Jimmy Savile - Sexual Predator

saville.jpg
 
Some odd views on here, multiple witness testimonies for the same behaviour against the same person should not be simply dismissed because in the past some people have lied for attention.

How exactly are abuse victims meant to speak up if as a society we assume they are liars instantly beforehand?.

It's not like rape/child abuse is really really are & all cases should be assumed to be false (the statistics are pretty grim).

I do agree on one part, the press should have no place until evidence is found (the press has no right to character assassinate anybody without real hard evidence/a conviction) dead or alive.

Remember the landlord if the Yates case who didn't do anything at all (but got made out to be a sexual deviant evil scum-bag by the press).
 
Meridian said:
Not even close to being the first. To point out the obvious: a huge majority of childhood abuse cases are only brought many years after the event. The abused victims are told (and effectively brainwashed into believing) that no-one would believe them. Much evidence (and some posters on this forum) suggests that this would be true. So the victims stay silent for years. But convictions have still happened in such cases. It up to what a jury believes, where the defendant is alive. When the suspect is dead, it's difficult to see what will happen.
Click to expand...

Just to expand on the above slightly it's worth pointing out that there often seems to be a confusion regarding what constitutes evidence or proof on here - evidence (in a legal sense) is almost anything* that can be advanced to establish a particular standpoint or refute one. This doesn't always mean that it is irrefutable, that it should be given unquestioned status or that it is the sole point on which a case may hinge but simply that this item/statement/whatever is something which can be used to support a contention. A judge may direct no (or limited) weight to be placed on the evidence depending on how they view the veracity of the claims or how the evidence was obtained but it doesn't mean that the evidence is not important to the overall case.

Part of the confusion is perhaps because in the English language we tend to use evidence and proof interchangeably with each other but also because the words themselves have a myriad of different meanings depending on the context.

As for what would happen - there would be little to no point in a criminal prosecution as the alleged perpetrator is now deceased but that wouldn't necessarily prevent a civil action to claim money from the estate if that was deemed necessary.

*Almost anything doesn't include hearsay usually, it can occasionally be allowed at the discretion of the judge where it goes to the character of the person normally but it's rare.
 
I watched the documentary investigation on ITV last night and have seen a number of the testimonies on the news. I think its clear that he is likely guilty of most of the accusations, but there are a number of issues I have with it.

Firstly, many of his peers and people he worked with who have been interviewed on the matter all seem to know what he got up to, like it was no big secret. They did nothing to report it, shame on them. One BBC Producer tried to justify it by saying that he was a Junior Producer at the time and overseeing the new show Top of the Pops. He feared reporting Jimmy who was a loved BBC talent would get him fired. Unless employment law is different now, I don't see that reporting a peadophile who works under you is a sackable offence.

The other issue I see is inregards to a lot of the women that were interviewed who have now come forward saying they were raped, or were underage. If as many of them were treated like this, again, why did nobody come forward at the time?

While I don't want to sound like I'm defending him and what he has done is a crime, there is the aspect that perhaps a number of these 15 year old girls were willing and its only now they have decided to have their say.

When I was that age, I remember friends who were girls who were involved with older men. One girl I knew was even dating a 32 year old. Of course at the time I never saw it for what it really was by law. While the onus is on the fact that what the man is doing is wrong, I think girls can't necessarily be absconded from blame. The one woman in the documentary even said that Jimmy had a glow around him in terms of fame and celebrity being the host of Top of the Pops and they were attracted to the fact that he would want to wine and dine people. So in a way, some of these girls may have been quite willing, which is perhaps why they never spoke out at the time, as they actually enjoyed his company.

One contributor to the documentary said it was all down to the era of 'free love' and that it would never happen again. I personally don't buy that. There are just as many young teen girls these days who will be involved with men who shower them with gifts and money, especially somebody with fame and power. I would think it likely goes on less with celebrities these days though because it would be far more likely that they would be caught.

Of course I can't say that this is the case for all these women and I do truly feel sorry for any of them that were raped and were unable to come out about it.
 
Last edited:
^ I was thinking about this too. Not only were bbc staff aware, the staff at duncroft school must have been too. There were a couple of victims abused there thst have come forward already.

Seems pretty obvious to me. Dodgy looking bloke spends private time with schoolgirls, several of them acuse him of touching them. Nothing is done? Wonder if the school was in receipt of any funding from savile? ;)
 
Nexus said:
I watched the documentary investigation on ITV last night and have seen a number of the testimonies on the news. I think its clear that he is likely guilty of most of the accusations, but there are a number of issues I have with it.

Firstly, many of his peers and people he worked with who have been interviewed on the matter all seem to know what he got up to, like it was no big secret. They did nothing to report it, shame on them. One BBC Producer tried to justify it by saying that he was a Junior Producer at the time and overseeing the new show Top of the Pops. He feared reporting Jimmy who was a loved BBC talent would get him fired. Unless employment law is different now, I don't see that reporting a peadophile who works under you is a sackable offence.

The other issue I see is inregards to a lot of the women that were interviewed who have now come forward saying they were raped, or were underage. If as many of them were treated like this, again, why did nobody come forward at the time?

While I don't want to sound like I'm defending him and what he has done is a crime, there is the aspect that perhaps a number of these 15 year old girls were willing and its only now they have decided to have their say.

When I was that age, I remember friends who were girls who were involved with older men. One girl I knew was even dating a 32 year old. Of course at the time I never saw it for what it really was by law. While the onus is on the fact that what the man is doing is wrong, I think girls can't necessarily be absconded from blame. The one woman in the documentary even said that Jimmy had a glow around him in terms of fame and celebrity being the host of Top of the Pops and they were attracted to the fact that he would want to wine and dine people. So in a way, some of these girls may have been quite willing, which is perhaps why they never spoke out at the time, as they actually enjoyed his company.

One contributor to the documentary said it was all down to the era of 'free love' and that it would never happen again. I personally don't buy that. There are just as many young teen girls these days who will be involved with men who shower them with gifts and money, especially somebody with fame and power. I would think it likely goes on less with celebrities these days though because it would be far more likely that they would be caught.

Of course I can't say that this is the case for all these women and I do truly feel sorry for any of them that were raped and were unable to come out about it.
Click to expand...

are you young?

it doesn't surprise me in the least that this was happening in the 70's, 80's and earlier - society was different - it wasn't right but it did happen.
 
Nexus said:
Of course I can't say that this is the case for all these women and I do truly feel sorry for any of them that were raped and were unable to come out about it.
Click to expand...

I've not watched the documentary but I'm guessing then that these women are saying that they were forcibly made to have sex with him?

My mum said that during the 70's while she was at school a lot of her friends were sleeping around with older men at a young age, apparently it was quite common in the 70s, my mum got with my dad while she was only 15 and he was in his 30s, it wasn't really frowned upon at the time and they stayed together for more than 20 years.
 
Last edited:
What was looked over or less frowned upon then is a serious crime now. Of course it's wrong, but you have to ask yourself why do people view subjects such as this so differently now.....? ;)
 
aardvark said:
are you young?

it doesn't surprise me in the least that this was happening in the 70's, 80's and earlier - society was different - it wasn't right but it did happen.
Click to expand...

I'm 30, still trying to figure out myself what that makes me. :confused::p

But yes, I can see how the world has changed in terms of it being easier for people to report such crimes and the support offered to such victims.


lowrider007 said:
I've not watched the documentary but I'm guessing then that these women are saying that they we're forcibly made to have sex with him?
Click to expand...

They all had their different stories. A number were eye witness accounts of having walked in on Jimmy kissing girls with his hand down their pants, when they were clearly young. Girls with first hand accounts said that he practised similar on them, but there was never the accusation made by them that they were necessarily being forced to. There was no claim I saw made that they tried to stop him and he then forced them.
 
When I was a kid I wrote a letter to Jim'll Fix it, asking if he'd take me back stage to meet Garry Glitter. Looking back im glad I didn't send it now.
 
Nexus said:
They all had their different stories. A number were eye witness accounts of having walked in on Jimmy kissing girls with his hand down their pants, when they were clearly young. Girls with first hand accounts said that he practised similar on them, but there was never the accusation made by them that they were necessarily being forced to. There was no claim I saw made that they tried to stop him and he then forced them.
Click to expand...

Well if that's the case then surely a lot of today's parents should be frowned upon and seen as paedophiles then no? I know loads of parents that had their children at 15/16 during the 70s.

I'm not saying it's right but it was very common.
 
Last edited:
sanaxe1 said:
When I was a kid I wrote a letter to Jim'll Fix it, asking if he'd take me back stage to meet Garry Glitter. Looking back im glad I didn't send it now.
Click to expand...

You would have had a lovely wizards sleeve after that encounter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom