Sir Jimmy Savile To Be Exposed As Paedophile

It was all over the newspapers AGAIN TODAY...and up to 200+ victims alleged! many people now are going to Sue the BBC!!!

MMMM

So where where they all when Jimmy was alive?

It all sounds decidedly dubious to me....

It was all over the newspapers AGAIN TODAY...and up to 200+ victims alleged! many people now are going to Sue the BBC!!!

MMMM

So where where they all when Jimmy was alive?

It all sounds decidedly dubious to me....

He was so involved in 'good works', like raising money for charity, that he'd become all-powerful & 'untouchable' during his lifetime.

Many organisations, including the press, the police & the Crown Prosecution Service were aware of his actions, but none were willing to take him on - such was the power he wielded.

Some victims did speak up, but their complaints fell on deaf ears.

'untouchable'

Not according to the allegations he wasn't.

'untouchable'

Not according to the allegations he wasn't.

He was according to panorama the other night !!!

'untouchable'

Not according to the allegations he wasn't.

He was according to panorama the other night !!!

Too subtle for you my friend.

The smiley face was a clue....

'untouchable'

Not according to the allegations he wasn't.

He was according to panorama the other night !!!

Too subtle for you my friend.

The smiley face was a clue....

I only seen the smiley after i posted

He was so involved in 'good works', like raising money for charity, that he'd become all-powerful & 'untouchable' during his lifetime.

Many organisations, including the press, the police & the Crown Prosecution Service were aware of his actions, but none were willing to take him on - such was the power he wielded.

Some victims did speak up, but their complaints fell on deaf ears.

It seems some people will believe anything if it's said often enough.

The sole reason that no prosecution was ever brought was quite simply that there wasn't enough hard evidence to achieve a conviction at the times in question and no one can say for sure that any prosecution would be any more successful if he was alive today.

The only difference today is that he is not in a position to fight back....which is why it is open season for anyone to make whatever unsubstantiated allegations they choose with the added bonus that they might be rewarded for it in the form of instant notoriety and possible compensation.

For the newspapers this story is manna from heaven. Every twist and turn in the story can be illustrated with an clip or photo of Jimmy Savile acting in his characteristic outrageous fashion. Talk about Christmas coming early.....

He was so involved in 'good works', like raising money for charity, that he'd become all-powerful & 'untouchable' during his lifetime.

Many organisations, including the press, the police & the Crown Prosecution Service were aware of his actions, but none were willing to take him on - such was the power he wielded.

Some victims did speak up, but their complaints fell on deaf ears.

It seems some people will believe anything if it's said often enough.

The sole reason that no prosecution was ever brought was quite simply that there wasn't enough hard evidence to achieve a conviction at the times in question and no one can say for sure that any prosecution would be any more successful if he was alive today.

The only difference today is that he is not in a position to fight back....which is why it is open season for anyone to make whatever unsubstantiated allegations they choose with the added bonus that they might be rewarded for it in the form of instant notoriety and possible compensation.

For the newspapers this story is manna from heaven. Every twist and turn in the story can be illustrated with an clip or photo of Jimmy Savile acting in his characteristic outrageous fashion. Talk about Christmas coming early.....

So, do you honestly think he is innocent of these charges, then ?

It isn't a handful of people hoping to gain something from it.............. it's a virtual tidal wave of accusations covering 4 decades.

He was so involved in 'good works', like raising money for charity, that he'd become all-powerful & 'untouchable' during his lifetime.

Many organisations, including the press, the police & the Crown Prosecution Service were aware of his actions, but none were willing to take him on - such was the power he wielded.

Some victims did speak up, but their complaints fell on deaf ears.

It seems some people will believe anything if it's said often enough.

The sole reason that no prosecution was ever brought was quite simply that there wasn't enough hard evidence to achieve a conviction at the times in question and no one can say for sure that any prosecution would be any more successful if he was alive today.

The only difference today is that he is not in a position to fight back....which is why it is open season for anyone to make whatever unsubstantiated allegations they choose with the added bonus that they might be rewarded for it in the form of instant notoriety and possible compensation.

For the newspapers this story is manna from heaven. Every twist and turn in the story can be illustrated with an clip or photo of Jimmy Savile acting in his characteristic outrageous fashion. Talk about Christmas coming early.....

I said at the beginning of this thread it would turn into a 'witch hunt'.......the media love it

I'm not saying he didn't do anything.........but the main point here, is he isn't here to pay for the crimes/defend himself.

People are greedy, so who's to say there aren't 'some' stories out there being made up for compensation?

As someone who studies film and tv, I have to say I found the panorama investigation into the shelving of the newsnight investigation fascinating viewing (I say "fascinating" as it was more about BBC politics than it was about the allegations themselves). It all seems rather strange that the BBC is happy to broadcast a 60 minute investigation into the shelving of the newsnight report, but wasn't willing to show the newsnight report a year ago, which probably would have done less harm to the corporation than tonight's show. I'm not sure how or when anyone will get to the bottom of why the report was really shelved or how Savile got away with what he did for so many years. Like the phone hacking scandal, this case looks like it will rumble on for a number of years after shaking this country's media industry to the core.

I have been for many years convinced that the BBC have a specific agenda that does not lean itself to being unbiased. I have seen video manipulated, and stories hidden or removed or not even covered at all because they didnt want to cover it as it didnt match that agenda. I have seen certain politicians interviewed being given a hard time and constantly interrupted, and others of certain parties given an easy time with no interruptions. They do cover ups very well and they certainly covered up Mr Savile.

And they are still doing it today, yes its a different topic, but watch this video, look how they fade out the voice of Nicola Sturgeon so you dont hear what she is saying
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20067924

It looks like the BBC tries to make sure that those higher up managers dont know what is going on and are therefore protected from blame from these type of stories.

He was so involved in 'good works', like raising money for charity, that he'd become all-powerful & 'untouchable' during his lifetime.

Many organisations, including the press, the police & the Crown Prosecution Service were aware of his actions, but none were willing to take him on - such was the power he wielded.

Some victims did speak up, but their complaints fell on deaf ears.

It seems some people will believe anything if it's said often enough.

The sole reason that no prosecution was ever brought was quite simply that there wasn't enough hard evidence to achieve a conviction at the times in question and no one can say for sure that any prosecution would be any more successful if he was alive today.

The only difference today is that he is not in a position to fight back....which is why it is open season for anyone to make whatever unsubstantiated allegations they choose with the added bonus that they might be rewarded for it in the form of instant notoriety and possible compensation.

For the newspapers this story is manna from heaven. Every twist and turn in the story can be illustrated with an clip or photo of Jimmy Savile acting in his characteristic outrageous fashion. Talk about Christmas coming early.....

So, do you honestly think he is innocent of these charges, then ?

It isn't a handful of people hoping to gain something from it.............. it's a virtual tidal wave of accusations covering 4 decades.

Also note that Paul Gambaccini and others have very little to gain from it, and maybe a lot to lose. The necrophilia rumours just want to make you sick.

People are greedy, so who's to say there aren't 'some' stories out there being made up for compensation?

In 1976 when I was 11, my parents used to take us on days out to various places. One of these was possibly London. I vaguely recall one particular trip where my parents may or may not have secured tickets to be in the audience at the taping of a TV show at the BBC Television Centre. I am sure it would have been either ‘Top of the Pops’ or ‘Jim’ll Fix it’ as these were my two favourite BBC television shows at the time. I seem to remember someone with long, blonde hair and wearing lots of jewelry taking me by the hand and asking me if I would like some ice cream. There is a 1% chance that this could have been my mum but the more I think about it I am convinced it was Jimmy Saville. Since that encounter my school work suffered and I left school with far fewer qualifications than I had hoped for. I have also had difficulty building and maintaining relationships and holding down a job. The recent publicity regarding Jimmy Saville made me look back at my past and I have now engaged the services of http://www.jimmysavillelawyersforyou.com. I realize my evidence is purely circumstantial but I encourage others who feel they might have been violated (whether they can prove it or not) to come forward. If my story helps just one person who may or may not have been affected by this and nets me a few grand it will have been worthwhile.

'untouchable'

Not according to the allegations he wasn't.

Now then, now then !!!

And they are still doing it today, yes its a different topic, but watch this video, look how they fade out the voice of Nicola Sturgeon so you dont hear what she is saying

That is a bit fishy.

As someone who studies film and tv, I have to say I found the panorama investigation into the shelving of the newsnight investigation fascinating viewing (I say "fascinating" as it was more about BBC politics than it was about the allegations themselves). It all seems rather strange that the BBC is happy to broadcast a 60 minute investigation into the shelving of the newsnight report, but wasn't willing to show the newsnight report a year ago, which probably would have done less harm to the corporation than tonight's show. I'm not sure how or when anyone will get to the bottom of why the report was really shelved or how Savile got away with what he did for so many years. Like the phone hacking scandal, this case looks like it will rumble on for a number of years after shaking this country's media industry to the core.

I have been for many years convinced that the BBC have a specific agenda that does not lean itself to being unbiased. I have seen video manipulated, and stories hidden or removed or not even covered at all because they didnt want to cover it as it didnt match that agenda. I have seen certain politicians interviewed being given a hard time and constantly interrupted, and others of certain parties given an easy time with no interruptions. They do cover ups very well and they certainly covered up Mr Savile.

And they are still doing it today, yes its a different topic, but watch this video, look how they fade out the voice of Nicola Sturgeon so you dont hear what she is saying
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20067924

It looks like the BBC tries to make sure that those higher up managers dont know what is going on and are therefore protected from blame from these type of stories.

Unlike networks in America, the BBC has no political agenda as an organisation. We have talked a fair amount on here about the right-wing bias of Fox News for example. The BBC doesn't have that bias as an organisation. However, there is no way that one can stop everyone within the corporation from having a bias within a news story, documentary or a political affiliation. All film makers, directors, interviewers etc have their own point of view - just the same as the rest of us - and, while they may try to not let that get in the way of their work, interviews etc, it is going to surface from time to time, whether intentionally or not. However, that doesn't mean the BBC as a whole has a bias. Fox News for example would probably only hire journalists with a certain political bias, whereas the BBC does not - it is simply made up of a number of people with different political biases and therefore can come across as, on the whole, as neutral as possible. David Dimbleby might host Question Time, and has to appear neutral, but he votes in an election just as we all do. He has his own bias - as do the people chairing the presidential debates that America has just seen. As for stories hidden or not covered, well again that only reflects the view of that programme editor, not the BBC

And yes, video is manipulated - but everything is manipulated to some degree. If you were reading an interview or a quoe by a politician in the newspaper or on a website, that quote would be taken out of its context and chosen specifically. All news is manipulated in the same way that, for example, footage of auditions in The X-Factor is manipulated. Even live shows are manipulated. Again, The X-Factor is a good example, but a cut to Gary Barlow holding his head in his hands will tell us to think the act is crap, whereas a cut to him smiling tells us to think it's good. No, the news nor Jimmy Savile is not The X-Factor, but the same principles apply. The Panorama show on Savile was a good example - at every opportunity he was seen with his arm around a young woman, but I'm sure Jim'll Fix It consisted of more of those scenes - and we are all media savvy enough now to know that we are being manipulated in some way.

From the evidence we have, it appears that, while Savile was alive at least, there was no intended cover-up at the BBC - certainly not at the very top level at least, although someone must have been covering up something, but I think this was more at individual level than the BBC as a whole. I simply think we were all so much more naive back then, and didn't put two and two together. Perhaps if one person who had suspicions had talked to someone else with the same suspicious then a proper investigation might well have taken place but that didn't happen. That's not to say that there were not various people who DID know within the BBC (and I'm sure there are a number) and didn't do anything about it, or covered it up for fear of losing their job. But that's different from a systematic cover-up by the whole corporation I think - and the same may well go for the other organisations that Savile was affiliated with.

In 1976 when I was 11, my parents used to take us on days out to various places. One of these was possibly London. I vaguely recall one particular trip where my parents may or may not have secured tickets to be in the audience at the taping of a TV show at the BBC Television Centre. I am sure it would have been either ‘Top of the Pops’ or ‘Jim’ll Fix it’ as these were my two favourite BBC television shows at the time. I seem to remember someone with long, blonde hair and wearing lots of jewelry taking me by the hand and asking me if I would like some ice cream. There is a 1% chance that this could have been my mum but the more I think about it I am convinced it was Jimmy Saville. Since that encounter my school work suffered and I left school with far fewer qualifications than I had hoped for. I have also had difficulty building and maintaining relationships and holding down a job. The recent publicity regarding Jimmy Saville made me look back at my past and I have now engaged the services of http://www.jimmysavillelawyersforyou.com. I realize my evidence is purely circumstantial but I encourage others who feel they might have been violated (whether they can prove it or not) to come forward. If my story helps just one person who may or may not have been affected by this and nets me a few grand it will have been worthwhile.

Great to see you back on form Delboy.

Sadly the link proved to be invalid....obviously crashed from a rush of new claimants (sorry victims).

So, do you honestly think he is innocent of these charges, then ?

I don't know for sure anymore than you do....or those others who have been quick to pronounce him guilty without knowing the full facts. A 'no smoke without fire attitude' would not in itself merit a guilty verdict in a court of law. As I have said before, without tangible evidence it would likely rest on who was the most credible witness and whose account(s) appeared to be the most reliable.

After all we know nothing about these so called 'victims' who have been openly encouraged by the media to come forward with these stories. How come the families and close friends of these 'victims' were not even aware of their accounts in some cases. And why did those who registered complaints during his lifetime apparently refuse to offer evidence in court at the time? Because their stories would not stand up to rigorous scrutiny perhaps? A lot more questions need to be asked and the correct place for these allegations to be properly explored would be in court, under oath. However without a defence witness, this simply cannot happen....which those making claims will have duly noted.

It is worth remembering that Jimmy Savile achieved a lot of good things in his life, not least through his dedication to charitable work and that he (or his memory as it stands) is entitled to a fair hearing. The tragedy is he won't get one.

So, do you honestly think he is innocent of these charges, then ?

I don't know for sure anymore than you do....or those others who have been quick to pronounce him guilty without knowing the full facts. A 'no smoke without fire attitude' would not in itself merit a guilty verdict in a court of law. As I have said before, without tangible evidence it would likely rest on who was the most credible witness and whose account(s) appeared to be the most reliable.

After all we know nothing about these so called 'victims' who have been openly encouraged by the media to come forward with these stories. How come the families and close friends of these 'victims' were not even aware of their accounts in some cases. And why did those who registered complaints during his lifetime apparently refuse to offer evidence in court at the time? Because their stories would not stand up to rigorous scrutiny perhaps? A lot more questions need to be asked and the correct place for these allegations to be properly explored would be in court, under oath. However without a defence witness, this simply cannot happen....which those making claims will have duly noted.

It is worth remembering that Jimmy Savile achieved a lot of good things in his life, not least through his dedication to charitable work and that he (or his memory as it stands) is entitled to a fair hearing. The tragedy is he won't get one.

Anyone who actually saw the programme on Monday night would know why a number of those that had previously come forward would not enter a court while Savile was alive - for example, one said that she was from a home for emotionally unstable children, so who would believe her if she told someone that Jimmy Savile, an almost-sainted celebrity and charity worker, had abused her? I confess to being scepticle in the first instance - as my posts here show - but no-one in their right mind can seriously shove their fingers in their ears after four weeks of evidence against Savile has been brought before us.

No, we don't have all the facts. But we do now have people on camera stating exactly what happened to them and why they did nothing about it, we have celebrities coming forward to say what they knew, and we even have a Nationwide reporter on film saying that Savile had admitted he had sex with underage girls. If we add to this the fact that the BBC had enough worries to tackle Savile about the subject not once but twice while he was alive, and that a police investigation took place in 2007, plus there is another police officer on camera saying that things were reported to him but he was told from above not to pursue it, plus 200 people have come forward with allegations, plus at least two witnesses to sexual assaults by Savile (and the witnesses have nothing to gain from coming forward, for they won't get compensation) I think no amount of "I didn't do it" from Savile or his lawyers would result in a not guilty verdict even if he were alive.

...no-one in their right mind can seriously shove their fingers in their ears after four weeks of evidence against Savile has been brought before us...

Where does that leave those still trying to back him ?

The tiny handful of 'Savile-defenders' are looking more isolated [& silly] by the day..................

no-one in their right mind can seriously shove their fingers in their ears after four weeks of evidence against Savile has been brought before us.

How many times do I have to say it? Trial by media should not be confused with a trial in a court of law where all allegations and those bringing them would be rigorously questioned to determine the character and motivations of the accusers, together with the consistency of their account.

Where does that leave those still trying to back him ?

Right where we were at the start:

Jimmy Savile is entitled to a fair hearing and the right of reply - he has been denied both.

Where does that leave those still trying to back him ?

Right where we were at the start:

Jimmy Savile is entitled to a fair hearing and the right of reply - he has been denied both.

You could apply that to the 9/11 hijackers................. but nobody doubts their guilt, simply because of the overwhelming evidence against them, even if no criminal investigation has taken place...................

no-one in their right mind can seriously shove their fingers in their ears after four weeks of evidence against Savile has been brought before us.

How many times do I have to say it? Trial by media should not be confused with a trial in a court of law where all allegations and those bringing them would be rigorously questioned to determine the character and motivations of the accusers, together with the consistency of their account.

I do agree with that, the media are a*sholes for it..........

no-one in their right mind can seriously shove their fingers in their ears after four weeks of evidence against Savile has been brought before us.

How many times do I have to say it? Trial by media should not be confused with a trial in a court of law where all allegations and those bringing them would be rigorously questioned to determine the character and motivations of the accusers, together with the consistency of their account.

I do agree with that, the media are a*sholes for it..........

But the media haven't dreamt up the 200+ victims & witnesses who have now spoken.

no-one in their right mind can seriously shove their fingers in their ears after four weeks of evidence against Savile has been brought before us.

How many times do I have to say it? Trial by media should not be confused with a trial in a court of law where all allegations and those bringing them would be rigorously questioned to determine the character and motivations of the accusers, together with the consistency of their account.

I do agree with that, the media are a*sholes for it..........

But the media haven't dreamt up the 200+ victims & witnesses who have now spoken.

maybe they havnt........but they love going for the jugular. 'Any' celeb who's on a pedestal they take great delight in pulling them off