Star calls for Savile's knighthood to be stripped (From Daily Echo)

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?

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.

Guilty conscience Esther ?

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 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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clunk, click. He makes me sick.

Should have removed his knighthood amongst other things years ago.

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.

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.

weall8leedscum wrote:
Guilty conscience Esther ?

Quite; a costly silence methinks.

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.

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).

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,

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 !

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

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 ?

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.

Getting back to the story about the knighthood, he is dead and the knighthood died with him. End of story.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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?

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.

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.

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.
.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

"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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I'm all for it!