Barbara Hewson – ‘Operation Yewtree : defaming the dead?’

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/operation-yewtree-defaming-the-dead/14994

(excerpt)

Is it right that unproven, sometimes hysterical accusations can be made against the deceased? …

…By way of an example, consider the backlash following lurid accusations about Jimmy Savile in ITV’s heavily promoted Exposure documentary on 3 October 2012. By 8 October, his family had his headstone removed from his grave, for fear of vandalism. The hysteria generated by the media continued to escalate. Vandals targeted his holiday home in Scotland. That level of threat certainly sounds serious enough to engage a new Article 8 right, to protect the dead and their families.

Again, headlines like the Daily Express one that said ’ ‘Jimmy Savile was part of Satanic ring: Savile beat and raped a 12-year-old girl during a secret Satanic ritual in a hospital’ could not be more sensational, provocative and extreme.

That story continued: ‘Savile, who died aged 84 in October 2011, is now Britain’s worst sex offender after police revealed he preyed on at least 450 victims aged eight to 47.’

If Savile were alive, one can imagine the libel writ coming the very same day. That Express report omits to mention that Satanic ritual abuse is a myth, which was comprehensively debunked in the early 1990s. It also fails to explain how the police are arbiters of truth in historical sex claims. Savile was Catholic, and such vilification might even be said to evoke older Protestant stereotypes of Catholics as agents of the anti-Christ.

14 thoughts on “Barbara Hewson – ‘Operation Yewtree : defaming the dead?’”

  1. I noticed the comments section of the article is dominated by the Internet’s biggest feminist troll – Carl Barjer, so I couldn’t be bothered after reading one or 2 of its comments, where it even quotes ‘facts’ from The Daily Mail… (I have to refer to Carl Barjer as ‘it’, because I’m still not sure if it’s a man or woman). The section is also conspicuously devoid of comments by both Angry Harry and Steve Moxon.
    Whilst we don’t know what’s happened to AH, perhaps Steve Moxon’s also given up commenting, thanks to the trolling pandemic that Spiked Online articles, especially those articles that question anything related to feminism, appear to be infected with…

  2. the comments section of the article is dominated by the Internet’s biggest feminist troll – Carl Barjer

    I think he tries to have the last (troll) word to every comment made, making the comments section there pretty unreadable, especially without Angry Harry and Steve Moxon.

  3. @oscar: That case in Texas, and the British one about Savile, remind me of the Salem witch trial hysteria of the 17th century. Just as in those days all one had to do was point the finger and say, “I saw Goody Proctor dancing with the devil” or, I saw the Minister dancing with the devil” and they were as good as hung and roasted – even so, in our era all it takes is, “he slept with a child” (even if said child is 17) or “he is a pedophile” , and it is a done deal. But DONE.

    Please , please, please, if there are gods existing beyond the realms of good and evil, please come save us. Please.

  4. Oscar:
    That article and the recent attacks on free speech here should make it obvious to anybody the direction the US is heading. Recently I heard that the leading contenders for the 2016 elections (assuming we have them) are Hillary Clinton and Jeb ‘Pee-Wee’ Bush. We’ve literally been run by two families since 1989: even Obama has had Hillary over his shoulder. Either one of those two will be the swansong for our once-great Republic.

  5. @smkovalinsky

    …even so, in our era all it takes is, “he slept with a child” (even if said child is 17) or “he is a pedophile” , and it is a done deal. But DONE.

    You’re certainly not wrong at all. If you have a few hours to spare, you might find this site very interesting, it’s all about what you explain there and a lot more, i.e. it explains how “he is a pedophile” for merely thinking about a child in a sexual context, never mind actually “slept with a child” (and still, “it is a done deal”, such as the done deal to spend years being ass-raped in prison for these thought crimes).

    The webmaster of the site, would also tend to agree with your suggested solution to it all, as it’s probably our only hope: asking God to save us!

  6. Alan & Oscar:
    I couldn’t find a link to the story, but there was a similar case here in Washington State to the Texas one a few years ago. If I remember right, that case was dropped for lack of evidence. But they’ve changed a lot of the evidentiary rules since then—which proves that this is a deliberate plan on the femihags’ part to criminalize male sexuality.

  7. “Stuart Hall cleared of ‘raping’ young girls :”
    Yes, but they still ruined his reputation and what’s left of his life on the ‘lesser’ charge of indecent assault…

    The article also points out this convenient little ‘loop-hole’:

    The jury was told “no proceedings can be brought” in relation to unlawful sex with a girl aged under 16 “after 12 months had expired from the date”.
    But the 12-month time limit did not apply when the charges were rape or indecent assault, jurors heard.
    The judge, Mr Justice Turner, said “therefore it is permissible” for the prosecution to bring the charges against Hall.
    The Sexual Offences Act 1956 was amended in 2003.

    This is how feminists and their manipulated mangina pals in governments are always ‘shifting the goalposts’. Whenever laws like these are amended, they’re barely even announced: we might be lucky if they publish a couple of paragraphs totaling less than 200 words, about the changes on about page 11 of the Daily Fail, or similar and if we’re lucky enough to have even found the story.

    This isn’t only a classic example of how Legislative creep can ensnare any unsuspecting (thus totally INNOCENT) man, it also demonstrates that most of us are not even sure what the laws are that govern everyone’s private sex lives anymore. (Not that there needs to be anything more than the age of consent anyway) and if the sexual liaisons were fully consensual, the law should not even become involved; as was the law’s perspective back in the 1960’s and 70’s and earlier, when Hall’s (along with numerous others) so-called ‘offences’ were perpetrated…

  8. Good point Alan.

    Btw, I’m shortly going away for a couple of weeks and will be moderating comments on my phone for most of the time – so if readers can take extra care with their HTML etc please, as it’s difficult for me to access the spam folder.

  9. excuse my legal ignorance but what does this actually mean? – The jury was told “no proceedings can be brought” in relation to unlawful sex with a girl aged under 16 “after 12 months had expired from the date”.

  10. @Jo
    If you read ALL of the quoted text (above) you’ll also read: “But the 12-month time limit did not apply when the charges were rape or “indecent assault”, jurors heard.”
    What don’t you understand? The meaning of that sentence alone should answer your question, since it was “indecent assault” he was successfully convicted of.

    Yes indeed, Hall was cleared of the lesser charge of “unlawful sex with a girl under 16” for the reason you mentioned – more than 12 months had elapsed since the date that ‘offence’ was allegedly perpetrated…
    They did not have enough evidence, or at least weren’t totally convinced (evidence isn’t even needed when it comes to convicting MEN of accusations women or girls make against them), to successfully convict him of ‘rape’ but were sufficiently so convinced that he’d enacted “four counts of Indecent Assault” (on the girl accuser).
    He was already sentenced (and has thus far served about half of it), to 30 months of sodomy (prison) for some earlier charges, but will probably have that sentence extended to a few YEARS, next Friday (23rd May) based on that successful (Indecent assault) conviction.

    The text isn’t legal jargon that you think you are somewhat ignorant of, just plain English…
    🙂

Comments are closed.