Privacy lawyer defames Savile whilst telling others not to defame

You couldn’t make it up, an apparent anti-speech activist masquerading as a “privacy” lawyer has said that the allegations against Savile are true, whilst telling others not to name “politicians as suspected paedophiles”:

Hugh Tomlinson QC, a leading privacy lawyer, said: “The first point to make is that for many years there have been rumours about all kinds of individuals. Some of those will turn out to be false, and some to be true. Lord McAlpine is a very good example of the first and Jimmy Savile is a very good example of the second. But for people to report rumours in the way that some people apparently are doing online is extremely dangerous from a legal point of view.

“First of all it could prejudice any prosecutions. Secondly, it could expose them to defamation proceedings. If people are naming politicians as suspected paedophiles, it seems the McAlpine lessons have not been learned.”

As we know from blogs such as Rabbitaway, Jim Cannot Fix This and Anna Raccoon Savile was innocent of most allegations. Now I may be wrong about Hugh Tomlinson, he may just be an idiot but I can’t help feel that there is some sort of sinister attempt by him to try and keep paedohysteria alive by protecting politicians from spurious paedophilia allegations whilst carrying on “business as usual” of locking up tens of thousands of working and middle class men on spurious claims of “paedophilia”.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Privacy lawyer defames Savile whilst telling others not to defame

  1. Alan Vaughn says:

    Some of those will turn out to be false, and some to be true. Lord McAlpine is a very good example of the first and Jimmy Savile is a very good example of the second.

    Indeed especially since the man accused in the second rumour is dead and cannot tender even a single word to rebut any allegations made or defend himself. Yet this is NOT defamation according to Mr Tomlinson? And he’s really a QC? Hmmm… I just wonder what kind of a judiciary he serves?
    Oh yes, of course: the British justice system: governed by the fair and just and unbiased British Gynocracy…

    • holocaust21 says:

      Well I think technically he’s right. You can’t defame the dead in British law! But of course he’s relying on the fact that the public don’t know that the law is fucked up so he can maintain a lie. It’s the same as when feminists claim a man is a rapist when actually all he did is break some drunk sex/age of consent law.

  2. Alan Vaughn says:

    Yes It’s true you cannot defame the dead and would conjecture the logic of it being that a dead person does not see, hear, smell, taste, or feel anything, therefore cannot be ‘offended’ by any rumour, whether it is true or false?
    Yet surely, his (still living) family would be highly offended, thus suffer from such defamation (as would the families of anyone living, being wrongly, or falsely accused and consequently defamed), so obviously the law doesn’t care about the suffering of those truly innocent victims of such defamation…

    To my way of thinking, gossip and defamation of the dead should perhaps be considered by legislators in a similar way to the laws covering suicide.
    Many refer to suicide as ‘the easy way out’. And it probably is indeed for the person who feels or even knows his / her situation is impossible to live with and death would immediately relive all of their problems.
    Suicide is the only ‘crime’ that one cannot be punished for. You cannot punish a dead person, however you CAN punish the (still living) close family members and loved ones that are left to attend his/her funeral. The difference being is that the suicide victim is the one that punishes those closest to him / her that are left behind, NOT the law.
    The reason suicide is illegal (apart from the fact that murder is illegal even if the victim is oneself), is more to protect the families, loved ones and friends, the deceased leaves behind, from the devastating effects of severe emotional trauma (through grief and other debilitating emotions such as GUILT) they are left to endure, often for many years – where in many cases their happiness is (needlessly) ruined for their entire lives…

    My point is that suicide victims families are considered and given priority by the law, why shouldn’t they be afforded the same or even greater consideration when it comes to blatant defamation of a deceased loved one, i.e. Jimmy Savile’s family?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s