ChatterBank2 mins ago
Jimmy Saville
Think of it this way...Jimmy Saville.
Whilst he was alive, he raised about £40m for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. He was a hero. A national treasure. He earned an O.B.E.
Then he was knighted.
If in the 1970s, Stoke Mandeville decided to erect a statue in honour of him, knowing what we now know - isn’t it understandable that people would want it removed?
Wouldn’t the children of those that Saville abused not want to see a public monument to him?
Whilst he was alive, he raised about £40m for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. He was a hero. A national treasure. He earned an O.B.E.
Then he was knighted.
If in the 1970s, Stoke Mandeville decided to erect a statue in honour of him, knowing what we now know - isn’t it understandable that people would want it removed?
Wouldn’t the children of those that Saville abused not want to see a public monument to him?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Morality cannot be defined purely by what is and isn't legal.//
No, but it's also affected by the society of the time. In those times the higher classes had slaves, it was common practice and not thought of as immoral. In our more enlightened times, this is now considered barbaric, but Guy or Colston can't be judged with modern morals. If they were alive today, they wouldn't have done those things. Savile was alive in modern times. The fact Basingstoke had a statue of Savile is beyond belief.
No, but it's also affected by the society of the time. In those times the higher classes had slaves, it was common practice and not thought of as immoral. In our more enlightened times, this is now considered barbaric, but Guy or Colston can't be judged with modern morals. If they were alive today, they wouldn't have done those things. Savile was alive in modern times. The fact Basingstoke had a statue of Savile is beyond belief.
Perhaps, but the problem then is that you're defining the morality of the time according to the perpetrators rather than the victims. It's rare indeed for a criminal to see themselves as guilty. So the question remains: why is the opinion of the slaves about what was happening to them regarded as of less worth than the slavers in determining what was moral or not?
Jimmy Savile's case is then comparable because, let's also be honest here, many of his colleagues clearly tolerated what was going on. They should not have.
Actually, one of the other problems is that I'm having trouble finding a legal offence of child sexual abuse that existed in the UK before 2003. So in that case the other problem with insisting that there's a difference is that, legally, there may not have been.
Jimmy Savile's case is then comparable because, let's also be honest here, many of his colleagues clearly tolerated what was going on. They should not have.
Actually, one of the other problems is that I'm having trouble finding a legal offence of child sexual abuse that existed in the UK before 2003. So in that case the other problem with insisting that there's a difference is that, legally, there may not have been.
//the problem then is that you're defining the morality of the time according to the perpetrators rather than the victims. It's rare indeed for a criminal to see themselves as guilty. //
They didn't see themselves as guilty because they weren't. No laws were broken. This really is the daftest argument. You may as well call for all the statues of Tudor monarchs to be destroyed. Depending on the politics and, often, the flavour of religion on the day, they were pretty good at separating heads from shoulders and burning people at the stake. The whole thing is potty!
They didn't see themselves as guilty because they weren't. No laws were broken. This really is the daftest argument. You may as well call for all the statues of Tudor monarchs to be destroyed. Depending on the politics and, often, the flavour of religion on the day, they were pretty good at separating heads from shoulders and burning people at the stake. The whole thing is potty!
If you'd read my post in the other thread you'd have seen me discuss this. I pointed, for example, to your posts about Alan Turing. In those cases, laws *were* broken, but, and I quote, "the law was wrong". If the law can find a person guilty and be wrong, why then cannot the law find a person innocent but also be wrong in doing so.
Jimmy Saville wasn't a criminal.
He was never convicted of a crime, so he wasn't a criminal.
The point I'm making is that he legacy in 2020 whether right or wrong.. is that of a paedophile.
Whatever else he was, that perception remains.
He may be legally innocent, in the same way that Colson may be legally innocent at the time, but looking back from 2020, we wouldn't want to see statues of Saville, and that's the same as what the protesters are arguing.
He was never convicted of a crime, so he wasn't a criminal.
The point I'm making is that he legacy in 2020 whether right or wrong.. is that of a paedophile.
Whatever else he was, that perception remains.
He may be legally innocent, in the same way that Colson may be legally innocent at the time, but looking back from 2020, we wouldn't want to see statues of Saville, and that's the same as what the protesters are arguing.
I don't, but that's what the search function is for isn't it?
If the law can be wrong to deem something a crime, it can be wrong to deem something *not* a crime. Treating slavery as not a crime was wrong. Therefore its non-criminal nature shouldn't be used as a defence of those who were guilty of it.
If the law can be wrong to deem something a crime, it can be wrong to deem something *not* a crime. Treating slavery as not a crime was wrong. Therefore its non-criminal nature shouldn't be used as a defence of those who were guilty of it.
naomi24
Just to confirm - do you think that because Jimmy Saville was a criminal (even though he was never convicted of a crime) it was right that his plaque was removed back in 2012:
https:/
I just need to get your position right in my head.
Just to confirm - do you think that because Jimmy Saville was a criminal (even though he was never convicted of a crime) it was right that his plaque was removed back in 2012:
https:/
I just need to get your position right in my head.
//looking back from 2020, we wouldn't want to see statues of Saville, and that's the same as what the protesters are arguing. //
No, SP, it isn't what the protestors are arguing. Jimmy Savile knew that what he was doing was wrong and he deliberately indulged in criminal activity. That's the difference. The people you're talking about were men of their time. It was a different age - and nothing you or anyone does can turn the clock back or erase the past. History happened. We should accept that.
No, SP, it isn't what the protestors are arguing. Jimmy Savile knew that what he was doing was wrong and he deliberately indulged in criminal activity. That's the difference. The people you're talking about were men of their time. It was a different age - and nothing you or anyone does can turn the clock back or erase the past. History happened. We should accept that.
Personally I have never seen the point of statues.
Why dont we tear them ALL down (includes Mandella and Ghandi etc) and plonk them all in Museums. Statues just seem to cause problems, and this is not a new thing at all look at the fourth plinth problems.
To answer your point SP, no I dont thing a statue of Saville would be appropriate. BUT, that is my opinion and I would go with the majority.
Why dont we tear them ALL down (includes Mandella and Ghandi etc) and plonk them all in Museums. Statues just seem to cause problems, and this is not a new thing at all look at the fourth plinth problems.
To answer your point SP, no I dont thing a statue of Saville would be appropriate. BUT, that is my opinion and I would go with the majority.
naomi24
I can see where you're coming from, but your conclusion still doesn't quite fit.
Jimmy Saville was not a criminal.
He was never convicted of a crime.
Therefore those who defaced and eventually removed his plaque did so on the basis on public opinion at the time.
In the same way that Saville did good, he also did evil.
No-one whose ever sung the British national anthem can deny that slavery is evil.
I can see where you're coming from, but your conclusion still doesn't quite fit.
Jimmy Saville was not a criminal.
He was never convicted of a crime.
Therefore those who defaced and eventually removed his plaque did so on the basis on public opinion at the time.
In the same way that Saville did good, he also did evil.
No-one whose ever sung the British national anthem can deny that slavery is evil.
Jim, //Therefore its non-criminal nature shouldn't be used as a defence of those who were guilty of it.//
That really is an absolute nonsense! How can anyone possibly be deemed guilty of a committing a crime for doing something that isn’t illegal? For goodness sake keep it rational at least. Sheesh!
That really is an absolute nonsense! How can anyone possibly be deemed guilty of a committing a crime for doing something that isn’t illegal? For goodness sake keep it rational at least. Sheesh!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works7 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Rte Guide Christmas Bumper Quiz
Crosswords9 mins ago
