^ I and a few others also theorized this could have been the intention in the last thread. The story the family told didn't really add up, MJ's family also wanted him buried in concrete for this reason.
The SY guy on BBC news also said, that it's not likely other's connected from the past could be charged about what they knew, i'm presuming this depends on who exactly we're talking about and how much power they had, and obviously if they are still alive. That (again they mention it) we have to remember this was a very different ''culture'' back then, i would hope he doesn't mean that excuses anybody of criminal activity. That there is no investigation at this time, just a support group for more people to come forward and report information until they decide on what to do next, i would hope they are going to do something next very soon. Don't know, he just didn't fill me with confidence is all.
Quote:Originally Posted by tally
As I've said before in child abuse cases the child should always be believed. In counselling and teaching ( and the medical profession I think) the moment an accusation of assault on a minor is known you are legally required to inform the Authorities. ( That's why, because the onus is different from the norm of innocent until proven guilty, I strongly believe in Anonymity for both victim and accused).
by Dan Fortesque How many other crimes are the accused hidden by anonymity? People are named because it might bring other victims forward, particularly with regards to sex-related crimes which are notoriously difficult to prove. Also, it's well known that child abusers, more often than not, abuse more than one child and so naming them and bringing other victims forward probably stops the abuser earlier than what it might have done if they'd remained anonymous. If only Savile had been arrested and named earlier then all these alleged victims would probably have come forward back then.
There's no way I can do a direct quote from the previous Part, but as this post was in response to my post, I've pasted both to keep it in some sort of context.
You ask how many other crimes are the accused protected by anonymity? Quite a few footballers if the rumours of Super Injunctions are true, but that isn't the point. That's misuse of the legal system.
I'd ask how many accusers are regarded as guilty until proven innocent? If Savile had been arrested then maybe the many coming forward now would have secured the truth and innocent children would have been spared, which would have been the best possible outcome, of course. But, given the cover up we have seen up to now, what if he'd yet again got away with it? There would be zero kids ready to put themselves through that ordeal. Children have a unique knack of blaming themselves for things that happen, which is why it's so important we believe them if they ever say they have been treated innappropriately.
But that wasn't the reason for my strong stance on anonymity in rape trials. It's because that there have been a fair few false accusations, though not by children. And while the alleged "victim" is protected by her anonymity, the innocent man is splashed over the local media or in high profile cases- the national press and TV.
No matter what happens when the accuser is proved to have lied, that man's life can be ruined. His reputation shattered as "there's no smoke without fire". I've seen it happen to someone and would never wish it on anyone. Right up until the "Exposure" programme, watched by under 2 million, plenty on here (though not this thread) had been shouting from the rooftops that these women had waited all this time and until he was dead, so they could have their 15 minutes of fame, a large wad of cash!! ( though where that myth comes from I dont know, investigative articles rarely pay their sources) and trust them to smear a man who couldn't answer back. What good could it possibly do?
Anyone with a smattering of understanding about the long time effects of molestation knows that being believed, being heard and seeing justice being done, albeit posthumously, is the best and possibly the only way they are going to begin healing or accepting and moving on....I would use that American term "closure" as it really does sum it up neatly.
Instead we had page after page of smearing the victims, especially those who had waived their anonymity, and calling them every name under the sun. Not so much now,huh?
Now imagine if it was the man who had been falsely accused of rape. Why shouldn't he be protected by the same anonymity? Why should his health, marriage, job etc be jeopardised because there are a small, no tiny, amount of women who will cry "Rape" for reasons of their own. Dont they deserve justice too? It's such an emotive crime that mud sticks. It's not like petty thieving or conning someone. I've known personally of one man who lost everything even though his accuser admitted she was making it up before it even got to trial. Similarly there are far too many cases on record where men have unjustly been targeted, hung drawn and quartered by the Public, only to be innocent all along.
To turn the prevailing attitude on it's head, if one man's life isn't ruined by false charges because he has anonymity, then that is a price worth paying.
Anyone found guilty will be named straight after the verdict anyway.
There is no way this thing is representative only of the BBC, its disgusting web is much bigger than that.
I so agree, which is why it's time to stop bashing the Beeb and spread the net wider, bringing on something with the powers that The Leverson Committee have. I rather think that, thankfully, this is the time when it wont get swept under the carpet. Hopefully no repeat of things like the Jersey Homes cover up or the Hillsborough travesty. An independent inquiry,with powers of supoena is needed.
Sadly, you'll never stamp out child abuse or any sort of abuse for that matter, but if the abuser knows his chances of it being whitewashed are a hell of a lot less than they were pre the Savile revelations being accepted then that's a huge leap forward.
Problem with the JS situation is a)he's dead and b) anyone with a passing grievance or who brushed against him will now claim they were victims.
Not a popular opinion I know but how much of the claims are true in their nature?
Time/memory/context all play a part. Sure he probably got off with teenage girls but rape?! Colour me skeptical.
Good grief - he had such a sick and warped mentality. He went to absolute extremes to show how concerned he was with the protection and safety of children. Good old Uncle Jim. Supporting the welfare of a nation of children. How could anyone possibly suspect?
There's also a BBC handbook issued in 1977 for child minders entitled "Other People's Children". Guess who is on the front cover?
Saville says he spent '11 consecutive Christmases with the Thatchers'. WTF??
Sir Jimmy Savile told Esquire magazine: "I am the eminence grise: the grey, shadowy figure in the background. The thing about me is I get things done and I work under cover."
Savile says he spent "11 consecutive Christmases ... with the Thatchers."
Speaking of former Prime Minister Thatcher, Savile told Esquire: "I knew the real woman and the real woman was something else. The times I spent up there (Chequers) - Denis, me and her, shoes off in front of the fire."
Did you see my post about how the journalist who investigated the case Meirion Jones for Newsnight is the nephew of the Headmistress. It was because his own family had suspicions about Savile when they visited Duncroft that made him encourage the Newsnight team to do the investigation. It would be interesting to know if he had speaken to his aunt about it. The problem is life in those homes must have been so dreary and depressing with problems with funding etc., you can see how it might far too easy for a celebrity offering gifts, an opportunity to mix with famous people, and charitable income to get a hold on the staff.
You can:eek:. It's just that I feel a bit uncomfortable about questioning a victim too much. In the post that I believe is Karin it says she attended from 1974-75, then went to Norman Lodge.
The Kat post on that site is the one at the very bottom, anything with >> are other peoples posts. It doesn’t have these >> because she was the last person to post in that thread.
Sir Jimmy Savile told Esquire magazine: "I am the eminence grise: the grey, shadowy figure in the background. The thing about me is I get things done and I work under cover."
You have to wonder what use JS was to people like this. Not least why they even put up with him in the first place, but helped raise him to such a pedestal, and socialized as well, to the point that they did too. Knowing what we know now, can anyone come up with any rational, even irrational reason for them to be so close?
If there's no valuables in the grave why encase the coffin in concrete. Unless - and I'm being a complete cynic here - he knew all this would come out after his death and he was worried about being dug up?
he should have made plans to be cremated then:cool:
Saville says he spent '11 consecutive Christmases with the Thatchers'. WTF??
Sir Jimmy Savile told Esquire magazine: "I am the eminence grise: the grey, shadowy figure in the background. The thing about me is I get things done and I work under cover."
Savile says he spent "11 consecutive Christmases ... with the Thatchers."
Speaking of former Prime Minister Thatcher, Savile told Esquire: "I knew the real woman and the real woman was something else. The times I spent up there (Chequers) - Denis, me and her, shoes off in front of the fire."
Which Carol Thatcher and Sir Bernard Ingrams have debunked. There's a link in the first part of the thread if you want to look. Seems Savile had a very exalted opinion of not only himself, but also his famous friends' and Royalty's need of him.
Though Chaz and Di seem to have been duly impressed and taken in by him.
Did you see my post about how the journalist who investigated the case Meirion Jones for Newsnight is the nephew of the Headmistress. It was because his own family had suspicions about Savile when they visited Duncroft that made him encourage the Newsnight team to do the investigation. It would be interesting to know if he had speaken to his aunt about it. The problem is life in those homes must have been so dreary and depressing with problems with funding etc., you can see how it might far too easy for a celebrity offering gifts, an opportunity to mix with famous people, and charitable income to get a hold on the staff.
I imagine they were blinded by his celebrity, just as you say. Casual visitors to Duncroft could see there was something not quite right with Saville being there and that he must have had ulterior motives, and yet we're supposed to believe the staff suspected nothing?
My own guess is that they must have suspected or known his interest in the girls was sexual - many other people worked out that Saville was a weirdo and / or a deviant once they got to know him and his public facade had fallen away. It wouldn't be hard to believe that the staff knew he was having sex with the girls when he brought them for spins in the countryside.
I imagine they were blinded by his celebrity, just as you say. Casual visitors to Duncroft could see there was something not quite right with Saville being there and that he must have had ulterior motives, and yet we're supposed to believe the staff suspected nothing?
My own guess is that they must have suspected or known his interest in the girls was sexual - many other people worked out that Saville was a weirdo and / or a deviant once they got to know him and his public facade had fallen away. It wouldn't be hard to believe that the staff knew he was having sex with the girls when he brought them for spins in the countryside.
Apparently they had been used to celebrity connections as the husband of the psychiatrist was a producer in Shepperton Studios. The actors James Robertson Justice and John Gregson used to visit Duncroft in the early 60s.
Pretty horrifying in hindsight, but not that surprising when you consider he was host of the main BBC Saturday evening show aimed at children. Just another example of how his supposed charitable image gave him an ability to con himself into things he should not have been doing.
If there's no valuables in the grave why encase the coffin in concrete. Unless - and I'm being a complete cynic here - he knew all this would come out after his death and he was worried about being dug up?
That's probably it, and I suspect most people will agree with you.
Very possible. Also, I think the reason he didn't have a computer wasn't so much in case anything would be found while he was alive, but in case incriminating stuff was found on it when he was dead. As it stands, there's no 'physical' trace left behind, which is probably what he planned for.
More than likely tough, is that he knew that if he had, the temptation would have been too much.
I was going to post this before. Sadly, i don't think this is just JS's idea of a joke, the ruling elite love to do things like this, ''hidden in plain sight'' symbolism. They get off on boasting about their crimes it seems, thousands upon thousands of other examples of it.
Remember the standing ovation Roman Polanski got at the Academy Award ceremony a few years ago?
i have had 2 posts removed it seems you cant mention certain ongoing abuse cases here that are far bigger than sad vile talk as much as you want bout js fs gg but the mention of HG gets you delited
Apparently they had been used to celebrity connections as the husband of the psychiatrist was a producer in Shepperton Studios. The actors James Robertson Justice and John Gregson used to visit Duncroft in the early 60s.
Another couple of wonderul benefactors no doubt :rolleyes:
How come female celebrities never visitied the place? Would have been far more relevant and pertinent to the girls' lives I woul have thought.
Hope it's that. I don't agree with messing with his grave for any other reason.
Not just that tho. Other people who have family/friends buried there deserve to be able to visit their graves without having that monstrosity in their faces. His family are doing the right thing.
"The family members are deeply aware of the impact that the stone remaining there could have on the dignity and sanctity of the cemetery. "Out of respect to public opinion, to those who are buried there, and to those who tend their graves and visit there, we have decided to remove it."
I just saw the policeman from Scotland Yard saying that Savile was a predatory sex offender. I'm not saying he wasn't but how can he say that without proof? Or could they have some that has not been acted on before.
More than likely tough, is that he knew that if he had, the temptation would have been too much.
I don't doubt for a minute he had access to as many computers as he wanted, to access what he wanted, elsewhere. I think that admission while he was alive that he had actively decided not to have one spoke 'red flag' volumes. It was completely strategic. Only someone with something big to hide would even think like that.
Comments
The SY guy on BBC news also said, that it's not likely other's connected from the past could be charged about what they knew, i'm presuming this depends on who exactly we're talking about and how much power they had, and obviously if they are still alive. That (again they mention it) we have to remember this was a very different ''culture'' back then, i would hope he doesn't mean that excuses anybody of criminal activity. That there is no investigation at this time, just a support group for more people to come forward and report information until they decide on what to do next, i would hope they are going to do something next very soon. Don't know, he just didn't fill me with confidence is all.
120 lines of enquiry..............never mind those who chose not to go to the police.:eek::eek:
Its truly shocking.
Those poor women.
There's no way I can do a direct quote from the previous Part, but as this post was in response to my post, I've pasted both to keep it in some sort of context.
You ask how many other crimes are the accused protected by anonymity? Quite a few footballers if the rumours of Super Injunctions are true, but that isn't the point. That's misuse of the legal system.
I'd ask how many accusers are regarded as guilty until proven innocent? If Savile had been arrested then maybe the many coming forward now would have secured the truth and innocent children would have been spared, which would have been the best possible outcome, of course. But, given the cover up we have seen up to now, what if he'd yet again got away with it? There would be zero kids ready to put themselves through that ordeal. Children have a unique knack of blaming themselves for things that happen, which is why it's so important we believe them if they ever say they have been treated innappropriately.
But that wasn't the reason for my strong stance on anonymity in rape trials. It's because that there have been a fair few false accusations, though not by children. And while the alleged "victim" is protected by her anonymity, the innocent man is splashed over the local media or in high profile cases- the national press and TV.
No matter what happens when the accuser is proved to have lied, that man's life can be ruined. His reputation shattered as "there's no smoke without fire". I've seen it happen to someone and would never wish it on anyone. Right up until the "Exposure" programme, watched by under 2 million, plenty on here (though not this thread) had been shouting from the rooftops that these women had waited all this time and until he was dead, so they could have their 15 minutes of fame, a large wad of cash!! (
Anyone with a smattering of understanding about the long time effects of molestation knows that being believed, being heard and seeing justice being done, albeit posthumously, is the best and possibly the only way they are going to begin healing or accepting and moving on....I would use that American term "closure" as it really does sum it up neatly.
Instead we had page after page of smearing the victims, especially those who had waived their anonymity, and calling them every name under the sun. Not so much now,huh?
Now imagine if it was the man who had been falsely accused of rape. Why shouldn't he be protected by the same anonymity? Why should his health, marriage, job etc be jeopardised because there are a small, no tiny, amount of women who will cry "Rape" for reasons of their own. Dont they deserve justice too? It's such an emotive crime that mud sticks. It's not like petty thieving or conning someone. I've known personally of one man who lost everything even though his accuser admitted she was making it up before it even got to trial. Similarly there are far too many cases on record where men have unjustly been targeted, hung drawn and quartered by the Public, only to be innocent all along.
To turn the prevailing attitude on it's head, if one man's life isn't ruined by false charges because he has anonymity, then that is a price worth paying.
Anyone found guilty will be named straight after the verdict anyway.
I so agree, which is why it's time to stop bashing the Beeb and spread the net wider, bringing on something with the powers that The Leverson Committee have. I rather think that, thankfully, this is the time when it wont get swept under the carpet. Hopefully no repeat of things like the Jersey Homes cover up or the Hillsborough travesty. An independent inquiry,with powers of supoena is needed.
Sadly, you'll never stamp out child abuse or any sort of abuse for that matter, but if the abuser knows his chances of it being whitewashed are a hell of a lot less than they were pre the Savile revelations being accepted then that's a huge leap forward.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2r5vvc4.jpg
Sir Jimmy Savile told Esquire magazine: "I am the eminence grise: the grey, shadowy figure in the background. The thing about me is I get things done and I work under cover."
Savile says he spent "11 consecutive Christmases ... with the Thatchers."
Speaking of former Prime Minister Thatcher, Savile told Esquire: "I knew the real woman and the real woman was something else. The times I spent up there (Chequers) - Denis, me and her, shoes off in front of the fire."
http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/jimmy-savile-fixed-it-for-israel.html
afraid of vandals i suppose
The Kat post on that site is the one at the very bottom, anything with >> are other peoples posts. It doesn’t have these >> because she was the last person to post in that thread.
You have to wonder what use JS was to people like this. Not least why they even put up with him in the first place, but helped raise him to such a pedestal, and socialized as well, to the point that they did too. Knowing what we know now, can anyone come up with any rational, even irrational reason for them to be so close?
he should have made plans to be cremated then:cool:
Though Chaz and Di seem to have been duly impressed and taken in by him.
I imagine they were blinded by his celebrity, just as you say. Casual visitors to Duncroft could see there was something not quite right with Saville being there and that he must have had ulterior motives, and yet we're supposed to believe the staff suspected nothing?
My own guess is that they must have suspected or known his interest in the girls was sexual - many other people worked out that Saville was a weirdo and / or a deviant once they got to know him and his public facade had fallen away. It wouldn't be hard to believe that the staff knew he was having sex with the girls when he brought them for spins in the countryside.
Pretty horrifying in hindsight, but not that surprising when you consider he was host of the main BBC Saturday evening show aimed at children. Just another example of how his supposed charitable image gave him an ability to con himself into things he should not have been doing.
That's probably it, and I suspect most people will agree with you.
More than likely tough, is that he knew that if he had, the temptation would have been too much.
Hope it's that. I don't agree with messing with his grave for any other reason.
Remember the standing ovation Roman Polanski got at the Academy Award ceremony a few years ago?
He was an old fashioned 'Catholic' who probably didn't believe in it.
Another couple of wonderul benefactors no doubt :rolleyes:
How come female celebrities never visitied the place? Would have been far more relevant and pertinent to the girls' lives I woul have thought.
Not just that tho. Other people who have family/friends buried there deserve to be able to visit their graves without having that monstrosity in their faces. His family are doing the right thing.
"The family members are deeply aware of the impact that the stone remaining there could have on the dignity and sanctity of the cemetery. "Out of respect to public opinion, to those who are buried there, and to those who tend their graves and visit there, we have decided to remove it."
As an old school 'catholic' this would probably be against his beliefs. Shame other things werent!
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/12/05/recent-charges-sexual-abuse-children-in-hollywood-just-tip-iceberg-experts-say/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068658/Manager-Hollywood-child-actors-Martin-Weiss-arrested-sex-abuse-client-police-say-victims.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/pedophiles-and-child-actors-new-california-law-cracks-down-will-other-states-follow-797575
I don't doubt for a minute he had access to as many computers as he wanted, to access what he wanted, elsewhere. I think that admission while he was alive that he had actively decided not to have one spoke 'red flag' volumes. It was completely strategic. Only someone with something big to hide would even think like that.