Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
So its true then. Allegedly.
Or it is being alleged that he committed abuse.
Being 'accused of alleged sexual abuse' reeks of tautology to me.
Never knowingly not on a bandwagon
see also elvis presley going out iht 12 year olds. though saville's does sound a bit actually criminal so might refile this.
He gets all the pre-pubescent girrrls.
These rumours have been going around for ages but I only ever saw it mentioned by conspiratorial right-wingers who wanted to use it as a reason to bash the BBC. Never thought it was actually true.
I mean obviously the victims should still have the right to report these things to appropriate legal authorities but I think programmes publicly accusing dead people of sex abuse when they can't defend themselves and haven't legally been charged with anything (and there might not be legal evidence to charge 'em) feels a bit wrong to me.
Which is probably the reason the lawyers green-lit this.
Sir Jimmy was never charged with any abuse offences during his lifetime.
One complaint was made to Surrey Police in 2007 but following an investigation, no further action was taken.
``The BBC has conducted extensive searches of its files to establish whether there is any record of misconduct or allegations of misconduct by Sir Jimmy Savile during his time at the BBC. No such evidence has been found.
``Whilst the BBC condemns any behaviour of the type alleged in the strongest terms, in the absence of evidence of any kind found at the BBC that corroborates the allegations that have been made it is simply not possible for the corporation to take any further action.``
SO IT'S TRUE THEN!
no smoke without fire
I'm not counting out the idea that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile, but a documentary on ITV, after his death, is barely evidence. You have to ask the question, why are these people only going public with their stories now? Why were there no complaints made to the BBC while he was alive, and only one made to the police? And why did the subsequent police investigation yield no action against Savile? There are a number of possible reasons that may or may not cast further suspicion upon him, but sadly, it's also possible that people are just looking to get a pay-day without fear of repercussion.
around the time he died
I'm not saying anything about Jimmy Savile in particular, just the idea that the evidence as it exists - i.e. interviews conducted for a TV programme - can be considered anything close to proof. Are we condoning trial by media now? It's a little bit sad.
Newsnight editor Peter Rippon said: ''It is absolutely untrue that the Newsnight investigation was dropped for anything other than editorial reasons.
''We have been very clear from the start that the piece was not broadcast because the story we were pursuing could not be substantiated.
''To say otherwise is false and very damaging to the BBC and individuals. The notion that internal pressure was applied appears to be a malicious rumour.''-
"You have to ask the question, why are these people only going public with their stories now? Why were there no complaints made to the BBC while he was alive, and only one made to the police? And why did the subsequent police investigation yield no action against Savile?"
How do you know people "are only going public now"? How do you know no complaints were made to the BBC or to the police?
All of your assumptions are based on the suggestion that we live in an entirely transparent and honest society, where everyone - regardless of their wealth, position and power - is always held to account for their wrongdoing. Not sure that's how it works tbh.
*The fucking dirty nutjob was a right nonce*
or something like that.
Shame on the BBC for covering up his jiggle-children-on-his-knee-antics.
Never came out because he was pretty high up with the Masons.
It seems to focus on THE teachers marriage breakdown and Kim Kardashian's breast falling out of her top.
would be the pinnacle of good taste?
If they think it's OK to discuss, it seems odd that the Sun hasn't used it. Seems right up their street. Good taste or not.
!t least wait for the one-year anniversary, just in the name of good taste more than anything!
I'm sure the tabloid press will embrace you wholeheartedly.
Let me clarify: the idea that "reporting allegations made about a man who died less than a year ago" is in itself a sign of poor taste is absolutely preposterous.
I don't understand where you're coming from at all. When presented with numerous corroborating sources, is a news editor supposed to delay investigation / reportage until the alleged perpetrator has been dead for a bit longer?
2. I think we can all agree that, poking the grave of a man who is only recently deceased - and less than a year is recent (so, maybe, are some periods greater than a year - Holocaust jokes probably didn't go down well in the 1950s, for example) - is unlikely to give you a claim to the moral high ground. The exception is when you have an incredibly good reason to go poking, but as far as I can tell, there is no incredibly good reason here.
There are 5 corroborating sources, all interviewed for a TV programme that you would expect to make them corroborate. The makers of the programme are looking for a narrative. Of course, you would expect a prosecuting lawyer to do the same, but the difference is, a defence lawyer would be on hand to ask further questions and find inconsistencies in the stories. There is no defence lawyer here. Newsnight have claimed their similar piece "was not broadcast because the story we were pursuing could not be substantiated". Why have ITV had more luck? Are they simply better at finding sources? Or are they more willing to broadcast the results of an unbalanced, sensationalist investigation?
Then there's the issue of *how* you report it. Again, living up to expectation, the BBC and the broadsheets have been fairly straightforward about it. The Daily Mail, on the other hand, has dragged a load of denigrating quotes out of context, stuck them at the top of the page, and waited until the 12th screen down to quote someone speaking in his favour (marking the end of the article). Which approach do you think The Sun will take when they report on it? An approach that marks them out as 'classy' as they shift attention away from a confirmed paedophile and Kim Kardashian for a while? I predict not.
were too intimidated to come forwards when he was alive, due to the fact that he was a popular, well loved, but deeply ill national treasure, and that bringing the case to court and looking him in the eye, while millions of people who don't know anything bleated on about how cruel it was to attack an old and respected man when he was so vulnerable, was just too much for them to bear. So they waited until now, when they felt safe about discussing it, and decided that a man's reputation is not worth protecting if he hasn't earned it.
That is a possibility. A possibility I've already acknowledged further up the page. A possibility there's no concrete reason for favouring over the other possibilities. Where exactly is the disagreement?
Not sure how it'd be possible for the audience to appear to do a double-take from a HIGNFY recording but yeah, my first thought upon hearing about this show was this transcript.
Surely there would be footage somewhere of that.
But parts of that are pretty funny, if the subject matter is ultimatey hugely depressing.
Sounds like there may be something to the rumours that theres been a huge Beeb cover-up, and given the people in that have all been long-term Beeb employees, i see no reason why that whole exchange might not have happened.
Think i might download a torrent of the episode and watch anyway.
plus the fact there was less of a stigma about underage sex and much less media scrutiny of celebrities' private lives
is that if all the information ever came out about the things that rock stars, TV personalities and other celebrities in the 1960s and 70s got up to with teenage girls and boys, it'd be a scandal that'd implicate a ridiculous number of famous people from days gone by...
"Like many an ugly Englishman, he went to America, where that nation's young women found a Limey accent so beguiling that they barely looked at the face it came out of: "All they wanted me to do was abuse them, sexually, which, of course, I was only too happy to do,"
"Peel told the Guardian in 1975. "Girls," he said to the Sunday Correspondent in 1989, "used to queue up outside oral sex they were particularly keen on, I remember one of my regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older."
(awful grammar all Julie Burchill's own)
typically even-handed interpretation of events - not sure where the Peel quotes she uses come from
Apparently Peel married a 15yr old in the US.
I'll probably get shouted down for this but I do think there is a difference between rock stars with borderline groupies where there is a sleazy scene (with or without a fish) and someone working for the BBC in a position of responsibility working with children and doing *work* in schools.
I mean certainly the way Saville's actions are described *sounds* worse but I think the differences are far more subtle than a simple case of nasty man praying on poor innocent children and cool rock stars impressing teenage girls who were just a little bit too young. . And, once you get into the idea that the kids (allegedly) involved with Peel, Lennon, Bowie, Page and various others were complicit and making their own decisions, you're basically making the same territory that Bradford City Council got into last week when it presented underage teenagers having sex as older men as prostitutes who'd made their own life choices. Ultimately an adult fucking an underage girl is an adult fucking an underage girl and there's not really any acceptable out that they can use to justify it...
I'm not excusing rock stars. I feel that one is more dangerous than the other.
I think there is often a willingness to excuse (probably the wrong word, but you-know-what-i-mean) this because of the people involved. Polanski is a good example: numerous high-profile celebs defended him based, it seemed to me, on the premise that he is a very talented film director. And, well, you know what these girls are like.
I think sometimes the famous believe they are beyond the reach of the law because of the privileges they enjoy
Interesting read whatever.
(see up thread)
but I bet it will go massively viral and people generally end up accepting it as being true
But worth reading 4 teh lulz
I'm not gonna fucking read the thread AM I? How do you think I am, Johnny Fucking Five?
but it looks like the Masons have deleted it :(
Stuff linking him to that children's home in Jersey, that vid of him feeling up a 14 year old Coleen Nolan etc. That was a fun few hours on the ol internet.