I’ve been watching the opening salvos against the reputation of Jimmy Savile with mixed feelings.
I cannot say that I ever liked the man. As a child and teenager in the sixties and seventies, I found his saccharine flamboyance irritating – so, too, his over-the-top charity work – and was it only me but did his children’s programmes come across as distinctly creepy? To me, charitable works should be a quiet, private thing. Generosity shouted from the rooftops cheapens it to my mind. Too much “look at me” going on. And, maybe, that diversionary tactic was what was going on. At least, if the allegations now being aired are true.
I have to say, when the allegations surfaced, they didn’t exactly surprise me. Not that I saw them coming, just that when they did, it seemed to fit with the image of the man I had seen presented to us on the television (as I said, a bit creepy). Much, I suppose, as I wasn’t exactly taken by surprise when Paul Gadd was exposed. Hindsight casts a degree of light that we tend to miss at the time, yet the subliminal messages still get through.
All that said, I see no real mileage in a police investigation at this stage. The man is dead. He is unable to defend himself and if the allegations are true, they cannot be properly tested as there is no defendant to charge and try in a court. Sure, I understand that victims felt that they were unable to say anything while he was alive. Well, that being so, it was probably best left unsaid. Any desire there might be for justice is going to be unrequited – the man is dead, we cannot dig him up and do a Cromwell. The best that the police can do is decide that there is enough evidence to bring charges. That is not the same thing as tried and found guilty – it is a long way short of that, not least because on the evidence presented previously, the CPS had decided not to proceed. So what is likely to change? And even if it does, there is no one to charge. Savile’s name will be forever besmirched with no possibility of him being able to rebut the claims or defend himself in court.
That is not justice and I fail to see how it can be closure for the alleged victims. Posthumous revenge, maybe, but not justice.
People have been banging on about Saville for a few years now and it may be that there’s some truth to the rumours (equally there may not either). That it has only surfaced now after his death is interesting for as you pointed out, you cannot libel or slander the dead. Still the charges are suspiciously pernicious to poison his memory should he be exonerated and too late for justice if they are true.
And nicely timed to get certain other grooming scandals off the front page.
Spot on there Julia.
I have to say I never liked him and always found him creepy. My father once encountered him in the context of making a health and safety film for ICI and concluded he was a charlatan.
Likewise I always found him an appalling personality – totally devoid of either charm or talent. A thoroughly dreadful man. But I see absolutely no point in raking over the coals of his alleged depravities. It benefits nobody but the prurient moralisers who love to be righteously indignant and condemnatory.
Not true!
It benefits all the ‘child protection experts’ (those who aren’t currently flocking like vultures to Wales) and all those control freaks who feed on the likes of credulous fools like the one EssesxHunter spotted in his local paper.
I get the feeling that this is partly about making the BBC pay for Savile’s alleged sins.
Literally or metaphorically?
Literally, as in financial compensation. I figure they could go after Savile’s estate as well, whatever that estate may be. I don’t really know if any of that’s the case, though. I suppose what I’m saying is that if it does happen, I won’t be surprised.
Saville’s will left most of the money to his own charity. No idea if probate has been granted, but any claims against the estate would have to be fought in court as charities cannot just give money away without proof of wrongdoing. And whoever was suing would be seen to be taking money from the charity, which is not good PR.
Best guess is that the BBC will be fall guy here – deep pockets, and can be more easily ‘shamed’ into paying up without a long court case.
I suppose one thing that may come of it, is that those who have foisted ‘Paedogeddon’ on us, with a Gary Glitter behind every bush and stunted the growth of a a couple of generations of children will be shown to have been complicit in covering up for one of their own ( something that didn’t happen with GG or Jonathan King, what really nobody knew? )
Although in showbiz (and indeed politics) it seems the ‘Talent’ can be excused anything provided it puts bums on seats or votes in pockets and up until very. very recently the MSM was happy to go along with it
XX The man is dead. He is unable to defend himself and if the allegations are true, they cannot be properly tested as there is no defendant to charge and try in a court. XX
They have seen the size of his estate, and the “compensation lights” have started to burn flourecent green?
They are not interested in a police investigation per sé, but they must have that as a precurser of a civil action.
I quite like the raw approach of most of your opinions Teut but on this one I disagree.
Having your childhood ruined and adult life tainted by the physical and emotional pain of a grown man grabbing you and forcibly fucking you against your will or capability to defend…and everyone around them ignoring it or covering it up and/or trying to blame YOU for the fact your body was treated like a jar of chopped liver, smeared with another persons bodily fluids and discarded like soiled toilet paper…isn’t something always so easily assuaged by something as simple as cash.
Sure, there are some people who would sell their self-respect and the space between their legs for a shilling but it certainly doesn’t mean that everyone would.
Concern as to any of this has/will rebound on us all…due to vested interests trying on a few abuses of their own with our Liberties…is fairy ’nuff but, come on. It’s not for anyone to dictate how much abuse a child should be able to take, how quickly they should “get over it” or even how they are supposed to achieve that.
It’s not even our place to decide whether any of it actually happened.
You may have no sympathy or empathy for the victims for your own reasons but unless the repercussions directly affects you…and such is what they themselves have demanded happen to you personally…the very least anyone can do (spirit of Libertarianism, perhaps ?) is accept that, ultimately, it’s none of their business.
Wishing they’d shut up and go away…or any variation on that theme… ‘cos it might affect us means we are no different to the man with a hard-on looking for something to shove it into. It’s just as abusive.
Place blame for anything detrimental that happens to us as a result where it’s due…and IMHO that certainly shouldn’t be on the victims.
The alleged victims…
Good lord, does no-one remember the Orkney witchhunt? The McMartin preschool case? The ‘recovered memory’ scandals?
There may not actually be any real ‘victims’!
Precisely. Innocent until proven guilty. As that is not going to happen, all we will ever have is
innuendo.
Julia, LR – As I’ve debated on another post there’s a huge difference between proven guilty in a Court Of Law and actually being guilty.
Many of your own blog posts revolve around this variety of “guilt”…with a small g…and without it there’s many more bloggers that would have nothing to write about. Discussion, debate, gossip – they all revolve around “innuendo” and so that’s not a bad thing, in itself.
Also…by the same token and on the flipside….what right does anyone have to call people who may indeed be actual victims for liars with ulterior motives without a shred of evidence. There’s certainly a lot of that going on.
The man is dead…more alleged victims are coming forward and so too witnesses may or may not come forward as this gathers momentum… but whether it ends up in a court at some point is almost irrelevant.
Those concerned know The Truth and so on their consciences be it.
Perfectly true. However, unless the evidence is tested and proven beyond reasonable doubt, the default position should always be innocent.
What we have here are allegations. We will never be able to be certain that they are true. What we can be certain about is that a man’s reputation is being trashed irrespective of guilt or innocence, because he is unable to defend himself and the accusers are unable to put the evidence before a court.
The time to have come forward was when he was alive. It’s too late now.
The time to have come forward was when he was alive. It’s too late now.
For a court case, yes. For recognition that a wrong was done to them…not so much.
It just depends on what they hope to achieve and…for now…none of us really knows.
@Julia….I did click the reply button directly beneath your post but it’s stuck this further away. This response is specific to what you wrote though. Thank the blog gods for the “edit” facility.
As I’ve said, that is not for us to decide nor are such cases valid reason to automatically disbelieve the child victims of sexual abuse who speak up…no matter how many years later. Their purpose is to remind us of valid reason to fully investigate allegations.
Which begs the question as to whether…since the man is dead and the official stance of the BBC, for one, changes on the hour…it ever will be. That’s not to say that it couldn’t be.
On question of whether it should be I say Yes…every time.
LR – Posthumous revenge, maybe, but not justice.
Hmmm…catharthis, perhaps. Whatever it is they hope to achieve spiritually and emotionally…and the gods know I’m not even spiritual myself….I hope they achieve it.
The prog was poor as all ‘trial by tv’ usually are. We also had that nauseating performance by Rantzen. What was the point of constant clips of TOTP where the girls were clearly not 14 or 15? Why all this? Were they so short of material it had to be padded out?
There is no evidence nor is there likely to be. JS had no computers and contents of his house are long gone. The women on the prog put forward accusations but one has to realise that these accusations would’ve been rigorously contested in court under cross-examination by a very good barrister. There was one who said that she was sexually abused when she was 14 and then followed that up with that JS no longer wanted her when she was 20! Also all accusations are 40 years old yet he only died recently?
l too heard the rumours about JS but they always involved boys and not girls. How did that change?
Before anyone accuses me of defending JS, let me say that l am not. l’m defending ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
“l too heard the rumours about JS but they always involved boys and not girls. How did that change?”
Oh, from your lips to…well, someone’s ear!
Want some more? How about the unofficial, internal BBC Xmas party videos? The ‘cast’ include members of Pan’s People … and others
Actually, they do exist. 😯
So how far do we go back to ‘uncover’ these ‘scandals’? Is 40 years enough? ls 1929 the cut-off point when the age of marriage was raised from 12 to 16?
I’d say you go back as far as to when The Law allowed for prosecution of the rape of a child…whenever that was…I’m half-awake and not sufficiently caffeined up to interrogate google right now. It’s worth bearing in mind though that whether it was even possible to abuse a child (in any way) was debatable until the american version of our RSPCA brought a successful human prosecution under Animal Welfare laws.
What anyone could hope to achieve obviously diminishes with time but time alone shouldn’t be a factor in whether child abuse of any kind is tolerated or ignored. Sometimes just the recognition of 1 other person that something happened that was wrong and shouldn’t have…whether it can be proved in court or not…is enough consolation for the victim.
That recognition doesn’t even have to have come from the authorities…or even the abuser(s) themselves.
I think you’ll find the term is ‘alleged victims’ and not ‘victims’ or is there no need for proof nowadays? ls a belief all that is required? Also the definition of child and rape has constantly changed. Applying todays definitions would you have had my grandfather arrested for statutory rape of my grandmother? She was 15 when she got married.
l also dated a schoolgirl of 15 who then became my wife at the age of 20 and l was 23. Could she have me arrested of statutory rape? There’s enough witnesses to say we were together and that includes our parents. Perhaps my sister could accuse her husband of the same as she started dating him at the age of 15. He wouldn’t be able to defend himself though because he’s dead … they’d been married for 35 years.
Was my grandmother taken advantage of? my wife? my sister?
You asked how far back we go…and I gave you a guess on the legal AND a rough summing up of personal perspective…and I think you’ll find that “alleged” is a purely legal term. I’m certainly not qualified to give you legal answers.
Anything to with sexual isssues has always been very complicated….from both perspectives…and there’s always going to have to be a legal balance struck between the act and the legality of the time the act occurred/the legality of the time the act is reported or revealed to the authorities.
The question of “Guilt” though is ultimately a matter of personal and moral conscience and…on the whole…individuals opinions on the subject tend not change very much even if the Law tries to dictate that it must.
I’m going to hazard a wild guess that none of the females in your family felt “taken advantage of” but…had it happened today, they had felt they were and wished to report it… then relevant Law is place to protect them.
Enforcement is another issue entirely…due to social attitudes towards “victims” and the apathy of authority…aaaaand we’re back to square one.
Nice talkin’ to yer 🙂
That era was some of the best times of my life. l was underage but could pass for older quite easily. Portraying us women, or should l say girls, as victims does my head in. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Who is the hunter and who is the hunted, eh Jussy? 😀 Was anyone ever safe from you, male or female? 😆 😆 😆
“I’m going to hazard a wild guess that none of the females in your family felt “taken advantage of” but…had it happened today, they had felt they were and wished to report it… then relevant Law is place to protect them.”
And who’s going to protect the likes of me from the femme fatale? 😯
The court case is the crucial point. Without it, the accused is unable to defend himself and the accuser is unable to have the evidence presented and tested. Without it, all that is left is a smear campaign and anyone can make a posthumous accusation. Without it, Savile remains innocent.
“The court case is the crucial point.
I hate to labour the point…and so appear “arguementative” and purely for the sake of it when that’s NOT my intention, but…crucial to whom ? An unproven allegation is just that – unproven. It doesn’t necessarily make it a “smear” but perhaps that is society’s natural reaction to anything with negative sexual connotations.
I don’t think a court case is crucial to them or that without one they can be forced to accept that he was/is innocent. Gods help us all if proving an allegation is the test of even making one in the first place and/or being believed by anyone outside of a court room.
False allegations, of course, are something entirely different.
Er, actually, yes, that is what should be required. If you are going to accuse someone of committing a criminal offence, you had better be prepared to back it up with some pretty convincing evidence – evidence that will withstand the rigours of cross-examination. Otherwise, as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is nothing more than a smear campaign.
Which is the point of testing the evidence. And the best place to do that is…
“If you are going to accuse someone of committing a criminal offence,…you had better be prepared to back it up with some pretty convincing evidence – evidence that will withstand the rigours of cross-examination. ”
Not neccessarily. It’s a consideration but not a requirement. Not least because the majority of us have no legal expertise whatsoever and couldn’t evaluate the legal validity of our own evidence…assuming were all capable of providing it all by ourselves anyway…even if we wanted to. Quite right too.
There’s a whole host of legal professionals and procedures to deal with once you’ve made an allegation….false or otherwise…that will help a victim …alleged or otherwise…to gather and evaluate evidence for legal validity before even seeing the inside of a courtroom. To defend an allegation, too.
The false ones tend to be easier to disprove in a variety of ways..precisely because they are lies…but that’s certainly not to say that every allegation that doesn’t reach a courtroom is not true.
As for “smears”…well let’s face it, there’s plenty of Libel and Slander legislation out there for Saville’s representatives to make use of. They require evidence, too.
As I’ve said, it’s not for us to decide…only to opine…and I’m perfectly happy to agree to disagree. Thanks for an interesting discussion LR 🙂
@Tatty
The dead are not covered by libel laws. Savile made full use of lawyers while he was alive.
@WOAR – “The dead are not covered by libel laws.”
As I said I’m no legal expert and that I did not know, so thanks for the info.
The allegations could prove very damaging to those around him who may (or may not) have been involved yet they are not queuing up to defend him, only themselves. Others are distancing themselves completely. After all, shit sticks.
They know they may not be believed but it is their choice and they are entitled to make it. Your choice is also your own; you either accept the testimony or you don’t.
Indeed. For me, the legal stuff was a separate issue.
Savile is dead, and like any other dead people he’ll just have to take his chance with history. Anyone can make a postumous accusation but by the same token, anyone can tell the truth once the fear of legal reprisals from a well-connected and funded figure no longer apply. All that has happened is Savile’s history has caught up with him in a matter of months.
The complainants didn’t get their chance to say it in court while he was alive – and they may require a better explanation as to why their claim was not put forward – so they take their chance with the story now. They know they may not be believed but it is their choice and they are entitled to make it.
Your choice is also your own; you either accept the testimony or you don’t.
I neither believe nor disbelieve, having insufficient evidence from which to draw a conclusion. Both possible scenarios are plausible.
“Allegations” now that the Jimmy Savile Charitable Trust is (allegedly) thinking of changing its name. Can’t quite see why?
(Should we expect ‘demands’ that everyone who ever contributed be investigated by ITV’s Paedo-Finder General – with the assistance of the renowned Dr “We are all guilty” Heinz Kiosk?)