cods wrote on Jun 26^th, 2014 at 7:05am:



He was.

He was awarded the OBE in 1971 and was knighted in 1990.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile

And this....it seems that you have to be living for the queen to remove your knighthood. I don't understand how they can give him a second knighthood and then strip him of it....still dead isn't he.

Revealed: Bizarre plan to give Jimmy Savile a second knighthood so he can be stripped of it publicly


A constitutional bar preventing the dead from having their knighthoods removed means the government's forfeiture committee cannot strip Savile of the accolade


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261788/Bizarre-plan-Jimmy-Savile-second...

bump page again............

cods wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:


did you see the honour list for australia this year cods on the queens birthday... over 700 people !!!!   what A joke...it means nothing

I haven't checked for Links, but I did hear an ABC Radio News comment that the Jury asked for more guidance on the extent to which, if any, the evidence which was solely relevant to complaint A, might be considered by them when they consider other complaints.  This is a very tricky area as I posted several times up there ^^^^^^^^, and it is obviously causing problems.  It also suggests that the Jury are not convinced they ought convict on Complaint say C (or maybe even all of them) unless they allow their conclusions to be impacted by the existence of evidence of other complaints.

Very tricky stuff.  Dangerous.  To make it silly but easy to understand ~ Bozo is charged with raping three women, and at different times and places.  The charges are heard together ~ so, if the Jury conclude they are satisfied Bozo is guilty on one charge, can they allow that conclusion to be part of considering guilt on the other two.  'Well he raped her, therefore he probably raped the other two ~ guilty on all three.'

Nah.

Aussie wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 4:03pm:


Well.  Aussie I  don't agree with the interpretation you have that complaints.. of a similar nature, should be heard and considered separately .. that is .. well pretty impossible in these circumstances,, logistically... for a start. 
BUT furthermore it is not a reasonable approach,  in this matter.
Not in Law nor in fairness...
You may hold that separate testimonies from different witnesses over different times,  for similar acts,, PROVES the witnesses are liars... 

altho I fail to see how you could reach such an opinion. Surely like testimony is 'corroborative'..???

  It seems a very contrary, or what's the legal term?... 

'perverse'
  thats it.. a perverse conclusion you put here. 



.

No.. but that IS your take.. as you have made clear. ... 

that is NOT what this is about...  not at all.
Are you suggesting some sort of 'mob' mentality..?? 

I don't think so.

This is about credibility..  this is about clear thought.. not base assumptions. I would suggest the Jury WANTS to hear ALL the witness evidence...  and .. why do YOU think this is unfair,,?? after all... the JUDGE has required a unanimous verdict.  The JURY  .. MUST  take into account all available testimony...

and ... I can see NO REASON  WHY  these different witnesses  should be so isolated.. as you seem to suggest is  'right'.
You say it is he said she said??  But it is not.. it is  ' He said, she said ,she said, she said,  she said,  she said....... '

This must go fully to the Jury... else...????   WHY have a JURY..???  or  a  LAW SYSTEM  at all.?

I think you are incorrect...  that it is clearly an abrogation of Justice to do as you would prefer.

We aren't empowering the Jury., . if we follow your interp.

  ...  It is the Jury who must decide.  ,  and ALL RELEVANT TESTIMONY SHOULD BE HEARD. This is very important.!!!

..  It is the Jury who must decide.  ,  and ALL RELEVANT TESTIMONY SHOULD BE HEARD. This is very important.!!!
...Emma Peel


Emma,  I've not said any of that, at all.

Is it good enough for a Jury to convict on the basis that 'He did it Monday......' so ipso facto (by that fact alone) he did it Friday?
...Aussie


ipso facto... (on the face of it....)   NO.. but that is NOT the matter at issue here.

That is not a relevant question at all.. it merely furthers

your view that the case against Rolf is fraudulent or  shall I say perhaps  .. UNSOUND IN LAW.

.
I say again.. I do not agree...
These cases ARE SETTING PRECEDENT..,. you would have to agree.. surely.. ( dont call me Shirley  )
 
YOU are saying that several independent witnesses cannot be believed.
The world is crying out for Justice  WELL ..HALF THE WORLD  anyway...

Now is the time and these are the things THAT MATTER.

Emma wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 8:01pm: