Jimmy Savile

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Thu 04 Oct, 2012 11:32 am

Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile – review.Savile would have considered a 23:10 ITV peak-time slot career death. But it seems almost certain to be the case that his status as a cherished television personality died there – posthumously – on Wednesday night.http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oc ... ........My guess is the 'fitting tribute' planned by L.C.C will no longer go ahead, and just like in Glasgow already, his statues and plaques will slowly disappear and become vandalised.Just like Gary Glitter records, once one of the most played songs at Christmas, Another Rock and Roll Christmas is considered a toxic song and you never hear it anymore, just like the rest of his stuff.

somme1916 · Post by **somme1916** » Thu 04 Oct, 2012 11:38 am

What saddens me about this whole episode is that the charitable work undertaken by thousands of tireless volunteers will now be besmirched by recent events.It will be seen as dirty money should the allegations be substantiated(which seems likely).There will be many more innocent victims than those in the current headlines......somehow,something will have to be done to ensure that side of things is not punished unduly by fast moving events now.i just hope that the many thousands of well intentioned volunteers do not see their efforts cancelled out.

James · Post by **James** » Thu 04 Oct, 2012 2:21 pm

raveydavey wrote: It seems odd that respected broadcasters such as Esther Rantzen and Paul Gambacini didn't speak out earlier if they had concerns... They didn't speak out, so they say, because Jimmy Savile had too much pull at the BBC on account of his charity work etc. - for which he was given a knighthood.Instead of keeping quiet until Savile was dead, the girls who were molested should have complained to the police at the time. Now they have spoken up, it's difficult to say what they would have to gain by blackening his character. They can't sue him. But their memories of what Savile did, or their allegations if you prefer, might be sold to the newspapers.

anthonydna · Post by **anthonydna** » Thu 04 Oct, 2012 2:39 pm

They did complain, nobody believed them or thought they could prove it. There were often vulnerable girls, often in homes vs St Jimmy, who could do no wrong. To suggest they are doing this for money is insulting them further , what money ? Who is paying them?

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Thu 04 Oct, 2012 2:43 pm

James wrote: raveydavey wrote: It seems odd that respected broadcasters such as Esther Rantzen and Paul Gambacini didn't speak out earlier if they had concerns... They didn't speak out, so they say, because Jimmy Savile had too much pull at the BBC on account of his charity work etc. - for which he was given a knighthood.Instead of keeping quiet until Savile was dead, the girls who were molested should have complained to the police at the time. Now they have spoken up, it's difficult to say what they would have to gain by blackening his character. They can't sue him. But their memories of what Savile did, or their allegations if you prefer, might be sold to the newspapers. Come on James, stop and think a minute.Are you really saying that you would jeopardise your whole life in such a careless way?You've seen how it is these days, constant 24/7 news, people being hounded by the press. The media camped outside your door, trying to dig up as much dirt about your past as possible... Anyone who thinks it's just so easy to complain really hasn't thought this through at all. Then put yourself in that situation, and as the girls have said they feared 'no one would believe them' It would be less painful to jump under a train! It's ok saying complain, report it, but when it's actually you who it will affect, I can tell you it's a totally different ball game.. Just put yourself in the shoes of others to see how it would affect you, and how it is in reality. And has already been said, and repeated by Anthony above, they're has already been complaints to the Police when he was alive!

James · Post by **James** » Thu 04 Oct, 2012 2:47 pm

anthonydna wrote: They did complain, nobody believed them or thought they could prove it. There were often vulnerable girls, often in homes vs St Jimmy, who could do no wrong. To suggest they are doing this for money is insulting them further , what money ? Who is paying them? If they complained to the police at the time, then questions should be asked why the police ignored them. I didn't say they were doing it for money - though that is not a ridiculous conjecture. The tabloids will pay for any sensational rumours (or facts) they can get get hold of. I never thought of Jimmy Savile as other than a publicity seeking charlatan.

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Thu 04 Oct, 2012 2:48 pm

James wrote: anthonydna wrote: They did complain, nobody believed them or thought they could prove it. There were often vulnerable girls, often in homes vs St Jimmy, who could do no wrong. To suggest they are doing this for money is insulting them further , what money ? Who is paying them? If they complained to the police at the time, then questions should be asked why the police ignored them. James, It's been clearly stated in the posts above why he wasn't charged in 2008.

James · Post by **James** » Thu 04 Oct, 2012 3:03 pm

Phill_dvsn wrote: James wrote: anthonydna wrote: They did complain, nobody believed them or thought they could prove it. There were often vulnerable girls, often in homes vs St Jimmy, who could do no wrong. To suggest they are doing this for money is insulting them further , what money ? Who is paying them? If they complained to the police at the time, then questions should be asked why the police ignored them. James, It's been clearly stated in the posts above why he wasn't charged in 2008. Okay, I know there has been excuses made, but accusing a 'celebrity' of sexual assault isn't a cost free undertaking. There is a downside which a young woman might not want to face. But unless she is willing to persevere, the deviant will get away with it. It's no use waiting until he's dead.

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Thu 04 Oct, 2012 3:05 pm

James wrote: It's no use waiting until he's dead. She didn't wait until he was dead.Sussex police confirm 2008 Jimmy Saville assault claimhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19820017They're will be a pretty deep investigation into this now, and I'm sure that not only will the Sussex Police complaint be looked at again, I have no doubts that other similar complaints to the Police will also come to light in the future.

James · Post by **James** » Thu 04 Oct, 2012 3:11 pm

Phill_dvsn wrote: James wrote: It's no use waiting until he's dead. She didn't wait until he was dead.Sussex police confirm 2008 Jimmy Saville assault claimhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19820017 Then my previous comment applies: the police should explain why they did nothing in 2008. And why not get the newspapers involved at the same time? Publicity about his deviance - on the scale we're getting now - could not have been brushed under the rug.