Jimmy Savile

[Eagle]

All this is going to kill the "Top of the Pops" repeats on BBC4

Not really, they can always show episodes he didn't present (which due to the rotating system of presenters are many).

 

[Butts]

All this is going to kill the "Top of the Pops" repeats on BBC4

They should still show them - people tune in to see the Artists not Savile.

 

[Tracked]

All this is going to kill the "Top of the Pops" repeats on BBC4

no, they'll just change the credits a bit, instead of saying what job the person did they'll just list their convictions

Either that or show the 5 minutes or so of each episode that don't feature perverts of any sort and show the rest after 11pm, think they did that at first with a Gary Glitter song that got edited out of the 7:30pm show (then put it back in a week or so later)

 

[Butts]

no, they'll just change the credits a bit, instead of saying what job the person did they'll just list their convictions

Either that or show the 5 minutes or so of each episode that don't feature perverts of any sort and show the rest after 11pm, think they did that at first with a Gary Glitter song that got edited out of the 7:30pm show (then put it back in a week or so later)

Imagine the dilemma if it was Savile fronting an edition that included Jonathan King.....remember him "The King in New York.........."

 

[Flamingo]

To paraphrase a cartoon in this weeks Private Eye:
Head of BBC - "We're going to expose you as a paedophile"
Sir Jimmy - "Over my dead body!"

 

[Greenback]

To paraphrase a cartoon in this weeks Private Eye:
Head of BBC - "We're going to expose you as a paedophile"
Sir Jimmy - "Over my dead body!"

I've just been reading Private Eye in the supermarket while Mrs Greenback was examing the celery and radishes. I thought the Jimmy Savile coverage was very funny, I particularly liked the story of the woman who has come forward and revealed she was not abused at the BBC< but didn't want to say anything earlier in case she wasn't believed!

 

[Flamingo]

I've just been reading Private Eye in the supermarket while Mrs Greenback was examing the celery and radishes. I thought the Jimmy Savile coverage was very funny, I particularly liked the story of the woman who has come forward and revealed she was not abused at the BBC< but didn't want to say anything earlier in case she wasn't believed!

Yes, it's getting like that!

 

[MattRobinson]

I shall have to look out for the current edition of private eye...

 

[Butts]

Ah well Panorama have "stuck the boot in now" on their own Organisation. No one can accuse them of hiding under a bushell

One good point raised was the reaction of Newspapers when he died. Despite some of them having evidence of "alleged phillandering" they all ran gushing tributes to Savile. Now they have turned on the BBC which is a little hypocritical.

If he was guilty then as I have mentioned before he may be classed as a p'phile in this Country but could have married his victims in a lot of European Nations.

He may have been a "bad lad" but he was not alone in those far off days. In his favour he did raise millions of pounds for Charities. The "victims" have seen £ signs, and this is the reason most of them have appeared out of the closet.

 

[MattRobinson]

I personally thought that the panorama felt like it was somewhat of a damage limitation exercise, myself...

 

[Butts]

I personally thought that the panorama felt like it was somewhat of a damage limitation exercise, myself...

Perhaps the newspapers concerned will conduct a similar exercise of "soul searching"

 

[LE Greys]

Is it possible to strip a dead man of his knighthood? Having him described as 'Sir Jimmy' every time the story comes up must be somewhat embarrassing to living KCBEs (such as Sir Richard Branson).

 

[wintonian]

Is it possible to strip a dead man of his knighthood? Having him described as 'Sir Jimmy' every time the story comes up must be somewhat embarrassing to living KCBEs (such as Sir Richard Branson).

No, knighthoods expire on death, so referring to him as Sir is an inaccurate term anyway.

 

[Butts]

No, knighthoods expire on death, so referring to him as Sir is an inaccurate term anyway.

Why do they still talk about "Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh" - they have been dead for Centuries

 

[YorkshireRider]

Always came across as a bit of a dirty old perv, who stank of cigar smoke and pi-s on his many journeys in FC on EC. Never thought he messed with kids but doesnt come as any great shock. Every journey no matter what time of day he would have 3 whiskeys between Leeds and London or vice versa, then get a 2 pound coin out and ask us heads or tails, if we guessed right we got the 2 quid. All became rather tedious and he wasnt really someone you could relax and have a chat with. Just came across as a lonely guy who didnt make a lot of effort when it came to apperance or hygiene.

 

[LE Greys]

Always came across as a bit of a dirty old perv, who stank of cigar smoke and pi-s on his many journeys in FC on EC. Never thought he messed with kids but doesnt come as any great shock. Every journey no matter what time of day he would have 3 whiskeys between Leeds and London or vice versa, then get a 2 pound coin out and ask us heads or tails, if we guessed right we got the 2 quid. All became rather tedious and he wasnt really someone you could relax and have a chat with. Just came across as a lonely guy who didnt make a lot of effort when it came to apperance or hygiene.

That's almost exactly what my mum used to say about him, and she'd only ever seen him on Top of the Pops. The one thing that put me off writing to Jim'll Fix It was the fact that I would have to meet the man (I'm just old enough to remember it). No this is not hindsight!

 

[Butts]

Always came across as a bit of a dirty old perv, who stank of cigar smoke and pi-s on his many journeys in FC on EC. Never thought he messed with kids but doesnt come as any great shock. Every journey no matter what time of day he would have 3 whiskeys between Leeds and London or vice versa, then get a 2 pound coin out and ask us heads or tails, if we guessed right we got the 2 quid. All became rather tedious and he wasnt really someone you could relax and have a chat with. Just came across as a lonely guy who didnt make a lot of effort when it came to apperance or hygiene.

I take it this was during his "dotage" or the Cigar would have been alight. (and East Coast wouldn't have existed)

He'd be lucky to get three Scotches between Leeds and London today with the current paucity of "trolley runs" (unless he bought them)

Still had his "Gold Pass" from Sir Peter (whoops make that plain Peter - he's dead as well) Parker then.

 

[SS4]

Perhaps the newspapers concerned will conduct a similar exercise of "soul searching"

I'll keep my eyes peeled for flying pigs. Of course we're all meant to have forgotten about that

 

[wintonian]

I'll keep my eyes peeled for flying pigs. Of course we're all meant to have forgotten about that

Ones like this perhaps?

 

[mrscherry]

Kind of sick of hearing about it now if I'm honest. I've not really shown much interest in the story so can't really form a full opinion on it but from what I can gather it seems as though a lot of people are coming out the woodwork are saying they have been abused just to gain some money from the story!

I don't think it's right they demolished his head stone before anything has been proven. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?!

 

[MattRobinson]

I could understand removing it to prevent it from being vandalised, but keep in a stonemason's yard rather than breaking it up and sending it to landfill?

 

[swj99]

And, after all this coverage, could there ever be any real justice? None of this would have been allowed if the accused were still alive.

Absolutely.

Unfortunately the phrase 'no smoke without fire' seems to resonate unshakeably amongst a large minority of society that often sees things as black and white or shades of grey at best.

You're not wrong. I'll get me pitchfork !

sex offenders share similar traits, and Jimmy Saville, displays these traits.

So you won't be wanting a nice shiny new tracksuit then ?

http://www.escapade.co.uk/hollywood-and-tv-costumes-sale/jimmy-saville-costume-m.asp

(incidentally I can't see them selling a lot of them now, at least, not at £38.99 a throw !)

But joking aside, I appreciate that there are certain traits displayed by sex offenders, but unfortunately it's not possible to profile or single them out. It would be great if it was and would mean no more sex offenders, because they would all be easy to catch. Sadly we don't have that perfect world.

The Daily Mail and Daily Mirror were found guilty of contempt of court for their part in the 'trial by media' of Levi Bellfield. He had already been convicted of the murder of Milly Dowler, but the jury were considering a separate attempted abduction charge. As a result of the adverse publicity the trial judge discharged the jury. At the contempt hearing, the court decided that each publication created a substantial risk of serious prejudice, which would have meant that if the trial against Bellfield for that offence had continued, any conviction may later be deemed to be unsafe. Even someone as nasty as him is entitled to a fair trial, otherwise what's the point, and we might as well stick pins in a bit of paper to decide who is guilty.

This reminds me of the case of Chris Jefferies who was arrested after the murder of Joanna Yeates in 2010. During his time in police custody, Jefferies was tried by media during a witch hunt, prior to the actual killer being arrested and charged. If Jefferies had been charged, it is very unlikely he would have got a fair trial due to having already been found guilty by the press.

Jefferies brought a libel action against eight publications over their coverage of his arrest, resulting in the payment to him of substantial damages. In addition, The Sun and The Daily Mirror were found guilty of contempt of court for reporting information that could prejudice a trial, even though he was released without charge and another person was subsequently tried and convicted of the murder. This is obviously never going to happen in the case of Savile, but I think this demonstrates the point that because of the way the allegations have been made all over the place in the media, we will never know exactly what happened. All it will ever be is suspicions, allegations and rumours.

There are strict rules of evidence in criminal cases. This is to prevent contamination of evidence, to control what evidence is available to the jury when a case is tried, and to facilitate the proper testing of the validity of that evidence. It serves another purpose as well, and is related to the reason why police hardly ever disclose full details of a crime during an investigation. This means that only the police, the victim (assuming it's not a murder enquiry) and the perpetrator know all the details of the case, and it helps the police to weed out false confessions from the real thing. The other thing about the restrictions on the disclosure of details about criminal cases is this. Let's use the Jimmy Savile situation as an example. For a few weeks I and lots of other people have seen news programs, newspapers and documentaries in which alleged victims of abuse, have stated specific details of their allegations.
If Savile was still alive, he would not now be able to get a fair trial as it would be virtually impossible for jury members to be found, anywhere in this country, who hadn't already heard details which would end up being part of the prosecution case against him, and which could therefore be prejudicial to a fair trial.

Savile is being referred to as a serial sex abuser, which would never happen pre trial, or during a trial, if he was alive. Another thing is that any dishonest compensation seeker could note what other people are alleging Savile did to them, and then fabricate similar stories.

 

[wintonian]

Absolutely.


You're not wrong. I'll get me pitchfork !

The Daily Mail and Daily Mirror were found guilty of contempt of court for their part in the 'trial by media' of Levi Bellfield. He had already been convicted of the murder of Milly Dowler, but the jury were considering a separate attempted abduction charge. As a result of the adverse publicity the trial judge discharged the jury. At the contempt hearing, the court decided that each publication created a substantial risk of serious prejudice, which would have meant that if the trial against Bellfield for that offence had continued, any conviction may later be deemed to be unsafe. Even someone as nasty as him is entitled to a fair trial, otherwise what's the point, and we might as well stick pins in a bit of paper to decide who is guilty.

This reminds me of the case of Chris Jeffries who was arrested after the murder of Joanna Yeates in 2010. During his time in police custody, Jeffries was tried by media during a witch hunt, prior to the actual killer being arrested and charged. If Jeffries had been charged, it is very unlikely he would have got a fair trial due to having already been found guilty by the press.

Jefferies brought a against eight publications over their coverage of his arrest, resulting in the payment to him of substantial damages. In addition, The Sun and The Daily Mirror were found guilty of contempt of court for reporting information that could prejudice a trial, even though he was released without charge and another person was subsequently tried and convicted of the murder. This is obviously never going to happen in the case of Savile, but I think this demonstrates the point that because of the way the allegations have been made all over the place in the media, we will never know exactly what happened. All it will ever be is suspicions, allegations and rumours.

There are strict rules of evidence in criminal cases. This is to prevent contamination of evidence, to control what evidence is available to the jury when a case is tried, and to facilitate the proper testing of the validity of that evidence. It serves another purpose as well, and is related to the reason why police hardly ever disclose full details of a crime during an investigation. This means that only the police, the victim (assuming it's not a murder enquiry) and the perpetrator know all the details of the case, and it helps the police to weed out false confessions from the real thing. The other thing about the restrictions on the disclosure of details about criminal cases is this. Let's use the Jimmy Savile situation as an example. For a few weeks I and lots of other people have seen news programs, newspapers and documentaries in which alleged victims of abuse, have stated specific details of their allegations.
If Savile was still alive, he would not now be able to get a fair trial as it would be virtually impossible for jury members to be found, anywhere in this country, who hadn't already heard details which would end up being part of the prosecution case against him, and which could therefore be prejudicial to a fair trial.

Savile is being referred to as a serial sex abuser, which would never happen pre trial, or during a trial, if he was alive. Another thing is that any dishonest compensation seeker could note what other people are alleging Savile did to them, and then fabricate similar stories.

Thank you for this perhaps lengthy post, but its worth being reminded of how important the right to a fair trial is and the consequences that may arise without one.

As regards to the trial by media concept, until 2003 double jeopardy (now permitted in certain cases - a fact I feel rather uncomfortable about) was specificity outlawed in this country, despite the legality of judgements first being made out in many column inches under the pretence of a free press', and sentences being carried out by lynch mobs against the innocent .

 

[LE Greys]

Thank you for this perhaps lengthy post, but its worth being reminded of how important the right to a fair trial is and the consequences that may arise without one.

As regards to the trial by media concept, until 2003 double jeopardy (now permitted in certain cases - a fact I feel rather uncomfortable about) was specificity outlawed in this country, despite the legality of judgements first being made out in many column inches under the pretence of a free press', and sentences being carried out by lynch mobs against the innocent .

Agreed, although with double jeopardy, it depends on the circumstances. If, for instance, there is now conclusive evidence to demand a retrial (say DNA) that wasn't available to the original jury, then they should have to go through the full appeals process all the way to the House of Lords before overturning the original Not Guilty. That would probably deter most cases unless the evidence is 100% conclusive. However, it really should be corroborated by something else (as under Scottish law) to allow this.

I absolutely agree with everything else he said, though.

 

[SS4]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20108980

The head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has written to the Vatican to ask if Jimmy Savile's papal knighthood can be posthumously removed, the Church has confirmed.

The irony is outstanding given the Catholic Church's reputation for child molesting. Note how they're not waiting for proof but I suppose if Catholics listened to evidence there'd be no catholics.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I really despise this media witch hunt though :cry:

 

[wintonian]

Agreed, although with double jeopardy, it depends on the circumstances. If, for instance, there is now conclusive evidence to demand a retrial (say DNA) that wasn't available to the original jury, then they should have to go through the full appeals process all the way to the House of Lords before overturning the original Not Guilty. That would probably deter most cases unless the evidence is 100% conclusive. However, it really should be corroborated by something else (as under Scottish law) to allow this.

I absolutely agree with everything else he said, though.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do feel uneasy about. I think that there are good arguments that should (have) be debated thoroughly.

 

[LE Greys]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20108980



The irony is outstanding given the Catholic Church's reputation for child molesting. Note how they're not waiting for proof but I suppose if Catholics listened to evidence there'd be no catholics.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I really despise this media witch hunt though :cry:

Which was, at least in part, a perception generated by another media witch hunt. I didn't realise it was a papal knighthood, though.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do feel uneasy about. I think that there are good arguments that should (have) be debated thoroughly.

One thing I've learnt about the justice system is it can never be perfect. I certainly agree with you about the media, though. Imperfect or not, we have a good system in this country and the media should let it do its work without starting witch hunts.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Which was, at least in part, a perception generated by another media witch hunt. I didn't realise it was a papal knighthood, though.

He had both a normal UK knighthood and a Papal knighthood.

Latest news tonight is that his family now accepts the allegations are true.

 

[SS4]

And that means the story will continue to hog the headlines.

 

[Eagle]

Latest news tonight is that his family now accepts the allegations are true.

I'd have thought that they accepted them as true when they sent his gravestone off to waste (rather than just put it in the attic until everything blew over).