped trial via the grave.

3. Your blog, although nominally about the Rule of Law, provoked me to respond because of your apparent concern for the reputation of a dead man, who is now thoroughly disgraced, rather than showing proper concern for his living victims. They live with the memory of abuse and its consequences every day. They will never have their day in court. They will never see justice done.

4. I am familiar with operation of the principle: innocent until found guilty. I watched my father, George Carman QC, successfully defend the innocent and the guilty in several high profile criminal trials. But in the face of the collective evidence facing Savile, any experienced leading counsel for the defence would have advised him in two words: plead guilty. To suggest otherwise is plainly absurd.

RIP Sir Jimmy Savile? Really?

best

Dominic

JamesB on October 8, 2012 at 10:07 pm

I haven’t seen any evidence for or against yet. I could put a case for Hitler, Mao Tse or Stalin though if you like. The true judge is God, not the Court anyway. Although I have seen many barristers and Judges who believe they are more important than God.

JamesB on October 8, 2012 at 10:11 pm

That said, child molestation, killing the Jews, etc is out of order. I should take that back.

My point was essentially sticking up for Due Process, Magna Carta and Marilyn, because she has a point.

CarysP on October 8, 2012 at 10:46 pm

I enjoy your blog very much, but I must say I’m very disappointed by your comments here. Would you rather the ‘baying’ mob stay quiet, just so that Jimmy can rest in peace? True, the law cannot take run its course here, but sometimes we don’t need a judge to tell us what to think. It is more important now that the victims are given a voice, and that we listen.

1. 

   Marilyn Stowe on October 8, 2012 at 11:04 pm

   Carys
   Thanks, but my point is NOT that I don’t have concern for the alleged victims. Of course I do. No one who abused anyone should get away with it. But my point is I have a serious concern for the rule of law which appears to have gone completely out of the window. If you allow mob rule then you are on a very dangerous, slippery slope.
   The victims (three of whom I have recently met) are being given a hugely sympathetic platform to say whatever they want. With the best will in the world how do you know that everything they say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thats not to doubt them but this all happened forty years ago. Yet they are safe in the knowledge that whatever they say, there is no one at all to challenge them.
   Well, as someone who believes in the right to a fair trial for everyone of us, I just don’t think that’s right or fair.
   So whilst I’m sorry you don’t agree with me, I don’t support and never will support trial by media who as we all know, may not necessarily give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Rather we may get their version of the truth and we have nothing to weigh against it.
   The principle of the right to a fair trial is very precious to any democracy and therefore is very, very important to any democratic society. It is that principle that occurs to me in respect of what is a very distressing case but in our concern for the victims we mustn’t lose sight of this.
   Marilyn

Dominic Carman on October 9, 2012 at 4:51 pm

According to the Telegraph: “Jimmy Savile’s £4,000 grave is to be dismantled on orders of his family “out of respect for public opinion”. Undertakers were hoping to remove the triple headstone – which they only put up on September 20 – tonight, subject to consents from Savile’s relatives.
The family said in a statement: “Members of the family of Sir Jimmy Savile have decided to remove his headstone from the grave in Scarborough. ” ”

Even Jimmy Savile’s family do not think he should RIP.

JamesB on October 9, 2012 at 5:44 pm

I think there is more substantial evidence against Hitler Mao and Stalin. I still haven’t seen any evidence against Saville other than people saying without witnesses.

Although I do accept I suppose the nature of abuse makes proving it without witnesses difficult. That said I think you could prove it with cameras and bruises etc and am surprised if it were so bad how he was never convicted, so I am not jumping on the band wagon and don’t know and I think would be unfair to take his knighthood away without evidence of more than 1 person from 1 event at one time and even then he isn’t about to defend himself. But I would like to see such evidence and haven’t yet.

Marilyn Stowe on October 9, 2012 at 7:00 pm

Dominic
You omit the gravestone has already been desecrated and there is serious concern for the safety of the entire cemetery and also for the remains in the grave.
It would seem that my comparison to Oliver Cromwell is indeed alarmingly apt.
The acts of a dead man however repugnant do not and must not ever be used to justify violent unlawful acts. This situation needs to be calmed down immediately, or we will be headed towards anarchy.
Marilyn

Dominic Carman on October 9, 2012 at 8:49 pm

Marilyn,

The Savile investigations to be undertaken by the Met and the BBC have a very long way to run: a calm methodical, and extremely necessary process for the public good, and in the public interest.

Perhaps in a year’s time, we will have a better idea of the full scale of abuse and criminality undertaken by Savile, and possibly, by others. In the interim, the victims must be heard, listened to with care, and their testimony taken very seriously. Much of what they have said provides compelling independent corroboration of their individual stories. Their collective voices must be heard.

As for the Rule of Law, if these inquiries find that anyone else facilitated, encouraged, aided or abetted Savile, or independently abused minors, they will, no doubt, face the full force of the law in due course. That is due process in action.

best Dominic

JamesB on October 9, 2012 at 9:09 pm

I remember trial by media in the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth where Paediatricians got hunted down, it was a very unpleasant sight indeed. There are so many other instances where the media have been wrong also…
Of course, Hillsborough springs to mind, Tony Blair on wmds also. A good headline doesn’t necessarily make good justice, although I can see how a barrister might get confused (the nature of their work), it’s like sales people are the easiest to sell to.

CarysP on October 9, 2012 at 9:23 pm

Thank you for your reply Marilyn. I completely agree with your assertion of the right to a fair trial, and I’m sorry that cannot happen here.

You make comparisons to Cromwell, so forgive me for comparing the alleged victims’ plight to the many thousands of children abused by Catholic institutions in Ireland over many years. Many of the perpetrators are long gone, so justice will never be served. Thankfully, finally, those victims have a sympathetic platform to share how their lives have been shattered. Should we tell some to stay quiet because their alleged abuser is dead? Because this all happened “forty years ago”?

And one word regarding the media response. I don’t agree with trial by media either, but I believe most intelligent people can tell where reports are unbalanced. I am, however, proud of the high quality investigative journalism we have in this country, and can think of many examples where the media have shown up those establishments we are supposed to trust most of all.

Carys

Ade Payne on October 10, 2012 at 4:21 am

Marilyn, this entry into your blog is one that I’m truly surprised at. Having followed your eminent rise to the top of your professional tree over many years it strikes me as odd that you would take such a public stance. After all, are we not supposed to leave one’s personal feelings aside and let due process take its course?

Or are we missing something here? Forgive me if my facts are misplaced but was it not your parents that lived in the same apartment block as Mr Savile in Roundhay Park for many years? And were they not on very friendly terms with said miscreant? I imagine you too were on first name terms with him and therefore cannot bear the indignation he now receives in his absence. He was obviously a very charming man, an enigma, a calculating loner and yet he pulled us all in to his public face, which, if we are to believe, belied a dubious and twisted character. Masking his pre-delictions by raising his profile (and monies) to a seemingly untouchable level.

I appreciate you have the right to bring to bear your views on matters of public and private justice in this forum, however, on this occasion I believe discretion would have been the better part of valour.

All the best.

1. 

   Marilyn Stowe on October 10, 2012 at 11:19 am

   Dear Ade
   Thank you very much for a considered and considerate reply.
   You are correct in that I did know Sir Jimmy Savile who used to always call me “The Barracuda” whenever I bumped into him and my parents did live in the same appartment block in Roundhay Park when they were aged in their 60′s onwards. Jimmy Savile was five years older. As residents they had a cordial friendship, my father used to go running with him on occasions, but they werent ‘close friends’ and they never had a hint there was anything improper about him. In that they were not alone as his friendships with the great and good amply demonstrate.
   You are also correct in that what I knew of him did influence my decision to write this post. Not because of his charm but because I knew of his private,very generous charitable acts and private kind acts, such as when he bumped into my father in the lift and my father told him my granny was very ill, he was on his way to visit her. Unsolicited, he found out her name, which hospital and ward she was in and sent her a lovely get well card. I cant think of many people who would have troubled to have done that, so you are right, knowing a little of many private, generous and kind acts has certainly influenced me, and I therefore do have difficulty reconciling what I do know, against the monster in the media.
   Similarly I had the opportunity of meeting three women who have made serious allegations against him. I observed them for several hours in the TV studios and saw them on and off camera. Off camera to me they seemed to be three jolly women. There is a hint of that jollity on screen when for a split second during a very serious interview, one of them winks at another.
   It is not possible to defame the dead thus the media are free to print and say what they like, and more importantly, how they like.
   Nor is it possible to try an accused man for criminal offences committed during his lifetime. If he were alive today, he would be going through the criminal process, the case would be “sub judice” The media would have to be silent and respectful or face contempt proceedings. It is very different from what is happening now.
   None of us knows for sure, although we have our opinions, as to what happened to any of these women and because there is no court adjudiction, unless perhaps there is a class action brought against the estate, I doubt we will ever know for sure.
   As a solicitor during my working life I have come across many people, too many in fact, who have a clear recall of events and have subsequently been proved to be incorrect. That is not to say they were lying. They were just wrong. Equally others who are regarded by the public as a whole, as guilty of offences are subsequently proved innocent. I have experiences of that, as you will know if you have followed my career.
   I cannot remember specific events of what happened to me twenty thirty or forty years ago with accurate recall. My memory simply isnt that good, and of course many things, good and bad did happen to me and many events were only a few years ago. But I cant accurately remember them with absolute certainty and clarity. I may get things out of context, I may exaggerate. I accept that others may be different.
   However, that is precisely why we have courts of justice;- to test the evidence and to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt of a criminal offence which everyone of us is entitled to have in a democracy. it separates us from anarchy.
   You will of course argue that guilt has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, but I am at a loss to understand why this programme was not made earlier, when he was alive, and he could have answered the criminal and civil charges against him (or not) particularly when for many years before his death he was frail and no threat to anyone.
   The fact remains it was not and there was no prosecution either. I suspect. (as a lawyer) the prosecution did not take place due to lack of evidence or the evidence was considered unreliable or it was uncorroborated.
   But given the masses of people now voluntarily coming forward it seems very odd indeed.
   I do not condone child abuse, nor would I ever condone an abuser.
   I am, like you and like every other right minded person appalled by attacks on children but I am also appalled at the attacks on a grave and the frightening impact on his relatives.
   In conclusion, as a lawyer and officer of the court, I believe this situation can only be resolved in accordance with the rule of law and that is why I wrote the post.
   This situation needs calming and controlling immediately.
   Marilyn

JamesB on October 10, 2012 at 12:10 pm

I do wonder why no-one came forward when he was alive. That would have made this difficult subject a lot easier.

Dominic Carman on October 10, 2012 at 4:00 pm

Marilyn,

I appreciate that if you knew Savile, it may be very hard to accept the enormity of his wrongdoing, when confronted by the awful truth. You must feel cruelly deceived by a man whom you believed did only good. But the facts speak rather eloquently for themselves. As Commander Peter Spindler, the Met’s head of specialist crime investigations, told the BBC yesterday: “At this stage it is quite clear, from what women are telling us, that Savile was a predatory sex offender.”

You argue that: ‘this situation needs calming and controlling immediately.’ There is no sense of panic, except perhaps in the BBC, or ‘anarchy’, as you suggest. But there is a widespread desire for the full story to be told. Accordingly, the inquiries must be remorseless in their approach, given the weight of public interest. There is little doubt that they will be calm, clinical and hopefully, extremely thorough – in the interests of the many victims, who stand to gain nothing except the right to be heard, understood and respected for speaking the truth.

best

Dominic Carman

best
Dominic

JamesB on October 10, 2012 at 6:29 pm

Agree with your second paragraph. Do not agree Police should be made Judges and executioners also, we have CPS etc. I am not sure on how you get to the truth though. Sounds like a line from ‘A few good men’ at the bottom of a very dark place or something was the follow up line I think.

Edward Seyfarth on October 11, 2012 at 1:54 am

Dominic for a man who is supposed to have some intelligence you write like ignoramus. I knew Jimmy from his old Mecca Days at Leeds in the 60′s. You are implying matters from a very unique era of which you no doubt were not a part. So do go live in your pristine tower and when you got some facts then write. Until then stop promoting these gutless wonders who make unsubstantiated allegations and whose primary motive is the Estate of Jimmys or to get 2 minutes of Stardom. We fought for the rights of women in the 60′s so these allegations are taken very seriously by the writer. However, allegations that are unsubstantiated, allegations that have been investigated in the past and not pursued because they were were unsubstatiated do not merit you soiling the memory of someone who did much good and brought much joy and happiness to many millions of people as opposed to a fascist nobody like you who cannot see the merits in innocence until proved guilty. If you had your way we wont have Courts and all those innocent people found “Not Guilt” by the Courts would have be hung, drawn and quartered by now. If Jimmy did take advantage and there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt I am with you. But this is the age of Cheque Book journalism and we have to be very careful before we defame anyone living or dead. As for that nitwit from Scotland Yard, he should know better. Anyone can make an allegation. In fact several allegations against Jimmy were made to the police. They were investigated by the police and a report forwarded to the Prosecuting authorities who in their wisdom decided for reasons not so clear at the moment not prosecute the matter. So that nitwit from Scotland Yard should remember that he is not in the Gestapo and that he is in a Country that lives by the rule of law. As for the Director of the BBC. I gather he has apologised to the alledged victims. What planet does this mummys boy come from. Why would anyone apologise based upon unsubstantiated allegations. Really! Did he not get advice from his legal department prior to his grandstanding. In the meantime, let the investigations run. I doubt if any inquiry will be able to substantiate any of the claims. I am still perplexed as to why they are surfacing 40 years late and when the alledged perpetrator is long dead. Furthermore, i notice that some of the people making these allegations are from the same industry as Jimmy was and have gone past their use by date and are well known for make all sorts of allegations to keep themselves in the spotlight. If Jimmy did take advantage I say pillorise him but until you can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Keep a lid on it.

Edward

Dominic Carman on October 11, 2012 at 10:38 am

Edward,

Thank you for your comments. I do not believe that the victims of Savile’s abuse are ‘gutless wonders’ as you describe them. They deserve our respect, not contempt.

It is worth considering what the chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten – a man of considerable intelligence and integrity – said yesterday when he admitted that the former DJ, whom Scotland Yard described as a “predatory sex offender”, may not have acted alone. Patten raised the prospect that the corporation may have to make a detailed on-air apology for not stopping him. Such a mea culpa would be unambiguous recognition that the allegations are true.

JamesB on October 11, 2012 at 11:40 am

dominic, you do not represent anybody but yourself. Also, in my circle chris patton (inclu. Ex pats fro hong kong) he is not well regarded. You fall for the barristers thought that everythjng you say is true because you say it. It is not.

Observer on October 11, 2012 at 2:24 pm

Dominic,

Didn’t you know that all men are sex offenders in the eyes of lawyers, courts, politicians, the media?

You seem surprised by this.

I have no interest in defending or condemning this man, and if he did what they say he did, he was clearly very sick.

What I find more worrying is the politics of all this, and the fact that we are now living in a time when all one has to do to destroy a man is start a rumor or make an allegation.

Dominic Carman on October 11, 2012 at 6:14 pm

I agree that false accusations, made usually by one individual against another, can be terrible. But the courts invariably weed these out. It is one reason why the conviction rate for rape in Britain is so very low – at 6%, far lower that for any other serious crime. The burden of proof is understandably, and rightly high: juries are wary, often reluctant to convict when it is one person’s word against another.

Government statistics on rape go further, as evidenced by this extract from the Stern Inquiry, published by the Home Office in 2010:

‘Rape is a horrific crime that can ruin lives. Last year, 435,000 people suffered rape or sexual violence. But despite progress in recent years, it is estimated that up to 9 in 10 cases of rape go unreported and 38 per cent of serious sexual assault victims tell no one about their experience.’

This underlines the point that, like so many victims of rape and sexual abuse, many of Savile’s victims did not come forward at the time, and where they did, it was as individuals, not as a collective group, making it much harder for the Police to act, or for newspapers to publish.
Many people knew, yet nothing was done. Savile’s scheming pattern of abuse – in schools, hospitals, the BBC, Broadmoor, and elsewhere – was spread widely, by institution, and by geography.

Yes, I am only one person commenting on this blog, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, to disagree, to have another viewpoint. But it is difficult to countenance people’s continuing blind defence of Savile and say nothing, given the enormous weight of allegations from so many different, diverse sources. Raising millions for charity does not stop a man from being a serial abuser: the two things are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, being a charity man gave him just the cover he needed.

Over time, those now coming forward, bravely, may hopefully be seen by everyone as real victims, not fortune hunters, fabricators or attention seekers.

JamesB on October 11, 2012 at 10:50 pm

Raising millions for charity does not stop a man from being a serial abuser

Well, perhaps I am shallow, but it does confuse me, how someone so good can be so bad, but this has gone on long enough and I will see how it goes. I don’t know what to think on this and am surprised you do. Anyway, I need to go now, regards, James.

Observer on October 12, 2012 at 10:11 am

Never mind the Saville case. I care little for it. I’m talking in the abstract here.

I don’t know if I’d agree that courts weed out false allegations. They have in a lot of cases I have seen, but when it is political, they do not – nothing new there!

The issue of shared parenting is highly political, and I have seen how politicians, academics, the children’s commissioner, the Law Society, and several other groups squandering taxpayer money have thoroughly abused statistics and facts in order to undermine a shared parenting presumption.

When it comes to children’s rights to have a full relationship with their dads, false allegations are more often than not used (abused) by the courts to bully dads into giving up, or as an excuse to cut them out of the lives of their children, and make their jobs that much easier.

A couple of rotten apples are being pointed to in order to justify a rotten “where it is safe” clause in legislation re: parenting time after separation.

Our family justice system is an extreme form of institutionalized child abuse, and without the moral guidance that dads provide, we get sickos like Saville (courtesy of Gingerbread and other single-parenting charities, no less).

JamesB on October 12, 2012 at 10:52 am

… Allegedly, (like they always used to add in have I got news for you). I am disappointed they have dropped this caveat because he is dead, but I am repeating myself.

CarysP on October 12, 2012 at 1:53 pm

I feel I must object to some of the insulting and inflammatory language in Edward Seyfarth’s comment. To describe another contributor as writing like an ignoramus, and the alleged victims as “gutless” and seeking “2 minutes of stardom” does nothing but devalue all the points he goes on to make. I’m surprised this comment got through moderation.

To Dominic Carman, I for one think your posts on this subject have been measured and full of common sense. And patience beyond belief!

DT on October 13, 2012 at 4:24 pm

This has been a really interesting and poignant post to read and the threads couldn’t have been more polarised.

So far, nobody has said well done to Marilyn for giving a platform to some very absorbing and important points. Whether one goes with the majority view or not on this one, having the opportunity to hear and discuss varying opinions is vital.

Marilyn – it takes guts to write a post like this when you must have known there’d be a lot of dissenting and angry views, but still you went ahead and publically stood by your values. That requires gumption and I think it’s admirable. More people should do this, and if they had done, things could have been very different in this case.

I didn’t know Jimmy Savile and only ever saw him at a distance, running around Leeds.

I don’t know whether he did or did not do what he has been accused of and, like a lot of people, I have just read the salacious accounts provided by the media. I doubt that we’ll ever know the full truth and I think that’s the saddest part of it for all concerned – on both sides.

If he were alive, he’d have been interviewed under caution, the police would have gathered witness statements and other evidence (if appropriate) and then the CPS would have looked at the evidence from all sides and decide whether or not there’d be a likelihood of success / it’d be in the public interest and proceed accordingly.

That fair and proper process can never be undertaken because the alleged perpetrator is not here to answer his critics. We will never know and I think that’s what we, as a nation, find so difficult – the not knowing. We want to know if we duped on a grand scale or if it’s all been a horrible misunderstanding. We hate the unknown and will seek information to put our minds at rest, one way or the other.

The media furore has tainted public opinion before anybody has had an opportunity to look at any evidence objectively. I have not seen any evidence as yet, just second, third, fourth hand accounts.

I read this week that some journalists have been trying to posthumously have Savile stripped of his honours without having any understanding of how the forfeiture committee works; it can’t be done posthumously – the honours die with the individual. This is so indicative of the ‘shoot from the hip’ mentality of the British media. Fred Goodwin was stripped, but there was evidence to support this – right now, we just have increasing accounts in the media which none of us can corroborate.

If defamation were an action which could be brought on behalf of the deceased, would the media, and especially the red-tops, be quite so cavalier? I think not because right now, they cannot sufficiently evidence their claims.

If we take the Leveson enquiry, which is currently still very much in the media, can you imagine if we heard from the victims without the ‘other-side’ be afforded an opportunity to speak? The process would be invalid and labelled a ‘kangaroo court’.

Legal processes must be fair and transparent. Both sides must have a chance to present their case and an opportunity to reply. This cannot happen and will never happen because the alleged perpetrator is dead.

I don’t know if Savile did not did not do what he is accused of, and I suspect few know what really happened and as we’ll never know, how can we ever move this case on? It’ll always be in limbo in my mind because it can never proceed.

I care passionately for the rights of the vulnerable (be that children or adults) and my daily work centres around protecting these groups of people, so please do not think that I would, in any way, favour or advocate the abuse or harming of another human being; however, by the same token, I would not advocate trial by media, which is what this is. It undermines the very fabric of a civilised society and if we want to take the moral high-ground, we need to do the right things, the right way and be seen to be doing so.

If we want to be cross with anybody, be cross with those who are now coming forward and saying ‘I knew this – I knew that’ and did little or nothing at the time. If these abuses did take place, how on earth did this happen?! So many people are saying what they thought and what they saw.

There’s people at the BBC, hospital staff and schools to name but a few. What’s more, so many of these people are individuals who I’m shocked at for keeping quiet. How could they keep quiet?! They were supposed to be protecting.

Furthermore, when a strong woman like Janet Street-Porter can admit on the BBC’s Question Time that she knew the stories and did nothing, then something has gone very, very wrong. Why on earth didn’t somebody, somewhere say something? To me, keeping quiet just makes it so much worse.

And what kind of culture existed in light-entertainment at the BBC? It certainly sounds like an ideal and very safe environment for perpetrators. Why was one individual given SO much of a free hand?

What kinds of safe-guards are going to be put in place now? If this abuse did happen, how can we ensure that this will not happen again?

Any finally, why did ‘Newsnight’ pull the programme which was set to document the alleged abuse and run an affectionate tribute instead?

The BBC has a lot of questions to answer.

DT

Marilyn Stowe on October 14, 2012 at 9:37 am

Thanks DT, I’m so glad you have got my point but you are a lawyer and you understand exactly where I’m coming from. Lawyers must always be able to fearlessly consider both sides. That is the operation of the rule of law in a democracy.
Now have a look at this, written by Dominc Carmen in the Guardian and described by Adam Wagner of the UK Human Rights blog as “a strange article ..based upon pure speculation”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/14/dominic-carman-jimmy-savile-and-my-father?CMP=twt_gu
Marilyn

Dominic Carman on October 14, 2012 at 5:51 pm

Marilyn,

Even though we have different perspectives on these emotive issues, I echo DT’s comments: well done to Marilyn. I was provoked in part to write my Guardian/Observer blog today because of your original blog above, so thank you indeed. Let us hope that a clear, full and accurate picture emerges over the coming months from the welter of depressing revelations surrounding Savile and others over the last fortnight.

Thank you

Dominic

DT on October 15, 2012 at 2:38 pm

Dominic

I read your article (link provided above).

I have to say, I had to keep revisiting the title because I couldn’t get to grips with exactly what you were trying to say and why; but perhaps it was wasted on me.

I suppose a lot of things in life ‘should have, could have, would have’ happened, but I thought that the link with your father was SO tenuous, I wondered as to it’s real significance.

I can see why Marilyn wrote this piece because it gets everybody (no matter whether you’ve convicted JS in your own mind or not) to stop and think about our legal formalities and how and why we do things a certain way in this country, however I was unclear as to the rationale behind your piece.

I do think that it’s also worth remembering that this blog often (although not always) focuses largely on family /civil matters. What we’re talking about here in the case of JS is a criminal standard of proof which is considerably higher than the civil standard (balance of probabilities Vs beyond reasonable doubt). So, therefore, I think that we need to be even more mindful of the responsibility we have not to judge and assume in the absence of balanced evidence. I think to be premature on a matter of such gravity is reckless and foolish.

Once again, I deplore the nature of the allegations which have been made, however, I think moving forward, our time would be best spent looking at safeguards and frameworks because while I agree that the police must fully investigate the alleged victims’ claims, they can only ever look at one side of the coin. Forgive me if my pragmatism seems insensitive, but I think we have got to move forward, and make sure that we never have people making such horrific claims again because the measures in place won’t allow it.

DT

Dominic Carman on November 11, 2012 at 11:44 am

From today’s Observer leader comment; there is more to come:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/10/newsnight-mcalpine-hysteria

‘Just look at the points made by one ex-editor of the Sunday Mirror who, a couple of decades ago, tried and failed to expose Savile. His accusers were teenage girls from an approved school. Would they risk coming forward? If they did, would they be believed? George Carman QC made it crystal clear to the Mirror that Savile would sue if any story was printed (and that Carman himself might be lead silk for the claimant). The only other way of breaking the news, then, could be a classic Fleet Street sting. Send a young reporter into Savile’s dressing-room to play victim of the night. But even powerful tabloid newspapers don’t have 13-year-old, trained, brave and eloquent correspondents on their books. No sting: so no story.’