Operation Yewtree

Originally Posted by Caff

Exactly.

Whether dead or alive a perpritrator of a crime, if found guilty, should be punished in a fitting way. In this case peoples memory of him might change.
Similarly, someone accused of crime of which they were innocent, and executed/incarcerated, may be exonerated - whether they living or dead.

Whatever the outcome, those that loved, admired or knew him as a friend will have new worriess. Mud sticks.

I'll wait for the outcome.

The problem is, he never can be found legally guilty of anything. You can't try a dead man, and TBH we shouldn't attempt to - he can't stand up and offer any sort of defence.

What is surprising is the amount of people in the industry that have seemed to have suspected this. There are few of them claiming surprise and the instead the response ranges from Esther Rantzen's acceptance to Paul Gambaccini's comments that he has waited 30 years for this to come out. Louis Theoruix who did a documentary on Savile has said he attempt to broach the rumours but didn't get far because he had no evidence and didn't want to push it.

It all suggests that these rumours were persistent and widely known in the industry and yet it didn't leak in the public domain. He was even questioned about it and no paper reported it, The Sun had a reporter whose story was spiked by her editor because 'it wasn't what people wanted to read' and latter when a unnamed tabloid was going to do something on the allegations he somehow stopped it again by offering a interview to a rival (which can't be the whole story)...

Very odd.

I came across a columnist earlier in the week who more or less alleged a conspiracy of silence amongst 'luvvies' anxious to protect one of their own and suggested that had he been a Catholic priest both he and his former employer would have been hung, drawn and quartered by now.

[Caff]

Originally Posted by Chris

The problem is, he never can be found legally guilty of anything. You can't try a dead man, and TBH we shouldn't attempt to - he can't stand up and offer any sort of defence.

Point accepted Chris. You are more knowlegeable than me.

My thoughts are, that others who might have been abused may now step forward - or that the floodgates might open for attention seekers.
As you say : he's not here to defend himself.

I'll wait for the final ruling. But mud sticks.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Chris

I came across a columnist earlier in the week who more or less alleged a conspiracy of silence amongst 'luvvies' anxious to protect one of their own and suggested that had he been a Catholic priest both he and his former employer would have been hung, drawn and quartered by now.

Absolutely. Back in the 70s (and to some extent the 80s) Saville was a very powerful entity. And in an industry where reputation and perception is everything, anyone breaking ranks and making allegations about him would be committing career suicide if not backed up by similar powerful names. It could even be argued that these silent people should share some of his alleged guilt.

Originally Posted by Russ

Absolutely. Back in the 70s (and to some extent the 80s) Saville was a very powerful entity. And in an industry where reputation and perception is everything, anyone breaking ranks and making allegations about him would be committing career suicide if not backed up by similar powerful names. It could even be argued that these silent people should share some of his alleged guilt.

Well you'll also want to be sure you're right. If you're going to call a popular personality a child abuser you want to be sure it holds up. If it isn't proved then you would be committing career suicide and some legal troubles to boot. I don't think the silent people share any of the guilt really, unless someone really did have material that would have held up to critical inspection.

---------- Post added at 13:57 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

I came across a columnist earlier in the week who more or less alleged a conspiracy of silence amongst 'luvvies' anxious to protect one of their own and suggested that had he been a Catholic priest both he and his former employer would have been hung, drawn and quartered by now.

Well the Catholic church covered up multiple abuse allegations didn't they? Moving people around parishes and not co-operating with investigations? Seems like it's pretty similar rather than a double standard.

I wonder if some of those coming out now with their comments knew more than they are letting on and are now rushing to condemn him to avoid any suggestion of willingly turning a blind eye before.

[Gary L]

What annoys me about all this is. we're getting 'celebrities' coming forward and speaking up now about how they more or less knew or suspected what was going on.

don't they realise how that comes across, and what it says about them personally?

If you think about it as well. the BBC has a big involvement in all this.
it all revolves around Saville and the BBC at the time.

going to become very interesting soon I reckon.

[colin25]

i suspect Jimmy knew where the dead bodies were. Big organisation must have lots of secrets.

Originally Posted by colin25

i suspect Jimmy knew where the dead bodies were. Big organisation must have lots of secrets.

I doubt that. I just imagine they are telling the truth they didn't have complaints and were wary of getting into a investigation of a star personality because of rumours.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

I doubt that. I just imagine they are telling the truth they didn't have complaints and were wary of getting into a investigation of a star personality because of rumours.

This isn't looking too good.

A 10-minute Newsnight film looking into allegations of child sex abuse by Sir Jimmy Savile was dropped by the programme's editor last December, even though journalists conducting the investigation had interviewed 10 alleged victims and witnesses and believed they had enough information to broadcast the story.

The intervention by Peter Rippon, Newsnight's editor, prompted a furious row behind the scenes and led journalists connected with the programme to ask questions in private about what BBC bosses above Rippon knew about the film and the decision to pull it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-rad...?newsfeed=true

I think there may be a few late night meetings down at Broadcasting house

[chris9991]

Surely he couldn't have done it all on his own. At the very least other people appear to have known something wrong was happening at the time. Their failure to act may have meant more children being abused.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Caff

Exactly.

Whether dead or alive a perpritrator of a crime, if found guilty, should be punished in a fitting way. In this case peoples memory of him might change.
Similarly, someone accused of crime of which they were innocent, and executed/incarcerated, may be exonerated - whether they living or dead.

Whatever the outcome, those that loved, admired or knew him as a friend will have new worriess. Mud sticks.

I'll wait for the outcome.

They could take away his Knighthood, if that's possible.

Originally Posted by Chris

I came across a columnist earlier in the week who more or less alleged a conspiracy of silence amongst 'luvvies' anxious to protect one of their own and suggested that had he been a Catholic priest both he and his former employer would have been hung, drawn and quartered by now.

It's well known that the Catholic church have been covering up such things for years

Originally Posted by Russ

Absolutely. Back in the 70s (and to some extent the 80s) Saville was a very powerful entity. And in an industry where reputation and perception is everything, anyone breaking ranks and making allegations about him would be committing career suicide if not backed up by similar powerful names. It could even be argued that these silent people should share some of his alleged guilt.

Good points.

Originally Posted by chris9991

Surely he couldn't have done it all on his own. At the very least other people appear to have known something wrong was happening at the time. Their failure to act may have meant more children being abused.

Indeed. There was another comedian from the 70's and 80's who is alleged to have been doing the same things as Saville at the same time. He has only been referred to as "F".

There was the guy who claimed that his jokes were funny because of the way that he told them, but I can't think of any others from that era, but I was very young at the time.

You can take away someones Knighthood and I imagine that's what will happen here if it's proved to a certain degree. It's rather difficult that there isn't a court case so by revoking his Knighthood it would be an official presumption of guilt from the state. I imagine they'll be wary of doing it.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Damien

You can take away someones Knighthood and I imagine that's what will happen here if it's proved to a certain degree. It's rather difficult that there isn't a court case so by revoking his Knighthood it would be an official presumption of guilt from the state. I imagine they'll be wary of doing it.

I think it'll probably be tricky to take away his knighthood. Still I think it's good this is coming to light. True, as some have argued it's not going to change anything, since he's dead anyway, but I think it's important we understand how he got away with it. Plus there should probably be consequences for certain people within the BBC if it can be shown they did not act upon credible evidence they did have.

All of that is presuming the allegations are true, but with what's been coming out over the last couple of days, it's not looking good for 'Sir Jimmy'.