In the light of the recent aquittals in similar cases, I'm wondering if the allegations in the Saville case of a similar nature? I know that in the eyes of the public he's guilty, but the thing is, he never stood trial.
Surely there were just too many people coming forward for Savile to be anything other than guilty? Have you watched some of the programmes featuring women who speak about what he did to them? I am in absolutely no doubt they are being truthful.
Anyone who thinks Saville may have been innocent is living in cloud cuckoo land. We're not just talking about one or two victims coming forward here, we're talking well into double figures probably even more. So many people have come forward telling similar stories of how he abused them, he's as guilty as sin as far as I'm concerned .
Anyone who thinks Saville may have been innocent is living in cloud cuckoo land. We're not just talking about one or two victims coming forward here, we're talking well into double figures probably even more. So many people have come forward telling similar stories of how he abused them, he's as guilty as sin as far as I'm concerned .
Anyone who thinks Saville may have been innocent is living in cloud cuckoo land. We're not just talking about one or two victims coming forward here, we're talking well into double figures probably even more. So many people have come forward telling similar stories of how he abused them, he's as guilty as sin as far as I'm concerned .
I would still rather a court decided on guilt, not just public opinion.
I don't think the number of people coming forward is a specific indication of guilt, as there may well be people among them who just wanted to jump on the bandwagon leading them to a hefty compensation award. But what I do think is significant in the Savile case is that he was reported to various police forces over the years for alleged sexual abuse, but at no time did they take any real action. Savile seems to have had friends among the police and other friends in high places (and I mean right up to royalty level) and was indeed seen as untouchable. But AFAICS none of these other celebs were accused by their supposed victims until now, years after the events they allege took place, and therefore their claims seem dubious to me, as presumably they seem to the juries who've been declaring one celeb after another innocent. You can't convict anyone when there's no evidence and it's just one person's word against another, you need more than that. The CPS will I think have serious questions to answer for going to court at all in many of these cases.
Saville was as guilty as sin, however i dont think he was guilty of all accusers accusations, how many of those accusers were fantasists, glory hunters or attention seekers?
i think once the bandwagon started rolling, everyone and their dog jumped onboard all looking for something out of it.
Unfortunately the mass of false claims masks the real victims looking for justice, and seriously hinders the police's investigations.
When does a certain number make it a certainty though? How many allegations did DLT have against him..or Bill Roache? Far less but nevertheless more than one or two. ;-)If they weren't alive to be tried would they go down in history as being undeniably guilty?
Just playing Devil's advocate as I'm sure Saville was guilty but it can only ever be a probability not a certainty as there has been no trial.
I'll be interested to see what happens with Freddie Starr and his court case, is he still set to sue that lady?
Also what happened to that Meesham man? He seems to have gone quiet now.
I think Saville appeared like a creepy perv but it's easy to say that once he's dead and possibly embellish it too for good measure.
The Review has been in close contact with the CPS and the police and in particular, .... Operation Yewtree have asked us to obtain their consent before inviting individuals to Witness Interview. The Savile investigation is unable to progress certain aspects of its work as a consequence of a need to wait, at the request of the police, before it approaches a number of potential interviewees whose evidence may be relevant to on-going criminal investigations. It is unclear whether these criminal investigations will lead to prosecutions but, if prosecutions do take place (or if there remains a possibility that they will), Dame Janet Smith may need to wait a considerable time before she can approach these potential interviewees.
Amongst all of those who have weighed in with accusations against Savile, there are bound to be some who have taken an 'opportunistic' view of events. As has been said though, there were previous reports concerning Savile and these were shelved or ignored, seemingly with a little 'help' from his pals on the Force. I don't think everyone who has come forward is fibbing or embellishing. Far from it.
And yes OP Saville would have walked free, as would Stuart Hall .
What ARE you talking about?? Stuart Hall was not only convicted, but also had his sentence doubled when doubts were expressed over the original. Your post is idiotic.
I'm really surprised to see a fair few people in this thread doubting Savile's guilt. Shocked, in fact.
I know, it's just I'd rather have a court convict than opinion. If has been suggested before he was getting protected, Then at some point we may find out - We'd have to wait till his protectors die first though!
As a woman I would have no qualms from being in a social situation alone in the presence of Bill Roache or DLT, either now with what we know post trials or in the past with how I perceived them to be from the media. No way would I ever wanted to be near Savile - he gave me the creeps from the day I first saw him on tv. Am surprised these doubters can not recognise his dodgy character. Mind you am equally amazed Prince Charles was mates with him. Do men in general not pick up on these dodgy vibes?
Mind you am equally amazed Prince Charles was mates with him. Do men in general not pick up on these dodgy vibes?
I think that can be an issue.
I remember an ex of mine being surprised that another guy in the office was single, "because he's quite handsome" - as a woman, I found the guy he was talking about to be creepy, and not attractive at all.
Not sure if my ex couldn't see the creepy because he just wasn't tuned into that sort of thing, or if it was because he didn't feel the need to question his (sexual) safety around the guy.
Edited to add: I think it might be the latter. Because I remember some guys at Uni (both gay and straight) describing one of the gay guys on the course as "creepy". Because he clearly wasn't into women, I just found him a bit odd. So yes, perhaps the ability to pick up on this sort of thing depends on whether the 'creepy' person appears to be interested in your gender or not!
What ARE you talking about?? Stuart Hall was not only convicted, but also had his sentence doubled when doubts were expressed over the original. Your post is idiotic.
He admitted his guilt . None of his victims had to give evidence in court . If he had been tried in court and the case decided by a jury he would have walked free . Same goes for Saville .
The court system is a farce and heavily biased in favour of the accused .
The prisons are way overcrowded and they are looking for any excuse not to send people to prison.
He admitted his guilt . None of his victims had to give evidence in court . If he had been tried in court and the case decided by a jury he would have walked free . Same goes for Saville .
Hall obviously didn't think he'd be acquitted, else he wouldn't have pleaded guilty. If he'd pleaded guilty for reasons of remorse, he wouldn't have held off doing so until certain the odds were against it.
As for Savile being acquitted, if even a quarter of the people who complained after his death came forward while he was alive-I can't believe it.
Comments
Yes, it's certainly in three figures if not four.
I would still rather a court decided on guilt, not just public opinion.
People tend to forget Saviles late brother also was a sex pest....
i think once the bandwagon started rolling, everyone and their dog jumped onboard all looking for something out of it.
Unfortunately the mass of false claims masks the real victims looking for justice, and seriously hinders the police's investigations.
Mynotfinkso.
When does a certain number make it a certainty though? How many allegations did DLT have against him..or Bill Roache? Far less but nevertheless more than one or two. ;-)If they weren't alive to be tried would they go down in history as being undeniably guilty?
Just playing Devil's advocate as I'm sure Saville was guilty but it can only ever be a probability not a certainty as there has been no trial.
Very sad state of affairs for any future victims of abuse to expect any justice in our appalling court system.
And yes OP Saville would have walked free, as would Stuart Hall .
wow i wouldnt want you on a jury
i have a pitchfork and a torch in my shed if you want them
Also what happened to that Meesham man? He seems to have gone quiet now.
I think Saville appeared like a creepy perv but it's easy to say that once he's dead and possibly embellish it too for good measure.
Dame Janet Smith is conducting a review of BBC corporate practices at the time, but....
What ARE you talking about?? Stuart Hall was not only convicted, but also had his sentence doubled when doubts were expressed over the original. Your post is idiotic.
I know, it's just I'd rather have a court convict than opinion. If has been suggested before he was getting protected, Then at some point we may find out - We'd have to wait till his protectors die first though!
So was ex-Labour minister Jack Straw's.
I think that can be an issue.
I remember an ex of mine being surprised that another guy in the office was single, "because he's quite handsome" - as a woman, I found the guy he was talking about to be creepy, and not attractive at all.
Not sure if my ex couldn't see the creepy because he just wasn't tuned into that sort of thing, or if it was because he didn't feel the need to question his (sexual) safety around the guy.
Edited to add: I think it might be the latter. Because I remember some guys at Uni (both gay and straight) describing one of the gay guys on the course as "creepy". Because he clearly wasn't into women, I just found him a bit odd. So yes, perhaps the ability to pick up on this sort of thing depends on whether the 'creepy' person appears to be interested in your gender or not!
He admitted his guilt . None of his victims had to give evidence in court . If he had been tried in court and the case decided by a jury he would have walked free . Same goes for Saville .
The court system is a farce and heavily biased in favour of the accused .
The prisons are way overcrowded and they are looking for any excuse not to send people to prison.
Hall obviously didn't think he'd be acquitted, else he wouldn't have pleaded guilty. If he'd pleaded guilty for reasons of remorse, he wouldn't have held off doing so until certain the odds were against it.
As for Savile being acquitted, if even a quarter of the people who complained after his death came forward while he was alive-I can't believe it.