Anyone see Have I Got News For You on Friday?

The clip they showed of him on the show from 1994 was very disturbing to say the least

see the necrophilia has been brought up now

No, do tell.

All they need is a few animals and they really would be flogging a dead horse

clip showed him answering a question about how he lived in a Caravan and when asked what did he do in the caravan his reply was "Anything I can get my hands on..."

When I say "helped", I mean I stood and watched some other people build it and then I measured it afterwards.

yeah, you built it

Anyone watch the Panorama programme last night?

I have to say, on the basis of the "evidence" presented I can see why Sir Jimmy has never been prosecuted let alone convicted of anything.

It was the flimsiest rumour mongering imagine-able. No way would any of it have stood up in a court of Law. There was one lady who was willing to openly make an accusation against him. She gave an interview last November but even Sir Jimmy's main accuser's, the makers of the shelved BBC documentary said they didn't air whilst he was a live because she "wouldn't have made a reliable libel witness". The producers, when defending themselves about why the chose not to pass evidence to police, said that they thought the evdience was flimsy and of no use to the police. Doesn't that say everything?

On chap said he saw Saville with a girl, both fully slothed and she was "definitely under age, about twelve, maybe 13 or 14. definitely no more than 15." Wow.

Even the odious Gambaccini had no direct accusations but merely rhetoric and rumour.

It saddens me that this media witch hunt continues at great pace without anybody, anybody at all, questioning the quality of evidence put forward by his accusers (not alleged victims)

I watched most of it last night and feel pretty similar to you. Very little evidence at all, and whilst I don't think its been made up, I can see why it never got reported by people inside the BBC. I think the thing which came out of it is why didn't people who were concerned at the time do something about it at a more personal level? Trying to disuade young people from being left alone with him etc.

Overall I think there was enough to convince me that Saville had been very clever about his actions and played his cards right. As a result I think that anything that people thought was wrong was just that, and certainly not evidence.

You're confusing one television programme with an entire prosecution case. Why does the evidence presented about Savile by this one programme have to be able to take down a criminal trial the instant after it's given?

The point is whether this original evidence is strong enough to make a proper police investigation worthwhile, during which more evidence is gathered and *then* it is taken to court. That threshold is comprehensively passed in Savile's case, and several police forces are now gathering full evidence, just as they should have many years ago.

[i"There was one lady who was willing to openly make an accusation against him. She gave an interview last November but even Sir Jimmy's main accuser's, the makers of the shelved BBC documentary said they didn't air whilst he was a live because she "wouldn't have made a reliable libel witness"[/i

I have no idea what fog you're trying to knit with that as there was one lady *on that particular programme* who made accusations against Savile. You surely know that many more have been filmed and reported over the past few weeks (and for the shelved Newsnight), and that Panorama used only one accuser's interview because it was a quickly made broader programme flitting between biography of Savile, the seedier side of 70s culture, and the current editorial controversy of Newsnight and the BBC.

Also the "shelved BBC documentary" hadn't even begun production when Savile was alive so I'm not sure what that point was about.

See the Daily Mail headlines today to see what this is really all about.

I wasn't confusing anything at all. I was comment upon how flimsy the accusations in that programme were and commented they would certainly never stand up in court.

Which prosecution case have I got confused with, because there has never been one against JS, rather pertinent don't you think?


It doesn't but it has to have some substance or bare scrutiny otherwise we could all go on television and say what we want about someone. Of course, we would only do that and programme makers would only broadcast such things about an alive person if it stood up to scrutiny. Oh, wait a minute.

What evidence? My point is that last night's programme was severely lacking in evidence. Even the programme makers admitted the evidence wasn't good enough to pass onto the police. That is how they defended themselves against charges that they should have done so.

[i"There was one lady who was willing to openly make an accusation against him. She gave an interview last November but even Sir Jimmy's main accuser's, the makers of the shelved BBC documentary said they didn't air whilst he was a live because she "wouldn't have made a reliable libel witness"[/i

There was only one lady on last night's Panorama willing to put her name and face to her accusations, capiche? She was the same lady who came forward to newsnight for the shelved documentary.



I think you are mistaken but it hardly matters when the producer of the Newsnight programme said he didn't think the lady would make "a credible libel witness"

There is a way things are done. They're not done by the media. They're not done by the police. It has been shown, in the last three to four weeks why those bodies are not trustworthy to do them.

It annoys me that there is now widespread acceptance that a man is accepted as being guilty of what he is accused of simply because it's repeated in the media and his accusers says so. It's a very dangerous slope.

My friend's brother's kids (aged 9 and 7) once saw him jogging on Street Lane and ran along side him. The eldest said to him "hi Jimmy" to which he replied "f*ck off you little b*stards".

True story.