up to 300 victims now in Saville investigation

SimonAH

.....am I being uncharitable in having a sneaking niggle of a suspicion that amongst the genuinely abused there are probably quite a few people sniffing a payday here?

meanredspider

SimonAH wrote:

.....am I being uncharitable in having a sneaking niggle of a suspicion that amongst the genuinely abused there are probably quite a few people sniffing a payday here?

Possibly - though they are talking about hauling in another 12 people - seems like it was pretty systematic. If he was only abusing kids for 30 years that's "only" 10 a year and it does seem that quite a lot were one-off incidents. I'm very interested to see how this unfolds

SteppenHerring

There will be quite a lot of victims who never come forward because they're now dead. And maybe they were then too.

meanredspider

Does make me wonder if his coffin was encased in concrete because he feared all of this might come out....

There must be a few that would dig him up now

CiB

There was a piece in the paper the other day where he was reported as saying that once he's gone all this will blow up and history will view him differently.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... death.html

sketchley

I did wonder the same thing. I don't think it would be that easy though, you would need to be able to prove you at least came into contact with him to get a payday. You would have to explain where and when and be prepared to back it up. Even then you may need some corroborating evidence such as people you told at the time, diaries, reported changes of behavour after the event from friends, family, school reports that kind of thing. And to get a "big" payday you need to show how it damaged and affected you after the event.

Also payday from whom? I don't know if it's possible to sue the estate of a dead man, maybe the insitituation he worked for like the BBC or the hospitals, charities and childrens homes or even the police for failing to protect? Another option is criminal injuries but that would require a higher level of proof I than civil claim I think. In all those cases lawyers would be looking very carefully at all the claims to make sure there are not false claims. The only other route would be money from press but then your name goes accross the newspapers which might put off some false claims if there are any.

For me the whole thing is rather odd, somehow I always knew about this. I even said commented to my wife when he died that I was glad he was gone as he always bothered me, when she asked why my response was "in a child abuser kind of way". I cannot remember a single reason why or how I "knew" this, I just did. As far as I know I never met him, maybe friends from school did and I was told a rumor. No idea really. Glad it's all coming out, just wish it had happend sooner so some could of been protected from it.

rjsterry

I'm with Sketchley. There are easier ways to get some cash, and as MRS points out, it's not actually that many when you look at the period of time concerned and the presumed involvement of other people.

cornerblock

And how many people are now very relieved that their letter to Jim'll Fix It went unanswered.

SimonAH

It was fine when he fixed it for me to milk a goat blindfolded.

cornerblock

Did he tell you to not go bleating about it?

SimonAH

Seriously though,

There are going to be some paydays - the lawyers will already be comparing the size of each other's dorsal fins.

Forget the Saville Estate for a tick; If it can be proven that there was even a hint of a warning given to the hospitals, childrens homes and of cause Auntie Beeb that was subsequently ignored or poo-pooed then I am sure that the ambulance chasers will be over them like stink on a turd suing them for enabling the abuse to occur 'on their watch'. Cherchez le cash is the motto and the Beeb and the Health Service have deep pockets.

UndercoverElephant

Cornerblock wrote:

And how many people are now very relieved that their letter to Jim'll Fix It went unanswered.

As a parent myself, I can categorically say that the vast majority of unanswered letters were never actually sent by your Mum and Dad. To protect you from Jim, obviously.

meanredspider

As an aside, but kinda to the point, the protection my 13 year old son received when doing the Olympic torch run was incredible. They took amazing care of him with their own dedicated child protection officer and we had to sign him in and sign him out again. The organization of that event was a tour de force - really impressive.

bigmat

SimonAH wrote:

Seriously though,

There are going to be some paydays - the lawyers will already be comparing the size of each other's dorsal fins.

Forget the Saville Estate for a tick; If it can be proven that there was even a hint of a warning given to the hospitals, childrens homes and of cause Auntie Beeb that was subsequently ignored or poo-pooed then I am sure that the ambulance chasers will be over them like stink on a turd suing them for enabling the abuse to occur 'on their watch'. Cherchez le cash is the motto and the Beeb and the Health Service have deep pockets.

Oh, the evil lawyers. Tell me, do you think the victims have any right to compensation? Should they just sort it out for themselves if so? What about the NHS and BBC, do they have any right to defend themselves or is that baaaaaad as well? You do realise that "ambulance chasers" is to lawyers what "lycra louts" is to cyclists - sounds like you've swallowed the Daily Mail whole.

SimonAH

BigMat wrote:

Oh, the evil lawyers. Tell me, do you think the victims have any right to compensation? Should they just sort it out for themselves if so? What about the NHS and BBC, do they have any right to defend themselves or is that baaaaaad as well? You do realise that "ambulance chasers" is to lawyers what "lycra louts" is to cyclists - sounds like you've swallowed the Daily Mail whole.

Ah, sorry Matt, intemperate language (my brother is a partner at Wilmer Hale :-) )

Just pointing out that there will certainly be a lot of civil suits for compensation in the offing, and that there will certainly also be some unscrupulous enough to try to climb on that wagon.

Of course genuine victims are entitled to redress under the law.

.....you have to admit that there are quite a few Lycra Louts on the road too though don't you?

In a class action situation is it really in the interest of the lawyers representing the claimants to work too hard to check if their clients are pretending? After all, one of the two people who were present is dead. All someone would have to do is demonstrate that they, and JS could have been alone at some point and that their life since has not been idyllic.

Still, maybe I'm being overly cynical. It just seems to me that one fresh victim every month for thirty years solid is a bit of a large number to swallow.

EKE_38BPM

As an aside to the whole Saville affair (well, less an affair, more a rushed grope and more), has anyone else noticed the strange BBC policy of not showing kid's faces when showing some articles on the news, but then interviewing kids on other articles?
Do paedos get their rocks off on news articles about the selling off of playgrounds but are left unaroused by interviews about synthetic phonics? It is a very confused and confusing policy. It seems to be only the BBC who do this.

The BBC are now blurring the faces of kids on Saville's old shows whereas they weren't before, but this is more understandable if investigations are under way.

Paul E

EKE_38BPM wrote:

As an aside to the whole Saville affair (well, less an affair, more a rushed grope and more), has anyone else noticed the strange BBC policy of not showing kid's faces when showing some articles on the news, but then interviewing kids on other articles?
Do paedos get their rocks off on news articles about the selling off of playgrounds but are left unaroused by interviews about synthetic phonics? It is a very confused and confusing policy. It seems to be only the BBC who do this.

The BBC are now blurring the faces of kids on Saville's old shows whereas they weren't before, but this is more understandable if investigations are under way.

It's down to permissions, it would be very hard to get parental permission for every child in a playground to be filmed where as if it's an interview its very easy to get release forms signed. I used to be a cameraman so know a thing or two about it, it makes sense when you think about it.

cornerblock

I wish they'd now just stop showing Saville every time there is a news item or there is a piece in a newspaper. We all know what the creep looks like. Seeing him now on those old clips near children or riding his bike, running, anything, just turns my stomach a bit. We don't need to see the wrong 'un ever again!!

As for the claims, sure there will be some opportunists who see a way of making a bit of money, but I believe most if not all of the false accusers will eventually be found out. Ultimately if the BBC or the NHS are forced to compensate victims it will be all of us who have to pay.

EKE_38BPM

Paul E wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

As an aside to the whole Saville affair (well, less an affair, more a rushed grope and more), has anyone else noticed the strange BBC policy of not showing kid's faces when showing some articles on the news, but then interviewing kids on other articles?
Do paedos get their rocks off on news articles about the selling off of playgrounds but are left unaroused by interviews about synthetic phonics? It is a very confused and confusing policy. It seems to be only the BBC who do this.

The BBC are now blurring the faces of kids on Saville's old shows whereas they weren't before, but this is more understandable if investigations are under way.

It's down to permissions, it would be very hard to get parental permission for every child in a playground to be filmed where as if it's an interview its very easy to get release forms signed. I used to be a cameraman so know a thing or two about it, it makes sense when you think about it.

I give you that, up to a point. How much harder is it to get permission from the parents of the ~30 kids in a playground compared to the ~30 kids in a classroom? The whole thing seems a bit inconsistent.

Is it a BBC only policy?

Paul E

Not sure if it's a bbc only policy but I had to film in a class room and all but one child had permission to be on film so the remaining child had to leave during the filming, if there is enough notice it's easy, but for library footage it's not worth it plus the playground might have multiple classrooms in it making it even harder to get releases signed.

rrsodl

Personally, I don't care if anybody is trying to make a few quids out of this. That's not really important to me anyway. What really bothers me is the way he got away with it for so long. I've seen it a few times in my life where people disapprove of something and all they do is simply gossip about it. They are scare to come forward and say why they think something is wrong.
I have been in the position of coming forward and confronting the people in question, at the risk of loosing my job and I don't hold great memories of those situations. Not because those people gave me a hard time, I expected that, but because those very same people I was trying to protect didn't have the guts to come forward and say something and stand for themselves. I think it's something to do with British culture not to say anything, put your head down and get on with things.

The people that let Jimmy Saville do these terrible things should be ashamed of themselves - there are no excuses in my book.

confused@BR

+1 about the pictures of the old b*st*rd, Mrs S G & I were saying just the same. We know what he looks like, we don't need reminding.

msmancunia

Paul E wrote:

Not sure if it's a bbc only policy but I had to film in a class room and all but one child had permission to be on film so the remaining child had to leave during the filming, if there is enough notice it's easy, but for library footage it's not worth it plus the playground might have multiple classrooms in it making it even harder to get releases signed.

We have a v strict policy these days. All staff working with children have to be enhanced CRB checked, staff should never be on their own with a child when not in view of other adults, we have a well used "lost children" procedure for outside broadcasts etc, so e.g. if a child is reported lost, the site is shut down and nobody is allowed to enter or leave until the child is found. On a Blue Peter thing we did this summer this was every five or ten minutes. For the big mass audience OB things, we have notices up at the entrances letting people know that they may be filmed, and entering the site is seen as agreement to this.

Agent57

Paul E wrote:

Not sure if it's a bbc only policy but I had to film in a class room and all but one child had permission to be on film so the remaining child had to leave during the filming, if there is enough notice it's easy, but for library footage it's not worth it plus the playground might have multiple classrooms in it making it even harder to get releases signed.

I thought teachers were acting in loco parentis while kids were at school anyway, so wouldn't they just need the teachers' permission? Or does that not really apply any more?

Agent57

msmancunia wrote:

All staff working with children have to be enhanced CRB checked

Oh, don't get me started on the bloody CRB check, useless piece of paper that it is. I've had 4 of the bloody things already, in the space of the past 3 years or so. :roll: Three for jobs, even though one of them was a "TUPE" transfer, and another for coaching. And I'm due to have another one soon (for coaching), because British Cycling's policy is that they need rechecking after 3 years. They don't have an expiry date on them, and if the "renewal" is aimed at "safeguarding children", then 3 years is too long a window anyway. Not sure how long the "expiry" is at my current employer, but I'll probably have to have another check there again next year. Even if they were are good system, a single check should at least be transferable, especially as I got copies of each sent to me, so it'd be easy enough to show it to a new employer.

Gah, you got me started.

rick_chasey

Keep thinking this thread is about the estate agent Savilles.

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

.....am I being uncharitable in having a sneaking niggle of a suspicion that amongst the genuinely abused there are probably quite a few people sniffing a payday here?

S'probably this kind of attitude that puts a lot of people off from coming forward about this kind of thing.

EKE_38BPM

Agent57 wrote:

msmancunia wrote:

All staff working with children have to be enhanced CRB checked

Oh, don't get me started on the bloody CRB check, useless piece of paper that it is. I've had 4 of the bloody things already, in the space of the past 3 years or so. :roll: Three for jobs, even though one of them was a "TUPE" transfer, and another for coaching. And I'm due to have another one soon (for coaching), because British Cycling's policy is that they need rechecking after 3 years. They don't have an expiry date on them, and if the "renewal" is aimed at "safeguarding children", then 3 years is too long a window anyway. Not sure how long the "expiry" is at my current employer, but I'll probably have to have another check there again next year. Even if they were are good system, a single check should at least be transferable, especially as I got copies of each sent to me, so it'd be easy enough to show it to a new employer.

Gah, you got me started.

CRB checks are stupid and useless. I think I'm right in saying that most child abuse is by a family member and I doubt many people would demand a CRB if their brother was babysitting their kid. Jimmy Saville would have passed a CRB check anyway, despite his ~300 alleged victims.
I have a CRB for Hackney but not for Islington yet, so I'm OK to work at one end of the road, but not the other. Over the 300 metres of the road I appear to change from a fine upstanding citizen to a possible paedophile.

DrLex

SimonAH wrote:

It was fine when he fixed it for me to milk a goat blindfolded.

I heard your txt being read out on Radio Ulster.

I'm guessing that Lord Saville won't get to chair this Inquiry.

meanredspider

I have to say this smacks a bit of hypocrisy

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

First.Aspect

I've heard testamonials on the radio ranging from people who were "abused" on live TV by a lingering hand, to a fully blown account of a man allegedly stumbling across him at it with a 13 year old in his dressing room, wearing a shell suit and with his cigar, helpfully giving directions to the person who had walked in on him.

The BBC journalism standards are variable, and I'm sorry, but the first does not meet any criminal standard (though creepy) and the latter is about as likely as Harry Potter and simply should not be aired.

I have an observation/question for Mrsmancunia.

It seems to me that the BBC for some time has had a culture of not managing its stars. Recently, people like Jonathan Ross and Clarkson, though both entertaining, have clearly been on a trajectory that could not/will not end well, yet there seems from the outside to have been minimal action by the BBC to reign them in. Was Angus Deayton another example? Is Jimmy Saville an earlier example? Is that a fair observation? Each time this happens, there is much wringing of hands by the BBC, yet nothing much seems to change.

It seems that everyone knew, but was Saville too important for the BBC for them to do anything about it? Was the BBC complicit in allowing him to see young female fans one at a time? Did BBC management knowingly turn a blind eye to multiple rape because he got good ratings? I think they did.

It seems to me that the BBC could be in very, very serious trouble here over its culture. It receives what to non-British people is just a breathtaking amount of tax income, far far out of line with the rest of the western world's public broadcasters. I'm not sure how much more abuse of privilage the UK tax payer can tolerate hearing about.