Paula wrote:Is it not really unusual for the police to make statements like they have in this case? They are saying he is guilty despite the fact there has been no trial or defence of any sort.

I don't think they can dig him up to try him.

He's dead so they don't have to be careful what they say.

Everything with his name on it is being torn down, at this rate he's going to be famous for being the UK's worst serial rapist and child abuser, just a few years too late.

Last week ASDA were still selling 'officially licenced' Jimmy Savile costumes, I wonder where that money was going.

Apparently you get an adults top, but you have to squeeze into children's bottoms.

Paul wrote:His family haven't just had the good sense to have his gravestone removed, the BBC are reporting that it is being destroyed and sent to landfill. Do even his family not expect him to be exonerated?

They even chiseled out the engravings. They know damn well he is guilty. He took his nephew to sick parties where young girls were being passed around.

They could dig him up and lay him flat (hes buried at a forty-five degree angle), thatud teach him.

Paul wrote:His family haven't just had the good sense to have his gravestone removed, the BBC are reporting that it is being destroyed and sent to landfill. Do even his family not expect him to be exonerated?

Maybe they think that even if allegations could somehow be refuted (which at present seems highly unlikely) his grave would remain a target of vandalism by people who didn't believe the refutation, which would be distressing not only for the family but for many other people who have loved ones buried nearby.

It's pretty hard to be exonerated unless most/all accusations can be shown to be bogus (people couldn't have been where they say they were, etc) or are withdrawn.

If, as seems the case here, in addition to claims from people of being victims, there are also various people effectively saying "We thought something dodgy was going on at the time but were afraid to say anything", even in the event the seemingly dodgy behaviour had just been suspicious-but-actually-innocent activity it's unlikely someone could be 'exonerated'.
People seem relatively unlikely to make up explicit stories of being collectively concerned at the time of later-alleged-events, since that doesn't seem like something multiple people in different places are likely to misremember happening, it puts them in a bad light, and it's something which would seem likely to be denied by other people if it hadn't been a topic of conversation.

Now, there might be circumstances where someone had behaved suspiciously but was entirely innocent, but it would seem fairly unlikely in such an event that multiple people would make up stories of being victims which fitted fairly well to the suspicious behaviour others had noted at the time.
Ultimately, to behave suspiciously is, to an extent, to open oneself up to possible accusations which would be hard to refute.

As paedophile hysteria goes, this Savile nonsense completely takes the cake. Will footage of the guy be excised from any historical film that casts him in a positive light?
Take down his headstone, posthumously strip him of his knighthood, what the fuck? And this board appears to have a shitpile of members who take this crap seriously.

Re: possibility of innocence, he did detail fucking an underage girl in his autobiography and noting explicitly how the police were too afraid to act.

tolman wrote:

Paula wrote:Is it not really unusual for the police to make statements like they have in this case? They are saying he is guilty despite the fact there has been no trial or defence of any sort.

Well, if someone is dead, there's no real issue of prejudicing a trial.

They may have taken the view that if they've not only got statements from multiple complainants claiming that they were victims in various places, but also somewhat corroborating evidence from others regarding suspicions existing at the time and a blind eye being turned that they're confident it can't be a case of people jumping on a bandwagon, especially if multiple people came forward as a result of his death (and subsequent eulogies) but before there were meaningful public accusations flying around which people might have decided to echo.

Yea, I reckon he's probably guilty, I just don't think I've ever heard of the police making a statement like this.

It must be a relief in a way for some of the women to be able to talk, so sad.

I'm wondering if there was ever an episode of Top Of The Pops, featuring Jimmy Saville and Jonathan King as presenters... and Gary Glitter singing.

With an appearance from Michael Jackson too?

chairman bill wrote:With an appearance from Michael Jackson too?

So that girls and boys would have been given reason to be nervous? Fair point... although slightly different eras. I think Michael Jackson would have been too young to have had anything in the charts at the same times as Glitter.

No, though Jackson would have been a teenager when Glitter was in the charts. Jackson's solo career started in 1971, and before that he'd been part of the Jackson 5.

I suppose it's possible that the Bay City Rollers would be on the same TOTP bill, with their sex offender manager, Tom Paton

ughaibu wrote:As paedophile hysteria goes, this Savile nonsense completely takes the cake. Will footage of the guy be excised from any historical film that casts him in a positive light?
Take down his headstone, posthumously strip him of his knighthood, what the fuck? And this board appears to have a shitpile of members who take this crap seriously.

I think at least the temporary removal of the headstone would probably be understandable even just for the sake of other people with relatives in the cemetery.
As for what his relatives think, I have no idea what their various views are, and I don't envy them their current position.

And there's certainly a difference between taking allegations seriously (as in not dismissing them out of hand)
and taking them seriously (as in believing them without question).

Personally, I'd tend to be very wary of assuming guilt of famous people on the basis of single allegations, or on allegations with a potential bandwagon element to them, or where there was a decent possibility of collusion.

There would be things likely to make me sway more towards the opinion that guilt was likely, such as having independent allegations from people unknown to each other, allegations made before publicity was given to the first one, and some kind of other corroboration from other people.

For example, if a dead priest had had some accusation of child abuse made publicly and then afterwards someone came along who'd never said anything to anyone before and who went straight for a PR agent before making allegations and then having some large spread in the press, I'd be fairly wary of the allegation.

If the priest had died and then multiple people from different places where they had worked who were seemingly unconnected came forward to make allegations (before allegations were made public) which were consistent with each other, and then various other people also came forward to say they'd been adults at the time with some suspicions but had either said/done nothing out of fear or out of not wanting to make serious allegations on the basis of mere suspicion, or had had their suspicions dismissed by superiors, I might be rather more likely to think some kind of conclusion might be defensible.

As things stand at the moment in this case, I'm sure more information will be forthcoming and there's little obvious need for me to to make a conclusion as such, beyond concluding that so far things look pretty terminal for his reputation.

Tolman: thanks for the reply. To be consistent, let's posthumously strip Henry the eighth of his rank. So, if we accept the notion that there is a legitimate monarch of the UK, who would it be?

ughaibu wrote:As paedophile hysteria goes, this Savile nonsense completely takes the cake. Will footage of the guy be excised from any historical film that casts him in a positive light?
Take down his headstone, posthumously strip him of his knighthood, what the fuck? And this board appears to have a shitpile of members who take this crap seriously.

It isn't crap. His behaviour is so well known that very few in the public sphere will defend him. That's why the police, the media and most of his own family are acting as though he was already convicted, because they know he has a 40 year history of abusing under-age girls.

ughaibu wrote:Tolman: thanks for the reply. To be consistent, let's posthumously strip Henry the eighth of his rank. So, if we accept the notion that there is a legitimate monarch of the UK, who would it be?

Where have I suggested stripping this guy of anything yet?

And Henry VIII wasn't king as some kind of honorary title, he was king as a result of inheriting the throne in the then-existing system of government.
He was the king, so it would be historically inaccurate to now say that he hadn't been, and of no obvious value to say he was when he was alive but not after he died (since everyone knows he wasn't the monarch after he had died).
In this case, it would also be rather confusing if he had to be called by a name few people would know him by - 'Henry' isn't enough, Henry VIII has an implicit 'king' in front of it, and 'Henry Tudor' while technically accurate (if name of 'house' and 'surname' are considered the same) is what his father was known as before becoming Henry VII.

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that people say JS hadn't ever had a knighthood, or hadn't at one time been 'Sir Jimmy', just that the title suggests a certain level of respect many people now think he doesn't deserve.
If a title is honorary, or is obtained by merit like an academic title, it certainly seems to be valid to officially remove such a title when someone is alive if they have, respectively, seriously dishonoured themselves or are found to have cheated in examinations.

I'm personally not sure about the merits of doing so after someone is dead, since for most people it seems easy to simply fail to use the title even if it hasn't been officially withdrawn, though I guess some organisations might be under some kind of nominal obligation to use titles if they haven't been officially removed, even if the breaking of such obligation is something that few people would be likely to complain about in certain situations.

And the longer someone has been dead, the more futile trying to change things would be.

Though it'd be an interesting debate how long someone should be dead before the idea becomes entirely futile.

tolman wrote:Where have I suggested stripping this guy of anything yet?

Either you address what I wrote or you don't.

tolman wrote:And Henry VIII wasn't king as some kind of honorary title

So the fuck what? He fucked under age girls.

ughaibu wrote:

tolman wrote:Where have I suggested stripping this guy of anything yet?

Either you address what I wrote or you don't.

tolman wrote:And Henry VIII wasn't king as some kind of honorary title

So the fuck what? He fucked under age girls.

The king, back then, could fuck anyone, including his own mother if he wanted to (and some did), he WAS the law!

james1v wrote:

ughaibu wrote:He fucked under age girls.

The king, back then, could fuck anyone, including his own mother if he wanted to (and some did), he WAS the law!

Quite.