Jimmy Savile

[pap]

Certainly makes "now then, now then" sound a bit more sinister.

[buctootim]

Surely if someone can be pardoned posthumously, they can be exposed?

 

Just out of interest, has anyone seen evidence that the transcript is a spoof and/or that Paul Merton has distanced himself from it?

 

Do you think he would complete the show if it were even slightly real?

[hypochondriac]

I suppose I'm biased because I had a teacher that was subject to disgusting allegations that later proved to be unfounded, but I still don't understand why these people waited until he was dead before coming forward with allegations thirty years later. I'm not sure how you could prove that anyway.

[Colinjb]

Do you think he would complete the show if it were even slightly real?

 

First broadcast in May 1999.

 

As I understand it the 'fake' transcript first came to light in 2000.

[buctootim]

I suppose I'm biased because I had a teacher that was subject to disgusting allegations that later proved to be unfounded, but I still don't understand why these people waited until he was dead before coming forward with allegations thirty years later. I'm not sure how you could prove that anyway.

 

Quite. Happened to Dave Jones too. Given the sad state of our press there are powerful £ shaped reasons for making stuff up about public figures, especially dead ones.

[hypochondriac]

Quite. Happened to Dave Jones too. Given the sad state of our press there are powerful £ shaped reasons for making stuff up about public figures, especially dead ones.

 

Exactly. What good is this going to do even if it is the truth? It won't change anything. The man is dead so what is the point?

[dingbattigger]

Maybe I'm just a cynical old fart but if this is true why wait so long? Or does it have something to do with money ( press payments for example?) now he's dead and can't challenge anybody's version of events?

[egg]

Why the support for someone who has apparently abused kids? Dead or not, a paedophile is a paedophile.

[dingbattigger]

Why the support for someone who has apparently abused kids? Dead or not, a paedophile is a paedophile.

 

 

Proof?

[egg]

Proof?

 

Plenty of evidence coming out. I don't know the truth but I'm stunned that he is being given the benefit of the doubt rather than "victims".

[hypochondriac]

Plenty of evidence coming out. I don't know the truth but I'm stunned that he is being given the benefit of the doubt rather than "victims".

 

Where is this evidence? An old teacher of mine had three people come out to say he had molested them in the eighties and they were at the school at different times (over an 8 year period.) It destroyed his life and he was entirely innocent. There are scum out there who make untrue allegations, particularly now Sir Jimmy is gone and can't disprove all of this.

[Colinjb]

Plenty of evidence coming out. I don't know the truth but I'm stunned that he is being given the benefit of the doubt rather than "victims".

 

Innocent until proven guilty.

[egg]

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

So jacko, oj, grobelaar et al were all innocent because they weren't found guilty?

[egg]

Where is this evidence? An old teacher of mine had three people come out to say he had molested them in the eighties and they were at the school at different times (over an 8 year period.) It destroyed his life and he was entirely innocent. There are scum out there who make untrue allegations, particularly now Sir Jimmy is gone and can't disprove all of this.

 

JD?

[Colinjb]

So jacko, oj, grobelaar et al were all innocent because they weren't found guilty?

 

It is the basis of our justice system.

 

Perfect or not it's what we have, don't get me wrong I do not believe in smoke without fire.... and there is an awful lot of smoke here, but this will only ever be hear'say. So many people would stand to lose so much if the full details are true... they would never admit it all.

[hypochondriac]

JD?

 

Correct

[hypochondriac]

It is the basis of our justice system.

 

Perfect or not it's what we have, don't get me wrong I do not believe in smoke without fire.... and there is an awful lot of smoke here, but this will only ever be hear'say. So many people would stand to lose so much if the full details are true... they would never admit it all.

 

A disgusting phrase that ruins people's lives.

[Colinjb]

A disgusting phrase that ruins people's lives.

 

And like Dave Jones, if they have nothing to hide then the truth will out. But yes it can leave people vulnerable to allegations, lives can be ruined one way or another.

 

If there are allegations though they must be investigated... Which is why the timing of the Saville allegations are suspicious. But my goodness, there is a lot coming out of the woodwork.

[egg]

A disgusting phrase that ruins people's lives.

 

Abused children are given a life sentence. Many abusers who have done appalling things to children avoid conviction.

[MOSaint]

If he did do something, which without a fair trial and proper investigation by police will never be proven either way, it will be a shame that he will never have to answer for his actions, however if it transpires that people were aware of allegations and did not investigate, then why not?

 

Here's an OK article that tries to explain how paedophile can often get away with it for so long even after the finger is pointed at them.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/09/24/120924crat_atlarge_gladwell

[saint lard]

Proof?

 

Once went to Jimmy Saviles for a pizza, & his back room was filled with dozens of Tamagotchis. Should have known. Should have ****ing known.

[Colinjb]

Children are abused in the world....so all accusations of all subjects against all people must have some truth?

 

No, and in cases where false accusations that could further damage lives are made there should be punishment. Did any punishment find it's way to Dave Jone's accuser?

 

But where there are accusations they must be investigated, if there is a risk of any innocent victims being left to suffer it must be removed. No-one should be left to suffer from abuse, they deserve justice. The minority that seek to abuse the system should not be allowed to corrupt it... they should suffer for their crime as well.

[hypochondriac]

Abused children are given a life sentence. Many abusers who have done appalling things to children avoid conviction.

 

Right so I'm going to go and accuse someone then. No smoke without fire he must be guilty because I said so.

[hypochondriac]

Abused children are given a life sentence. Many abusers who have done appalling things to children avoid conviction.

 

Also think you need to make a clear distinction between those who are guilty and those who are accused of something. As someone else said it's innocent until proven guilty I am afraid and even if you suspect someone and they are not convicted then should we be treating them as if they are guilty without any proof?

[hypochondriac]

No, and in cases where false accusations that could further damage lives are made there should be punishment. Did any punishment find it's way to Dave Jone's accuser?

 

But where there are accusations they must be investigated, if there is a risk of any innocent victims being left to suffer it must be removed. No-one should be left to suffer from abuse, they deserve justice. The minority that seek to abuse the system should not be allowed to corrupt it... they should suffer for their crime as well.

 

I agree but egg said:

 

Why the support for someone who has apparently abused kids? Dead or not, a paedophile is a paedophile.

 

 

 

Which is just totally wrong.

[Colinjb]

I agree but egg said:

 

 

Yes, a gross assumption. And why these things need to be approached calmly. The amount of 'smoke' here certainly merits investigation though.

[egg]

What the hell has that got to do with anything?

 

Children are abused in the world....so all accusations of all subjects against all people must have some truth?

 

Just the media tactic of 'throw in an emotive subject and hope no-one notices the absence of logic'. To be fair, most people don't often notice.

 

Everything. Who says every allegation must be based on truth? Some are false, but many cases where there is guilt do not result on conviction. Only the naive would think differently.

[hypochondriac]

Yes, a gross assumption. And why these things need to be approached calmly. The amount of 'smoke' here certainly merits investigation though.

 

All allegations of this nature should be investigated, I'm not sure that is ever up for debate. I'm still not sure what it will achieve though, I mean now he is dead they aren't going to find out the truth anyone short of video evidence or something like that. It will be just their statements of what happened.

[hypochondriac]

Everything. Who says every allegation must be based on truth? Some are false, but many cases where there is guilt do not result on conviction. Only the naive would think differently.

 

Again though, how do we determine who is guilty if they are not convicted? It is impossible unless you witnessed it yourself.

[egg]

I agree but egg said:

 

 

 

Which is just totally wrong.

 

What, so a paedophile once dead ceases to be a paedophile? Do murderers suddenly stop being murderers when they die too? Ridiculous thing to say.

[Colinjb]

What, so a paedophile once dead ceases to be a paedophile? Do murderers suddenly stop being murderers when they die too? Ridiculous thing to say.

 

Of course not. But labelling someone as a paedophile without explicit evidence is equally ridiculous.

 

The tragedy here is that there will be victims here (the abused/savilles family) either way... and this shall never be proven as he is dead.

[hypochondriac]

What, so a paedophile once dead ceases to be a paedophile? Do murderers suddenly stop being murderers when they die too? Ridiculous thing to say.

 

It would be if that is what I had said. Quite obviously, questioning the 'support' for someone who has 'apparently' abused kids is wrong, as is suggesting that 'plenty of evidence is coming out' when in fact no evidence has actually been presented anywhere.

[egg]

Again though, how do we determine who is guilty if they are not convicted? It is impossible unless you witnessed it yourself.

 

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I respect the criminal justice but there is a world of difference between being found not guilty in a court and actually having committed the crime. I ran a successful criminal defence practice for years and the cast majority of my clients who avoided conviction were in fact guilty of the crime.

 

In this case people have come forward saying that awful things have been done to them. I find it sad that people jump to the conclusion that these people must be fantasists and that sir Jim must have been an angel.

[hypochondriac]

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I respect the criminal justice but there is a world of difference between being found not guilty in a court and actually having committed the crime. I ran a successful criminal defence practice for years and the cast majority of my clients who avoided conviction were in fact guilty of the crime.

 

In this case people have come forward saying that awful things have been done to them. I find it sad that people jump to the conclusion that these people must be fantasists and that sir Jim must have been an angel.

 

Nope, no one has jumped to that conclusion. I find it sad that people like you immediately jump to the conclusion that he is guilty.

[egg]

Of course not. But labelling someone as a paedophile without explicit evidence is equally ridiculous.

 

The tragedy here is that there will be victims here (the abused/savilles family) either way... and this shall never be proven as he is dead.

 

I haven't labelled anyone a paedophile. I also haven't labelled him innocent which many seemingly have. If that's the general thought process it's no wonder abuse gets brushed under the carpet.

[hypochondriac]

I haven't labelled anyone a paedophile. I also haven't labelled him innocent which many seemingly have. If that's the general thought process it's no wonder abuse gets brushed under the carpet.

 

Who? Many said innocent until proven guilty. If you want to change that then probably best to go and live in China or somewhere similar.

[egg]

Nope, no one has jumped to that conclusion. I find it sad that people like you immediately jump to the conclusion that he is guilty.

 

Er, where did I say that. I've offered no opinion on his guilt, just an observation that people seem willing to give sir jim the benefit of the doubt.

[hypochondriac]

Er, where did I say that. I've offered no opinion on his guilt, just an observation that people seem willing to give sir jim the benefit of the doubt.

 

Erm you said:

 

Why the support for someone who has apparently abused kids?

 

of course people are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, we live in a society that says that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

[egg]

Hypo,I avoid debate with you due to your deliberately misquoting and/or inability to read all the words. If you read what you've quoted you'll see the word "apparently". Hardly an expression of sir jim being guilty.

[Dig Dig]

The guy is guilty as sin

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Certainly makes "now then, now then" sound a bit more sinister.

 

As it happens.

[MOSaint]

Notice Esther Rantzen crawling out of the woodwork to claim she'd always heard rumours about Savile's love of young girls and how she thinks he was guilty. Obviously she didn't bother to tell anyone or bring it up before now, must have been too busy setting up Childline.

[hypochondriac]

Hypo,I avoid debate with you due to your deliberately misquoting and/or inability to read all the words. If you read what you've quoted you'll see the word "apparently". Hardly an expression of sir jim being guilty.

 

No one has said Jimmy is innocent. Plenty of people have given him the benefit of the doubt until such time as he has been proven guilty. That is the sensible thing to do.

[scotty]

No one has said Jimmy is innocent. Plenty of people have given him the benefit of the doubt until such time as he has been proven guilty. That is the sensible thing to do.

 

Fair comment. The cases surfacing now should be thoroughly investigated, and if the accusations are shown to be true then the "well he's dead anyway and cannot defend himself"

line should be dismissed out of hand. Its irrelevant. He either abused these children or he didn't. If he did, he should be vilified for it, if he didn't we should be investigating the source of the rumours.

[egg]

No one has said Jimmy is innocent. Plenty of people have given him the benefit of the doubt until such time as he has been proven guilty. That is the sensible thing to do.

 

Some have but I take your point. The points though are that he will never be tried now he's dead, and that in any event a not guilty verdict in a criminal court does not equate to innocence. People misunderstand the second point, e.g. John Terry. We can't assume he ain't guilty as he hasn't, and can't be, convicted.

[hypochondriac]

Fair comment. The cases surfacing now should be thoroughly investigated, and if the accusations are shown to be true then the "well he's dead anyway and cannot defend himself"

line should be dismissed out of hand. Its irrelevant. He either abused these children or he didn't. If he did, he should be vilified for it, if he didn't we should be investigating the source of the rumours.

 

Not sure how exactly they can prove it though?

[hypochondriac]

Some have but I take your point. The points though are that he will never be tried now he's dead, and that in any event a not guilty verdict in a criminal court does not equate to innocence. People misunderstand the second point, e.g. John Terry. We can't assume he ain't guilty as he hasn't, and can't be, convicted.

 

Who? How else can we tell if someone is guilty or not than through the courts? It isn't perfect but if there is no trial and someone is not found guilty of a crime then there is no other way of saying if they have done anything whether they are innocent or not.

[hutch]

The amount of 'smoke' here certainly merits investigation though.

Absolutely, and something as important as this can't be left to the police or the judicial system. This needs the investigative big guns from the media.

[trousers]

Has there been any precidences (spelling?) for investigating alleged crimes posthumously? High profile cases in particular? None spring to mind but I'm guessing there must be some examples (probably war crimes being an obvious example?)

 

Reason for pondering this is if Savile was to be investigated posthumously then does this open the floodgates for investigating other historical allegations and, if it does, how far back in time do you go?

 

Just thinking out loud (for a change)

[hypochondriac]

Absolutely, and something as important as this can't be left to the police or the judicial system. This needs the investigative big guns from the media.

 

We should dig up the corpse and posthumously hang him ASAP.