I see that BBC presenter Ray Gosling has been talking about how he smothered his gay lover who was dying from Aids. The BBC is enthusiastic about supporting “mercy killings” and this story is simply an extension of this narrative. I do not doubt the pain Mr Gosling and his lover went through but in the final analysis, smothering another human to death is a crime and it is a disgrace that the BBC chooses to portray this in the most sympathetic manner possible. What is your view?
RAY GOSLING – BBC HERO
Bookmark the permalink.
<!–StartFragment–>
My view is that Mr Ray Gosling is a very brave and decent man and gave a moving and honest account of what had happened. I did not think that the BBC radio 4 interview was in anyway pro “Mery Killings”. Mr Gosling stated that he is not fighting a cause like Mr Terry Pratchett.
<!–EndFragment–>
“Ray Gosling must be arrested for murder”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2010/02/ray-gosling-must-be-arrested-for-murder.html
He seems to me to be quite proud of what he did. I think it was a horrible way for someone to die.
If I did that it would be murder. Is there a different law for Beeboids and gays ?
This was one of the more remarkable – and ghastly – interviews I’ve ever heard on Today (and that says something).
It wasn’t so much his erratic and arrogant style of delivery – which had a kind of Beeboid hubristic boastfulness about it – but rather the casualness luviness that was so offensive. When the presenter (the vile Montagu) described the dead man as “his lover”, Gosling corrected her:”Nah, he was just my bit on the side…”
This was a public confession of murder. I presume Beeboids are still subject to the law, but I realise maybe I am mistaken.
“Police to investigate on-air BBC confession by Ray Gosling that he killed lover”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7028682.ece
Gosling should have remained silent for the rest of his life. He would have had to live with what he had done alone. He sounds as if he wants absolution from us. He must face charges
From the BBC report…
“Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: “This case yet again demonstrates that this is a real and present problem, which can affect us all.
“Crucially, Ray Gosling’s loved one was terminally ill and clearly asked for help to die when he was suffering unbearably at the end of his life.”
Sarah Wooton simply accepts that an un-named man asked for help to die, with no evidence whatsoever!
Was she there?
The BBC were sitting on a murder confession, surely that is an offence.
The guidelines are vague about reporting crime. I don’t find anything about an obligation to report a crime, witnessed or confessed during an investigation. If the Police make a request under a PACE order it should be transferred to BBC lawyers.
Approval to be present at or record serious illegal activity will be given only if it is clearly in the public interest, even then we must avoid:
condoning, aiding or abetting criminal behaviour. encouraging or provoking behaviour which would not otherwise have occurred.directing the activity in any way.
These reporting guidelines might be vague, but the law is quite specific for all members of the public including the BBC.
You are under an obligation to (and commit an offence if you do not) report suspected terrorism and money-laundering offences. There is no technical obligation or compulsion under threat of sanction against you to report any other offences. You are, however, free to make a statement for the police to act upon.
Your interesting quote, including your ‘condoning’ highlight, has been phrased to apply if the event was occuring, not to a later confession. The whole quote is designed to stop a reporter saying “That’s a cool idea, let’s do it”, not, as with this murder, signalling tacit agreement after the fact.
I assume his arrest is imminent?
If not, why not?
Murder is is murder no matter what the age, sexual orientation or state of health of the victim and his killer.
I’m a strong supporter of assisted dying and would like to see laws and safeguards in place to allow it. Until that happens killing someone is still murder and needs to be treated as such.
It’s the BBC’s behaviour as much as anything else, that is of interest here.
EXTRACTS FROM BBC REPORT – (LINK TO FULL ARTICLE BELOW):
Pressure group Care Not Killing said it was “bizarre” the BBC had not told police of the admission when it was filmed in December.
The BBC said it was under no obligation to report to police ahead of broadcast but would co-operate with the inquiry.
A BBC spokesman said the organisation will co-operate fully with the investigation.
They said Mr Gosling’s “secret” was not known before he was commissioned to make the report on death and dying, adding: “The first the BBC knew of this incident was during filming for the programme that was broadcast on 15 Feb 2010.
“The BBC is under no legal obligation to refer the matter to the police in these circumstances.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/8517800.stm
Of course the BBC have history in not reporting possible crimes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3001102.ece
Exactly. Just like when they actually engage in a little illegal gun activity for a story, the people at the BBC don’t even think these are crimes when they are sympathetic to the issues involved. It seems clear that the actions of the producers of these shows were formed by their pre-conceived personal opinions of the issues they were covering. In each case they knew there was a problem, but decided they were above the law and didn’t need to get involved, because they were sympathetic to the causes.
I sent in the following comment:
Another blow to the BBC’s reputation. If ‘The BBC is under no legal obligation to refer the matter to the police in these circumstances’ under what circumstances it it obligated?
The Have Your Say team probably won’t let it through but I’ll keep you informed.
“Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.”
Criminal Law Act 1967
This applies where someone is making an active effort to prevent someone else from being brought to justice (Dublin and Harewood v R is quite a funand accessible example of this in action) and so isn’t applicable here.
The BBC would successfully argue that they are placing material in the public domain and therefore there has been no impeding of apprehension or prosecution.
Ray Gosling probably is a brave and decent man. I daresay he did what he did out of love. Nonetheless, he has publicly confessed to manslaughter/murder, and must therefore face trial and expect to be convicted.
If he is indeed the man he seems to be, he will accept his years in prison as a price worth paying for relieving the suffering of his friend.
I am not saying he was wrong. But he made his choice and now must accept the consequences.
Slight problem in that there’s no evidence – Gosling’s confession is not enough for a conviction, and he’s said he won’t confess to the police so I assume he wouldn’t plead guilty either, there’s no witnesses and no medical proof, they can arrest him, but I doubt this’ll even be picked up by the CPS, let alone result in a conviction – might as well be saying he killed a woman who was hit by a bus and cremated 20 years ago
Are we absolutely sure that Mossad wasn’t involved ?
Paul.
Nice one. You can be sure if the BBC scum thought there was any Jewish involvement, they would have reported it to the police !
Lol, there’s time yet!
I’ve been driving for most of the day and have heard the story through its various airings on BBC Radio. To me, Gosling came across as a sad self-publicist and, in the absence of anything more than generalities, I doubt very much whether there is any substance to his story.
Basically, he claimed that at an undefined time in the past, he smothered an unidentified ex lover, in an unidentified hospital, with the apparent connivance of an unnamed doctor.
In the absence of any further information, prosecution is impossible, although I might be inclined to pursue the angle of “Wasting Police Time”. The only reason he’s not being treated as a fantasist is because he’s an ex BBC insider.
Move along, nothing to see here.
I wonder if Ray Gosling is not just another ex presenter who is still addicted to fame. He did make a documentary in 2007 called OAP Ray Gosling.
Anyway, I don’t think people shouldn’t be prosecuted for ending the terrible suffering of their dying fellow man. However as assisted suicide is only available to those who can afford it.
How many of you have felt that putting the family pet to sleep was the most humane thing to do? I would hope most of you. Why not extend the humanity to people too. If that makes sense.
“I don’t think people shouldn’t be prosecuted for ending the terrible suffering of their dying fellow man.”
Well we only have his word for it – if this case if true a court should decide not the BBC.
“How many of you have felt that putting the family pet to sleep was the most humane thing to do? I would hope most of you.”
But if you put a pet to death yourself you would be in all kinds of trouble – you would take it to a vet, which is what a humane person would do.
“Why not extend the humanity to people too.”
And take the persons word for it? Letting people decide to put their loved ones out of an aledged misery is a slippery slope that we do not want to encourage. Who decides whos life is worthless?
If he was hetrosexual and a conservative, would the BBC be so sympathetic ?
If he was heterosexual and a conservative he would be working elsewhere.
Mostly don’t care but all that is left to interpret are the words of somebody who appeared a bit odd to me.
The BBC must love it – everything they adore in one story.
Come on, this is just the deluded egotistical rambling of an ancient BBC fart desperate for attention. I’m surprised that Biased BBC – of all places – would actually think something broadcast on the BBC had some truthful merit behind it.
The only thing missing from Gosling’s gay romance fantasy is his spurs jangling as he minced off down the corridor.
Evan Davis certainly believes that this kind of thing goes on all the time and that doctors not only routinely turn a blind eye to relatives killing their patients, but actively encourage and abet it. He presents this as a common public perception. That’s the biased perspective from which the BBC is reporting this story.
Fortunately, he had a doctor on who debunks this myth. Unfortunately, his skepticism was clear.
The Gosling interview was the self indulgent ramblings of a neurotic old man. He is a fantasist with a nasty imagination. If he did murder his bit on the side then bang him and let’s hear no more about him.