In other words .... Jangle Jangle, Jury Jury ?

Good post McF and very well put.

Agreed. And in those now far off days of hysterical young girls throwing their knickers at their pop idols, is not inconceivable that they could also throw themselves as well? They were called groupies I seem to recall.

Its an excellent point regarding his contemporaries.

There are legions of tales about hoards of young "groupies" being invited back stage and indeed if we are going to start investigations based on hearsay evidence from the past then yes there will be many nervous geriatric superstars about.

I too found him strange but its not so long ago that the streets where lined with those paying their respects to a local legend.

Yes and it is just possible that a groupie who had been prepared to offer themselves in return for a bit of relected glory would now consider another shot.

Could it also be that claims for compo might be a consideration ???? surely not



It is coming up to the anniversary of his death. I wonder how long it takes to execute a will for an estate of a substantial amount.

This is why I mention Bill Wyman.

Without doubt if these allegations are true then the women, who were by definition children at the time, are victims of a crime, and should be allowed to give their version of events, perhaps even compensated to some degree, although how, I wouldn't know.

However the accused is dead, so criminal charges obviously can't be brought and the accused cannot defend himself.

But the wider issue is how this case will be treated in the media given the context of the alleged events.

How many pop stars/TV celebs from that era can safely say that every girl who was seduced by their fame and willingly offered something more than polite conversation, for no other reason than the excitement of it, was over the age of consent, even if they appeared, and maybe claimed, to be so?

The difference with the Wyman story, which was bad enough, and any other groupie tales is that many of the Savile abuses were alleged to happened at a childrens' home.

and apparently he was investigated by the police under caution but no charges were made and the CPS decided there was insufficient evidence at the time.

Anybody working with children is vunerable to accusations and investigion.

Rightly so but not 40 years later and after their deaths.

JS wasn't a cliquey BBC type and preferred the company of people he'd known a long time .. I suspect that to many at the BBC he wasn't regarded as "one of us".

As for Rantzen ... she has built the latter part of her flagging career on the back of child abuse stories and this sounds like blatent bandwaggoning on her part.
I'm sure I shan't be alone in thinking that I shall disregard Rantzen's "opinion" and wait to see the documentary.

I think it's appalling that all these women didn't bother to press charges when Jimmy Saville was alive - what has made them come forward now then, now then, now then?

Aparently the blue plaque at his flat in Scarborough has been defaced by the mob.I wonder how far this will go especially after the tv trial?I wonder if the ex cop and Rantzen are donating their fee to charity?

Whether Jimmy Saville has been guilty of anything or not I find any accusations aimed at him to carry far less weight now he is dead. Had the accusations been made while he was still alive I think they would have been a lot more credible. For every POSSIBLE victim of Jimmy Saville I would think there are 20 times that trying to jump aboard the media witchunt for purely financial reasons. I will watch the programme which may change my opinion of Jimmy Saville, what it may never do is convince me he committed the horrendous crimes some people are claiming.

There were rumors on this very board about some of his dodgy goings on way before he died. Its certainly not only happened since he died.

There Is also plenty of examples where people are afraid of coming forward about abuse because they live in fear of their abuser or that they won't be believed. I imagine that the magnitude of those fears would be greater still if the abuser was a high profile personality loved by millions.

If he has abused people when they were kids they will have been living with it for 30 years and it may only be now that they feel comfortable enough to talk about it.

What will be interesting is how much money will be left in his estate given that its all being donated to his various charities.

What will be interesting is how the police can investigate alleged crimes that happened thirty or more years ago when it will be impossible to collate a balanced viewpoint.

What will be interesting is whether or not any of his alleged victims are brazen enough to sue a charity for compensation from his estate.

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.