Nothing to do with "appreciating" or even liking Jimmy Saville - it's just I don't believe in something just because someone says it's true. And even if it were what's the point in getting all hysterical about it now?
btw there was a case in Rochdale recently in which a gang of Pakistani men were jailed after years of abusing young British girls. Apparently the under-age girls were dismissed as prostitutes and it was considered to be their choice to have sex with those men. I've not seen the same furore about that.
But this is the whole point for me that makes the Saville story worth pursuing.
It seems that some people need forcibly reminding that abusing children is wrong. The fact the police and social services ignored these girls in Rochdale says that some people need constantly reminding of this.
Also the Saville piece will I am sure have certain other people sweating in their beds of a night --and about time.
If nothing else if it stops the Mail from printing one more " all grown up now" story I'll be a happy camper.
But how on earth are they ever going to prove it? It's years ago - what evidence is there likely to be?
That whooshing noise is the point flying over your head
It's not about proving the allegations. It's about finding out who else knew what was going on and did nothing, and about doing what can be done to prevent the same thing happening again.
But this is the whole point for me that makes the Saville story worth pursuing.
It seems that some people need forcibly reminding that abusing children is wrong. The fact the police and social services ignored these girls in Rochdale says that some people need constantly reminding of this.
The point is though that the Rochdale case is more recent and was taking place at a time when people were more aware of the effects of child abuse. The fact that nothing was done for years in that instance was, in part, because the authorities didn't want to be seen as racist and because they considered the girls in question to be a swathe of Vicky Pollards who deserved nothing better and who were seen as responsible for their own actions. Why the parents never did anything to help is a question I've been asking myself.
That whooshing noise is the point flying over your head
It's not about proving the allegations. It's about finding out who else knew what was going on and did nothing, and about doing what can be done to prevent the same thing happening again.
Or is that somehow not worth doing?
Then that assumes that the allegations are true when there is no real evidence that they are. If the man were still alive it wouldn't just be him who would be answerable in court but his accusers and if proved to be lying they would have to answer for the consequences. As it now stands, they can say anything they like and the gullible will believe them.
Had these people been abused I would have thought they would have relished the chance to challenge him while he was still alive rather than wait until he'd died. And surely the fact that he's dead would be closure in itself (if indeed there was any "closure" to be had). There could be any number of reasons why these stories are circulating - vindictiveness, monetary gain, false memory syndrome. And once the vultures have picked over the bones of Jimmy Saville - who's next? John Peel? (who's name has been highlighted in the Press). Bound to be someone who's dead because in accusing the living they would have to be damn sure they have evidence to back up their claims
Then that assumes that the allegations are true when there is no real evidence that they are.
Of course there is. Weight of evidence and the number of witnessess/accusers is one of the things that many criminal trials hinge on, even when the accused is present in court.
If the man were still alive it wouldn't just be him who would be answerable in court but his accusers and if proved to be lying they would have to answer for the consequences.
And that's still the case.
The fact that you can't libel the dead is trotted out as a reason for always assuming that people levelling accusations against someone who's died are automatically lying.
But it's still a criminal offence to level a knowingly false criminal accusation against someone, whether they're dead or not.
Of course there is. Weight of evidence and the number of witnessess/accusers is one of the things that many criminal trials hinge on, even when the accused is present in court.
"one of the things". It seems the number of "witnesses" (if a witness can be classed as someone who guesses at someone else's age), and accusers is the ONLY thing they're relying on in this case.
And that's still the case.
The fact that you can't libel the dead is trotted out as a reason for always assuming that people levelling accusations against someone who's died are automatically lying.
Because if people had been victims and really wanted justice they would face the accused when they were still alive. To wait until someone dies suggests they're after something other than justice.
But it's still a criminal offence to level a knowingly false criminal accusation against someone, whether they're dead or not.
But surely that would depend on someone taking on the defence mantel for him and his relatives don't seem keen to get themselves caught up in it.
You've missed the most obvious reason
What you consider to be the most obvious reason and what I consider to be the most obvious reason are two different things and when you're dealing with people who are in their 40s and beyond I wouldn't rule out false memory syndrome although it could just be that they said they were older than they were at the time but are now complaining they were "taken advantage of". But whatever the reason this must be manna from heaven for Rupert Murdoch who will no doubt be claiming that "news"papers do serve a vital function after all - yep same as it ever was - spreading poison.
Because if people had been victims and really wanted justice they would face the accused when they were still alive.
What you believe you would do, and therefore what other people should do, doesn't mean that everyone would behave in the same way that you think you would.
What you consider to be the most obvious reason and what I consider to be the most obvious reason are two different things
And yet you want other people to adopt the same approach to having been abused that you believe you would, or you going to assume they're lying just because you would react differently?
The most obvious reason why someone would make an accusation that they've been sexually assaulted is that they've been sexually assaulted.
What you believe you would do, and therefore what other people should do, doesn't mean that everyone would behave in the same way that you think you would.
That's a very convenient excuse.
Why might that be? If someone from your family was accused of these crimes would you sit back and just let it all happen if you didn't believe it?
I believe he gave the vast bulk of his wealth to charity. Heard someone interviewed saying they were surprised they got anything. Depends how close a family is I suppose. I certainly wouldn't like to get any backlash from the hounds of hell that is the British media. The wolfpack mentality that was once confined to tabloids alone seems to be spreading to the rest of the media - Jeremy Vine and Jeremy Kyle's shows being cases in point.
And yet you want other people to adopt the same approach to having been abused that you believe you would, or you going to assume they're lying just because you would react differently?
I assume people are innocent until or unless real evidence convinces me otherwise. The only thing that has made me think twice has been not what the accusers or "witnesses" have said but what Jimmy Saville himself said about Gary Glitter's photos - but the man's dead now and they can accuse him all they like and grab as much from the estate and from the Press as they can but they'll never convict him.
The most obvious reason why someone would make an accusation that they've been sexually assaulted is that they've been sexually assaulted.
Not necessarily - especially when we're talking about a celebrity who's worth a lot of money. How many are making money from the tabloids as we speak by selling their stories?
[The most obvious reason why someone would make an accusation that they've been sexually assaulted is that they've been sexually assaulted.[/QUOTE]
this is way beyond the poin,but i do not know how to post a new subject - I just wanted to say something about Saville , that is, he must have been the most boring person I had ever heard on radio or tv. He could not string a sentence together and had to use catchphrases and noises to broadcast his programmes. I do wish people would stop saying that he was charismatic!!! I have never come across anyone less charismatic than Saville.
I am not commenting on the important issues at hand, and will not until it becomes proven. What Ido know for a fact , is that my level of tedium reached breaking point when I had to watch his tv shows because my kids liked them!
Jemjem
[The most obvious reason why someone would make an accusation that they've been sexually assaulted is that they've been sexually assaulted.
this is way beyond the poin,but i do not know how to post a new subject - I just wanted to say something about Saville , that is, he must have been the most boring person I had ever heard on radio or tv. He could not string a sentence together and had to use catchphrases and noises to broadcast his programmes. I do wish people would stop saying that he was charismatic!!! I have never come across anyone less charismatic than Saville.
I am not commenting on the important issues at hand, and will not until it becomes proven. What Ido know for a fact , is that my level of tedium reached breaking point when I had to watch his tv shows because my kids liked them!
Jemjem[/QUOTE]
My mom wouldn't let me watch Jim'l fix it and then i grew up with the general idea he was a weirdo, because my mom thought so, he gave me the creeps and i have never watched any of his shows, but of course i knew who he was, you couldn't miss him, he made himself known, attention seeker he was, arrogant and up his own jacksee
I believe he gave the vast bulk of his wealth to charity. Heard someone interviewed saying they were surprised they got anything. Depends how close a family is I suppose. I certainly wouldn't like to get any backlash from the hounds of hell that is the British media. The wolfpack mentality that was once confined to tabloids alone seems to be spreading to the rest of the media - Jeremy Vine and Jeremy Kyle's shows being cases in point.
I assume people are innocent until or unless real evidence convinces me otherwise. The only thing that has made me think twice has been not what the accusers or "witnesses" have said but what Jimmy Savile himself said about Gary Glitter's photos - but the man's dead now and they can accuse him all they like and grab as much from the estate and from the Press as they can but they'll never convict him.
You just said "he gave the vast bulk of his wealth to charity" but now apparently they're going to "grab as much from the estate" as they can. It would be a good idea if you understood your own argument before you imposed it on others.
And I notice that you continually avoid having to address the fact....sorry, it seems you prefer the term "very convenient excuse".....that they can't "accuse him all they like". Whether it fits with your theory or not, it is nonetheless the case that making a knowingly unwarranted serious accusation of a crime against someone IS a criminal offence and they CAN be held to account for it, even if the person they accuse is already dead.
Not necessarily - especially when we're talking about a celebrity who's worth a lot of money. How many are making money from the tabloids as we speak by selling their stories?
And yes, the most obvious reason why someone would make an accusation of sexual assault is because they've been sexually assaulted. That doesn't mean that all accusations will be true, but try and understand that putting yourself forward as the victim of a sexual assault is not an easy thing to do. If you want to believe that Savile isn't guilty of being a sexual predator on underage girls, you have to believe every single one of these people is lying, not just that a few of them are.
My mom wouldn't let me watch Jim'l fix it and then i grew up with the general idea he was a weirdo, because my mom thought so, he gave me the creeps and i have never watched any of his shows, but of course i knew who he was, you couldn't miss him, he made himself known, attention seeker he was, arrogant and up his own jacksee
It's a fact that different people react differently to the same events. Why is that so hard to understand?
What is hard to understand is why people are prepared to believe them point blank on the testimony of witnesses that say "she LOOKED 12-14" and "I THINK she was brain damaged because she was on a neurological ward". These are 40 year old memories? How reliable would most people's memories be after that length of time. Where is the concrete proof?
You just said "he gave the vast bulk of his wealth to charity" but now apparently they're going to "grab as much from the estate" as they can. It would be a good idea if you understood your own argument before you imposed it on others.
True but they can always get money from the daily rags and write and sell books if nothing else.
And I notice that you continually avoid having to address the fact....sorry, it seems you prefer the term "very convenient excuse".....that they can't "accuse him all they like". Whether it fits with your theory or not, it is nonetheless the case that making a knowingly unwarranted serious accusation of a crime against someone IS a criminal offence and they CAN be held to account for it, even if the person they accuse is already dead.
That will only happen if someone is prepared to put themselves up against the lynch mob mentality that goes with this sort of story.
. That doesn't mean that all accusations will be true, but try and understand that putting yourself forward as the victim of a sexual assault is not an easy thing to do.
But I'm guessing it's so much easier to do once someone is dead. Had these claims been made public when he was alive they may have had more credence. The notion that he was supposedly "powerful" would not have prevented a story reaching the press - after all being "powerful" didn't stop claims against Michael Jackson. .
I just wanted to say something about Saville , that is, he must have been the most boring person I had ever heard on radio or tv. He could not string a sentence together
I don't think you heard his interview with Anthony Clare, in The Psychiatrist's Chair. He was very articulate in that.
But how on earth are they ever going to prove it? It's years ago - what evidence is there likely to be? Not that that won't stop some people assuming it's all true anyway because a "witness" says "she "looked" 12/14" and another witness says "I think she was brain damaged because she was on a neurological ward". "I think?" And are these witnesses talking about the same people who are making the claims or about totally different people? I really think the police have more important things to deal with than something that supposedly happened 40 odd years ago. As for any future kids being discouraged, I should think they're more likely to be discouraged by the more recent case in Rochdale..
That's the job of police investigation and the judicial system, not ours. Their problem. That's what they do.
It's not really up to us on a forum to decide whether or not they can do it or not, so better to not bother.
What we glean from newspaper reports is besides the point. There will be a lot of information that we won't have access to and is in the hands of the police. We can only talk about what has been reported by various media outlets which we can't assume is exactly reliable. It would appear due to how many allegations and complaints that have been made is that there is a lot of information out there that we aren't aware of yet, so can't really comment on. We just have to hope that a thorough investigation reveals the truth one way or another.
Then that assumes that the allegations are true when there is no real evidence that they are. If the man were still alive it wouldn't just be him who would be answerable in court but his accusers and if proved to be lying they would have to answer for the consequences. As it now stands, they can say anything they like and the gullible will believe them.
Had these people been abused I would have thought they would have relished the chance to challenge him while he was still alive rather than wait until he'd died. And surely the fact that he's dead would be closure in itself (if indeed there was any "closure" to be had). There could be any number of reasons why these stories are circulating - vindictiveness, monetary gain, false memory syndrome. And once the vultures have picked over the bones of Jimmy Saville - who's next? John Peel? (who's name has been highlighted in the Press). Bound to be someone who's dead because in accusing the living they would have to be damn sure they have evidence to back up their claims
How do you know that there is no real evidence?
Do you think the newspapers and TV news reveal every single piece of information to us that has been reported to the authorities?
That's the job of police investigation and the judicial system, not ours. Their problem. That's what they do.
It's not really up to us on a forum to decide whether or not they can do it or not, so better to not bother.
Yet most people on this forum seem to be judging him to be guilty when people are supposedly presumed innocent until (or unless) proved guilty.
What we glean from newspaper reports is besides the point. There will be a lot of information that we won't have access to and is in the hands of the police. We can only talk about what has been reported by various media outlets which we can't assume is exactly reliable. It would appear due to how many allegations and complaints that have been made is that there is a lot of information out there that we aren't aware of yet, so can't really comment on. We just have to hope that a thorough investigation reveals the truth one way or another.
Well from what I've heard of the police cover up over Hillsborough and the police involvement in the Leveson enquiry, I wouldn't trust either of them to tell the truth. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't all a ruse to get Murdoch back on his feet.
Ah I see, it's gone from hearing "rumours" to just ONE rumour. Funny how people backtrack when they, themselves, are in the firing line. If police investigations go the way public opinion seems to be heading, she may regret saying she "knew" anything at all!
One point I'd like to raise though, is if these girls are telling the truth and if they were underage, how do we know whether he knew that? To quote one person's view at that time "you didn't always ask to see a birth certificate"
One point I'd like to raise though, is if these girls are telling the truth and if they were underage, how do we know whether he knew that? To quote one person's view at that time "you didn't always ask to see a birth certificate"
Yes, all 9 year old boys and 13 year old girls look like consenting 20 year olds don’t they?
Your incessant disparaging of anyone that comes forward is truly sickening.
......
To the absolute surprise of no-one, Mark “Claims for 30p parking” Thompson says he knew nothing, nada, zippo, bupkiss.
These people really need to learn the difference between deniability and plausible deniability.
Patten has said publicly that Thompson was one of only three BBC executives who were told about the Newsnight investigation at the time. To complicate the picture, the chairman has since been contradicted by the BBC's own press office, which said Patten "misspoke" when he included Thompson among the list of those in the know.
A few posters looking to drag the focus from the BBC would do well to read and digest:
But it is the BBC that is bearing the brunt of the fallout. It was the BBC that gave Savile his fame – as it was the Catholic Church that gave pedophile priests power over their victims. On a more practical level, abuse happened on BBC property, in Savile's dressing room at BBC Television Centre in west London.
"In the BBC of old," Peter Watt said, "there appears to have been a culture of not believing, of not wanting to hear what was being said and therefore not investigating."
Comments
But this is the whole point for me that makes the Saville story worth pursuing.
It seems that some people need forcibly reminding that abusing children is wrong. The fact the police and social services ignored these girls in Rochdale says that some people need constantly reminding of this.
Also the Saville piece will I am sure have certain other people sweating in their beds of a night --and about time.
If nothing else if it stops the Mail from printing one more " all grown up now" story I'll be a happy camper.
That whooshing noise is the point flying over your head
It's not about proving the allegations. It's about finding out who else knew what was going on and did nothing, and about doing what can be done to prevent the same thing happening again.
Or is that somehow not worth doing?
The point is though that the Rochdale case is more recent and was taking place at a time when people were more aware of the effects of child abuse. The fact that nothing was done for years in that instance was, in part, because the authorities didn't want to be seen as racist and because they considered the girls in question to be a swathe of Vicky Pollards who deserved nothing better and who were seen as responsible for their own actions. Why the parents never did anything to help is a question I've been asking myself.
Then that assumes that the allegations are true when there is no real evidence that they are. If the man were still alive it wouldn't just be him who would be answerable in court but his accusers and if proved to be lying they would have to answer for the consequences. As it now stands, they can say anything they like and the gullible will believe them.
Had these people been abused I would have thought they would have relished the chance to challenge him while he was still alive rather than wait until he'd died. And surely the fact that he's dead would be closure in itself (if indeed there was any "closure" to be had). There could be any number of reasons why these stories are circulating - vindictiveness, monetary gain, false memory syndrome. And once the vultures have picked over the bones of Jimmy Saville - who's next? John Peel? (who's name has been highlighted in the Press). Bound to be someone who's dead because in accusing the living they would have to be damn sure they have evidence to back up their claims
Of course there is. Weight of evidence and the number of witnessess/accusers is one of the things that many criminal trials hinge on, even when the accused is present in court.
And that's still the case.
The fact that you can't libel the dead is trotted out as a reason for always assuming that people levelling accusations against someone who's died are automatically lying.
But it's still a criminal offence to level a knowingly false criminal accusation against someone, whether they're dead or not.
You've missed the most obvious reason
As above
Because if people had been victims and really wanted justice they would face the accused when they were still alive. To wait until someone dies suggests they're after something other than justice.
But surely that would depend on someone taking on the defence mantel for him and his relatives don't seem keen to get themselves caught up in it.
What you consider to be the most obvious reason and what I consider to be the most obvious reason are two different things and when you're dealing with people who are in their 40s and beyond I wouldn't rule out false memory syndrome although it could just be that they said they were older than they were at the time but are now complaining they were "taken advantage of". But whatever the reason this must be manna from heaven for Rupert Murdoch who will no doubt be claiming that "news"papers do serve a vital function after all - yep same as it ever was - spreading poison.
What you believe you would do, and therefore what other people should do, doesn't mean that everyone would behave in the same way that you think you would.
Why might that be? If someone from your family was accused of these crimes would you sit back and just let it all happen if you didn't believe it?
And yet you want other people to adopt the same approach to having been abused that you believe you would, or you going to assume they're lying just because you would react differently?
The most obvious reason why someone would make an accusation that they've been sexually assaulted is that they've been sexually assaulted.
That's a very convenient excuse.
I believe he gave the vast bulk of his wealth to charity. Heard someone interviewed saying they were surprised they got anything. Depends how close a family is I suppose. I certainly wouldn't like to get any backlash from the hounds of hell that is the British media. The wolfpack mentality that was once confined to tabloids alone seems to be spreading to the rest of the media - Jeremy Vine and Jeremy Kyle's shows being cases in point.
I assume people are innocent until or unless real evidence convinces me otherwise. The only thing that has made me think twice has been not what the accusers or "witnesses" have said but what Jimmy Saville himself said about Gary Glitter's photos - but the man's dead now and they can accuse him all they like and grab as much from the estate and from the Press as they can but they'll never convict him.
Not necessarily - especially when we're talking about a celebrity who's worth a lot of money. How many are making money from the tabloids as we speak by selling their stories?
this is way beyond the poin,but i do not know how to post a new subject - I just wanted to say something about Saville , that is, he must have been the most boring person I had ever heard on radio or tv. He could not string a sentence together and had to use catchphrases and noises to broadcast his programmes. I do wish people would stop saying that he was charismatic!!! I have never come across anyone less charismatic than Saville.
I am not commenting on the important issues at hand, and will not until it becomes proven. What Ido know for a fact , is that my level of tedium reached breaking point when I had to watch his tv shows because my kids liked them!
Jemjem
this is way beyond the poin,but i do not know how to post a new subject - I just wanted to say something about Saville , that is, he must have been the most boring person I had ever heard on radio or tv. He could not string a sentence together and had to use catchphrases and noises to broadcast his programmes. I do wish people would stop saying that he was charismatic!!! I have never come across anyone less charismatic than Saville.
I am not commenting on the important issues at hand, and will not until it becomes proven. What Ido know for a fact , is that my level of tedium reached breaking point when I had to watch his tv shows because my kids liked them!
Jemjem[/QUOTE]
My mom wouldn't let me watch Jim'l fix it and then i grew up with the general idea he was a weirdo, because my mom thought so, he gave me the creeps and i have never watched any of his shows, but of course i knew who he was, you couldn't miss him, he made himself known, attention seeker he was, arrogant and up his own jacksee
2nd Bold is my bit, quotes are broke
It's a fact that different people react differently to the same events. Why is that so hard to understand?
You just said "he gave the vast bulk of his wealth to charity" but now apparently they're going to "grab as much from the estate" as they can. It would be a good idea if you understood your own argument before you imposed it on others.
And I notice that you continually avoid having to address the fact....sorry, it seems you prefer the term "very convenient excuse".....that they can't "accuse him all they like". Whether it fits with your theory or not, it is nonetheless the case that making a knowingly unwarranted serious accusation of a crime against someone IS a criminal offence and they CAN be held to account for it, even if the person they accuse is already dead.
And yes, the most obvious reason why someone would make an accusation of sexual assault is because they've been sexually assaulted. That doesn't mean that all accusations will be true, but try and understand that putting yourself forward as the victim of a sexual assault is not an easy thing to do. If you want to believe that Savile isn't guilty of being a sexual predator on underage girls, you have to believe every single one of these people is lying, not just that a few of them are.
http://thisismyengland.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/jerry-sawowitz-was-right.html
That in itself doesn't make someone guilty.
What is hard to understand is why people are prepared to believe them point blank on the testimony of witnesses that say "she LOOKED 12-14" and "I THINK she was brain damaged because she was on a neurological ward". These are 40 year old memories? How reliable would most people's memories be after that length of time. Where is the concrete proof?
True but they can always get money from the daily rags and write and sell books if nothing else.
That will only happen if someone is prepared to put themselves up against the lynch mob mentality that goes with this sort of story.
But I'm guessing it's so much easier to do once someone is dead. Had these claims been made public when he was alive they may have had more credence. The notion that he was supposedly "powerful" would not have prevented a story reaching the press - after all being "powerful" didn't stop claims against Michael Jackson. .
I don't think you heard his interview with Anthony Clare, in The Psychiatrist's Chair. He was very articulate in that.
That's the job of police investigation and the judicial system, not ours. Their problem. That's what they do.
It's not really up to us on a forum to decide whether or not they can do it or not, so better to not bother.
What we glean from newspaper reports is besides the point. There will be a lot of information that we won't have access to and is in the hands of the police. We can only talk about what has been reported by various media outlets which we can't assume is exactly reliable. It would appear due to how many allegations and complaints that have been made is that there is a lot of information out there that we aren't aware of yet, so can't really comment on. We just have to hope that a thorough investigation reveals the truth one way or another.
How do you know that there is no real evidence?
Do you think the newspapers and TV news reveal every single piece of information to us that has been reported to the authorities?
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/334919
If that is true, then I am glad, but really she should have done the right thing and resigned.
I wonder if all the journalists and others who now say they knew about it but did nothing will be sacked ?
Yet most people on this forum seem to be judging him to be guilty when people are supposedly presumed innocent until (or unless) proved guilty.
Well from what I've heard of the police cover up over Hillsborough and the police involvement in the Leveson enquiry, I wouldn't trust either of them to tell the truth. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't all a ruse to get Murdoch back on his feet.
If there were concrete evidence (rather than just "memories") do you think they would conceal that piece of information? Why on earth would they?
Ah I see, it's gone from hearing "rumours" to just ONE rumour. Funny how people backtrack when they, themselves, are in the firing line. If police investigations go the way public opinion seems to be heading, she may regret saying she "knew" anything at all!
One point I'd like to raise though, is if these girls are telling the truth and if they were underage, how do we know whether he knew that? To quote one person's view at that time "you didn't always ask to see a birth certificate"
Yes, all 9 year old boys and 13 year old girls look like consenting 20 year olds don’t they?
Your incessant disparaging of anyone that comes forward is truly sickening.
......
To the absolute surprise of no-one, Mark “Claims for 30p parking” Thompson says he knew nothing, nada, zippo, bupkiss.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/16/new-york-times-mark-thompson-jimmy-savile-bbc?newsfeed=true
These people really need to learn the difference between deniability and plausible deniability.
A few posters looking to drag the focus from the BBC would do well to read and digest:
.....
Savile at the BBC chart:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/oct/16/jimmy-savile-bbc-who-charge?newsfeed=true
http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/local/hospice-patron-pulled-into-savile-scandal-1-4368545
....
Inquiries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19970059