Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

again on tv news tonight. this 'case' is just going to get worse and aS A ONCE FAN OF HIM THIS IS VERY SAD AND UNPLEASANT 'NEWS'
Jimmy Saville said of Elvis "He gave pleasure to millions"

Very sad indeed , He was laid in state at the queens hotel in Leeds and taken on a final ride around the city, I attended his funeral ( stood outside the church), The whole city of Leeds was proud to have him as one of ours but now all this leaves me cold .

Alan.

Very sad indeed i did not want to condemn his memory based on media tabloids ! but the news is getting worse day by day,if he is guilty of these atrocities then i hope he rots in hell !!!

Yes, very sad how things are now.

I'm glad the tabloids and ITV1 have now got their teeth into this issue.

Tabloid journalists can uncover so much useful information that would otherwise have just hung around with nothing more being done with it. They might, sadly, destroy lives, but they let us have information too. Their campaigns can change the way old issues are looked at in the future. It's for us to analyze/evaluate the material.

On a aslightly separate note, I think those of us who can remember the politically incorrect worlds of the 70s, 80s and even 90s will know that many grievances in the old days were tolerated or treated as a joke, if not simply ignored. I saw plenty of examples of sexism, agressive/gentle groping, racism, bullying, homophobia, and prejudice aimed at disabled people. I even recall a leacherous, middle-aged teacher making flirting remarks towards a female class mate of mine (she was 14/15 at the time) and no one seemed to think that this was not right. Another teacher made casually racist remarks about his cornershop that had the class in stitches. In the mid-1980s , when I was working in a major high steet supermarket, I could not believe my ears when the deputy manager there referred to some of the staff as "chinky" and "jungle boy". Of course, the tabloids were worse back then, so society continued just as it did before and nothing was being done.

I say, let people come forward in the Savile case if they now want to/can speak, and we can then consider their testimonies, whether they speak to the tabloids, on tv or a in a broadsheet newspaper. I've got no problem with tabloids taking this up. It is an issue that has, in the long run, attracted all media.

On a aslightly separate note, I think those of us who can remember the politically incorrect worlds of the 70s, 80s and even 90s will know that many grievances in the old days were tolerated or treated as a joke, if not simply ignored. I saw plenty of examples of sexism, agressive/gentle groping, racism, bullying, homophobia, and prejudice aimed at disabled people. I even recall a leacherous, middle-aged teacher making flirting remarks towards a female class mate of mine (she was 14/15 at the time) and no one seemed to think that this was not right. Another teacher made casually racist remarks about his cornershop that had the class in stitches. In the mid-1980s , when I was working in a major high steet supermarket, I could not believe my ears when the deputy manager there referred to some of the staff as "chinky" and "jungle boy".

It seems on the surface as if we have made great progress, but I wonder sometimes if this is the case.

Have people actually changed their views towards women, ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, the disabled etc - or do they just watch what they say? My fear is that, in many cases, we simply are censoring what people are allowed to say out loud. I'd much prefer it if we could say we had also changed the way they think.

things in the press are just getting much worse....now freddy starr in involved and many more people giving the police info to chase up. of cource with savile 'dead' he cannot be arrested/questioned or loose his knighthood, but they sure are tearing down his street credibility and name sakess! charity's dropping his name and many other people names under investigation too john peel is dead, but police will question notorious gary glitter PLNTY. its all sick & sad stuff and especially sad for me who used to in the uk living for so long have jimmy saville in my lounge room for his fix it programme as 'familly viewing' argh!
thnk god Elvis only hurt himself through drug misuse and not any kids.

Have people actually changed their views towards women, ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, the disabled etc - or do they just watch what they say?
My fear is that, in many cases, we simply are censoring what people are allowed to say out loud.
I'd much prefer it if we could say we had also changed the way they think.

No legislation can alter how people think or feel !

But the way society perceives things can change.

The huge success of black & mixed-race performers in the entertainment field, in recent years, has swept away much of the colour prejudice which used to be prevalent, especially for our youngsters, who embrace Beyonce, Rihanna, Mariah Carey, Chris Brown & the rest with equal fervour !

Likewise, the disabled are enjoying a spate of acceptance & popularity after the recent success of the Paralympics !

Let's hope the trend continues......................

Sorry guys, he was vile man.

Were you aquainted with him or did you personally witness any reprehensible behaviour?

If not, you must accept your conclusion may be flawed.

I haven't been to the moon but I'm betting it's not made of cheese.

Thank you for confirming that your forthright condemnation is based on nothing more substantial than spurious gossip and hearsay from an assortment of characters whose motives are completely unknown to you.

In which case, given the briefest perusal of his life and career, I can comfortably assert that you could hardly be more wrong.

Have another 'brief perusal' sometime mate, see how it's panning out.

Sorry guys, he was vile man.

Thank you for confirming that your forthright condemnation is based on nothing more substantial than spurious gossip and hearsay from an assortment of characters whose motives are completely unknown to you.

In which case, given the briefest perusal of his life and career, I can comfortably assert that you could hardly be more wrong.

Have another 'brief perusal' sometime mate, see how it's panning out.

I am quite aware how it's "panning out" and am disgusted by the barely disguised glee expressed by some who appear to delight in the downfall of someone they never knew or liked. However the facts remain:

Sir Jimmy Savile was an engaging, 'larger than life' personality who gave enjoyment to millions for several decades through his work as a public broadcaster and a television host. He also worked tirelessly as a charity worker raising as much as £40 million pounds to help the sick and disadvantaged.

NOTHING CAN EVER TAKE THAT AWAY FROM HIM

.....and yet despite his amazing achievements, current public opinion will not even allow him a fair hearing - that is the real scandal.

The witch hunt currently in progress, where people are being 'encouraged' to come forward and 'bravely' participate in this exercise of kicking a man whilst he is down and conveniently unable to defend himself, in my opinion tells us rather more about the ugly, self obsessed, hysterical society we have created than it does about the late Sir Jimmy Savile RIP.

...The witch hunt currently in progress, where people are being 'encouraged' to come forward and 'bravely' participate in this exercise of kicking a man whilst he is down and conveniently unable to defend himself, in my opinion tells us rather more about the ugly, self obsessed, hysterical society we have created than it does about the late Sir Jimmy Savile RIP.

The many victims of a powerful & 'untouchable' sexual predator now feel free to tell the truth.

Hardly a 'witch hunt' or a reflection of an 'ugly, self obsessed hysterical society'.

Would you have preferred them to keep quiet ?

The many victims of a powerful & 'untouchable' sexual predator now feel free to tell the truth.

Hardly a 'witch hunt' or a reflection of an 'ugly, self obsessed hysterical society'.

Would you have preferred them to keep quiet ?

Considering the headlines in the newspapers going to town I would say it is a witch hunt. Since the evidence hasnt been put to a court nor can he defend himself from the allegations then he is not guilty until proven guilty. I would say that most of the headlines have been crass and come across as assuming that he is guilty. That is why I never buy newspapers anymore, factual stories from an unbiased viewpoint dont exist anymore, if they ever have.

The many victims of a powerful & 'untouchable' sexual predator now feel free to tell the truth.

Hardly a 'witch hunt' or a reflection of an 'ugly, self obsessed hysterical society'.

Would you have preferred them to keep quiet ?

Considering the headlines in the newspapers going to town I would say it is a witch hunt. Since the evidence hasnt been put to a court nor can he defend himself from the allegations then he is not guilty until proven guilty. I would say that most of the headlines have been crass and come across as assuming that he is guilty. That is why I never buy newspapers anymore, factual stories from an unbiased viewpoint dont exist anymore, if they ever have.

Ignoring the tabloid headlines, there are enough facts now emerging to establish that he was, beyond any reasonable doubt, a sexual predator.

The many victims of a powerful & 'untouchable' sexual predator now feel free to tell the truth.

Hardly a 'witch hunt' or a reflection of an 'ugly, self obsessed hysterical society'.

Would you have preferred them to keep quiet ?

Considering the headlines in the newspapers going to town I would say it is a witch hunt. Since the evidence hasnt been put to a court nor can he defend himself from the allegations then he is not guilty until proven guilty. I would say that most of the headlines have been crass and come across as assuming that he is guilty. That is why I never buy newspapers anymore, factual stories from an unbiased viewpoint dont exist anymore, if they ever have.

Ignoring the tabloid headlines, there are enough facts now emerging to establish that he was, beyond any reasonable doubt, a sexual predator.

Certainly the fact that his family have taken down his tombstone is a big signal that this situation is for real and not being made up by those people coming forward. Sure, some of those who are suggesting that he abused them may be lying through their teeth to get in on the act and get a bit of fame and money. Sure, the newspapers are revelling in it. But there seems no doubt of his guilt at this stage.

The many victims of a powerful & 'untouchable' sexual predator now feel free to tell the truth.

Hardly a 'witch hunt' or a reflection of an 'ugly, self obsessed hysterical society'.

Would you have preferred them to keep quiet ?

Considering the headlines in the newspapers going to town I would say it is a witch hunt. Since the evidence hasnt been put to a court nor can he defend himself from the allegations then he is not guilty until proven guilty. I would say that most of the headlines have been crass and come across as assuming that he is guilty. That is why I never buy newspapers anymore, factual stories from an unbiased viewpoint dont exist anymore, if they ever have.

Ignoring the tabloid headlines, there are enough facts now emerging to establish that he was, beyond any reasonable doubt, a sexual predator.

There is no question of that. He was a paedophile pure and simple!

It does seem that now Savile was a sexual predator on young females with so many allegations being brought up in the past few weeks.

Its a shame that he was never arrested and charged and faced punishment if he was to be found guilty, while he was alive.

I can't understand why, after all this time, that women are coming foward now. Maybe they felt no one would believe them, that they were an individual victim and cause he was so famous, did lots of charity work, he wouldn't get punished.

Certainly the fact that his family have taken down his tombstone is a big signal that this situation is for real and not being made up by those people coming forward. Sure, some of those who are suggesting that he abused them may be lying through their teeth to get in on the act and get a bit of fame and money. Sure, the newspapers are revelling in it. But there seems no doubt of his guilt at this stage.

I am not denying that I think he is guilty, I dont actually care as long as justice is rightfully served. I enjoy debating it though...

I am viewing it from the point of the law. That's the difference. I dont think it is right for newspapers to exploit it.

I believe the tombstone was taken down due to the possibility of vandalism, that's got nothing to do with his guilt.

Ignoring the tabloid headlines, there are enough facts now emerging to establish that he was, beyond any reasonable doubt, a sexual predator.

And what are the facts?

Certainly the fact that his family have taken down his tombstone is a big signal that this situation is for real and not being made up by those people coming forward. Sure, some of those who are suggesting that he abused them may be lying through their teeth to get in on the act and get a bit of fame and money. Sure, the newspapers are revelling in it. But there seems no doubt of his guilt at this stage.

I am not denying that I think he is guilty, I dont actually care as long as justice is rightfully served. I enjoy debating it though...

I am viewing it from the point of the law. That's the difference. I dont think it is right for newspapers to exploit it.

I believe the tombstone was taken down due to the possibility of vandalism, that's got nothing to do with his guilt.

On the contrary, the family have said that it was removed out of respect to public opinion, and has been destroyed. Had it been due to fear of vandalism, it wouldn't have been destroyed, it would have been kept somewhere to be returned when Savile's name was cleared. The destruction of it pretty much admits that is never going to happen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19893373

Trial by media isn't a new thing (check out the post on Jack Pickford in the blog in my signature), and I agree that in most cases it is a very bad thing. In this instance, however, the evidence has become so overwhelming that this isn't so much of a trial as a simple reporting of the situation - with added sensationalism, of course. The interesting thing will be whether any of those who knew this was going on will be tried for aiding and abetting, or something like that.

Any chance Elvis and the MM get into problems with all these young girls hanging around, especially since there is an Elvis-Jimmy Saville connection.

Any chance Elvis and the MM get into problems with all these young girls hanging around, especially since there is an Elvis-Jimmy Saville connection.

The link between Elvis and Savile is tenuous - they met a few times, that's all.

I live in England, I've been to Stoke Mandeville and I can tell you now it's been an open 'secret' for years that he had a thing for kids. On another message board we've been debating since his death about when the news will come out. Not if but when, because it was so well known. What will be interesting will be the explanations of those that knew he was a dirtbag. At the hospital where he did his rounds, the nurses have reported they used to tell the kids to pretend to be asleep when he used to visit, in an attempt to stop them being groped. Why wasn't he reported to the authorities? Or was he, and nothing was done, because of his charity fundrasing and his celebrity status?

Ultimately, it's a good thing this has come to light, because the more predators like Savile are exposed, the less likely future dirtbags will get away with this sort of thing.

And it's worth stressing, there are several quality newspapers in England that don't deal in trial by media. The Independent is my paper, and things are reported soberly and without hype, as much as is possible.

And what are the facts?

That an opportunity was granted to a small group of respondants to 'share their experiences' in order to malign the late Jimmy Savile in a recent TV programme.

This proved so successful that the opportunity was opened out to the general public who are now being openly encouraged to come forward and make whatever allegations they want with no legal comeback whatsoever. Even better, the more lurid your imagination (sorry memories), the better chance you'll have of being contacted by the media and paid for your story or at the very least getting your name in print.

Then we'll have a nice expensive 'enquiry' into various elements that come to light which will keep the story running in the tabloids and feed your appetite for gossip and outrage for a bit longer.

After which we'll sit back and congratulate ourselves that the truth has at last come out and justice has been done, even though nothing has been conclusively proved because the alleged perpetrator is dead and therefore unable to provide his version of events. Still, at least we can console ourselves that he is unlikely to offend again.

After that, of course, it will be onto someone else. At the moment preliminary work is being carried out on John Peel (also deceased dammit) but Freddie Starr's looking good......

On the contrary, the family have said that it was removed out of respect to public opinion, and has been destroyed. Had it been due to fear of vandalism, it wouldn't have been destroyed, it would have been kept somewhere to be returned when Savile's name was cleared. The destruction of it pretty much admits that is never going to happen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19893373

Trial by media isn't a new thing (check out the post on Jack Pickford in the blog in my signature), and I agree that in most cases it is a very bad thing. In this instance, however, the evidence has become so overwhelming that this isn't so much of a trial as a simple reporting of the situation - with added sensationalism, of course. The interesting thing will be whether any of those who knew this was going on will be tried for aiding and abetting, or something like that.

But the funeral director said "Once the outcome of the investigation has taken place then I guess Savile's family will sit down and think about what is the appropriate memorial, if any at all," which to me suggests that according to him the family are not sure of his guilt?

He also said Savile's family had made the decision to remove the gravestone because of "the impact the stone remaining there could have on the dignity and sanctity of the cemetery"...to me suggests they were expecting it to be vandalised.

Overwhelming evidence?, what evidence would that be?

After that, of course, it will be onto someone else. At the moment preliminary work is being carried out on John Peel (also deceased dammit) but Freddie Starr's looking good......

What's to investigate with Peel? He admitted himself that when he was a young DJ he'd get lots of offers of 'sexual favours' from young girls, many of which he gratefully accepted without asking their ages. His first wife was 15! He was a young man in his 20s in the age of 'free love', if John Peel was ever to have been investigated then he'd have had to get to the back of a very long queue.

Savile was an evil, creepy middle aged man who miraculously managed to wangle himself a TV show in which he was parachuted into the middle of a bunch of young kids and then given the power to make their dreams come true, and by extension make them incredibly grateful to him in the process. Talk about putting a fox in charge of a hen house...

After that, of course, it will be onto someone else. At the moment preliminary work is being carried out on John Peel (also deceased dammit) but Freddie Starr's looking good......

What's to investigate with Peel? He admitted himself that when he was a young DJ he'd get lots of offers of 'sexual favours' from young girls, many of which he gratefully accepted without asking their ages. His first wife was 15! He was a young man in his 20s in the age of 'free love', if John Peel was ever to have been investigated then he'd have had to get to the back of a very long queue.

Savile was an evil, creepy middle aged man who miraculously managed to wangle himself a TV show in which he was parachuted into the middle of a bunch of young kids and then given the power to make their dreams come true, and by extension make them incredibly grateful to him in the process. Talk about putting a fox in charge of a hen house...

So it is alright when the young girls offer it? OK, then Elvis and the MM are in the clear.

On the contrary, the family have said that it was removed out of respect to public opinion, and has been destroyed. Had it been due to fear of vandalism, it wouldn't have been destroyed, it would have been kept somewhere to be returned when Savile's name was cleared. The destruction of it pretty much admits that is never going to happen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19893373

Trial by media isn't a new thing (check out the post on Jack Pickford in the blog in my signature), and I agree that in most cases it is a very bad thing. In this instance, however, the evidence has become so overwhelming that this isn't so much of a trial as a simple reporting of the situation - with added sensationalism, of course. The interesting thing will be whether any of those who knew this was going on will be tried for aiding and abetting, or something like that.

But the funeral director said "Once the outcome of the investigation has taken place then I guess Savile's family will sit down and think about what is the appropriate memorial, if any at all," which to me suggests that according to him the family are not sure of his guilt?

He also said Savile's family had made the decision to remove the gravestone because of "the impact the stone remaining there could have on the dignity and sanctity of the cemetery"...to me suggests they were expecting it to be vandalised.

Overwhelming evidence?, what evidence would that be?

120 lines of enquiry and up to 40 cases pretty much shows that Savile was guilty - 40 cases and all frauds? I don't think so!

Ignoring the tabloid headlines, there are enough facts now emerging to establish that he was, beyond any reasonable doubt, a sexual predator.

And what are the facts?

That he was a sexual predator, his victims being under-age girls.

After that, of course, it will be onto someone else. At the moment preliminary work is being carried out on John Peel (also deceased dammit) but Freddie Starr's looking good......

What's to investigate with Peel? He admitted himself that when he was a young DJ he'd get lots of offers of 'sexual favours' from young girls, many of which he gratefully accepted without asking their ages. His first wife was 15! He was a young man in his 20s in the age of 'free love', if John Peel was ever to have been investigated then he'd have had to get to the back of a very long queue.

Savile was an evil, creepy middle aged man who miraculously managed to wangle himself a TV show in which he was parachuted into the middle of a bunch of young kids and then given the power to make their dreams come true, and by extension make them incredibly grateful to him in the process. Talk about putting a fox in charge of a hen house...

So it is alright when the young girls offer it?

Well, it's true that not everything can be black and white. Such as the case of the teacher who is charged with "child abduction" after going to France with his pupil-girlfriend. Officially it's abduction - but how can it be if she went willingly? The law doesn't allow for any shades of grey.

Well, it's true that not everything can be black and white.
Such as the case of the teacher who is charged with "child abduction" after going to France with his pupil-girlfriend.
Officially it's abduction - but how can it be if she went willingly?
The law doesn't allow for any shades of grey.

An under-age girl cannot give 'consent'.

There are 'shades of grey' in that the seriousness of the 'crime' is considered less if the male is young themselves.