Jimmy Saville "sex fiend"?

2

Comments

  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    The stories about late night visits to Leeds morgue, procuring young kids for other well known figures - who knows - I'm sure a year ago people would have said the stuff that's come out in the press already was nonsense. It is a shame he's dead because I think a lot of victims would have gained some kind of closure from a full investigation - but part of me thinks that there wasn't really a desire to investigate him - if Newsnight could get 10 people to testify against him for their piece which was never broadcast (why?) seems odd that the police/CPS couldn't get enough to get it to court.
    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Tom Butcher wrote:
    if Newsnight could get 10 people to testify against him for their piece which was never broadcast (why?) seems odd that the police/CPS couldn't get enough to get it to court.

    Because to go to court you need a proper case and proper evidence. To make a TV prog about a dead person who can't sue, you don't need any evidence at all.
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    Are witness statements not proper evidence ?

    edit - the evidence seems fairly overwhelming that he was guilty of at least some of the rumoured activity.

    The rumours have been pretty well known for many years. I just think that a proper police investigation would almost certainly have found enough evidence to satisfy the normal requirements of the CPS. Yes there are conspiracy theorists about just about everything but in this case it's hard to believe that there wasn't at least a blind eye turned to his actions by people who could have stopped it - including people within the police.
    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Tom Butcher wrote:
    Are witness statements not proper evidence ?

    Yes, they are proper evidence that somebody is claiming that something happened. They're not necessarily accurate or robust when under scrutiny of a lawyer. If I told the Police I'd been abducted by Victoria Pendleton it would be a witness statement, but an unreliable one that the CPS would not act on.
  • Tom Butcher
    Tom Butcher Posts: 3,830
    Yes one possibility is that they conducted a full and thorough investigation and the evidence presented wasn't strong enough to bring a case - unfortunately we all know that the police do not have an unblemished record and it seems far more likely to me just given what is in the public domain that there wasn't enough done to bring him to justice.
    it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
  • heavymental
    heavymental Posts: 2,091
    In hindsight it was a bit like having Herbert the Pervert from Family Guy on our screens without ever wondering if he was dodgy.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    I haven't had the opportunity of seeing all the conclusive evidence that Sir Jimmy was a rapist pervert. I haven't had the chance to see the trial transcript either. Could somebody post a link to them please?
  • dylanfernley
    dylanfernley Posts: 409
    all in good time, but it does not sound good, for his supporters i mean
  • Yellow Peril
    Yellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    dylanfernley wrote:
    all in good time, but it does not sound good, for his supporters i mean

    Cover up by authorities, threatening people with big bucks litigation and ^this... is this a Lance Armstrong thread?
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • dylanfernley
    dylanfernley Posts: 409
    yeah they both seem very unpleasant people
  • heavymental
    heavymental Posts: 2,091
    GiantMike wrote:
    I haven't had the opportunity of seeing all the conclusive evidence that Sir Jimmy was a rapist pervert. I haven't had the chance to see the trial transcript either. Could somebody post a link to them please?

    Yes there's 2 cases I'm waiting on evidence for before I believe any wrongdoing took place. Lance and Jimmy Saville. I just can't believe those two top blokes might have done anything illegal.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    What's him being dead got to do with it?

    If people do stuff, they get held accountable for it. In life or death.

    Not speaking ill of the dead wouldn't get historians very far.

    :roll:
    _
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Do people think he's guilty? If so, based on what evidence? Has this evidence been subjected to proper scrutiny and examination?

    In the UK you're innocent until proven guilty (or dead).
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Struggling to make the connection between Armstrong and a potential child abuser.
    A bit like comparing my speeding conviction with Fred Wests love of lodgers.
  • desweller
    desweller Posts: 5,175
    It certainly won't look too clever for Planet X, bet they wish they hadn't been so keen at auction now!
    - - - - - - - - - -
    On Strava.{/url}
  • Yellow Peril
    Yellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    Heavymental wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    I haven't had the opportunity of seeing all the conclusive evidence that Sir Jimmy was a rapist pervert. I haven't had the chance to see the trial transcript either. Could somebody post a link to them please?

    Yes there's 2 cases I'm waiting on evidence for before I believe any wrongdoing took place. Lance and Jimmy Saville. I just can't believe those two top blokes might have done anything illegal.

    Edit: due to extremely bad taste on my part :oops:
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • heavymental
    heavymental Posts: 2,091
    mamba80 wrote:
    Struggling to make the connection between Armstrong and a potential child abuser.
    A bit like comparing my speeding conviction with Fred Wests love of lodgers.

    The connection is that they're both cases where we are waiting for evidence to be compiled and released. Innocent until proven guilty yes, but you can still have a guess at what the outcome might be.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Heavymental wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    Struggling to make the connection between Armstrong and a potential child abuser.
    A bit like comparing my speeding conviction with Fred Wests love of lodgers.

    The connection is that they're both cases where we are waiting for evidence to be compiled and released. Innocent until proven guilty yes, but you can still have a guess at what the outcome might be.
    With the subtle difference that LA has looked at the evidence, and decided it wasn't worth his while trying to contest it.
  • heavymental
    heavymental Posts: 2,091
    Yellow Peril wrote:
    Heavymental wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    I haven't had the opportunity of seeing all the conclusive evidence that Sir Jimmy was a rapist pervert. I haven't had the chance to see the trial transcript either. Could somebody post a link to them please?

    Yes there's 2 cases I'm waiting on evidence for before I believe any wrongdoing took place. Lance and Jimmy Saville. I just can't believe those two top blokes might have done anything illegal.

    Edit: due to extremely bad taste on my part :oops:

    Oh go on, what was it!?
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Heavymental wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    Struggling to make the connection between Armstrong and a potential child abuser.
    A bit like comparing my speeding conviction with Fred Wests love of lodgers.

    The connection is that they're both cases where we are waiting for evidence to be compiled and released. Innocent until proven guilty yes, but you can still have a guess at what the outcome might be.

    Its a question of scale isnt it? LA maybe all the things he is supposed to be/done but to relate him child abuse enquires seems just wrong, why not that he and JS used to be Pro bike riders??? or they are both male? or have been seen smoking a cigar?
    as for innocent until proven etc JS will never be "proven" guilty as A: he is dead (so cannot defend himself) and B: any dna evidence is, almost certainly, long gone - so we are just left with, at best, compelling witness statements but no "hard" evidence :lol:
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    mamba80 wrote:
    as for innocent until proven etc JS will never be "proven" guilty as A: he is dead (so cannot defend himself) and B: any dna evidence is, almost certainly, long gone - so we are just left with, at best, compelling witness statements but no "hard" evidence :lol:

    You can be found guilty even if you're dead (though there's little point other than compensation). If you fail to defend yourself it doesn't mean you can't be found guilty. It all depends on the evidence. The 'compelling witness statements' carry no more or less weight because the accused is dead. It just means that the Police would not be able to question somebody (and actually the same as if that person answered 'not guilty' to all questions).

    I'd say that JS is 'guiltier' as a result of being dead. He has no right to reply and can't defend himself. He may have had compelling counter evidence that is no longer available. Even if he's innocent, throw enough mud and some of it sticks so he'll always be associated with the allegations.
  • heavymental
    heavymental Posts: 2,091
    mamba80 wrote:
    Heavymental wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    Struggling to make the connection between Armstrong and a potential child abuser.
    A bit like comparing my speeding conviction with Fred Wests love of lodgers.

    The connection is that they're both cases where we are waiting for evidence to be compiled and released. Innocent until proven guilty yes, but you can still have a guess at what the outcome might be.

    Its a question of scale isnt it? LA maybe all the things he is supposed to be/done but to relate him child abuse enquires seems just wrong, why not that he and JS used to be Pro bike riders??? or they are both male? or have been seen smoking a cigar?
    as for innocent until proven etc JS will never be "proven" guilty as A: he is dead (so cannot defend himself) and B: any dna evidence is, almost certainly, long gone - so we are just left with, at best, compelling witness statements but no "hard" evidence :lol:

    I'm not comparing the two crimes. Just saying that we're waiting on evidence but imo we'll find they re both guilty as hell.
  • Yellow Peril
    Yellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    No-one's saying LA is a kiddy fiddler. The likeness I made regards patriarchal individuals (LA & JS), institutions (BBC &UCI) and alleged lawsuit threats if the Omerta in both cases was broken.
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • Peddle Up!
    Peddle Up! Posts: 2,040
    I find the hardest thing to understand is Esther Ranzen's stance. She claims to have knowledge of Saville's actions, was a BBC "name" of comparable standing at the time, and a champion of Childline.

    Yet, she said nothing. Why?
    Purveyor of "up" :)
  • symo
    symo Posts: 1,743
    Peddle Up! wrote:
    I find the hardest thing to understand is Esther Ranzen's stance. She claims to have knowledge of Saville's actions, was a BBC "name" of comparable standing at the time, and a champion of Childline.

    Yet, she said nothing. Why?

    Eh; she knew?????
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    we are the proud, the few, Descendents.

    Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    Peddle Up! wrote:
    I find the hardest thing to understand is Esther Ranzen's stance. She claims to have knowledge of Saville's actions, was a BBC "name" of comparable standing at the time, and a champion of Childline.

    Yet, she said nothing. Why?

    I thought all she 'knew' was reports from several people who had made very similar claims and she has said that they were likely to be true judging by the content. Not sure when she became aware of this but assumed it was fairly recent.
  • Peddle Up!
    Peddle Up! Posts: 2,040
    Pross wrote:
    Peddle Up! wrote:
    I find the hardest thing to understand is Esther Ranzen's stance. She claims to have knowledge of Saville's actions, was a BBC "name" of comparable standing at the time, and a champion of Childline.

    Yet, she said nothing. Why?

    I thought all she 'knew' was reports from several people who had made very similar claims and she has said that they were likely to be true judging by the content. Not sure when she became aware of this but assumed it was fairly recent.

    Fair comment. She said on interview that she was aware of rumours and gossip. So not first-hand knowledge.
    Purveyor of "up" :)
  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    Yellow Peril wrote:
    No-one's saying LA is a kiddy fiddler. The likeness I made regards patriarchal individuals (LA & JS), institutions (BBC &UCI) and alleged lawsuit threats if the Omerta in both cases was broken.

    I had no idea that carter ruck have an office in Hell ?
  • Yellow Peril
    Yellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    Lookyhere wrote:
    Yellow Peril wrote:
    No-one's saying LA is a kiddy fiddler. The likeness I made regards patriarchal individuals (LA & JS), institutions (BBC &UCI) and alleged lawsuit threats if the Omerta in both cases was broken.

    I had no idea that carter ruck have an office in Hell ?

    All law firms do :D
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • Frank the tank
    Frank the tank Posts: 6,553
    Someone's come forward saying they witnessed him and Gary Glitter getting inappropriate with a girl, no doubt Jonathan King and Pete Townsend were juuuuuust out of her eyeline, but they were there.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.

Categories