[Omah]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Change the title back, it's not funny..

It isn't supposed to be .....

You don't need to change the title every time the daily mail has a new headline

Check my sources .....

[Livia]

The thread title is surely missing the word "allegedly".

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Livia

The thread title is surely missing the word "allegedly".

Nope, because I'm quoting and not saying - if the Mirror had said "allegedly", I would have quoted it .....

[Mystic Mock]

It's true Livia as why are so many people coming out saying that he did it?

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Livia

The thread title is surely missing the word "allegedly".

Do you really expect anything else from someone that uses the scum as a source?

[lostalex]

Accused would suffice.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Do you really expect anything else from someone that uses the scum as a source?

Are you personally attacking me ?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by The Mockinator

It's true Livia as why are so many people coming out saying that he did it?

You don't know it's true, Mock. You are going on unsubtantiated accounts. Don't get me wrong, if some evidence appears, even the smallest piece of evidence that would give substance to all the other claims, then I might rethink it. But right now, we have a dead man who cannot defend himself over what's being claimed, and a whole host of people who said nothing at the time.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Omah

Are you personally attacking me ?

don't worry about him, he's still "discovering" himself.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Omah

Nope, because I'm quoting and not saying - if the Mirror had said "allegedly", I would have quoted it .....

Oh I know that the tabloid press would never lie to us. Right? They're so trustworthy and honourable.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Livia

You don't know it's true, Mock. You are going on unsubtantiated accounts. Don't get me wrong, if some evidence appears, even the smallest piece of evidence that would give substance to all the other claims, then I might rethink it. But right now, we have a dead man who cannot defend himself over what's being claimed, and a whole host of people who said nothing at the time.

... and we also have dozens of very much alive women who have no reason to lie and just as much right to tell their stories...

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Livia

You don't know it's true, Mock. You are going on unsubtantiated accounts. Don't get me wrong, if some evidence appears, even the smallest piece of evidence that would give substance to all the other claims, then I might rethink it. But right now, we have a dead man who cannot defend himself over what's being claimed, and a whole host of people who said nothing at the time.

I would normally agree with what your saying as I did defend Michael Jackson at the time, but to me this is one of those rare cases that now that the person is dead the victims don't feel scared to speak about it anymore, and what have they got to gain from calling him a paedophile now his dead? his not gonna get punished for it.

[lostalex]

I don't understand this argument that He's not alive so it's not fair. even if he was alive, would he be able to defend himself from these accusations? It all happened 30 years ago, obviously no one has any concrete evidence. It would still just be a he said/lots of shes said.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Omah

Are you personally attacking me ?

No he is not
he just hates that paper
thats all.

[Tom4784]

I think the same as Livia, I find it a little suspicious that so many people who was allegedly abused by this man remained silent until now. Why wait until he is dead? Why didn't they bring forth these claims when he was alive when he could have been brought to justice?

It's things like that which lead me to believe that they are looking to make a quick buck from someone who cannot defend themselves now. If I'm wrong I'll put my hands up and say it but I think something smells with the whole story.

[Mystic Mock]

But will they make that much money off a dead person really? if they are lying I would think they would want to do it while his still alive and famous.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I think the same as Livia, I find it a little suspicious that so many people who was allegedly abused by this man remained silent until now. Why wait until he is dead? Why didn't they bring forth these claims when he was alive when he could have been brought to justice?

It's things like that which lead me to believe that they are looking to make a quick buck from someone who cannot defend themselves now. If I'm wrong I'll put my hands up and say it but I think something smells with the whole story.

are any of them making a quick buck?

[lostalex]

i would think if you wanted to make a buck, it'd be much smarter to do it while he was still alive, so you know, they could actually get something out of him?

it's now been proven that they've been making these accusations for a long time (the BBC buried it), it's just now that the media is giving them any attention.

But as far as i know, none of the women making accusations has asked for a single red cent.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by The Mockinator

I would normally agree with what your saying as I did defend Michael Jackson at the time, but to me this is one of those rare cases that now that the person is dead the victims don't feel scared to speak about it anymore, and what have they got to gain from calling him a paedophile now his dead? his not gonna get punished for it.

I have no idea what they have to gain, although a fair few of them have sold their stories for cash, which always weakens credibility, I think. If so many people were involved, and so many people knew, doesn't it strike you as strange considering the volume of them who are finding their voice now, that none of them came forward during his lifetime? I understand the difficulty when they were children, but some of these women are now in their fifties, and at no time did any of them feel strong enough to speak out? This isn't the first case of someone being accused after they're dead, it just happens to suit the public feeling because Jimmy Saville was creepy and an oddbod which is not against the law.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Livia

I have no idea what they have to gain, although a fair few of them have sold their stories for cash, which always weakens credibility, I think. If so many people were involved, and so many people knew, doesn't it strike you as strange considering the volume of them who are finding their voice now, that none of them came forward during his lifetime? I understand the difficulty when they were children, but some of these women are now in their fifties, and at no time did any of them feel strong enough to speak out? This isn't the first case of someone being accused after they're dead, it just happens to suit the public feeling because Jimmy Saville was creepy and an oddbod which is not against the law.

It depends if he threatened them or whatever, also aswell he was a powerful man in the Showbiz world and everyone knows that if your famous you don't get into much trouble with the law so they probably gave up pressing charges at the time.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by The Mockinator

It depends if he threatened them or whatever, also aswell he was a powerful man in the Showbiz world and everyone knows that if your famous you don't get into much trouble with the law so they probably gave up pressing charges at the time.

People keep saying what a powerful man he was, and maybe he was in the area of charity fundraising... but in the last, certainly ten years, he became a bit of a joke. If he was so all-powerful, how did Louis Theroux manage to make such a mockery of him during his documentary and get away with it?

Also, it's not true to say if you're famous you don't get into trouble. Ask George Michael... Ask Hugh Grant... Ask Boy George... Ask any of those people richer and more famous that Jimmy who've fallen foul of the law.

The police do not "give up pressing charges". The Crown Prosecution Service decides which cases will go court based on the evidence. If there's a reliable witness willing to press charges, it's easier to get a prosecution, but sadly, while he was alive, there were no reliable witnesses willing to give evidence.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by The Mockinator

But will they make that much money off a dead person really? if they are lying I would think they would want to do it while his still alive and famous.

I am breaking one of my rules and coming onto an Omah thread,(sorry Omah), just to say, I have a lot of doubts on this story and am more with Livia and Dezzy's thoughts at present.

Jimmy Savile in the 1960's and early 70s too, was only a radio dj, not the great charity master or imposing TV presenter he became later and his claim to TV was in the main Top of the Pops.

Like Livia stated,if solid and undisputable evidence was substantiated then I would re-think as to this obviously.
However,I would then still likely need to hear the other side, as to the dates for instance, Jimmy Savile could well have been able to say and possibly even prove he was elsewhere with other people at the times some of these alleged assaults took place.

As to wanting or not wanting to do this while he was alive rather than now he is dead, the big difference is,if they were proven to be untrue,if alive Jimmy Saville could sue for damages, now he is dead though he cannnot, as you cannot be considered as libelling someone who is dead.

If they are true, they are really awful but in all cases of crimes or anything of a disputed nature really,all sides have to be heard and in this instance,now, Jimmy Saville's side can never be heard as to these alleged assaults.
Therefore as Lostalex rightly states too, it would be a case of he said/did and she said/did situation.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Livia

If he was so all-powerful, how did Louis Theroux manage to make such a mockery of him during his documentary and get away with it?

maybe he was just grateful not to be called a child molester?

[arista]

Well done Janet Street Porter
on BBC1 Question Time
said its right that the Police are looking into JS
and she said he used his Charity
to stop anyone
saying anything about him and his 14 year old girls.

[Omah]

http://www.channel4.com/news/jimmy-s...sant-encounter

Tape has emerged which appears to be a recording of one of the late Jimmy Savile's off-air conversations with a "young woman". Some viewers may find parts of this report distressing.

Starts @ 01.06

What appears to be a young "girl" rather than "woman" is subject to inappropriate "conversation" and is heard to say "get off" "you're squashing me" and "get off my backside"