Domino

and that applies to all, not just one side or the other of the arguement.

rugbymatt

If I told you that I know as a FACT he used to get young girls into Top Of the Pops by getting them into his limo and he used to tell them he expected something in return, quite often not taking no for an answer would that make you stop trying to defend him?

Dick Dasterdly

Police today announced an official criminal investigation into Saviles conduct involving no fewer than 400 different lines of enquiry !!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...ild-abuse-ring

Yes,this is the same guy who in public openly defended Glitters obnoxious actions as harmless.

I wonder if the fluffy bunnies will treat any future police findings with similar contempt ?

Little wonder he got away with it for so long with so many people happy to bury their heads in the sand and sweep it all under the carpet.

The term Absolute Power comes to mind with Saviles phoney facade and do gooder image making him virtually untouchable and answerable to no one.

jackytoo

Does anyone remember Savile being called Saville...when did the spelling change

jimenato

Question to RichardP and anyone else who is still interested...

Do you think that all the MPs who fiddled expenses were innocent?

rugbymatt

Do you think there are any?

Domino

perhaps there are even more sales reps for companies large and small who fiddle their expenses
but they didnt fiddle with young kids
and AFAIK nor did any MP's that I can bring to mind at this moment

ukecadet

I can tell you this much.In New Zealand his show was called Jum'll fux it.

jojojojojo

You dont know that. As you rightly point out, all we know is whats been reported by the media and thats all been sensationalised and made newsworthy - its open season on Savile.

I dont believe he was a pervert or a paedophile - I believe if had been, it would have not been covered up, it would have been brought to light when it happened and he wouldnt have been "sir Jimmy", he'd have been a "Michael Jackson".

He was probably a bloke, like many others who found himself or engineered himself into a position where he was surrounded by pretty young girls, all "glammed up", looking way above their years and he took advantage. Whats that crude saying that I've heard many a man say "I'll bet they're gagging for it" - well he took advantage of his position and the girls eagerness to be grown up and to be special to a celebrity. Wrong yes, stupid yes, but I dont think it was much more than that - but hey, what do any of us know???? Oh yes, what the gutter press have cleverly worded to incriminate him and we all fall for it!!!

Jo xxx

rugbymatt

So you wouldn't mind him "playing" with one of your kids at age 10 and 12? Interesting.

RichardP

Typical "muck-spreader" reply, he's guilty is he???, based on media muck spreading, I just hope to god no-one starts baying for your blood just on someone elses say so. And why shout, simply because the "tunnelled visionaries" amongst us are trying to hang a dead man on the say so of unproven facts.

As I have said before, let it be judged in a court of law, and then, if he is found guilty you can vent your spleens demanding this that and the other, but by that time he'll be old news and you vigilantes will no doubt have another "innocent till proven guilty" to bray your mindless brains at.

jojojojojo

I didnt say that - and thats a disgusting comment that you came to without any evidence , common sense or thought!!! You dont work for the Sun do you???? If not, you should!!!

Jo xxx

me me

There is usually no smoke without fire, this case could be proven to be the exception, but I don't think it will.

I presume that the JS impersonators will be signing on the dole, as I can't see there will be much demand for them at "turning the Christmas lights on" ceremonies

rugbymatt

He was reported in the 70's for fiddling with a 12 year old kid in a hospital, the charges were dropped because the child had learning difficulties and the parents were worried it would not be taken seriously but hospital staff were very clear it had gone on. Its in the public domain if people can be bothered to just look a bit deeper, the police have a hand in all of this, they are equally to blame as the BBC is.

What confuses me Jo is why you are defending him so vociferously. I get it, proof and all that and the cold hard facts are we will never get any closure, the alleged victims will never get justice and we might never get to the bottom of the whole sordid affair but its your defence and at times justification of the filthy creep that is quite unusual, I don't actually get it, I'm not asking for you to be out in the street wailing for blood but as I asked long ago in what will be a veeeery long drawn out thread I suspect, would you be happy if a "child" of yours was carrying on with a guy that old? Lets face it, in some cases he was implicated in he was well into his 60's and the girls were underage and in a couple of cases pre teen girls! Whatever you may say about how girls come across now, in ANYONES book thats simply not normal!

Dick Dasterdly

Lets get this straight.
This is NOT simply about media speculation.

It IS about numerous live and independant victim interviews.
It IS about previously recorded witness statements.
It IS about Saviles own admissions in his very own words.

Seriously just how much evidence do some people need before they are willing to face the truth ???

The sad thing here is NOT that Savile is unable to try defending the indefensible in Court.

The saddest thing by far is that his victims will never see him appear in Court to be sentenced and lead off to prison for his obnoxious activities.

They will NEVER see JUSTICE PROPERLY SERVED !

Unlike Savile who is lucky to be six foot under before the shit hit the fan,
They have to continue living with the legacy of his actions for the rest of their lives.