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

[Si Hunt]

I know nothing about this and am therefore spouting bollocks but I'm still a little sceptical about ALL of those cases. I know a few people came forward, and it surely must have been a very small number, and that traditionally victims don't, but surely if only 5% of these cases had reported it then it would have been too much to have been ignored?

The trouble is (i) he's dead now so anyone can make an accusation and it will never be refuted (even his family have disowned him) and (ii) Who on Earth is going to admit to having sex with Jimmy Saville?

Let's not forget that in the seventies, when even ugly celebrities got groupies, a hell of a lot of girls would have very willingly done sex to Jimmy Saville. If asked about it in 2012 are they going to admit that, or say he took advantage?

I'm sure plenty of these cases are real. I'm sure he was a prolific sex offender or, as it used to be known, groper and dirty old man. He was very probably also a rapist. But I'm not convinced he was somehow one of history's greatest serial sex criminals and no-one ever realised.

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

I know a few people came forward, and it surely must have been a very small number, and that traditionally victims don't, but surely if only 5% of these cases had reported it then it would have been too much to have been ignored?

You'd be amazed how many rape and abuse reports are disbelieved or ignored, Si, whether or not a celebrity is involved. Combine a man with a public image as a philanthropic charity worker with an attitude of 'these people are attention seeking kids' and a number of widely spaced accusations to different branches of the police that are never connected and you have a recipe for a very overlooked case.

The trouble is (i) he's dead now so anyone can make an accusation and it will never be refuted

People who make accusations are expected to substantiate them, and are questioned in ways that will in most cases uncover falsehood. This wasn't just a show of hands exercise looking for people to respond in the affirmative to the question 'were you abused by Jimmy Savile?'

(even his family have disowned him)

Which I think speaks volumes. NONE of his family have defended him. NONE of them have said this is all nonsense. NONE of them have fought his corner. They took his headstone and destroyed it. That doesn't sound like a family who didn't know he was a no good character.

Let's not forget that in the seventies, when even ugly celebrities got groupies, a hell of a lot of girls would have very willingly done sex to Jimmy Saville.

Let's not forget that a whole branch of police investigators is not going to have forgotten that. This was a three month police investigation, not a simple accusation collection exercise. They didn't spend three months doing all that work just so they could publish a report on how many people claimed to have been abused with no investigation as to whether or not those claims had merit.

If asked about it in 2012 are they going to admit that, or say he took advantage?

These people came forward of their own volition. The police didn't go round asking everyone if they had had sex with Jimmy Savile and if so was it consensual or not. The accusers came to them. The accusation of abuse was there before any questions were asked of these people.

And without getting at you personally, Si, that line of thinking is precisely why many reports of rape and abuse are not taken seriously.

But I'm not convinced he was somehow one of history's greatest serial sex criminals and no-one ever realised.

What would convince you, if an intensive three-month police investigation is insufficient?

[MinaHarker]

Excellent points, Jason.

[Andrew Curnow]

I have to say, I think Si makes some good points and to be frank my first thought yesterday was something similar. For one thing, this has all taken just three months? Don't inquiries normally drag on for a long, long time - to have interviewed, investigated and checked on over 200 cases, that seems such a short time frame.

And yes, although I don't think there's any question now that Jimmy Savile was responsible for some terrible abuses, I think we ought to be at least a little concerned that this has all happened with very little, if any, 'right of reply'. So although you may well be right, Jason, when you say:

People who make accusations are expected to substantiate them, and are questioned in ways that will in most cases uncover falsehood. This wasn't just a show of hands exercise looking for people to respond in the affirmative to the question 'were you abused by Jimmy Savile?

I would be interested to know just how rigorous that was. Indeed, other than checking certain facts like times & places I'm not sure, this long after the event, what degree of checking there could be.

So although the general sense of the report is probably quite correct, I do genuinely worry as to just how certain the police can be of what are now being treated as facts.

[Si Hunt]

Also am I missing the obvious, but what exactly is the point? He's got away with it. What do we get out of a big (costly) investigation?

Si.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Also am I missing the obvious, but what exactly is the point? He's got away with it. What do we get out of a big (costly) investigation?

Si.

Yes I am not sure what this is going to prove or help myself Si

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

[MinaHarker]

For a start, how about vindication for the victims? Some of them were only 8 years old.

How about efforts to make sure it doesn't happen again? How about getting this situation talked about in the media so the victim-blaming, the accusations of making false allegations, the way our society views and deals with such things change?!

[MinaHarker]

Read this

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...e-8448592.html

Our society let this happen. Our society needs to fix it.

[Jason Thompson]

Also am I missing the obvious, but what exactly is the point? He's got away with it. What do we get out of a big (costly) investigation?

Si.

We get the victims some element of vindication. Yes, he got away with it, but for decades those victims thought, with much justification, that no-one would believe them. In all honesty there is still a small part of me that has difficulty reconciling the predatory sex offender with the man I used to watch on TV when I was a child. Do you think that's an easy thing to grow up with and carry with you?

We get a public recognition of just how flawed attitudes to things like this are, when victims are ignored (or worse blamed), people assume the accused just isn't like that, and so on. If he got away with it then there has to be a very wide-ranging problem that allowed that to have happened, and exposing that is critical to ensuring it can't happen again.

So yes, he got away with it all his life. This investigation is there to try and work out how he could have got away with any of it, much less a whole series of assaults. Does it matter if it was 200 or 20 or even two? The man sexually abused children and NOTHING was done about it. Does that seem somehow acceptable? Should we really ignore that just because 'oh well, he's dead so nothing we can do about it now'?

[Jason Thompson]

I think we ought to be at least a little concerned that this has all happened with very little, if any, 'right of reply'.

I do too, though not for the same reasons as you appear to. The point, surely, is why none of this was done when he was alive to give that reply.

Let's also not forget that his family and friends were never denied a right to speak about it. And yet the only things we heard were people saying they thought he was dodgy, or that people were told to ignore that bit, or similar. Not one friend or family member came forward to defend him in the media. Not one. Instead, his family retrieved and destroyed his very large and very expensive headstone. Not the actions of a loving family who believed he would be vindicated by an investigation.

I would be interested to know just how rigorous that was. Indeed, other than checking certain facts like times & places I'm not sure, this long after the event, what degree of checking there could be.

There's things like whether it can be verified or supported that Savile was present at the times and places in the accusation. Whether there is supprting evidence. Whether the story remains consistent. Whether there is any support at all for it. An unsupported accusation is just that. Even though the accused is dead, and supporting evidence may be harder to come by, when a dozen people who happened once to be in the same Children's hospital come forward independently and make the same accusation, there's some weight behind it that would be missing from a single isolated accusation.

So fine, treat the report with a healthy degree of scepticism, but let's not lose sight of the fact that it now seems certain Savile abused a significant number of children over his lifetime and should never have been allowed to get away with a single one of those assaults. He did get away with it, and the reason for that is what needs to be addressed and challenged.

[MinaHarker]

I know some of the people working at GOSH knew it was happening but were threatened to keep quiet - I was told that personally by someone involved.

[Andrew Curnow]

I don't know whether the report covers this or not, but has this investigation also spoken to the many people who piped up to say they always suspected/had heard something about Savile? I mean, you could have the best police force, but if nobody contacts them...

[Si Hunt]

Jason and Sue-Ellen, you make me feel quite ignorant now you've pointed out so many things I hadn't thought of, but at least the effort you took to type those replies has made me widen my perspective on it. It's just horrendous isn't it? What an evil man, and how frustrating he died just before any of this came out. And what a dreadful web of corruption must have existed to keep all this under wraps.

Si.

[MinaHarker]

It is awful, isn't it?

I think that could be part of the problem - when something happens that is so dreadful, something that could have been dealt with but wasn't, we experience a natural revulsion and turn away from it. It's so much easier not to engage with it.

There are many awful things that happen in the world that I, personally, cannot discuss or face up to because of my feelings of revulsion.

[Jason Thompson]

I mean, you could have the best police force, but if nobody contacts them...

I don't know what the report says. To be honest I can't quite bring myself to sit down and read it just yet. I would imagine those people were interviewed, yes. That would probably form part of the corroborating evidence when considering the accusations from the victimes themselves.

But you're right. The police are not omnipresent, and can't act unless they catch someone breaking the law or someone reports a crime to them. Sex offenders are for the most part savvy enough not to do it when police are watching, and there are so many reasons victims and others don't contact the police. They can't act without something to act on.

[Jason Thompson]

you make me feel quite ignorant now you've pointed out so many things I hadn't thought of, but at least the effort you took to type those replies has made me widen my perspective on it.

Well, I certainly didn't set out to make you feel ignorant, but I'm glad it's presented you with other things to think about.

It's just horrendous isn't it?

It is, absolutely.

And what a dreadful web of corruption must have existed to keep all this under wraps.

I think that's one of the reasons there is so much disbelief from some quarters. So many people have to have been involved. Not in the assaults themselves, but in covering it up for whatever self-motivated reason. But then that's the power of celebrity. The damage such a rich, high-profile man could do via the media or whatever overpaid lawyers he brings to bear on anyone who publicly accuses him is terrifying, and while many people would be motivated by personal or professional greed to keep quiet and avoid expensive lawsuits and damaged reputations, others simply could not afford to risk losing their job and reputation by speaking out publicly about their suspicions without firm incontrovertible evidence (and this all happened long before tiny webcams could be set up in secret to catch them in the act). And so many hundreds of people with varying degrees of willingness and personal culpability, kept quiet and allowed him to get away with it.

When faced with something like that it is all too often the case that we just don't want to know or believe, and turn away from it, as Mina says. And that is partly why the victims of such assaults do not speak up when the abuser is still around: they think, with some justification, that they won't be believed, and the consequences of that to them personally are worse than just keeping quiet and trying to get on with their lives.

[MinaHarker]

I would be interested to know just how rigorous that was. Indeed, other than checking certain facts like times & places I'm not sure, this long after the event, what degree of checking there could be.

So although the general sense of the report is probably quite correct, I do genuinely worry as to just how certain the police can be of what are now being treated as facts.

They had a lot of police working on it. I doubt they would have made this report without being sure because there is so much riding on it.

Besides, the official investigation took 3 months. The CPS have said they were investigating Savile in 2009, so they must have lots of material from then.

[Stuart Wallis]

I think that's one of the reasons there is so much disbelief from some quarters. So many people have to have been involved. Not in the assaults themselves, but in covering it up for whatever self-motivated reason. But then that's the power of celebrity. The damage such a rich, high-profile man could do via the media or whatever overpaid lawyers he brings to bear on anyone who publicly accuses him is terrifying, and while many people would be motivated by personal or professional greed to keep quiet and avoid expensive lawsuits and damaged reputations, others simply could not afford to risk losing their job and reputation by speaking out publicly about their suspicions without firm incontrovertible evidence (and this all happened long before tiny webcams could be set up in secret to catch them in the act). And so many hundreds of people with varying degrees of willingness and personal culpability, kept quiet and allowed him to get away with it.

It's a bit like the Third Reich in a way: Hitler gets a bit of power and manipulates who, and whatever, he needs to, in order to get what he wants done; he makes people like him; and his reason d'etre - other than turning the German economy around, absolutely no thank you. There's so much in the world that has to be prevented if possible, and if one kid has to put up with the pain and embarrassment from this one problem from hereon in, now it's been made such a big thing, it's just too many.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Instead, his family retrieved and destroyed his very large and very expensive headstone. Not the actions of a loving family who believed he would be vindicated by an investigation.

To be fair, this is precisely the same calibre of "evidence" as "no smoke without fire". It's not really for you or anyone else to claim to know what their motivation was for removing and destroying the headstone, particularly as they did actually give a reason at the time that was nothing to do with assuming his guilt or lack thereof.

And aside from that, he never married or had children so the family he had weren't immeidate or necessarily close to him, they also can't definitely say he didn't do anything, even if they believed he didn't, unless they had surveillance on him for 40 years, and even after all that they were facing an angry mob who were baying for blood and vandalising anything they could find to do with Jimmy Savile. All very compelling motivations for not sticking your neck, or your family's neck, on the line by making a public statement defending him.

[Jason Thompson]

To be fair, this is precisely the same calibre of "evidence" as "no smoke without fire".

Hmm, that is a good point, and though i still think it says a lot, I will concede it can't be counted as evidence since it is only my feeling on the matter.

they also can't definitely say he didn't do anything, even if they believed he didn't, unless they had surveillance on him for 40 years,

Of course not, but since everyone is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, it is surprising to me how little defence he got from any quarter. Indeed the family released a statement basically saying 'jeez, we never realised he was like that'. No challenge to the allegations, just sympathy for the victims.

they were facing an angry mob who were baying for blood and vandalising anything they could find to do with Jimmy Savile. All very compelling motivations for not sticking your neck, or your family's neck, on the line by making a public statement defending him.

I'm not convinced of that. If you truly believed a friend or family member was innocent or incapable of such a heinous crime, wouldn't you want to defend him somehow?

The point remains, however, that somehow Savile was allowed to get away with an incredible number of vile assaults despite, it would seem, several people knowing or suspecting him of them. There is no way that is right or acceptable, and bringing it to light now, despite it being far too late to punish Savile himself in any way, is important.

[Rob McCow]

it is surprising to me how little defence he got from any quarter

One thought on that - if you defended him and it turned out that he was guilty of the crimes, the press would probably slaughter you. And seeing as he lived alone etc, I don't think anyone could be 100% sure that he didn't do most of the things he's accused of.

So there may be other reasons why nobody would defend him publicly.

[Jason Thompson]

I don't think anyone could be 100% sure that he didn't do most of the things he's accused of.

That's twice that point has been made, and it's not what I was suggesting at all. Of course no-one can be 100% sure he didn't commit the crimes unless they were with him 24/7, but I wasn't talking specifically about someone saying such things, or defending his 'over-friendly' behaviour with children. Yes, such comments might well be an invitation to a press slaughter if he's found guilty.

I was surprised by the total lack of defence, not of the 'I know he didn't do it', but of any kind whatsoever. Not a raft of people saying 'no, he wasn't like that'. No-one saying 'I can't believe he would have done such a thing'. Not one suggestion of false accusation (as far as I saw). Which surprises me in part because of some of the scepticism expressed in this very thread. Clearly his public persona does not fit with the notion of a serial child molester. As I said, I still have difficulty on occasion reconciling the nice bloke on telly who put those Jim'll Fix It badges around smiling kids' necks (and I really wanted to be one of those smiling kids: I now thank my lucky stars the BBC never did reply to my letters to the show!) with the serial sex offender it now seems certain he was.

And yet, despite his public image of benevolence, there seems to be a strange paucity of people who actually knew him or worked with him expressing shock or disbelief. That is what I am talking about in referring to defence of him.

And I don't think the press would slaughter anyone who said that. They'd just be another person taken in by his charming persona, just like most of the British public were.

[Mike Saville]

To me the issue is no longer what Savile did. The evidence seems to be overwhelming. The question was asked earlier in this thread, what's the point of such an in depth investigation if he's dead?

To me it's simple. For the things to have occurred that are alleged to have occurred, in the places they are said to have occurred, some people knew about it. And while the press gets more scandalous gossip from chasing DLT, Jim Davison, Stuart Hall or whoever's been named this week (and I'm not necessarily saying they shouldn't), I'm more interested in those who were entrusted with a duty of care over vulnerable people.

I was very sceptical about the allegations at first. Who wouldn't be? Sure, he was a bit creepy, but there's no way it could be true without some people in positions of trust or authority being aware of it. To me this is the crux of why an investigation needs to go deep.

Hospital porters who let him in, nurses who turned a blind eye, charity stalwarts who thought their silence was well paid for, these are the people who need to be found and if neglect is proven removed from office, and maybe even prosecuted. If anyone knowingly turned a blind eye to sexual abuse of these children, they too must be held to account.

[MinaHarker]

http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcas...ation-delusion

[Dino]

And finally (?) the newspapers have picked up what the Internet has been saying all last year, Jimmy Savile had powerful friends...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...obrien-1731376

Or is it too "inappropriate" to try and link the two stories at the moment... No wonder the Pope resigned if stuff like this and institutional abuse was going to be filed in the courts this year?