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.
Firstly this from Biased BBC:-
Ray Gosling – BBC Hero
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?
And now this from Cranmer:-
Ray Gosling must be arrested for murder
The BBC reports that veteran broadcaster Ray Gosling has confessed to the murder of another man in a hospital.
With no regret or remorse, the Nottingham-based film-maker said: “I killed someone once… He’d been my lover and he got Aids.”
It was done, he said, after doctors told him that there was ‘nothing further that could be done for him’.
He suggests that the doctors knew what he had done, but ‘nothing more was said’.
Well, it’s time to lift the lid. Either ‘mercy killing’ is legal or it isn’t. Either ‘mercy killing’ is murder or it isn’t.
Tags: News, Science & Medical
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:59 am
With no evidence that what Ray Gosling claims is true, it’s unlikely any action will be taken against him by the CPS.
Unless there is corroborating evidence, a confession alone doesn’t warrant charges, so this case is unlikely to provide any further insight into the troubling issue of “mercy killing.”
However I await Sir Terry Pratchett’s next move in his own campaign on this matter with interest, and some trepidation.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:48 am
I ask myself if the objections by Biased BBC and Cranmer on ethical or religious grounds?
I ask this because if purely on religious grounds it is surely a clear case of disobeying the Bible. End of story.
If on the other hand the objection were to be on secular moral grounds, then the answer is not so clear cut. If the crime was really committed out of love and compassion for the incurable and awful suffering of Ray Gosling’s companion, then I have to say that I feel some sympathy. But without knowing the exact circumstances perhaps none of us is equipped to judge.
What I find almost more disturbing is that Ray Gosling should then inform the World of this very private and harrowing event. What did he hope to achieve?
It’s an interesting conundrum that Sophie raises: Even if Mr Gosling were to make a formal statement to Police, I understand it will still be considered insufficient evidence to prosecute – People say some very strange things which are not true, but which for a variety of reasons they genuinely believe to be so.
So, Mr Gosling has potentially caused much anguish by making this revelation, and it has surely not achieved anything worthy. Very sad.
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I can imagine this confession causing huge additional distress to the bereaved, possibly for no reason. Ray Gosling didn’t name the man but his friends and family will have immediately known who he was talking about.
As Jim says, false confessions are a phenomena well known to the police and CPS. Some poor souls become regular visitors to their local police stations. In Ray Gosling’s case it may be that he wishes he had been party to a “mercy killing” and is re-writing history. Or he may be telling the truth. We’ve no way of knowing unless or until some other evidence emerges.
He was arrested and questioned, then released without charge, which is what I would expect. Only if the questioning had revealed some source of external evidence to support his confession would charges have been brought.