[sozzled2day]

The papers really need to stop putting his huge smirking face at the top of every article. It's unnerving to see those eyes staring at me the minute I open the article! Why not shove his face down to the bottom so we can read without seeing him. We all know what he looks like for God's sake. As for that pic of him semi-naked in The Mirror... well, crass doesn't even cover it. The only other photo as revolting as that was the one with him draped over a bed at Stoke Mandeville (in his own room) barely clothed and grinning like a psycho.

[Sad_BB_Addict]

Last night's Newsnight
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ht_11_01_2013/
Savile item is first.

[Sad_BB_Addict]

Dozens of victims to seek compensation
http://news.sky.com/story/1037054/sa...k-compensation

[MrGiles2]

I was appalled and sickened when I read the key elements of the report on Jimmy Savile on Sky News yesterday. However, I did notice a glaring ommission.

It was generally known that Jimmy Savile was a strict Catholic and attended Church regularly. Yet, there was no mention of this downright hypocrisy, and bearing in mind the recent publicity of the past few years of Paedophile Priests, there seems to be no evidence (according to the report) that Savile had connections with any paedophile ring. My view is that there may have been some evidence, and since further revelations might have been more damaging to the church, this fact may have been covered up.

I could be wrong about this of course, but I wonder what other forum users think?

[sangreal]

Originally Posted by MrGiles2

I was appalled and sickened when I read the key elements of the report on Jimmy Savile on Sky News yesterday. However, I did notice a glaring ommission.

It was generally known that Jimmy Savile was a strict Catholic and attended Church regularly. Yet, there was no mention of this downright hypocrisy, and bearing in mind the recent publicity of the past few years of Paedophile Priests, there seems to be no evidence (according to the report) that Savile had connections with any paedophile ring. My view is that there may have been some evidence, and since further revelations might have been more damaging to the church, this fact may have been covered up.

I could be wrong about this of course, but I wonder what other forum users think?

Well, we know that he frequented the childrens/boys' homes in North Wales & Jersey and the paedo-parties in London, where there were paedophile rings involved....

Seems just like yet another cover-up to me :-/

[gulliverfoyle]

Originally Posted by Linda_Danvers

Good read indeed. I agree 100%. Very disappointed with this report which reported only statistics and gave no evidence whatsoever. I fully believe Savile was a sexual predator, but this hardly introduced anything new and didn't "give the victims a voice". I didn't listen any of them in it.

Edit: Avoid the comments. Misogynistic garbage, as usual in these type of articles.

I agree

it set a very dangerous precedent that someone can be convicted by the police with no corroborated evidence at all
just because they are dead

and Im sure the lawyers are rubbing theyre hands at the thought of all the fees for suing all the big insitutions

[inquirer64]

Originally Posted by gulliverfoyle

I agree

it set a very dangerous precedent that someone can be convicted by the police with no corroborated evidence at all
just because they are dead

and Im sure the lawyers are rubbing theyre hands at the thought of all the fees for suing all the big insitutions

Surely we do not know whether there is any corroborated evidence? Perhaps there is and it would implicate others?

I hope there will be a 'Hillsborough' type inquiry on child abuse pulling together all the strands including Jersey.

[gulliverfoyle]

Originally Posted by inquirer64

Surely we do not know whether there is any corroborated evidence? Perhaps there is and it would implicate others?

I hope there will be a 'Hillsborough' type inquiry on child abuse pulling together all the strands including Jersey.

Aware of a bit of a difficulty here, the report admits that “the information has not been corroborated”. Corroboration would be “considered disproportionate”, it goes on, given that criminal proceedings cannot now be brought because Savile is dead. So all we have are claims. The report seeks to justify itself by saying that “the patterns and similarities” of his “offences and behaviours” reported have “given police and NSPCC staff an informed view that most people have provided compelling accounts of what happened to them”. So, it suggests, the rest of us must believe them.

[sangreal]

Originally Posted by gulliverfoyle

Aware of a bit of a difficulty here, the report admits that “the information has not been corroborated”. Corroboration would be “considered disproportionate”, it goes on, given that criminal proceedings cannot now be brought because Savile is dead. So all we have are claims. The report seeks to justify itself by saying that “the patterns and similarities” of his “offences and behaviours” reported have “given police and NSPCC staff an informed view that most people have provided compelling accounts of what happened to them”. So, it suggests, the rest of us must believe them.

Hmmm... so we're being asked to believe all the individual allegations/reports of assaults at the BBC, Duncroft & various hospitals/prisons, etc - but we shouldn't also believe the claims from former residents of childrens' homes who say that Savile abused them there along with other top celebs/politicians/policemen/judges/businessmen?

[inquirer64]

Originally Posted by gulliverfoyle

Aware of a bit of a difficulty here, the report admits that “the information has not been corroborated”. Corroboration would be “considered disproportionate”, it goes on, given that criminal proceedings cannot now be brought because Savile is dead. So all we have are claims. The report seeks to justify itself by saying that “the patterns and similarities” of his “offences and behaviours” reported have “given police and NSPCC staff an informed view that most people have provided compelling accounts of what happened to them”. So, it suggests, the rest of us must believe them.

As far as I'm aware this report is only about the inquiry into JS, not 'JS and others'. Has evidence been left out because it does involve other people?

This is why I'd like an independent Hillsborough type of inquiry pulling together and examining all the strands linked to child abuse.

[IzzyS]

I believe their still investigating the 'JS and others' claims, yesterdays report was the result of the first strand of Operation Yewtree, looking into allegations of offences committed by JS on his own, as thats now been completed - presumably they can't reveal evidence which may implicate those their building a profile of, if it might tip them off, they could flee before arrest or some such?. It makes me wonder if they wouldn't have been better delaying publishing yesterdays report until the 'and others' strand/investigation had been completed, so they may be able to give a more of a complete overall picture.

I find it quite frustrating if the report has still got people questioning if there's any truth to the allegations - do people really think that everyone lied about such things? or that their exaggerating, to try and get a few quid out of it? ugh its a shame that people should ever have to question such things...I hope they do somehow manage to find out anyone lying and seriously throw the book at them though, thats for sure, for the sake of all the genuine victims. One way or another, I'm of the opinion he was clearly quite a nasty (vindictive/manipulative) guy who seemed to have an attraction for underage girls and who was given free reign in places containing vulnerable people and barely questioned when he should have been - I think that much is pretty clear.

--

Originally Posted by sangreal

Well, we know that he frequented the childrens/boys' homes in North Wales & Jersey and the paedo-parties in London, where there were paedophile rings involved....

Seems just like yet another cover-up to me :-/

I presume any involvement in such rings will be investigated as part of the 'JS and others' investigation. I've seen one or two people/places (MWT/Sky? I cant remember for sure) claiming that there's still going to be quite a few revelations to come, so presumably they are still looking into things - hopefully its too early to be sure of any specific cover ups.

[sangreal]

Yeah, good points Izzy & inquirer64.
I guess we'll just have to remain patient and wait & see....

[IzzyS]

Originally Posted by skp20040

I would assume a very deliberate choice of photo to make us all feel a sicky revolted feeling when seeing it.

Why anyone would want to pick it up, I don't know...

[inquirer64]

I did not see the interview on Sky News with Guy Marsden, a nephew of JS.

The Guardian today reports that he said JS got away with it because he was so powerful; he could name 10 others; it's happening now; it's never going to change because they are so powerful and big; and such crimes only ever come out when the perpetrators died.

Depressing but hopefully there are other decent powerful people out there who will ensure that this time those who are still alive, and possibly still abusing, will be brought to justice.

[stargazer61]

Izzy..........you raise some very good points.

I think one of the problems is that, in this age of instantaneous information, people want instant results. Investigating crimes which took place over several decades with little collaborating evidence, is extremely difficult.

In many ways this is just the beginning of unravelling Savile and his actions, and the actions of those around him. Running around charging others just to appease a 'hungry' public who demand instant answers and actions, without putting together solid cases is dangerous.
Personally, I would rather the Police work methodically than bow to public pressure

[IzzyS]

Originally Posted by inquirer64

I did not see on Sky News with Guy Marsden, a nephew of JS.

The Guardian today reports that he said JS got away with it because he was so powerful; he could name 10 others; it's happening now; it's never going to change because they are so powerful and big; and such crimes only ever come out when the perpetrators died.

Depressing but hopefully there are other decent powerful people out there who will ensure that this time those who are still alive, and possibly still abusing, will be brought to justice.

Thats a worry, that somehow people in power can afford legal representation that can stall charges etc., or that they can make victims believe thats the case, that they have the power to inflict enough on them to stop them from pursuing such a case. It must take an awful lot of courage to take on someone well known in the entertainment business, known to have millions, with a big fanbase and contacts I don't know if I could have done it if it were me... I guess the concern is the presence of corruption at certain levels - *if* the police were paid off (Im not saying they were, I wouldn't know), who is going to discover and reveal that? that might be a bit paranoid but im suspicious of the talk he made about having contacts and being able to help friends if they need something 'got rid of' and all of that sort of talk... its probably more likely he knew little bits of things here and there and would threaten to reveal, if it would put staff in trouble if they passed something on, it would make them think twice about it?. I seem to remember an interview with someone at one of the hospitals saying he would have lost his job if he reported something he saw because JS threatened to get him fired if he made an official complaint and he had a family and obviously they were dependent on him, so he felt relunctantly he had to stay quiet.

[IzzyS]

Originally Posted by stargazer61

Izzy..........you raise some very good points.

I think one of the problems is that, in this age of instantaneous information, people want instant results. Investigating crimes which took place over several decades with little collaborating evidence, is extremely difficult.

In many ways this is just the beginning of unravelling Savile and his actions, and the actions of those around him. Running around charging others just to appease a 'hungry' public who demand instant answers and actions, without putting together solid cases is dangerous.
Personally, I would rather the Police work methodically than bow to public pressure

Thank you. I can understand people wanting to see action taken now, especially knowing JS is dead, others who may have been involved in his actions may not be long of the world either and as the public, we'd like to see there be someone brought to justice over this whole scandal but its very important that they get it right - to accuse or charge someone who is innocent could ruin their career if their in the public eye as people will likely always wonder about their motives if they've heard that he/she may have had an involvement with JS's abuse.

Its a very serious topic and needs to be investigated thoroughly which takes time but I'd also rather wait and find out the full truth, as far as is possible, than have it all be a bit slap dash and only end up with a rough idea of potential complainants and have people say well thats all in the past and thats that (if you know what I mean?). I think its almost dangerous to think of this as some sort of purely historical one-off type case or to think that it could never happen again - thats the main question we have to wonder, could it? I hope not.

Lets find out as much as we can so we can work to improve things to help prevent anything similar from happening in the future - its not a waste of time as the guys dead, like some people have suggested, its called learning from past mistakes to hopefully create a better future, surely? get me sounding all melodramatic...lol...

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by IzzyS

Thats a worry, that somehow people in power can afford legal representation that can stall charges etc., or that they can make victims believe thats the case, that they have the power to inflict enough on them to stop them from pursuing such a case. It must take an awful lot of courage to take on someone well known in the entertainment business, known to have millions, with a big fanbase and contacts I don't know if I could have done it if it were me... I guess the concern is the presence of corruption at certain levels - *if* the police were paid off (Im not saying they were, I wouldn't know), who is going to discover and reveal that? that might be a bit paranoid but im suspicious of the talk he made about having contacts and being able to help friends if they need something 'got rid of' and all of that sort of talk... its probably more likely he knew little bits of things here and there and would threaten to reveal, if it would put staff in trouble if they passed something on, it would make them think twice about it?. I seem to remember an interview with someone at one of the hospitals saying he would have lost his job if he reported something he saw because JS threatened to get him fired if he made an official complaint and he had a family and obviously they were dependent on him, so he felt relunctantly he had to stay quiet.

If you haven't already read it, have a read of Stuart Syvret's excellent post on the currency of collusion and how and why it is that people get caught up in things they moreoften than not never intended to, and realise, too late, that they have effectively been gagged.

http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2...1_archive.html

[jack patterson]

Originally Posted by IzzyS

Thats a worry, that somehow people in power can afford legal representation that can stall charges etc., or that they can make victims believe thats the case, that they have the power to inflict enough on them to stop them from pursuing such a case. It must take an awful lot of courage to take on someone well known in the entertainment business, known to have millions, with a big fanbase and contacts I don't know if I could have done it if it were me... I guess the concern is the presence of corruption at certain levels - *if* the police were paid off (Im not saying they were, I wouldn't know), who is going to discover and reveal that? that might be a bit paranoid but im suspicious of the talk he made about having contacts and being able to help friends if they need something 'got rid of' and all of that sort of talk... its probably more likely he knew little bits of things here and there and would threaten to reveal, if it would put staff in trouble if they passed something on, it would make them think twice about it?. I seem to remember an interview with someone at one of the hospitals saying he would have lost his job if he reported something he saw because JS threatened to get him fired if he made an official complaint and he had a family and obviously they were dependent on him, so he felt relunctantly he had to stay quiet.

You obviously don't understand a public service job in which in those days it was very hard to get fired from.
So yes of course the unions and his co-workers would have let that go without a fight wouldn't they?- get real

Didn't do this guy any good and he had the most respected QC in the land and two young girls were willing to testify against him,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Adamson

makes a mockery of 'people were too scared and naive to do anything' way back in the 1980s doesn't it?

[Eurostar]

Originally Posted by jack patterson

You obviously don't understand a public service job in which in those days it was very hard to get fired from.
So yes of course the unions and his co-workers would have let that go without a fight wouldn't they?- get real

Didn't do this guy any good and he had the most respected QC in the land and two young girls were willing to testify against him,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Adamson

makes a mockery of 'people were too scared and naive to do anything' way back in the 1980s doesn't it?

Though he was nowhere near as famous and influential as Savile. There may have been an element of Savile being seen as untouchable because of his fame and celebrity.

[IzzyS]

Originally Posted by lexi22

If you haven't already read it, have a read of Stuart Syvret's excellent post on the currency of collusion and how and why it is that people get caught up in things they moreoften than not never intended to, and realise, too late, that they have effectively been gagged.

http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.co.uk/2...1_archive.html

Thats an interesting but sad read. There does seem to be a need for culture to change I suppose but what are the chances of that?.

[Linda_Danvers]

Originally Posted by jack patterson

You obviously don't understand a public service job in which in those days it was very hard to get fired from.
So yes of course the unions and his co-workers would have let that go without a fight wouldn't they?- get real

Didn't do this guy any good and he had the most respected QC in the land and two young girls were willing to testify against him,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Adamson

makes a mockery of 'people were too scared and naive to do anything' way back in the 1980s doesn't it?

I don't understand your compelete lack of sympathy of someone who sexually abused. Put yourself in their places for a minute, is that hard? I can tell you (and that's for sure) there are way, way more men who get away with sexual crimes than those falsely accused.

[IzzyS]

Originally Posted by Eurostar

Though he was nowhere near as famous and influential as Savile. There may have been an element of Savile being seen as untouchable because of his fame and celebrity.

Yes, I'd imagine JS was seen as a bigger celebrity than an (ex) Coronation Street actor (no offence to anyone working on that show). It sounds like JS had alot more money than he did after a short time too.

This rather baffles me, from Adamson's Wikipedia entry:-

Adamson was alleged to have told Slater "I am totally guilty of everything the police said"...."But what I hope you will print - there was no sexual intent."[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Adamson

That doesn't make sense to admit to touching someone inappropriately but with no sexual intent so, what? their hand slipped?

[Bus Stop2012]

Originally Posted by Linda_Danvers

I don't understand your compelete lack of sympathy of someone who sexually abused. Put yourself in their places for a minute, is that hard? I can tell you (and that's for sure) there are way, way more men who get away with sexual crimes than those falsely accused.

I've had a hard think about how I might feel now if I had ever met Jimmy Savile, and its hard to admit it but I honestly think I might consider saying he 'abused' me. It wouldn't be hard to ring up these NAPAC people and tell them 'my tale'. It would be completely anonymous so none of my friends or family would need to know. Then these solicitors would get me signed up to a conditional fee agreement and pop me along to their tame psychologist who would state I'd been injured. I could then just wait to see what happened and if some money eventually arrived. I could ease my guilt by telling myself that my claim wouldn't make much difference given all the others that were going on. And its not like I'd be hurting JS himself.
I'd be able to tell the story ok because I could draw upon my memory of when I did actually get raped once, a long time ago, by a completely unknown, non-rich person.

[Linda_Danvers]

Originally Posted by sangreal

Well, we know that he frequented the childrens/boys' homes in North Wales & Jersey and the paedo-parties in London, where there were paedophile rings involved....

Seems just like yet another cover-up to me :-/

I think these accusations would be in "Savile and Others" file. By the way, did Savile's nephew, Guy Marsden, went to the police with this important info, or he only went to the papers? Why was he singing praises in interviews when Savile died? He didn't need to talk. It seems he got along with his uncle. I'm surely wouldn't get along with a man who took me to sick parties when I was a child and was procurer of children for celebrities. I'm sure I wouldn't want to talk to him ever again. Do we know anything about his nephew? It looks he likes to talk to the press . I wonder if the "names" he has are of people who already died.

As for North Wales home, why Savile's name didn't appear in the original investigation? If he was a "regular" visitor, his name would have appeared.

I'm not sure if any of these accusations bear any weight. Jersey's ones does, but I'm not sure aboute these ones.

I'm more and more cynical about this whole affair and, since the report was published, even more suspicious about some accusations. I can easily count now the ones I believe (the first ones). The report said there is an accusation of someone saying he sexually assaulted a 12 year old boy and his two female friends at TOTP. Didn't the age for appearing at TOTP was 12? He may have attacked them outside the premises, though. The thing I'm positive about Savile is that he was unhealthly attracted to teenage girls and sexually abused some of them. I'm almost positive Savile had "mates" who shared his predilections and that he possibly may have been part of rings. But the police must investigate carefully these type of things. I think they didn't want to precipitate things with uncorraborated info and fuel false accusations and conspiracy theorists around.