The Jimmy Savile situation - Another Jimmy In Cuffs. Who Next, Jimmy Hill?

Michael Jackson was accused of sexual abuse of children twice: once by a young boy and his father, and once as a result of a sequence in the Martin Bashir documentary that showed him with a young boy. In both cases the allegations were found to be without foundation. In the first case the boy was found to be lying when he gave detailed descriptions of Jackson's anatomy that did not match up to Jackson's actual anatomy at all, and it was clear the father simply wanted to extort money. The boy's mother never supported the accusations. In the second it was found that the children who did sleep over at his house were in no way abused and it was all quite innocent, if unusual. So, Jackson was found to be falsely accused on the one occasion a supposed victim came forward, and was found totally innocent of wrongdoing when an investigation was conducted regarding a later incident. No-one else came forward despite the massive publicity at the time of each incident. Jackson has been subject to a legal investigation and acquitted of any wrongdoing.

Hundreds of people have come forward claiming to have been abused by Jimmy Savile. This is just what you expect to see in a serial abuser case, with floodgates opening once the initial accusation becomes public. That adds far more weight to the allegations in the Savile case than there ever was in the Michael Jackson cases. The fact that Savile is dead and therefore cannot be convicted or acquitted in a court of law does not mean that the results of the police investigations will be less significant. If the accusations are found to be without foundation then that will be the result announced, and it will be no less significant than a trial verdict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Thompson

In the first case the boy was found to be lying when he gave detailed descriptions of Jackson's anatomy that did not match up to Jackson's actual anatomy at all

---

I've got this image in my head now of a penis identity parade, where everything else is covered up apart from the offending organ.

Thank you, Jason, my thoughts exactly.

Si.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Thompson

Hundreds of people have come forward claiming to have been abused by Jimmy Savile. This is just what you expect to see in a serial abuser case, with floodgates opening once the initial accusation becomes public. That adds far more weight to the allegations in the Savile case than there ever was in the Michael Jackson cases. The fact that Savile is dead and therefore cannot be convicted or acquitted in a court of law does not mean that the results of the police investigations will be less significant. If the accusations are found to be without foundation then that will be the result announced, and it will be no less significant than a trial verdict.

---

Plus there's also, as i understand the matter, of other people who may have been directly involved in the business who are still alive and could still be investigated.

As a bit of an aside, something peculiar. I watch New Tricks (that's not the peculiar part, whatever you may think!). Now, Monday of last week, the BBC decided not to show an episode of said programme, due to its featuring an under-age sex ring, because of this Savile business. So, they broadcast the episode that was due to be shown this week instead.

Now what do you think they showed this Monday? Surprise, surprise...! Has anything changed in the previous week? Hardly. Discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larry

One thing is for sure IMO all these people now claiming to have had doubts about savile must shoulder some of the blame for allowing him to get away with it for so long.

---

That's a bit harsh isn't it?
Having doubts about someone who may or may not have been guilty is not the same as having proof & doing nothing.
Having doubts or misgivings or feeling that there is 'something not quite right' about someone could be put down to just not connecting with that person, but that hardly constitutes evidence to act upon.

That was kind of what I was saying, although it seemed to get lost somewhat in translation.

I don't think it's fair to blame anyone for not doing anything because they didn't have proof. What IS annoying is the legions of people now coming out the woodwork (and possibly selling their stories?) just to say "Well with hindsight, I knew he was dodgy [but I didn't do anything]". Okay, you didn't do anything, that's unfortunate, it's not entirely your fault, but it's nothing to be hugely proud of. By crowing now, it's almost like they are boasting that they had this insight, while inadvertently admitting that they didn't have ENOUGH insight to actually do anything to stop it.

Si.

To sort of bring this thread back on track and not get sucked into another MJ discussion thread (Which is why we can't have nice things! :p) Here's something Who related from the new Private Eye:

Quote:

---

As the sound of stable doors slamming shut* resounds around the BBC, the Jimmy Savile scandal is having some increasingly bizarre after effects.
A one-off docudrama about the creation of Doctor Who scripted by Mark Gatiss is in production, to be broadcast in November 2013 in celebration of the programme's 50th anniversary. Its makers have just been ordered to excise all scenes set in Television Centre dressing rooms.

---

*=Bingo!- Dino

As for "knowing he was dodgy"... well, he always set off my finely-tuned creep meter, which is why none of this surprises me.

The really telling thing for me was when his family removed and destroyed his (presumably) very expensive headstone arrangement. They knew.

Yeah, that says a lot. Removing it to protect it from vandals would have been one thing, and quite understandable in the circumstances. Actually destroying it is one heck of a statement.

Agreed. I thought they had removed it for the sake of keeping it safe, turns out I was wrong. It was destroyed & put in landfill.

Well, Freddie Starr has been arrested now...

Sent from my LT15i using Tapatalk 2

Hmm. For some reason I feel for him. I wonder if having a snog with a sexually-mature consenting mature looking teenage groupie 40 years ago is enough to rope him in with Saville and his many years of alleged kiddie fiddling. It's a little scary that you can be arrested as part of an operation called "<suspected serial abuser> and others" thus landing you by association with all his crimes. After all, I doubt they were in a conspiracy together, people are just going to get sucked down with the dirty legacy of someone who happened to once work in the same building as them, perhaps.

Si.

OMG the broadcasters are running scared.

Just caught the start of RD Gunmen of the Apocalypse on Dave to find they edited out the Wimbledon 'jailbait' ballgirl gag.

Expect mass burnings of all those episodes of detective shows that in any way mention underage sex or abuse (that'll be 90% of them)

They edited that out of repeats back in the mid 90s when Craig Charles was charged with rape. They edited stuff out of series 5 repeats too. Obviously Dave are showing the edited version for some reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zbigniev Hamson

They edited that out of repeats back in the mid 90s when Craig Charles was charged with rape. They edited stuff out of series 5 repeats too. Obviously Dave are showing the edited version for some reason.

---

Really ? So despite being acquitted someone somewhere deems this joke still inappropriate ? Maybe they should come round and censor my DVD copy too.

Well I watched some of the episodes a few weeks ago when Dave was showing them at the weekends as a countdown to the new series, and I definitely saw the ballgirl joke then. But at the same time, a few other things were edited out, presumably because they were being shown during the daytime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Masters

OMG the broadcasters are running scared.

)

---

not just them Max Clifford has apparantly claimed that a number of celebreties have been in contact with him because they are very scared of being dragged into this .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Larry

not just them Max Clifford has apparantly claimed that a number of celebreties have been in contact with him because they are very scared of being dragged into this .

---

Maybe, maybe not. I don't trust anything Max Clifford says - he just wants attention!

Well his job is to get other people attention!

Si.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Si Hunt

Well his job is to get other people attention!

Si.

---

From what I've seen of him, Max Clifford's number one priority is Max Clifford.

Agreed. Max Clifford is supposed to be a publicist for other people, so why are we always hearing about him and what he's doing rather than the people he's supposedly publicising? He's supposed to be publicising them, not publicising his work to publicise them. His should be a behind the scenes job, not a front page of the papers job.

I have to disagree. I think that I know only a very small percentage of what there is to know about Max Clifford, but what I do know is that he's involved in a hell of a lot more than you hear about. I've never seen him on the "front page of the papers", nor do I think we are always hearing about him. When I have heard about him, it's usually to find he's been behind someone who has been in the headlines for the past so many months, usually evoking a reaction of "Oh, so Max Clifford's behind that person too is he". I'm sure he is notorious enough that he could make a living out of appearing in reality shows, doing interviews and being on TV, but considering his influence you very rarely see him on television.

I find his job a fascinating one; on the one hand he is at the heart of the very worst aspects of our media-driven society, on the other hand his is a very reactionary occupation - the relationship a car insurance company has with the culture of car crashes. But what actually fascinates me most is that he does seem to operate largely behind the scenes. You usually discover he is behind a familiar name long after they have sneaked their way into the public lexicon thanks to his handiwork.

Si.

Some good points, but I still find the idea of a celebrity publicist who is himself a public figure an inherently contradictory one. How many other celebrity publicists can you name, or would you recognise if their picture was in the papers?

None, he's the only really notorious one. In some ways the transparency is comforting. He pulls the strings of public opinion. Would it be better if we didn't know he was doing it? He allows us to be sceptical of celebrity news stories as we know how he operates!

Si.