Esther Rantzen calls for Jimmy Savile's knighthood to be stripped

Star calls for Savile's knighthood to be stripped

Jimmy Savile

Esther Rantzen

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

HAMPSHIRE TV star Esther Rantzen has called for the late Jimmy Savile to be stripped of his knighthood.

The founder of Childline, who lives in Bramshaw in the New Forest, was speaking as police declare Savile was a serial sex abuser of teenage girls.

She said: “The honours system is a very precious way of rewarding people for their contribution to Britain.

“But I am afraid Jimmy Savile's alleged crimes have outweighed his charity work.

“I think there is so much compelling evidence against Jimmy Savile.”

She is latest to call for the honour to be removed. Already child welfare charities such as the NSPCC and campaigners including Dr Sara Payne MBE, whose daughter was killed by paedophile Roy Whiting.

The presenter praised the “extremely courageous survivors” of Savile's abuse, who had come forward to tell their stories who may feel that the honour was “a slap in the face”.

She called on the Forfeiture Committee, who decide on stripping people of honours, to take the situation “very seriously”.

“I am sure they will be aware of the danger of inaction,” she added.

“But if his honour is removed it has to be done properly, on evidence, and in a way that is recognised as fair and just.”

Mrs Rantzen has spoken previously on how she believes BBC staff blocked their ears to gossip that DJ Jimmy Savile sexually abused girls.

Her latest comments come as Savile's family will today remove his elaborate triple headstone in Scarborough that was unveiled last month.

Police today say they pursuing are “120 lines of inquiry”.

Comments (64)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:36am Wed 10 Oct 12

St Retford says...

She's dead right. Did anyone else watch that programme thinking "Oh, Jimmy Savile - this will be full of lols" and then about five minutes in start getting a bit of sick in their mouth and thinking "jesus, what a disgusting, seedy man"?

I think everyone in Britain knew there were rumours, but without the eivdence we now have what could be done?
She's dead right. Did anyone else watch that programme thinking "Oh, Jimmy Savile - this will be full of lols" and then about five minutes in start getting a bit of sick in their mouth and thinking "jesus, what a disgusting, seedy man"? I think everyone in Britain knew there were rumours, but without the eivdence we now have what could be done? St Retford
  • Score: 0

9:40am Wed 10 Oct 12

elvisimo says...

The most shocking part of this repulsive story is the number of colleagues he had worked with over the years knew exactly what he was up to, and said and did nothing.
The most shocking part of this repulsive story is the number of colleagues he had worked with over the years knew exactly what he was up to, and said and did nothing. elvisimo
  • Score: 0

9:43am Wed 10 Oct 12

weall8leedscum says...

Guilty conscience Esther ?
Guilty conscience Esther ? weall8leedscum
  • Score: 0

9:50am Wed 10 Oct 12

St Retford says...

Those kids were let down by an awful lot of people. The BBC seemed to turn a blind eye, the education system punished children for speaking up (and allowed Savile to park his camper van in the grounds of a girls school - wtf?) and a cowardly press refused to break the news. They should have absolutely gone for the bugger while he was still alive to face the music.
Those kids were let down by an awful lot of people. The BBC seemed to turn a blind eye, the education system punished children for speaking up (and allowed Savile to park his camper van in the grounds of a girls school - wtf?) and a cowardly press refused to break the news. They should have absolutely gone for the bugger while he was still alive to face the music. St Retford
  • Score: 0

9:50am Wed 10 Oct 12

Shoong says...

St Retford wrote:
She's dead right. Did anyone else watch that programme thinking "Oh, Jimmy Savile - this will be full of lols" and then about five minutes in start getting a bit of sick in their mouth and thinking "jesus, what a disgusting, seedy man"?

I think everyone in Britain knew there were rumours, but without the eivdence we now have what could be done?
I must confess it was all news to me!
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: She's dead right. Did anyone else watch that programme thinking "Oh, Jimmy Savile - this will be full of lols" and then about five minutes in start getting a bit of sick in their mouth and thinking "jesus, what a disgusting, seedy man"? I think everyone in Britain knew there were rumours, but without the eivdence we now have what could be done?[/p][/quote]I must confess it was all news to me! Shoong
  • Score: 0

9:52am Wed 10 Oct 12

hulla baloo says...

Does not look good but has he been found guilty? Must have missed that.
As for Esther, maybe she should be investigated, possibly prosecuted for not coming forward at the time. If what she says is true, she could have prevented more offences.
Does not look good but has he been found guilty? Must have missed that. As for Esther, maybe she should be investigated, possibly prosecuted for not coming forward at the time. If what she says is true, she could have prevented more offences. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

9:53am Wed 10 Oct 12

Georgem says...

elvisimo wrote:
The most shocking part of this repulsive story is the number of colleagues he had worked with over the years knew exactly what he was up to, and said and did nothing.
That's the most shocking part so far, at least. I doubt this will stop at Savile.
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: The most shocking part of this repulsive story is the number of colleagues he had worked with over the years knew exactly what he was up to, and said and did nothing.[/p][/quote]That's the most shocking part so far, at least. I doubt this will stop at Savile. Georgem
  • Score: 0

9:54am Wed 10 Oct 12

Georgem says...

hulla baloo wrote:
Does not look good but has he been found guilty? Must have missed that.
As for Esther, maybe she should be investigated, possibly prosecuted for not coming forward at the time. If what she says is true, she could have prevented more offences.
Why Esther? It's quite clear that she wasn't the only person aware. I don't see why she should be singled out for actually coming forward about it now.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: Does not look good but has he been found guilty? Must have missed that. As for Esther, maybe she should be investigated, possibly prosecuted for not coming forward at the time. If what she says is true, she could have prevented more offences.[/p][/quote]Why Esther? It's quite clear that she wasn't the only person aware. I don't see why she should be singled out for actually coming forward about it now. Georgem
  • Score: 0

9:56am Wed 10 Oct 12

Linesman says...

So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved.

On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities.

I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer.
So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved. On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities. I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer. Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:56am Wed 10 Oct 12

Huey says...

My dad was a PE teacher he met Savile once at a school event in the 70s and said he gave him the creeps, showed an inordinate interest in the girls, and wouldn't turn his back on him for a second.
He's not suprised at the recent revelations regarding this dead old perv.
His body should be dug up and each victim should be given a piece.
My dad was a PE teacher he met Savile once at a school event in the 70s and said he gave him the creeps, showed an inordinate interest in the girls, and wouldn't turn his back on him for a second. He's not suprised at the recent revelations regarding this dead old perv. His body should be dug up and each victim should be given a piece. Huey
  • Score: 0

9:59am Wed 10 Oct 12

St Retford says...

Linesman wrote:
So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved.

On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities.

I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer.
No amount of charity work makes it ok to rape children.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved. On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities. I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer.[/p][/quote]No amount of charity work makes it ok to rape children. St Retford
  • Score: 0

10:00am Wed 10 Oct 12

Shoong says...

Huey wrote:
My dad was a PE teacher he met Savile once at a school event in the 70s and said he gave him the creeps, showed an inordinate interest in the girls, and wouldn't turn his back on him for a second.
He's not suprised at the recent revelations regarding this dead old perv.
His body should be dug up and each victim should be given a piece.
Er, yeah, I'm sure they'd be dead chuffed with that! Defiling the dead is pretty twisted as well me thinks, no matter what they did in life.
[quote][p][bold]Huey[/bold] wrote: My dad was a PE teacher he met Savile once at a school event in the 70s and said he gave him the creeps, showed an inordinate interest in the girls, and wouldn't turn his back on him for a second. He's not suprised at the recent revelations regarding this dead old perv. His body should be dug up and each victim should be given a piece.[/p][/quote]Er, yeah, I'm sure they'd be dead chuffed with that! Defiling the dead is pretty twisted as well me thinks, no matter what they did in life. Shoong
  • Score: 0

10:00am Wed 10 Oct 12

Big Mac says...

Clunk, click. He makes me sick.

Should have removed his knighthood amongst other things years ago.
Clunk, click. He makes me sick. Should have removed his knighthood amongst other things years ago. Big Mac
  • Score: 0

10:01am Wed 10 Oct 12

Shoong says...

St Retford wrote:
Linesman wrote:
So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved.

On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities.

I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer.
No amount of charity work makes it ok to rape children.
No, allegedly that was the cover used to hide behind.
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved. On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities. I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer.[/p][/quote]No amount of charity work makes it ok to rape children.[/p][/quote]No, allegedly that was the cover used to hide behind. Shoong
  • Score: 0

10:04am Wed 10 Oct 12

Huey says...

Shoong wrote:
Huey wrote: My dad was a PE teacher he met Savile once at a school event in the 70s and said he gave him the creeps, showed an inordinate interest in the girls, and wouldn't turn his back on him for a second. He's not suprised at the recent revelations regarding this dead old perv. His body should be dug up and each victim should be given a piece.
Er, yeah, I'm sure they'd be dead chuffed with that! Defiling the dead is pretty twisted as well me thinks, no matter what they did in life.
Oh yeah sorry was watching some program about tribesmen in papua new guinea and got a bit carried away.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Huey[/bold] wrote: My dad was a PE teacher he met Savile once at a school event in the 70s and said he gave him the creeps, showed an inordinate interest in the girls, and wouldn't turn his back on him for a second. He's not suprised at the recent revelations regarding this dead old perv. His body should be dug up and each victim should be given a piece.[/p][/quote]Er, yeah, I'm sure they'd be dead chuffed with that! Defiling the dead is pretty twisted as well me thinks, no matter what they did in life.[/p][/quote]Oh yeah sorry was watching some program about tribesmen in papua new guinea and got a bit carried away. Huey
  • Score: 0

10:06am Wed 10 Oct 12

nedscrumpo says...

weall8leedscum wrote:
Guilty conscience Esther ?
Quite; a costly silence methinks.
[quote][p][bold]weall8leedscum[/bold] wrote: Guilty conscience Esther ?[/p][/quote]Quite; a costly silence methinks. nedscrumpo
  • Score: 0

10:07am Wed 10 Oct 12

hulla baloo says...

Georgem wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Does not look good but has he been found guilty? Must have missed that.
As for Esther, maybe she should be investigated, possibly prosecuted for not coming forward at the time. If what she says is true, she could have prevented more offences.
Why Esther? It's quite clear that she wasn't the only person aware. I don't see why she should be singled out for actually coming forward about it now.
I agree, why only Esther, the others should as well. I only targeted her following the headline.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: Does not look good but has he been found guilty? Must have missed that. As for Esther, maybe she should be investigated, possibly prosecuted for not coming forward at the time. If what she says is true, she could have prevented more offences.[/p][/quote]Why Esther? It's quite clear that she wasn't the only person aware. I don't see why she should be singled out for actually coming forward about it now.[/p][/quote]I agree, why only Esther, the others should as well. I only targeted her following the headline. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

10:11am Wed 10 Oct 12

MGRA says...

so Ester... if someone alleged something against you should you be burnt at the stake ? I believe the course of events is this : A. Allegations made. B.Investigation. C Correlation of independent accounts to aid the burden of proof. D. criminal charge ,,, or ,,, in this case disclosure of evidence in the absence of a criminal charge due to death. I think you will find its at the part D where knighthoods vanish, not at the investigation stage. Also Knighthoods may have to vanish from former BBC controllers/managers who may have knowingly run a sanctuary for paedophile(s).
so Ester... if someone alleged something against you should you be burnt at the stake ? I believe the course of events is this : A. Allegations made. B.Investigation. C Correlation of independent accounts to aid the burden of proof. D. criminal charge ,,, or ,,, in this case disclosure of evidence in the absence of a criminal charge due to death. I think you will find its at the part D where knighthoods vanish, not at the investigation stage. Also Knighthoods may have to vanish from former BBC controllers/managers who may have knowingly run a sanctuary for paedophile(s). MGRA
  • Score: 0

10:21am Wed 10 Oct 12

WECOMING4U says...

She was too busy exposing Joe Bloggs who fitted a dodgy double glazed window!!! All the time she knew that was going on whilst setting up Childline?
She actually makes me feel sick,
She was too busy exposing Joe Bloggs who fitted a dodgy double glazed window!!! All the time she knew that was going on whilst setting up Childline? She actually makes me feel sick, WECOMING4U
  • Score: 0

10:21am Wed 10 Oct 12

Totton Ric says...

Innocent until proven guilty ! , seems most have made there minds up already !Why did no one come forward all those years ago, seems Esther is really out on this one, We will never know the full facts as J/S passed away a year ago so he can not defend himself, it seems very one sided !
Innocent until proven guilty ! , seems most have made there minds up already !Why did no one come forward all those years ago, seems Esther is really out on this one, We will never know the full facts as J/S passed away a year ago so he can not defend himself, it seems very one sided ! Totton Ric
  • Score: 0

10:23am Wed 10 Oct 12

Cerdicjute says...

This is all peripheral fluff and Savile is being used to hang the deeds of others upon because we all find it plausible that Savile could do these kind of things. While we are all distracted by this, the cover-up and whitewash carries on apace. Jersey, Islington, North Wales, Orkney, this is a tangled web, not the acts of a single odd-ball.
This is all peripheral fluff and Savile is being used to hang the deeds of others upon because we all find it plausible that Savile could do these kind of things. While we are all distracted by this, the cover-up and whitewash carries on apace. Jersey, Islington, North Wales, Orkney, this is a tangled web, not the acts of a single odd-ball. Cerdicjute
  • Score: 0

10:27am Wed 10 Oct 12

Georgem says...

Totton Ric wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty ! , seems most have made there minds up already !Why did no one come forward all those years ago, seems Esther is really out on this one, We will never know the full facts as J/S passed away a year ago so he can not defend himself, it seems very one sided !
"Innocent until proven guilty" is automatically suspended when "noncery" is involved. Didn't you know that? Why are you defending paedos? etc...
[quote][p][bold]Totton Ric[/bold] wrote: Innocent until proven guilty ! , seems most have made there minds up already !Why did no one come forward all those years ago, seems Esther is really out on this one, We will never know the full facts as J/S passed away a year ago so he can not defend himself, it seems very one sided ![/p][/quote]"Innocent until proven guilty" is automatically suspended when "noncery" is involved. Didn't you know that? Why are you defending paedos? etc... Georgem
  • Score: 0

10:29am Wed 10 Oct 12

MGRA says...

Cerdicjute wrote:
This is all peripheral fluff and Savile is being used to hang the deeds of others upon because we all find it plausible that Savile could do these kind of things. While we are all distracted by this, the cover-up and whitewash carries on apace. Jersey, Islington, North Wales, Orkney, this is a tangled web, not the acts of a single odd-ball.
indeed. If the allegations are shown to be true then the figure of 30 victims is absurd. It would clearly have been organised abuse with 100s of victims and "fixers" working for JS. Some of these fixers are hopefully still alive and can be convicted.
[quote][p][bold]Cerdicjute[/bold] wrote: This is all peripheral fluff and Savile is being used to hang the deeds of others upon because we all find it plausible that Savile could do these kind of things. While we are all distracted by this, the cover-up and whitewash carries on apace. Jersey, Islington, North Wales, Orkney, this is a tangled web, not the acts of a single odd-ball.[/p][/quote]indeed. If the allegations are shown to be true then the figure of 30 victims is absurd. It would clearly have been organised abuse with 100s of victims and "fixers" working for JS. Some of these fixers are hopefully still alive and can be convicted. MGRA
  • Score: 0

10:40am Wed 10 Oct 12

St Retford says...

Totton Ric wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty ! , seems most have made there minds up already !Why did no one come forward all those years ago, seems Esther is really out on this one, We will never know the full facts as J/S passed away a year ago so he can not defend himself, it seems very one sided !
I respect your faith in magna carta but you have to say the evidence doesn't look good, does it? He can never be tried in a court of law, but does that mean people shouldn't know about the kind of man he was?
[quote][p][bold]Totton Ric[/bold] wrote: Innocent until proven guilty ! , seems most have made there minds up already !Why did no one come forward all those years ago, seems Esther is really out on this one, We will never know the full facts as J/S passed away a year ago so he can not defend himself, it seems very one sided ![/p][/quote]I respect your faith in magna carta but you have to say the evidence doesn't look good, does it? He can never be tried in a court of law, but does that mean people shouldn't know about the kind of man he was? St Retford
  • Score: 0

10:53am Wed 10 Oct 12

Smart Bomb says...

How dreary. Don't you just love it when a 'long past sell-by date' celeb tries to increase their profile by jumping on a bandwaggon like this. Esther should just tell the Police what she knows and stfu. Indeed, it might have been helpful if she opened her mouth 30 years earlier but, of course, she was earning well out of the Beeb then and did not want to cut off the stream of cash to her account. Thank you Esther and goodbye.
How dreary. Don't you just love it when a 'long past sell-by date' celeb tries to increase their profile by jumping on a bandwaggon like this. Esther should just tell the Police what she knows and stfu. Indeed, it might have been helpful if she opened her mouth 30 years earlier but, of course, she was earning well out of the Beeb then and did not want to cut off the stream of cash to her account. Thank you Esther and goodbye. Smart Bomb
  • Score: 0

10:54am Wed 10 Oct 12

Totton Ric says...

Georgem wrote:
Totton Ric wrote: Innocent until proven guilty ! , seems most have made there minds up already !Why did no one come forward all those years ago, seems Esther is really out on this one, We will never know the full facts as J/S passed away a year ago so he can not defend himself, it seems very one sided !
"Innocent until proven guilty" is automatically suspended when "noncery" is involved. Didn't you know that? Why are you defending paedos? etc...
Defending pedo's,I dont think so,Until the FULL FACTs come out & the police do a FULL investigation,it just seems very one sided. So why have so many sold there storys to the big papers then ?
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Totton Ric[/bold] wrote: Innocent until proven guilty ! , seems most have made there minds up already !Why did no one come forward all those years ago, seems Esther is really out on this one, We will never know the full facts as J/S passed away a year ago so he can not defend himself, it seems very one sided ![/p][/quote]"Innocent until proven guilty" is automatically suspended when "noncery" is involved. Didn't you know that? Why are you defending paedos? etc...[/p][/quote]Defending pedo's,I dont think so,Until the FULL FACTs come out & the police do a FULL investigation,it just seems very one sided. So why have so many sold there storys to the big papers then ? Totton Ric
  • Score: 0

11:09am Wed 10 Oct 12

Georgem says...

Totton Ric wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Totton Ric wrote: Innocent until proven guilty ! , seems most have made there minds up already !Why did no one come forward all those years ago, seems Esther is really out on this one, We will never know the full facts as J/S passed away a year ago so he can not defend himself, it seems very one sided !
"Innocent until proven guilty" is automatically suspended when "noncery" is involved. Didn't you know that? Why are you defending paedos? etc...
Defending pedo's,I dont think so,Until the FULL FACTs come out & the police do a FULL investigation,it just seems very one sided. So why have so many sold there storys to the big papers then ?
I was lampooning the typical response Echo readers have to posts like yours. I actually agree with you.
[quote][p][bold]Totton Ric[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Totton Ric[/bold] wrote: Innocent until proven guilty ! , seems most have made there minds up already !Why did no one come forward all those years ago, seems Esther is really out on this one, We will never know the full facts as J/S passed away a year ago so he can not defend himself, it seems very one sided ![/p][/quote]"Innocent until proven guilty" is automatically suspended when "noncery" is involved. Didn't you know that? Why are you defending paedos? etc...[/p][/quote]Defending pedo's,I dont think so,Until the FULL FACTs come out & the police do a FULL investigation,it just seems very one sided. So why have so many sold there storys to the big papers then ?[/p][/quote]I was lampooning the typical response Echo readers have to posts like yours. I actually agree with you. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:11am Wed 10 Oct 12

Stillness says...

Getting back to the story about the knighthood, he is dead and the knighthood died with him. End of story.
Getting back to the story about the knighthood, he is dead and the knighthood died with him. End of story. Stillness
  • Score: 0

11:20am Wed 10 Oct 12

sotonboy84 says...

Most people on here seem to have made their own minds up that Sir Jimmy is guilty just based on accusations.

I'm not defending paedophiles for a second but I don't see what good can come of an investigation and how anything can ever be proven now that Sir Jimmy is dead? Why has it taken so long for all these people to come forward and why were none of the 30+ crimes reported when they happened? I know not all crimes of this nature were reported years ago but for such a large amount of accusations then I would have thought some were.

Just for the record, I've never been a fan of Sir Jimmy or known much about him really and my opinions are based on the situation itself. I just think it's a one sided argument that all these victims are now coming out of the woodwork to make claims against a dead celebrity that can never be proven. If the purpose of this is really to find 'closure' then what closure are they hoping to find when nothing can be proven? The only guarantee is that a dead man's name will be forever tarnished if the allegations are true or not.
Most people on here seem to have made their own minds up that Sir Jimmy is guilty just based on accusations. I'm not defending paedophiles for a second but I don't see what good can come of an investigation and how anything can ever be proven now that Sir Jimmy is dead? Why has it taken so long for all these people to come forward and why were none of the 30+ crimes reported when they happened? I know not all crimes of this nature were reported years ago but for such a large amount of accusations then I would have thought some were. Just for the record, I've never been a fan of Sir Jimmy or known much about him really and my opinions are based on the situation itself. I just think it's a one sided argument that all these victims are now coming out of the woodwork to make claims against a dead celebrity that can never be proven. If the purpose of this is really to find 'closure' then what closure are they hoping to find when nothing can be proven? The only guarantee is that a dead man's name will be forever tarnished if the allegations are true or not. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

11:28am Wed 10 Oct 12

St Retford says...

If the allegations are true then a dead man's name deserves to be tarnished. And then some.

These people didn't come forward at the time because they were children who knew they wouldn't be believed. This is why it's important all this is given an airing now, because we must learn from this and ensure that climate can't be allowed to exist again. Savile also threatened violence against them and used his charity work to buy silence from the newspapers. He was a nasty, nasty piece of work and if the evidence sounds a little one-sided then that's probably because it is.
If the allegations are true then a dead man's name deserves to be tarnished. And then some. These people didn't come forward at the time because they were children who knew they wouldn't be believed. This is why it's important all this is given an airing now, because we must learn from this and ensure that climate can't be allowed to exist again. Savile also threatened violence against them and used his charity work to buy silence from the newspapers. He was a nasty, nasty piece of work and if the evidence sounds a little one-sided then that's probably because it is. St Retford
  • Score: 0

11:32am Wed 10 Oct 12

solents says...

It wouldn't surprise me if this has been hushed up like the Irish Catholic Church a few years ago after allegations were made about some of the priests interfering with the choir boys.
Also I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of people who were close to JS who will now come out to state that they knew what was going on but were told to keep quiet and "oh how guilty they now feel about that".
There is a need for a full investigation as to why any allegations against JS were not investigated at the time and we need to learn why any of those claiming to be victims never came forward at the time. (Although that is probably a foregone conclusion anyhow).
JS is not around to defend himself, he can't be found guilty of anything yet until it is proved without certainty that he offended during his lifetime.
Until that time the KBE should remain.
Those affected will be his victims if proven that he did commit offences but also be mindful that he had a family who idolised him and who are now having to deal with the fact that their father/brother/uncle etc might have been a child abuser. They are also victims not only prior to any thorough investigation but they are also victims now due to the allegations. I suspect that they are having to hide from the press who must be banging on their doors and ringing phones. It can't be nice for them either; they like the alleged abused are victims of this too.
There is a lot of anger going on but in this country the man is still innocent until proven otherwise.
Ester Rantzen can only call for JS to be stripped of the KBE if it is proved that JS committed the crimes that he is accused of.
It wouldn't surprise me if this has been hushed up like the Irish Catholic Church a few years ago after allegations were made about some of the priests interfering with the choir boys. Also I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of people who were close to JS who will now come out to state that they knew what was going on but were told to keep quiet and "oh how guilty they now feel about that". There is a need for a full investigation as to why any allegations against JS were not investigated at the time and we need to learn why any of those claiming to be victims never came forward at the time. (Although that is probably a foregone conclusion anyhow). JS is not around to defend himself, he can't be found guilty of anything yet until it is proved without certainty that he offended during his lifetime. Until that time the KBE should remain. Those affected will be his victims if proven that he did commit offences but also be mindful that he had a family who idolised him and who are now having to deal with the fact that their father/brother/uncle etc might have been a child abuser. They are also victims not only prior to any thorough investigation but they are also victims now due to the allegations. I suspect that they are having to hide from the press who must be banging on their doors and ringing phones. It can't be nice for them either; they like the alleged abused are victims of this too. There is a lot of anger going on but in this country the man is still innocent until proven otherwise. Ester Rantzen can only call for JS to be stripped of the KBE if it is proved that JS committed the crimes that he is accused of. solents
  • Score: 0

11:46am Wed 10 Oct 12

Huey says...

dirty old git.
his family know what he was up to, hence the gravestone being removed already
they know
now we know
urggggh he sickens me.
dirty old git. his family know what he was up to, hence the gravestone being removed already they know now we know urggggh he sickens me. Huey
  • Score: 0

11:47am Wed 10 Oct 12

Stillness says...

solents wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if this has been hushed up like the Irish Catholic Church a few years ago after allegations were made about some of the priests interfering with the choir boys.
Also I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of people who were close to JS who will now come out to state that they knew what was going on but were told to keep quiet and "oh how guilty they now feel about that".
There is a need for a full investigation as to why any allegations against JS were not investigated at the time and we need to learn why any of those claiming to be victims never came forward at the time. (Although that is probably a foregone conclusion anyhow).
JS is not around to defend himself, he can't be found guilty of anything yet until it is proved without certainty that he offended during his lifetime.
Until that time the KBE should remain.
Those affected will be his victims if proven that he did commit offences but also be mindful that he had a family who idolised him and who are now having to deal with the fact that their father/brother/uncle etc might have been a child abuser. They are also victims not only prior to any thorough investigation but they are also victims now due to the allegations. I suspect that they are having to hide from the press who must be banging on their doors and ringing phones. It can't be nice for them either; they like the alleged abused are victims of this too.
There is a lot of anger going on but in this country the man is still innocent until proven otherwise.
Ester Rantzen can only call for JS to be stripped of the KBE if it is proved that JS committed the crimes that he is accused of.
There is no KBE to be stripped. All you have to do is refer to him without it. Simples.
[quote][p][bold]solents[/bold] wrote: It wouldn't surprise me if this has been hushed up like the Irish Catholic Church a few years ago after allegations were made about some of the priests interfering with the choir boys. Also I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of people who were close to JS who will now come out to state that they knew what was going on but were told to keep quiet and "oh how guilty they now feel about that". There is a need for a full investigation as to why any allegations against JS were not investigated at the time and we need to learn why any of those claiming to be victims never came forward at the time. (Although that is probably a foregone conclusion anyhow). JS is not around to defend himself, he can't be found guilty of anything yet until it is proved without certainty that he offended during his lifetime. Until that time the KBE should remain. Those affected will be his victims if proven that he did commit offences but also be mindful that he had a family who idolised him and who are now having to deal with the fact that their father/brother/uncle etc might have been a child abuser. They are also victims not only prior to any thorough investigation but they are also victims now due to the allegations. I suspect that they are having to hide from the press who must be banging on their doors and ringing phones. It can't be nice for them either; they like the alleged abused are victims of this too. There is a lot of anger going on but in this country the man is still innocent until proven otherwise. Ester Rantzen can only call for JS to be stripped of the KBE if it is proved that JS committed the crimes that he is accused of.[/p][/quote]There is no KBE to be stripped. All you have to do is refer to him without it. Simples. Stillness
  • Score: 0

11:51am Wed 10 Oct 12

Vix1 says...

Changes my view of this childhood icon somewhat. To think that my friends and I (and most of the kids in the UK in the early 80's), were desperate to get on "Jim'll fix it", now I find myself feeling lucky that I didn't get to go on there!!! So sad and I really feel for his victims.
Changes my view of this childhood icon somewhat. To think that my friends and I (and most of the kids in the UK in the early 80's), were desperate to get on "Jim'll fix it", now I find myself feeling lucky that I didn't get to go on there!!! So sad and I really feel for his victims. Vix1
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Stephen J says...

Stillness wrote:
Getting back to the story about the knighthood, he is dead and the knighthood died with him. End of story.
That's the fact of the matter. If the law is changed such that honours can be withdrawn from recipients because of information that came to light after their deaths, the Forfeiture Committee are going to have a very busy time ahead of them.
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: Getting back to the story about the knighthood, he is dead and the knighthood died with him. End of story.[/p][/quote]That's the fact of the matter. If the law is changed such that honours can be withdrawn from recipients because of information that came to light after their deaths, the Forfeiture Committee are going to have a very busy time ahead of them. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Wed 10 Oct 12

MGRA says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Most people on here seem to have made their own minds up that Sir Jimmy is guilty just based on accusations.

I'm not defending paedophiles for a second but I don't see what good can come of an investigation and how anything can ever be proven now that Sir Jimmy is dead? Why has it taken so long for all these people to come forward and why were none of the 30+ crimes reported when they happened? I know not all crimes of this nature were reported years ago but for such a large amount of accusations then I would have thought some were.

Just for the record, I've never been a fan of Sir Jimmy or known much about him really and my opinions are based on the situation itself. I just think it's a one sided argument that all these victims are now coming out of the woodwork to make claims against a dead celebrity that can never be proven. If the purpose of this is really to find 'closure' then what closure are they hoping to find when nothing can be proven? The only guarantee is that a dead man's name will be forever tarnished if the allegations are true or not.
well the good that can come of it is this.... corroboration of accounts by seperate unconnected individuals and then hopefully corroboration on specific incidents by connected individuals could mean the "fixers" who may have facilitated paedophilia at the BBC and elsewhere may be prosecuted. So far it seems to most lay people that unconnected individuals have accounts that illustrate a repeated pattern of abuse. If true then the scale of this is clearly huge and the cover up unpresedented. Its in the public interest if the BBC was basically a haven for child sex offenders for decades. this is no longer about JS, this is about possible organised sexual abuse of children at a state television organisation and elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Most people on here seem to have made their own minds up that Sir Jimmy is guilty just based on accusations. I'm not defending paedophiles for a second but I don't see what good can come of an investigation and how anything can ever be proven now that Sir Jimmy is dead? Why has it taken so long for all these people to come forward and why were none of the 30+ crimes reported when they happened? I know not all crimes of this nature were reported years ago but for such a large amount of accusations then I would have thought some were. Just for the record, I've never been a fan of Sir Jimmy or known much about him really and my opinions are based on the situation itself. I just think it's a one sided argument that all these victims are now coming out of the woodwork to make claims against a dead celebrity that can never be proven. If the purpose of this is really to find 'closure' then what closure are they hoping to find when nothing can be proven? The only guarantee is that a dead man's name will be forever tarnished if the allegations are true or not.[/p][/quote]well the good that can come of it is this.... corroboration of accounts by seperate unconnected individuals and then hopefully corroboration on specific incidents by connected individuals could mean the "fixers" who may have facilitated paedophilia at the BBC and elsewhere may be prosecuted. So far it seems to most lay people that unconnected individuals have accounts that illustrate a repeated pattern of abuse. If true then the scale of this is clearly huge and the cover up unpresedented. Its in the public interest if the BBC was basically a haven for child sex offenders for decades. this is no longer about JS, this is about possible organised sexual abuse of children at a state television organisation and elsewhere. MGRA
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Wed 10 Oct 12

sotonboy84 says...

St Retford wrote:
If the allegations are true then a dead man's name deserves to be tarnished. And then some. These people didn't come forward at the time because they were children who knew they wouldn't be believed. This is why it's important all this is given an airing now, because we must learn from this and ensure that climate can't be allowed to exist again. Savile also threatened violence against them and used his charity work to buy silence from the newspapers. He was a nasty, nasty piece of work and if the evidence sounds a little one-sided then that's probably because it is.
Yes, 'if' the allegations are true but until then, and if they are ever proven then they will remain just allegations.

To me, something just doesn't quite add up. The alleged victims may have been children when it happened but why didn't they do anything about it when they grew up? I don't know what, but something just doesn't make sense that until after the man died all these adults now come forward and all say they're victims.

You seem to know a lot about Sir Jimmy and what he actually did so I hope you can substantiate what you say. I'm not siding with Sir Jimmy but I think people need to remember that until anything is proven, his name is innocent. And in all honesty, I don't see how anything can ever be proven now.
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: If the allegations are true then a dead man's name deserves to be tarnished. And then some. These people didn't come forward at the time because they were children who knew they wouldn't be believed. This is why it's important all this is given an airing now, because we must learn from this and ensure that climate can't be allowed to exist again. Savile also threatened violence against them and used his charity work to buy silence from the newspapers. He was a nasty, nasty piece of work and if the evidence sounds a little one-sided then that's probably because it is.[/p][/quote]Yes, 'if' the allegations are true but until then, and if they are ever proven then they will remain just allegations. To me, something just doesn't quite add up. The alleged victims may have been children when it happened but why didn't they do anything about it when they grew up? I don't know what, but something just doesn't make sense that until after the man died all these adults now come forward and all say they're victims. You seem to know a lot about Sir Jimmy and what he actually did so I hope you can substantiate what you say. I'm not siding with Sir Jimmy but I think people need to remember that until anything is proven, his name is innocent. And in all honesty, I don't see how anything can ever be proven now. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Hdg end mo says...

If only someone spoke out while these alleged offences were taking place. Then savile would have been exposed every person who knew should hang there heads in shame especially at the bbc if these allegations can be proved then take his knighthood away
If only someone spoke out while these alleged offences were taking place. Then savile would have been exposed every person who knew should hang there heads in shame especially at the bbc if these allegations can be proved then take his knighthood away Hdg end mo
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Stephen J says...

I wonder how many cries of "innocent until proven guilty" there would have been if Savile had been accused of abusing young teenage boys.
I wonder how many cries of "innocent until proven guilty" there would have been if Savile had been accused of abusing young teenage boys. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Stillness says...

Stephen J wrote:
I wonder how many cries of "innocent until proven guilty" there would have been if Savile had been accused of abusing young teenage boys.
Why? Do "you" think there is a difference?
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many cries of "innocent until proven guilty" there would have been if Savile had been accused of abusing young teenage boys.[/p][/quote]Why? Do "you" think there is a difference? Stillness
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Stephen J says...

Stillness wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
I wonder how many cries of "innocent until proven guilty" there would have been if Savile had been accused of abusing young teenage boys.
Why? Do "you" think there is a difference?
Absolutely no difference whatsoever.
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many cries of "innocent until proven guilty" there would have been if Savile had been accused of abusing young teenage boys.[/p][/quote]Why? Do "you" think there is a difference?[/p][/quote]Absolutely no difference whatsoever. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Graeme Harrison says...

Smart Bomb wrote:
How dreary. Don't you just love it when a 'long past sell-by date' celeb tries to increase their profile by jumping on a bandwaggon like this. Esther should just tell the Police what she knows and stfu. Indeed, it might have been helpful if she opened her mouth 30 years earlier but, of course, she was earning well out of the Beeb then and did not want to cut off the stream of cash to her account. Thank you Esther and goodbye.
Couldn't agree more. And the same goes for Sandi Toksvig and Liz Kershaw both of whom have recently been shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted. At least they're in the spotlight for 5 minutes which I suppose the main reason for them piping up at last.
[quote][p][bold]Smart Bomb[/bold] wrote: How dreary. Don't you just love it when a 'long past sell-by date' celeb tries to increase their profile by jumping on a bandwaggon like this. Esther should just tell the Police what she knows and stfu. Indeed, it might have been helpful if she opened her mouth 30 years earlier but, of course, she was earning well out of the Beeb then and did not want to cut off the stream of cash to her account. Thank you Esther and goodbye.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. And the same goes for Sandi Toksvig and Liz Kershaw both of whom have recently been shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted. At least they're in the spotlight for 5 minutes which I suppose the main reason for them piping up at last. Graeme Harrison
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Perhaps the future stories will not be about JS but the aftermath.
.
The people that may well have been involved with JS as accomplces and carried such disgusting crimes may be fully identified, tracked down and prosecuted.
.
The poor suffering children ( as they were then ) may be able to have some closure or even relief that their story has finally been told with the perpatrators being brought to justice.
.
Perhaps the future stories will not be about JS but the aftermath. . The people that may well have been involved with JS as accomplces and carried such disgusting crimes may be fully identified, tracked down and prosecuted. . The poor suffering children ( as they were then ) may be able to have some closure or even relief that their story has finally been told with the perpatrators being brought to justice. . Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Georgem says...

Graeme Harrison wrote:
Smart Bomb wrote:
How dreary. Don't you just love it when a 'long past sell-by date' celeb tries to increase their profile by jumping on a bandwaggon like this. Esther should just tell the Police what she knows and stfu. Indeed, it might have been helpful if she opened her mouth 30 years earlier but, of course, she was earning well out of the Beeb then and did not want to cut off the stream of cash to her account. Thank you Esther and goodbye.
Couldn't agree more. And the same goes for Sandi Toksvig and Liz Kershaw both of whom have recently been shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted. At least they're in the spotlight for 5 minutes which I suppose the main reason for them piping up at last.
Sandi Toksvig is still a very busy girl.
[quote][p][bold]Graeme Harrison[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Smart Bomb[/bold] wrote: How dreary. Don't you just love it when a 'long past sell-by date' celeb tries to increase their profile by jumping on a bandwaggon like this. Esther should just tell the Police what she knows and stfu. Indeed, it might have been helpful if she opened her mouth 30 years earlier but, of course, she was earning well out of the Beeb then and did not want to cut off the stream of cash to her account. Thank you Esther and goodbye.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. And the same goes for Sandi Toksvig and Liz Kershaw both of whom have recently been shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted. At least they're in the spotlight for 5 minutes which I suppose the main reason for them piping up at last.[/p][/quote]Sandi Toksvig is still a very busy girl. Georgem
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Wed 10 Oct 12

MGRA says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
St Retford wrote:
If the allegations are true then a dead man's name deserves to be tarnished. And then some. These people didn't come forward at the time because they were children who knew they wouldn't be believed. This is why it's important all this is given an airing now, because we must learn from this and ensure that climate can't be allowed to exist again. Savile also threatened violence against them and used his charity work to buy silence from the newspapers. He was a nasty, nasty piece of work and if the evidence sounds a little one-sided then that's probably because it is.
Yes, 'if' the allegations are true but until then, and if they are ever proven then they will remain just allegations.

To me, something just doesn't quite add up. The alleged victims may have been children when it happened but why didn't they do anything about it when they grew up? I don't know what, but something just doesn't make sense that until after the man died all these adults now come forward and all say they're victims.

You seem to know a lot about Sir Jimmy and what he actually did so I hope you can substantiate what you say. I'm not siding with Sir Jimmy but I think people need to remember that until anything is proven, his name is innocent. And in all honesty, I don't see how anything can ever be proven now.
they did !! 6 police forces have historic investigations on file !! This is part of the current investigation.... why did they not follow up on these, especially the ones regarding abuse allegations at the childrens home !? And of course it can be proven now, corroborated accounts from seperate individuals will be proof. Its enough proof to convict in a court and it will be enough proof to establish guilt in this case. He is also on file supporting Paul Gadd's right to own and watch child **** for his own personal "gratification". This is an admission of being a peadophile in most peoples books.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: If the allegations are true then a dead man's name deserves to be tarnished. And then some. These people didn't come forward at the time because they were children who knew they wouldn't be believed. This is why it's important all this is given an airing now, because we must learn from this and ensure that climate can't be allowed to exist again. Savile also threatened violence against them and used his charity work to buy silence from the newspapers. He was a nasty, nasty piece of work and if the evidence sounds a little one-sided then that's probably because it is.[/p][/quote]Yes, 'if' the allegations are true but until then, and if they are ever proven then they will remain just allegations. To me, something just doesn't quite add up. The alleged victims may have been children when it happened but why didn't they do anything about it when they grew up? I don't know what, but something just doesn't make sense that until after the man died all these adults now come forward and all say they're victims. You seem to know a lot about Sir Jimmy and what he actually did so I hope you can substantiate what you say. I'm not siding with Sir Jimmy but I think people need to remember that until anything is proven, his name is innocent. And in all honesty, I don't see how anything can ever be proven now.[/p][/quote]they did !! 6 police forces have historic investigations on file !! This is part of the current investigation.... why did they not follow up on these, especially the ones regarding abuse allegations at the childrens home !? And of course it can be proven now, corroborated accounts from seperate individuals will be proof. Its enough proof to convict in a court and it will be enough proof to establish guilt in this case. He is also on file supporting Paul Gadd's right to own and watch child **** for his own personal "gratification". This is an admission of being a peadophile in most peoples books. MGRA
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Wed 10 Oct 12

News Fanatic says...

It's easy with hindsight to have a go at Esther and the press for not blowing the whistle years ago about Savile's activities. If they were mistaken and Savile had not been abusing children he would have sued them for millions.

Would you put your financial security or in the case of a national newspaper editor your job at risk on the basis of a hunch that Savile was a perv? I doubt it.

He was very successful in buying the silence of those he abused and anyone who even attempted to expose him.
It's easy with hindsight to have a go at Esther and the press for not blowing the whistle years ago about Savile's activities. If they were mistaken and Savile had not been abusing children he would have sued them for millions. Would you put your financial security or in the case of a national newspaper editor your job at risk on the basis of a hunch that Savile was a perv? I doubt it. He was very successful in buying the silence of those he abused and anyone who even attempted to expose him. News Fanatic
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Linesman says...

St Retford wrote:
Linesman wrote:
So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved.

On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities.

I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer.
No amount of charity work makes it ok to rape children.
Agreed.

Was not claiming that it did. I was just pointing out that he also did a lot of good work.
[quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved. On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities. I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer.[/p][/quote]No amount of charity work makes it ok to rape children.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Was not claiming that it did. I was just pointing out that he also did a lot of good work. Linesman
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Stephen J says...

Earlier this year it was revealed how Playschool presenters "went on air stoned", how "everyone was bonking" and how BBC senior management knew about and tolerated that kind of culture. Anyone who wondered what else was going on then was probably right to do so. A picture is emerging of a closed world, in which normal rules did not seem to apply. Sir David Attenborough's advice to those who enjoyed a "smoke" while at work? "Just be sensible..." For something that in the real world was a criminal offence.
Earlier this year it was revealed how Playschool presenters "went on air stoned", how "everyone was bonking" and how BBC senior management knew about and tolerated that kind of culture. Anyone who wondered what else was going on then was probably right to do so. A picture is emerging of a closed world, in which normal rules did not seem to apply. Sir David Attenborough's advice to those who enjoyed a "smoke" while at work? "Just be sensible..." For something that in the real world was a criminal offence. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Shoong says...

Linesman wrote:
St Retford wrote:
Linesman wrote:
So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved.

On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities.

I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer.
No amount of charity work makes it ok to rape children.
Agreed.

Was not claiming that it did. I was just pointing out that he also did a lot of good work.
You've missed the point.

The charity work was a cover for his crimes.

If he was put away, the Stoke Mandeville hospital would have been tarnished forever and they would not have received the massive 'charitable' donations.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved. On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities. I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer.[/p][/quote]No amount of charity work makes it ok to rape children.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Was not claiming that it did. I was just pointing out that he also did a lot of good work.[/p][/quote]You've missed the point. The charity work was a cover for his crimes. If he was put away, the Stoke Mandeville hospital would have been tarnished forever and they would not have received the massive 'charitable' donations. Shoong
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Stillness says...

Shoong wrote:
Linesman wrote:
St Retford wrote:
Linesman wrote:
So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved.

On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities.

I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer.
No amount of charity work makes it ok to rape children.
Agreed.

Was not claiming that it did. I was just pointing out that he also did a lot of good work.
You've missed the point.

The charity work was a cover for his crimes.

If he was put away, the Stoke Mandeville hospital would have been tarnished forever and they would not have received the massive 'charitable' donations.
That is not "a cover" is it, or do you have evidence that he was (may have been) abusing at the hospital as well? Perhaps the word you are looking for is "distraction"?
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved. On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities. I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer.[/p][/quote]No amount of charity work makes it ok to rape children.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Was not claiming that it did. I was just pointing out that he also did a lot of good work.[/p][/quote]You've missed the point. The charity work was a cover for his crimes. If he was put away, the Stoke Mandeville hospital would have been tarnished forever and they would not have received the massive 'charitable' donations.[/p][/quote]That is not "a cover" is it, or do you have evidence that he was (may have been) abusing at the hospital as well? Perhaps the word you are looking for is "distraction"? Stillness
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Shoong says...

I didn't mention anything about abuse at Stoke Mandeville hospital, that was your ignorant assumption.

I still prefer 'cover' because of the alleged cover up that is about to come out perhaps, seems more apt to me.
I didn't mention anything about abuse at Stoke Mandeville hospital, that was your ignorant assumption. I still prefer 'cover' because of the alleged cover up that is about to come out perhaps, seems more apt to me. Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Stillness says...

"The charity work was a cover for his crimes". Your words, not mine. Stoke Mandeville was the charity you quoted and that would imply you believed Stoke Mandeville was a cover for abuse.
"The charity work was a cover for his crimes". Your words, not mine. Stoke Mandeville was the charity you quoted and that would imply you believed Stoke Mandeville was a cover for abuse. Stillness
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Shoong says...

Stillness wrote:
"The charity work was a cover for his crimes". Your words, not mine. Stoke Mandeville was the charity you quoted and that would imply you believed Stoke Mandeville was a cover for abuse.
I think I was using it more as an example, rather than and 'be all and end all' for his crimes. I quite clearly remember reading this in a newspaper the other day, something he said to someone once, although you'll have to forgive me, I cannot remember in which publication this was in.

Maybe all that fresh air is getting to your head guts.
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: "The charity work was a cover for his crimes". Your words, not mine. Stoke Mandeville was the charity you quoted and that would imply you believed Stoke Mandeville was a cover for abuse.[/p][/quote]I think I was using it more as an example, rather than and 'be all and end all' for his crimes. I quite clearly remember reading this in a newspaper the other day, something he said to someone once, although you'll have to forgive me, I cannot remember in which publication this was in. Maybe all that fresh air is getting to your head guts. Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Stillness says...

Shoong wrote:
Stillness wrote:
"The charity work was a cover for his crimes". Your words, not mine. Stoke Mandeville was the charity you quoted and that would imply you believed Stoke Mandeville was a cover for abuse.
I think I was using it more as an example, rather than and 'be all and end all' for his crimes. I quite clearly remember reading this in a newspaper the other day, something he said to someone once, although you'll have to forgive me, I cannot remember in which publication this was in.

Maybe all that fresh air is getting to your head guts.
Check the BBC news site. It looks like it was a cover.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: "The charity work was a cover for his crimes". Your words, not mine. Stoke Mandeville was the charity you quoted and that would imply you believed Stoke Mandeville was a cover for abuse.[/p][/quote]I think I was using it more as an example, rather than and 'be all and end all' for his crimes. I quite clearly remember reading this in a newspaper the other day, something he said to someone once, although you'll have to forgive me, I cannot remember in which publication this was in. Maybe all that fresh air is getting to your head guts.[/p][/quote]Check the BBC news site. It looks like it was a cover. Stillness
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Lockssmart says...

As long as we are not asking Esther to be stripped. Not sure I could cope with that?
As long as we are not asking Esther to be stripped. Not sure I could cope with that? Lockssmart
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Shoong says...

Stillness wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Stillness wrote:
"The charity work was a cover for his crimes". Your words, not mine. Stoke Mandeville was the charity you quoted and that would imply you believed Stoke Mandeville was a cover for abuse.
I think I was using it more as an example, rather than and 'be all and end all' for his crimes. I quite clearly remember reading this in a newspaper the other day, something he said to someone once, although you'll have to forgive me, I cannot remember in which publication this was in.

Maybe all that fresh air is getting to your head guts.
Check the BBC news site. It looks like it was a cover.
Yes, his former employers who may have been complicit in a cover up of his crimes. Pass.
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: "The charity work was a cover for his crimes". Your words, not mine. Stoke Mandeville was the charity you quoted and that would imply you believed Stoke Mandeville was a cover for abuse.[/p][/quote]I think I was using it more as an example, rather than and 'be all and end all' for his crimes. I quite clearly remember reading this in a newspaper the other day, something he said to someone once, although you'll have to forgive me, I cannot remember in which publication this was in. Maybe all that fresh air is getting to your head guts.[/p][/quote]Check the BBC news site. It looks like it was a cover.[/p][/quote]Yes, his former employers who may have been complicit in a cover up of his crimes. Pass. Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Wed 10 Oct 12

SteveVis says...

I have no problem with Sara Payne using M.B.E in her title. I do, however, find it crass that she has elected to incorportate her honorary doctorate into her title.

Joni Mitchell and Robert Mugabe both have doctorates from the same place as her, but do not feel the need to use them.

Her achievements are significant enough that she is already known for them. Qualifying that with letters in your name seems gauche.
I have no problem with Sara Payne using M.B.E in her title. I do, however, find it crass that she has elected to incorportate her honorary doctorate into her title. Joni Mitchell and Robert Mugabe both have doctorates from the same place as her, but do not feel the need to use them. Her achievements are significant enough that she is already known for them. Qualifying that with letters in your name seems gauche. SteveVis
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Wed 10 Oct 12

sotonbusdriver says...

There are lots of questions to be answered....
I persoanlly am sat on the fence as to whether he was or was not a preditor of kids.
But as there is so much so called evidence, that has come out of the woodwork, from the past that has been hidden or over looked. In particular the POLICE themselves who have admitted to recieving complaints prior to hid death, yet no real action was taken..
Is it that the POLICE are part of the magical maze of turning a blind eye, because of someones popularity.
There are lots of questions to be answered.... I persoanlly am sat on the fence as to whether he was or was not a preditor of kids. But as there is so much so called evidence, that has come out of the woodwork, from the past that has been hidden or over looked. In particular the POLICE themselves who have admitted to recieving complaints prior to hid death, yet no real action was taken.. Is it that the POLICE are part of the magical maze of turning a blind eye, because of someones popularity. sotonbusdriver
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Scatgirl says...

sad end to a person a lot of us idolised as children - he was my hero in the 70's and I watched every episode of Fix it that I could. I even wrote in to the show but didnt get picked - luckily I suppose.
sad end to a person a lot of us idolised as children - he was my hero in the 70's and I watched every episode of Fix it that I could. I even wrote in to the show but didnt get picked - luckily I suppose. Scatgirl
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Wed 10 Oct 12

jonnyx says...

Scatgirl wrote:
sad end to a person a lot of us idolised as children - he was my hero in the 70's and I watched every episode of Fix it that I could. I even wrote in to the show but didnt get picked - luckily I suppose.
especially with a username like yours.
[quote][p][bold]Scatgirl[/bold] wrote: sad end to a person a lot of us idolised as children - he was my hero in the 70's and I watched every episode of Fix it that I could. I even wrote in to the show but didnt get picked - luckily I suppose.[/p][/quote]especially with a username like yours. jonnyx
  • Score: 0

2:47am Thu 11 Oct 12

wilkseyboy11 says...

Yes remove his title indeed. What did he get it for anyway ? having fun. He raised money for charity by just turning up and being there and being idolised, who would'nt. He ran and raised money for charity because like us keep fit fanatics its fun and therapeutic, plus he gets idolised some more. Is that working for charity ? as in WORK. No way. And as an institutionlised kid amongst 200 I KNOW it would have been futile and impossible to make a complaint or be listened to. More so against a name like him.
Yes remove his title indeed. What did he get it for anyway ? having fun. He raised money for charity by just turning up and being there and being idolised, who would'nt. He ran and raised money for charity because like us keep fit fanatics its fun and therapeutic, plus he gets idolised some more. Is that working for charity ? as in WORK. No way. And as an institutionlised kid amongst 200 I KNOW it would have been futile and impossible to make a complaint or be listened to. More so against a name like him. wilkseyboy11
  • Score: 0

3:02am Thu 11 Oct 12

wilkseyboy11 says...

Stillness wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Linesman wrote:
St Retford wrote:
Linesman wrote:
So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved.

On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities.

I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer.
No amount of charity work makes it ok to rape children.
Agreed.

Was not claiming that it did. I was just pointing out that he also did a lot of good work.
You've missed the point.

The charity work was a cover for his crimes.

If he was put away, the Stoke Mandeville hospital would have been tarnished forever and they would not have received the massive 'charitable' donations.
That is not "a cover" is it, or do you have evidence that he was (may have been) abusing at the hospital as well? Perhaps the word you are looking for is "distraction"?
His so called "charity" work was not work it was pleasure. He only had to be there and be idolised,he only ran because he loved running and idolised again. False to call it "work". Who would not let other people put their money into charities just for showing up to be idolised ?. Yes his "work ?" was a cover.
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: So far we have accusations of assault, that have not been proved. On the other hand, there is actual evidence of the good that Savile did in the form of money raised for various charities. I am not claiming that the accusations are false - although I do wonder why it has taken until after his death for them to be made - but I do think that he was not wholly bad, unlike a certain pop singer.[/p][/quote]No amount of charity work makes it ok to rape children.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Was not claiming that it did. I was just pointing out that he also did a lot of good work.[/p][/quote]You've missed the point. The charity work was a cover for his crimes. If he was put away, the Stoke Mandeville hospital would have been tarnished forever and they would not have received the massive 'charitable' donations.[/p][/quote]That is not "a cover" is it, or do you have evidence that he was (may have been) abusing at the hospital as well? Perhaps the word you are looking for is "distraction"?[/p][/quote]His so called "charity" work was not work it was pleasure. He only had to be there and be idolised,he only ran because he loved running and idolised again. False to call it "work". Who would not let other people put their money into charities just for showing up to be idolised ?. Yes his "work ?" was a cover. wilkseyboy11
  • Score: 0

3:26am Thu 11 Oct 12

wilkseyboy11 says...

MGRA wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
St Retford wrote:
If the allegations are true then a dead man's name deserves to be tarnished. And then some. These people didn't come forward at the time because they were children who knew they wouldn't be believed. This is why it's important all this is given an airing now, because we must learn from this and ensure that climate can't be allowed to exist again. Savile also threatened violence against them and used his charity work to buy silence from the newspapers. He was a nasty, nasty piece of work and if the evidence sounds a little one-sided then that's probably because it is.
Yes, 'if' the allegations are true but until then, and if they are ever proven then they will remain just allegations.

To me, something just doesn't quite add up. The alleged victims may have been children when it happened but why didn't they do anything about it when they grew up? I don't know what, but something just doesn't make sense that until after the man died all these adults now come forward and all say they're victims.

You seem to know a lot about Sir Jimmy and what he actually did so I hope you can substantiate what you say. I'm not siding with Sir Jimmy but I think people need to remember that until anything is proven, his name is innocent. And in all honesty, I don't see how anything can ever be proven now.
they did !! 6 police forces have historic investigations on file !! This is part of the current investigation.... why did they not follow up on these, especially the ones regarding abuse allegations at the childrens home !? And of course it can be proven now, corroborated accounts from seperate individuals will be proof. Its enough proof to convict in a court and it will be enough proof to establish guilt in this case. He is also on file supporting Paul Gadd's right to own and watch child **** for his own personal "gratification"
. This is an admission of being a peadophile in most peoples books.
St Retford...........sp
ot on. And as a kid myself amongst 200 from a workhouse under the guise of childrens home I know it was impossible to complain,or be listened to. Also, he never worked,he turned up to be idolised,he ran because he loved runnng and be idolised some more the arrogant git. Re title him cur saville.
[quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]St Retford[/bold] wrote: If the allegations are true then a dead man's name deserves to be tarnished. And then some. These people didn't come forward at the time because they were children who knew they wouldn't be believed. This is why it's important all this is given an airing now, because we must learn from this and ensure that climate can't be allowed to exist again. Savile also threatened violence against them and used his charity work to buy silence from the newspapers. He was a nasty, nasty piece of work and if the evidence sounds a little one-sided then that's probably because it is.[/p][/quote]Yes, 'if' the allegations are true but until then, and if they are ever proven then they will remain just allegations. To me, something just doesn't quite add up. The alleged victims may have been children when it happened but why didn't they do anything about it when they grew up? I don't know what, but something just doesn't make sense that until after the man died all these adults now come forward and all say they're victims. You seem to know a lot about Sir Jimmy and what he actually did so I hope you can substantiate what you say. I'm not siding with Sir Jimmy but I think people need to remember that until anything is proven, his name is innocent. And in all honesty, I don't see how anything can ever be proven now.[/p][/quote]they did !! 6 police forces have historic investigations on file !! This is part of the current investigation.... why did they not follow up on these, especially the ones regarding abuse allegations at the childrens home !? And of course it can be proven now, corroborated accounts from seperate individuals will be proof. Its enough proof to convict in a court and it will be enough proof to establish guilt in this case. He is also on file supporting Paul Gadd's right to own and watch child **** for his own personal "gratification" . This is an admission of being a peadophile in most peoples books.[/p][/quote]St Retford...........sp ot on. And as a kid myself amongst 200 from a workhouse under the guise of childrens home I know it was impossible to complain,or be listened to. Also, he never worked,he turned up to be idolised,he ran because he loved runnng and be idolised some more the arrogant git. Re title him cur saville. wilkseyboy11
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Thu 11 Oct 12

cantthinkofone says...

If every corrupt or abusive peer was stripped of their title, there probably wouldn't be many left.

I'm all for it!
If every corrupt or abusive peer was stripped of their title, there probably wouldn't be many left. I'm all for it! cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree