Jimmy
I'm in that uncomfortable minority
again. This time it feels very uncomfortable and very unpopular.
After the restoration of Charles II,
the powers that be (despite the King's opposition – to his great
credit) decided to dig up the bodies of the regicides and do nasty
things to them – like hanging what was left of them from London
Bridge until they rotted away. Perhaps it made Parliament feel
better as most of them were implicated in the “crime” - just not
as deeply as Cromwell, Harrison and Ireton.
Charles went on to be the “Merry
Monarch” and lay the seeds for the Glorious Revolution.
We are, it seems, back to square one.
Sir Jimmy Savile is tried, convicted, hung, drawn and quartered.
Where to start?
I used to do an investigative unit in
English based on the assassination of President Kennedy. Even today,
a large number of Americans believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not
kill Kennedy, or, if he did, he was part of some larger conspiracy,
There is no real evidence for this, but still people believe it.
Why?
First and most importantly Oswald was
never charged with the crime. Neither was he ever tried in a court
of law. Why? He was killed by Jack Ruby before anyone had the
chance. So, since no-one was tried and convicted, people think they
are free to believe what they want.
Jimmy Savile is kind of in the same
boat. He's dead. He was never accused, tried or convicted of any
crime. Therefore, like Oswald, he can't defend himself. Nor, can we
hear his side of the story. (Incidentally, Oswald famously said he
didn't kill anyone!) The downside seems to be that everyone who
feels like it is free to accuse Savile of almost anything and the
Prime Minister seems content to join in.
Whatever, I ask, happened to the rule
of law?
Pardon me, but I thought that you were
innocent until proven guilty? It now appears that Savile had,
allegedly, been abusing youngsters since the 1970's. No-one
investigated or brought charges. Three people allege that they told
the police of abuse three years ago and were not believed. (Or, and
it is just possible, the police did not believe that they were
credible accusers). Either way, no charges were ever brought against
Savile in his life time.
So, now we are to judge and convict him
in absence?
This is not right. Nor can any trial
ever take place as he is not able to confront his accusers. That is
a fundamental right under the law.
Now we hear that over 300 people have
come forward to accuse Savile of abusing them. How many made
complaints to the police and were willing and able to go to court and
testify? Precisely none.
Ah, but surely there is no smoke
without fire! Maybe, but wasn't it Goebbles who made telling a lie
often enough and people will believe it into an art form? I think it
was.
Other celebrities have now been
implicated. Fine, if they are still alive, like Freddie Starr, then
get them into court and test the evidence.
If Savile and others are serial
offenders then they deserve no sympathy or slack. But, make sure
that the baby is not disposed with the bath water in the process.
Otherwise, when they come for you there
may be no-one left to protest.
Me?
I'm for the rule of law – no matter
how inconvenient it is sometimes.
