Operation Yewtree

[Chad]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I find the fact that this thread has a poll on whether Sir Jimmy Saville is guilty or not, to be both totally irrelevant and in poor taste.

But it doesn't. The question is "Do you think the allegations against Jimmy are true?"

If people don’t like the poll question they don’t have to answer. It’s purely optional.

Sorry you feel it’s in poor taste however I don’t agree. It’s a hot topic in the media just now. This thread has been very emotive and has thrown up interesting points for debate. I feel there is value in gauging how users of the thread feel. The fact that people are voting confirms it’s a facility people want to use.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chad

But it doesn't. The question is "Do you think the allegations against Jimmy are true?"

Which equates to the same thing.

[danielf]

Well, it seems to me that the words 'poor taste' and 'Sir Jimmy Savile' are inextricably linked after last night.

Some interesting thought here:

Blinded by the Obvious

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by danielf

Well, it seems to me that the words 'poor taste' and 'Sir Jimmy Savile' are inextricably linked after last night.

Some interesting thought here:

Blinded by the Obvious

Just more opinion, speculation, from one of many unimportant bloggers.

I'm not saying he's innocent, guilty or anything.

But he's being trialed, judged and sentenced by the media, and social media and he is not in a position to defend himself, or indeed be interviewed.

So all we will ever hear on this matter is one side of the story, and that is not how it's supposed to work.

If he's alleged to have done anything, then by all means let it be investigated thoroughly by the police and let them advise on their findings.

He now can never win, so to speak, if he's found guilty in his abscence - which may be difficult. Then so be it.

However, if there is no real evidence brought forward to be heard, then the rumours and stories will exist forever against him.

Wasn't going to comment in this topic because i am biased towards sir jimmy as he visited our kids home every year and always bought a lot of laughter and compassion with him. He spent time alone with many of us in the grounds and all he ever did was give hugs to kids and constantly tell them it wasn't their fault. I have listened with growing anger the stream of people who "knew" and did nothing yeah really so many knowing and none of them with the spine to come out and expose it if it were going on to the level we are being led to believe come on something clearly wrong with that if nothing else.

As for people saying "ah but none of these people knew each" some of you do realise there are websites some troubled people can go to where they actually make up abuse claims and link their recollections i didn't until a friend of mine who works for the police had to deal with a gang of them last year trying to cash in on the rosehill scandal. We live in a time where allegations without proof is enough it doesn't have to be true it just has to be said by enough people and thats it your guilty.

We have become paranoid about paedophiles and worried about them too much and before someone has a go at that remember back to your childhood were you kept locked in because there might have been a pervert lurking no most of you weren't we know they exist we universally despise them but they didn't get to rule our lives. I remember being home on leave with a few of the lads and we went to a local field to relax with some girls (keep it polite and non lurid) we had bought quite a few refreshments to enjoy the day. Two kids came running over asking if they could have a can of coke each so we gave them one and i think some choc as well about half an hour later the irate dad was there telling us "he knew what we were upto". People have got too turned around on this issue were allowing ourselves to see them everywhere and they are not.

If i believed for one minute that jimmy saaville had done this i would condemn him and call for that guilt to be made public but i honestly cannot see a man who had so much compassion who did so much good and not just raising money for kids being this evil predator that he is now being made out to be sorry i just can't. Also why wait till he is dead to bring all this out sorry it is not about closure for the alledged victims he is dead they can never have that now. It isn't about justice because they cannot have that now either and no comments about sir jimmy's power to intimidate if he had that it was a longtime gone for many years before his death so no reason there not to bring this out. Only reason i can come up with for why all this is being said now is because he isn't here to put his side there is no one able to defend him against these revalations so they will stand without a shred of real evidence just a load of hearsay a lot of it coming from cowardly **** who now claim they "knew".

If you did truly know this happened and you never said a thing till now your worse then the perpetrator of the crime and far from looking good with your views and concerns now your just shown to be the shallow and cowardly people that you obviously are.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Just more opinion, speculation, from one of many unimportant bloggers.

I'm not saying he's innocent, guilty or anything.

But he's being trialed, judged and sentenced by the media, and social media and he is not in a position to defend himself, or indeed be interviewed.

So all we will ever hear on this matter is one side of the story, and that is not how it's supposed to work.

If he's alleged to have done anything, then by all means let it be investigated thoroughly by the police and let them advise on their findings.

He now can never win, so to speak, if he's found guilty in his abscence - which may be difficult. Then so be it.

However, if there is no real evidence brought forward to be heard, then the rumours and stories will exist forever against him.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. Which is why, when I started reading up on him, I took the rumours and allegations as just that, and was highly skeptical of the rumours. However it quickly dawned on me, in no small part through Savile's own remarks, it was actually highly likely that the rumours were true. In a way, Savile's own remarks and writings are even more damning than the rumours:

'we live in a very funny world and it's easier for me as a single man to say 'I don't like children' because that puts a lot of salacious tabloid people off the hunt.''

On camera, to Louis Theroux, when asked 'why he hated children'.

Savile said: “Now Gary, all he did was to take his computer into PC World to get it repaired.

“They went into the hard drive, saw all these dodgy pictures and told the police and the police then said, ‘Oh we’ve got a famous person, yeah we’ll have them’.

“But Gary hasn’t sold ’em, hasn’t tried to sell ’em, not tried to show them in public or anything like that.

“It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is of course up to him as a person.

“And if you ever said to that copper, ‘What’s Gary Glitter done wrong?’ Well nothing really. He’s just sat at home watching these dodgy, dodgy films.”

On camera, to Louis Theroux

"thou shall not be found out"

Savile's contribution (Entitled 'The Eleventh Commandment') to a 1991 charity book entitled, Over 500 Trouble-Saving Ideas From The Famous, The Efficient and The Wise.

According to Phil Dampier

I often had cause to ring him at home, and before I even said why I was calling he’d reply: “She told me she was 16 and I had no reason to doubt her!”

And there's a lot more if we take what others claim he's said into consideration. Couple that with the fact that (so far) 10 women claim to have been assaulted by him, and it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

'Sir Jimmy Saville' in all likelihood was a serial rapist and Paedophile, and we've probably only scratched the surface of what he's been up to.

---------- Post added at 16:51 ---------- Previous post was at 16:41 ----------

May I ask who's removed the poll? It was only added today, and the OP started the thread 5 days ago. I don't think regular members can add a poll after 5 days, so it would appear that the poll was added and removed by one of the mods (though not necessarily the same one), which doesn't seem very consistent?

Originally Posted by danielf

]May I ask who's removed the poll? It was only added today, and the OP started the thread 5 days ago. I don't think regular members can add a poll after 5 days, so it would appear that the poll was added and removed by one of the mods (though not necessarily the same one), which doesn't seem very consistent?

The poll was added as a side-effect of a merge, it was not added by a mod. We've closed it down because we feel it's not appropriate.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

The poll was added as a side-effect of a merge, it was not added by a mod. We've closed it down because we feel it's not appropriate.

Okay, that's fair enough. The removal just seems a little odd as I was under the impression it had been (silently) added by a mod.

Originally Posted by danielf

And there's a lot more if we take what others claim he's said into consideration. Couple that with the fact that (so far) 10 women claim to have been assaulted by him, and it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

'Sir Jimmy Saville' in all likelihood was a serial rapist and Paedophile, and we've probably only scratched the surface of what he's been up to.

I still cannot believe that out of 10 or more woman who claim to have been raped or abused by him ,not 1 has ever told the authorities or if they have they haven't pursued it .I can understand children not doing it but grown women who know that he doesn't actually have any power over them should have come forward sooner and nobody can tell me that all the celebrities that knew or suspected it was going on ,not one of those came forward either or pursued it further when it was dismissed

The poll has been deleted, it serves absolutely no purpose whatsover, everyone can now get back to the topic.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

From what l have read and seen in the media, Sir Jim cannot defend himself as he is deceased.

BUT, if all the people have come forward and said these evil things of what and what he did, appalls me and sickens me to the bone and heads should role.

We have already heard from Esther Rantzen, Paul Gambochine and others, we also saw a Tv shot of him stating something of this. But what l have read on how he commiteed this sicks acts - is totally true on how they groom there victims. And in one article yesterday the name of Gary Glitter was mentioned in Jim's dressing room, committing a sexual act along with Jim.

When l was young something similar happened to me over several years before the person struck - l told my parents, and nothing happened and l was kept well away from him, the sick git died about ten years ago, and in those days the perverts were called a different name to what is said today.

The big question we should all ask ourself - did the family know, why didn't they come forward, if ALL these people knew years ago when he was alive - why didn't they something.

Even my wife only knows the brief details of what happened to me, and the rest is in a 'locked cupboard' of my mind. This is why the victims have only come forward now. That cupboard has now been opened.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by martyh

I still cannot believe that out of 10 or more woman who claim to have been raped or abused by him ,not 1 has ever told the authorities or if they have they haven't pursued it .I can understand children not doing it but grown women who know that he doesn't actually have any power over them should have come forward sooner and nobody can tell me that all the celebrities that knew or suspected it was going on ,not one of those came forward either or pursued it further when it was dismissed

Tell me how that differs from the massive abuse cases in the Catholic Church.

I'm not going to pretend I have answers to all your questions, but it seems to me that if you take all the evidence together, then even accounting for the fact that rumours are just rumours, there is a very compelling case for concluding that Savile was a rapist and a paedophile. In fact I would argue that we need to have a very serious look at what made it possible for him to get away with it for so long.

[Sparkle]

I watched the documentary last night, almost entirely one sided of course so I'd hardly consider it a balanced representation.
At the end of the programme I had a look out for a statement confirming that none of the alleged victims were paid for their part in its' making.
It seems I must have missed it.

For many years now I've known that Britain has had a rather odd fascination with paedophilia, but this latest media circus definitely takes the biscuit. Witch hunt frenzy in overdrive, and its only just getting started by the looks of things.

A lot of smoke without evidence of fire. Rumours this, rumours that.
The guy's as good as guilty in the eyes of many so it seems, and the evidence has yet to even be heard.

Everyone should have a right to a defense. Will people not at least wait until the investigation before they condemn this guy? Apparently not.

I don't believe for a second that Jimmy being dead somehow ensures that his "powerful friends" are unable to protect him (assuming the claims are true that they were able before), also considering the prospect of their own implication should the "truth" get out.

Nor do I believe that Jimmy being dead makes it more socially acceptable to come out with these claims, actually I'd say its the other way around.

In the wake of the Catholic priest scandals, and all the others in recent years not to mention the fact that there were rumours already about Jimmy Savile (as you'd expect from any "odd" character who works with children), there would've been plenty of support from the public and charities for those who claim to have been raped by this man.

I don't believe that Jimmy being dead somehow "makes it possible" for victims to come forward, he was Jimmy Savile not Jimmy Hoffa!

I do however believe, and quite rightly so, that a dead guy can't defend himself.

I'm not saying he's innocent, as I don't have the facts to make such an assertion, but he should be entitled to a defense, one he's unlikely to receive in the current situation - so all we may hear is a one sided view.
That is morally wrong, no matter which way its tarted up (ie we need the truth, better we know now than never, why should the "victims" suffer in silence, etc etc). As is all one sided libel and slander.

Jimmy was 84 when he died, just in October of last year. 2011 was hardly 1963, the fact that so many are claiming they were abused, yet feel they would only be listened to after his death, just doesn't sit well with me. Something not right there, though no doubt time will tell.

It worries me about how many people are saying they knew all along. I wonder if they're the same people who "knew all along" when the police wrongly arrested Chris Jefferies. He looked like a killer, so he'd might as well be one....jeez, some people are so stupid it boggles the mind.

Again, I'm not defending anyone here as I really don't have the evidence to convict or even put anyone on trial. But then nor does anyone else at this time.

I have little more to say on the matter, as the mature reaction is to exercise restrain given the public nature of this forum and the risk to reputations of persons both alive and dead, until an investigation has been completed.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Hi Danielf, I totally agree with what you are saying, however the comment made by martyh, people are ashamed to come forward and all the stick that they will take.

If Sir Jim was alive today, would they have come forward, no they would not as the qoute would be is ' who do you beleive, l am a big name' that answers your question.

[Gary L]

About the women who have come forward.
do we know if they're parents knew at the time?

could it be the case that they as children didn't tell their parents, for reasons for at the time era of the 70's they wouldn't. and then because that now they are grown up they can speak for themselves and add their name to the list that is out because of the documentary?

then you could say why didn't they walk into a police station before now and say Jimmy Saville touched/raped me as a kid.

they didn't know there were others until now. one never spoke up until the other one did. one thought nobody would believe her?

Obviously nothing can be done to a dead man whether he did it or not.
but we can still go for the ones who knew it went on and did nothing about it.

has any of Jim's old DJ friends said anything yet. apart from Paul?