true... if that was applied to one 'victim'... but both dlt and rolf have several people testifying against them and hasnt rolf been caught with indecent images?.. i cant see multiple people deluding themselves about a celeb.
I'd seriously have to question whether a far trial is possible in this country if "ordinary" people like you are picked for a jury...
I'd seriously have to question whether a far trial is possible in this country if "ordinary" people like you are picked for a jury...
And even if these charges would normally be worth going to trial over after the corrie guys trouble with the CPS who may just want to shove everything and anything to court so they cannot be seen to have allowed anyone to escape...which would almost mean you're entering the guilty until proved innocent which is the total antithesis of the legal system
"Members of Top Of The Pops dance group Pan’s People were preyed on backstage by ‘slimy and repulsive’ Jimmy Savile – and watched in horror as young girls lined up outside his van.
The dancers ‘hated’ the show’s ‘creepy’ host but say they were ‘bulldozed into being nice to him because he was extremely popular and powerful at the Beeb’."
"Members of Top Of The Pops dance group Pan’s People were preyed on backstage by ‘slimy and repulsive’ Jimmy Savile – and watched in horror as young girls lined up outside his van.
The dancers ‘hated’ the show’s ‘creepy’ host but say they were ‘bulldozed into being nice to him because he was extremely popular and powerful at the Beeb’."
From your link
‘Pan’s People: Our Story’, edited by Simon Barnard, is published on Nov 8 by Signum, priced £18.99. To order your copy at the price of £16.99 with free p&p call The Event Bookstore on 0844 472 4157 or go to mailbookshop.co.uk
Oh yeah new book - seriously can you take Z celebs accusing other Z celebs when the accuser waits until an interview with a tabloid that coincides with a book that is about to be published.
I know I can't they do a disservice to other victims.
"Members of Top Of The Pops dance group Pan’s People were preyed on backstage by ‘slimy and repulsive’ Jimmy Savile – and watched in horror as young girls lined up outside his van.
The dancers ‘hated’ the show’s ‘creepy’ host but say they were ‘bulldozed into being nice to him because he was extremely popular and powerful at the Beeb’."
Those same young girls are the ones who voluntarily visited him but are now jumping on the bandwagon to get some cash.
I wonder if we'll hear more damning claims from the disabled girl in The Office who was quick to get her name in the papers on the back of the story and told of her encounter with Savile and how he left his hand on her leg a bit longer than was necessary.
Can there be any doubt left after such evidence ?
Was it Kerry Katona who claimed she met him and he "looked at her funny"?
It got a bit tiresome reading all that but the bit that sticks out is Saviles answer that he would have no need to secretly assault girls as there was no shortage of girls for him to choose from . Groupies I think they are called.
I daresay that in the 60's and 70's requesting proof of age is something he wouldn't have done so I would be pretty sure some of the girls who offered themselves would have been under age .
Savile always struck me as an oddball , even when he was superhero charity fund raiser and on Jim'll Fix It there was something about him .
But I still don't think it was because he was a serial abuser who was able to keep his antics hidden for over 50 years.
Like any DJ or pop group of that era they had girls on tap
Amazing how the CPS decided there was insufficient evidence four years ago even to bring any charges, and now everybody speaks of him as though he was found unanimously guilty. I'm not saying he was or he wasn't, but it seems we as a nation have simply decided that he was.
Seeing as there is no evidence to support the case either way it's bad that you can be judge and jury and print it in papers.
The interview of Savile is exactly what you would expect from someone who was either completely innocent and disdainful of false accusations or someone guilty trying to cover up.
There's nothing concrete either way so it's shameful that the papers can post editorial opinions as headlines that claim one thing when there is actually nothing to support their views at all except the mob mentality that has followed this case around since day one.
The sheer numbers of claimants would normally support the "there's no smoke without fire" viewpoint but the fact that so many came out of the wood work after the ITV programme knowing they would be listened to as there was nobody to argue the point anymore makes the claims suspicious.
It seems rather like the Sachsgate nonsense where nobody actually said anything until something appears in the media then suddenly thousands of attention seekers appear.
For me , I wouldn't convict anyone without evidence and apparently neither would the police or CPS.
In the mob mentality the fact he was questioned proves his guilt.
But are we really supposed to accept he was clever enough to cover this up for 50 years and when the alleged earliest offences occurred he didn't have the reputation or place in society that he later earned to protect him.
Statements claim he shagged lots of girls - that seems to be something Savile does not deny.
Some were under age - John Peel admitted he did in a 1975 newspaper story so can we assume groupies were treated just as groupies who got what they asked for from celebs?
With such a supply on tap I don't see why the alleged hidden assaults would need to be sought after ?
Amazing how the CPS decided there was insufficient evidence four years ago even to bring any charges, and now everybody speaks of him as though he was found unanimously guilty. I'm not saying he was or he wasn't, but it seems we as a nation have simply decided that he was.
On a smaller scale I still find it strange that referring to Michael Jackson as a paedophile is now ok because he's dead.
Wasn't he cleared ?
Wasn't his worst offence inappropriate behaviour for a man of his age ?
Like most things, it's had good and bad repercussions.
On the positive side, it has encouraged people who have experienced sexual abuse to come forward when they might have not done so before.
On a more negative note, it has led to something akin to the Mc Carthy witch-hunts where suspicions abound, innocent people have been placed under suspicion and all the associated problems of dealing with historical and 'word of mouth' evidence.
There is also a subset of unscrupulous people (on both 'sides') willing to profit out of it all and others who like to put across the image that they know more than they do and are some kind of authority on events. Again, this has led to sparring between different 'sides' of the debate which has often become about point scoring rather than trying to learn more about what has actually taken place..
There's the worry that any random celebrity could be falsely accused and instead of people not taking it seriously, they will take it seriously because of the Savile expose and convict the person in the court of public opinion long before any trial. I very much want to see all paedophiles behind bars but people are innocent until they are proven guilty.
Seeing as there is no evidence to support the case either way it's bad that you can be judge and jury and print it in papers.
The interview of Savile is exactly what you would expect from someone who was either completely innocent and disdainful of false accusations or someone guilty trying to cover up.
There's nothing concrete either way so it's shameful that the papers can post editorial opinions as headlines that claim one thing when there is actually nothing to support their views at all except the mob mentality that has followed this case around since day one.
The sheer numbers of claimants would normally support the "there's no smoke without fire" viewpoint but the fact that so many came out of the wood work after the ITV programme knowing they would be listened to as there was nobody to argue the point anymore makes the claims suspicious.
It seems rather like the Sachsgate nonsense where nobody actually said anything until something appears in the media then suddenly thousands of attention seekers appear.
For me , I wouldn't convict anyone without evidence and apparently neither would the police or CPS.
In the mob mentality the fact he was questioned proves his guilt.
But are we really supposed to accept he was clever enough to cover this up for 50 years and when the alleged earliest offences occurred he didn't have the reputation or place in society that he later earned to protect him.
Statements claim he shagged lots of girls - that seems to be something Savile does not deny.
Some were under age - John Peel admitted he did in a 1975 newspaper story so can we assume groupies were treated just as groupies who got what they asked for from celebs?
With such a supply on tap I don't see why the alleged hidden assaults would need to be sought after ?
So you think it's possible that 450 alleged victims are all lying? I'm all for innocent until proven guilty (although it is irrelevant as he will never face trial), but the idea that every single victim is lying is preposterous. If you read the police interview transcript, he actually explains how he managed to get away with it - his celebrity image, charity work, and having 'friends' in the right places. He was very cunning.
Comments
And even if these charges would normally be worth going to trial over after the corrie guys trouble with the CPS who may just want to shove everything and anything to court so they cannot be seen to have allowed anyone to escape...which would almost mean you're entering the guilty until proved innocent which is the total antithesis of the legal system
That link is from October 2012 I think we did see it on the older thread
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-2454794/Pans-People-reveal-scandalised-Mary-Whitehouse-hated-creepy-Jimmy-Savile.html#ixzz2hdmlTuvl
"Members of Top Of The Pops dance group Pan’s People were preyed on backstage by ‘slimy and repulsive’ Jimmy Savile – and watched in horror as young girls lined up outside his van.
The dancers ‘hated’ the show’s ‘creepy’ host but say they were ‘bulldozed into being nice to him because he was extremely popular and powerful at the Beeb’."
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/newsuknewssavileinquiry/article1327010.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_10_12
from 22m
Keir Starmer questioned about how abuse victims are treated etc. Lots of other legal issues too.
From your link
‘Pan’s People: Our Story’, edited by Simon Barnard, is published on Nov 8 by Signum, priced £18.99. To order your copy at the price of £16.99 with free p&p call The Event Bookstore on 0844 472 4157 or go to mailbookshop.co.uk
Who'd have thunk it!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2458350/I-sexually-assaulted-celebrity-says-Amanda-Holden-Britains-Got-Talent-judge-claims-cornered-public-event-married-Les-Dennis.html
To quote one of the comments at the foot of the page.
"Ah well you should have said something at the time and not wait until you had a book to plug."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24520001
Yeah but she married Whoops maybe not that one.
Oh yeah new book - seriously can you take Z celebs accusing other Z celebs when the accuser waits until an interview with a tabloid that coincides with a book that is about to be published.
I know I can't they do a disservice to other victims.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2458543/Jimmy-Savile-abused-children-NHS-hospitals.html
Those same young girls are the ones who voluntarily visited him but are now jumping on the bandwagon to get some cash.
I wonder if we'll hear more damning claims from the disabled girl in The Office who was quick to get her name in the papers on the back of the story and told of her encounter with Savile and how he left his hand on her leg a bit longer than was necessary.
Can there be any doubt left after such evidence ?
Was it Kerry Katona who claimed she met him and he "looked at her funny"?
Snow White and the Seven hospital abuse dwarves.
Am I mixing up 'dwarf' as verb and 'dwarf' as noun? Never mind, it's a very small error...
I dunno, but the absurd mental image of Jimmy and an army of dwarves to do his evil bidding amused me somewhat. I have a strange sense of humour.
http://www.surrey.police.uk/tabid/2980/InfoItemId/197/Default.aspx
It got a bit tiresome reading all that but the bit that sticks out is Saviles answer that he would have no need to secretly assault girls as there was no shortage of girls for him to choose from . Groupies I think they are called.
I daresay that in the 60's and 70's requesting proof of age is something he wouldn't have done so I would be pretty sure some of the girls who offered themselves would have been under age .
Savile always struck me as an oddball , even when he was superhero charity fund raiser and on Jim'll Fix It there was something about him .
But I still don't think it was because he was a serial abuser who was able to keep his antics hidden for over 50 years.
Like any DJ or pop group of that era they had girls on tap
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/interview-lays-bare-dj-savile-s-contempt-for-victims-1-6149893
Amazing how the CPS decided there was insufficient evidence four years ago even to bring any charges, and now everybody speaks of him as though he was found unanimously guilty. I'm not saying he was or he wasn't, but it seems we as a nation have simply decided that he was.
Seeing as there is no evidence to support the case either way it's bad that you can be judge and jury and print it in papers.
The interview of Savile is exactly what you would expect from someone who was either completely innocent and disdainful of false accusations or someone guilty trying to cover up.
There's nothing concrete either way so it's shameful that the papers can post editorial opinions as headlines that claim one thing when there is actually nothing to support their views at all except the mob mentality that has followed this case around since day one.
The sheer numbers of claimants would normally support the "there's no smoke without fire" viewpoint but the fact that so many came out of the wood work after the ITV programme knowing they would be listened to as there was nobody to argue the point anymore makes the claims suspicious.
It seems rather like the Sachsgate nonsense where nobody actually said anything until something appears in the media then suddenly thousands of attention seekers appear.
For me , I wouldn't convict anyone without evidence and apparently neither would the police or CPS.
In the mob mentality the fact he was questioned proves his guilt.
But are we really supposed to accept he was clever enough to cover this up for 50 years and when the alleged earliest offences occurred he didn't have the reputation or place in society that he later earned to protect him.
Statements claim he shagged lots of girls - that seems to be something Savile does not deny.
Some were under age - John Peel admitted he did in a 1975 newspaper story so can we assume groupies were treated just as groupies who got what they asked for from celebs?
With such a supply on tap I don't see why the alleged hidden assaults would need to be sought after ?
Wasn't he cleared ?
Wasn't his worst offence inappropriate behaviour for a man of his age ?
There's the worry that any random celebrity could be falsely accused and instead of people not taking it seriously, they will take it seriously because of the Savile expose and convict the person in the court of public opinion long before any trial. I very much want to see all paedophiles behind bars but people are innocent until they are proven guilty.
So you think it's possible that 450 alleged victims are all lying? I'm all for innocent until proven guilty (although it is irrelevant as he will never face trial), but the idea that every single victim is lying is preposterous. If you read the police interview transcript, he actually explains how he managed to get away with it - his celebrity image, charity work, and having 'friends' in the right places. He was very cunning.