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.

Surely that’s the problem, who would want to defend someone from those accusations, when they cant even defend themselves?
Maybe he did these things, maybe he didn’t, in reality we are no closer to finding out we simply have some public, mostly anonymous accusations.

You see what you've done there is to go and try to find some evidence to back up your suspicions but in the event have just found some salacious gossip which does nothing of the sort - have a read of those two reports and tell me where the evidence is that any of the girls mentioned were under the age of 16 ?

Am I surprised that a person in the position that Savile found himself in took advantage of the hordes of young girls who would be willing to spend some time with him with or without intimacy - no I am not, not at all.

Do I think that he ever stopped to ask any of them how old they were, no I think in the balance of probability he probably didn't do that very often.

Am I judging him by the moral standards of 2012, no I am not, and I am not jumping on a bandwagon of accusation and supposition based on salacious gossip and text from his own biography that only tells us what we already knew - those who were associated with the pop music industry in the 1960s and 70s had their pick of dozens of young girls every night of the week and in the context of the time they were considered "available" if they were in the queue.

You might not like that attitude but I, and anyone who lived through that period, will confirm it to be true.


And I bet the likes of JLS and One Direction are sweating a bit now too ...

I remember that as well.

The "attractive girl from a remand home" would be under 16, surely, otherwise she wouldn't be in a remand home.