i read in one of the papers that his influence at the time was so strong that no one dared to say anything but jonathan king was also huge during that period but was sucesfully prosecuited
surely if there was that much evidence against him then he could and should have stood trial but these ' victims' decide to wait till offered a chance to air their unsupported views via the media to say something

Maybe the reason they didn't come forward is actual physical proof and libel.

Can X woman prove it?

Can fairly rich 'alive' Mr Saville sue them?

I was no fan of Saville - thought he was weird and completely self-obsessed. But I'm not sure what benefit these women hope to get from coming forward now via the media, unless its some form of catharis.

I don't claim to understand the legalities, but given that Saville isn't around to defend himself I can't see how they could attempt to sue his estate. Can you sue the estate of a dead person for civil damages after they're dead?

Jimmy Saville's alleged victims say they just want justice.
That's a funny word for money.

They have just found Jimmy Savile's diary.
His last entry was about 10 years old.

I bet Gary Glitter regrets not asking Jim to fix it instead of taking his computer to PC World.

Girls - pre-pubescent, feminine itching?
Apply some Savile-on

Tasteless in the extreme.

You'll fit right in.

Well the documentary was mostly what I expected, hardly a balanced presentation but much more a one-sided prosecution.

The alleged victims were mostly anonymous and hidden and the witnesses were hardly very credible IMO.

This arguement that he was "untouchable" wouldnt stand up under cross examination in my view.

Why then were the likes of Gary Glitter, Jonathon King, Michael Barrymore, and even the much vaunted Michael Jackson, taken to task.

Another thing that troubles me is that these investigations and the film itself were not completed overnight, so why wait till after his death to then present these allegations when he cant defend them.

I can to some degree possibly accept that young teenage girls might well be reluctant to come forward at the time, but to state that the likes of Rantzen and Gambaccini say they knew for a fact that these abuses were taking place is shameful.

Surely is it not a fact that to deliberately with hold knowledge of such actions is in itself a criminal act and an accessory to the crime itself and that they deserve to be prosecuted for their lack of action which could then have prevented others from possible harm.

As good and generous as Sir Jimmy Saville was (outwardly) there's no way I would defend his reputation without being 100% sure that all these (now) women are not being truthful.

Imagine if you'd been adamantly defending a paedophile? That wouldn't look good on your CV.

I wouldnt look to be defending Jimmy Saville but I would be prepared to defend his right to a FAIR hearing.

How can the truth be established with only one side of the story being heard.

What about Savile himself. Is he a credible enough witness for you?

rlhttps://timesopinion.tumblr.com/post/32804536645/jimmy-saviles-affections-laid-bare-by-jimmy-savilerl

rlhttps://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/jimmy-saviles-autobiography-shock-as-pages-1359536rl

Incidentally, why can nobody spell his name right? It's not like it's a difficult one like Burrows or Maguire. It's not Saville, it's SAVILE. As in "He'S A VILE man"

Yes he might well be !!!

but ALL evidence needs to be tested and cross examined BEFORE convicting anyone or at least thats my understanding of the correct due process.

If under age "groupies" of the 60`s and 70`s are now deemed to be innocent children then a lot more celebrity geriatrics will be sweating under the collar at the moment.

That's true, and in the past couple of days I've read public domain stories about Jimmy Page's long relationship with a 14-year-old groupie (in the 60s) and John Peel marrying a 15-year-old in America. That's all bad enough, but doesn't have the apparent coercion and abuse of power that's been talked about with Savile, particularly in regard to the events at childrens' homes, which takes it to another level.

You're right the evidence needs to be assessed before conviction, but it should have been properly assessed long before now, and it clearly hasn't been.

Two investigations in relation to care homes were carried out but no actions taken due to insufficient evidence.



Yes these latest allegations need to be investigated ......but fairly under proper procedures not by one-sided publicity seekers who might also bear some guilt themselves in failing to report their suspicions at the time.

Reminds me of the time when those Sun readers went and trashed some poor sod's home because he was a Paediatrician.