Exactly. What have they to gain? They can't see him punished for what he allegedly die. Why did they wait until he was dead to spill the beans? It makes no sense... and like Judge Judy always says, if it doesn't make sense it probably isn't true.

So, they weren't willing to report the alleged rape to the police at the time, but they are perfectly willing now to have their faces on the front page of every tabloid in the land. While I have the greatest sympathy for women who have gone through the ordeal of rape, I'm not so sympathetic to people who seek attention instead of justice.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove that someone is guilty, it is not the job of the defence to prove someone is innocent. This though, is another trial by tabloid. We have them a lot in the UK.... and unfortunately the person accused is dead and we will never know for sure whether he was guilty or innocent.

but most of them are doing it anonymously Livia, so how can you say that women making these claims anonymously are doing for attention or jumping on a bandwagon?

you are making it an impossible situation, by saying that anyone who does make the claims is just doing for attewntion, and anyone who makes the claims anonymously are not credible. don't you see how you're creating a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario?

Why now though? Why? There's nothing that can be done now, and by not coming foward at the time they put other women in danger, if what they are saying is true.

He is dead. There is nothing they can gain by coming forward now. It is too late.

Like i said before, they arn't looking for punishment against JImmy Saville, they are just telling the truth, and so it's not hurting Jimmy, but it may be helping them get over something very traumatic. Telling the truth and having people believe you is very important to abuse victims.

If they made these accusations before he died, They'd be accussed of trying to extort him. Picking on an old man, a natiuonal treasure They arn't asking for money. They didn't sue him. They just want the truth to be known, and they arn't looking for anything in return.

No But He Can Not Stop the Docu and New Police

The Women/Girls he attacked want to tell their storys
that I understand.

Haven't the allegations floated around for a while but because of who he is there's never been anything to really come of it, it's true that as Alex said very few women actually report rape and very few cases that go to courts end in a guilty verdict, it'd be understandable if they thought pursuing the whole thing previously would only cause more grief

I disagree. It hurts his legacy - and that cannot be undone now. Even if they somehow prove that he is innocent and these women are liars, it's somehow given people justification to claim he was sleazy or a pervert and that there must be some truth to these allegations. On the other hand, if they are telling the truth, then it leaves the BBC's reputation in tatters for continuing to employ such a man and letting him have the career he had, and the victims can't get any kind of legal closure because he's dead.

See I think this 'because of who he is we didn't say anything' line is a bit ridiculous, purely because of the vilification of Gary Glitter - it's not like the media are afraid to out a famous person for their crimes.

It's a pity they didn't tell the truth before this then. They are claiming a man was guilty, they are producing no evidence, he cannot prove otherwise as he is dead. I find it strange that these women just popped up out of nowhere with their stories of abuse that go back years, and yet no changes were ever - ever - brought against him during his lifetime. Not one charge... and yet now everyone assumes he was guilty because he was a bit odd. Fortunately, being a bit odd is still not against the law.

Well i think the BBC does have something to answer for in this case. And the BBC deserves the criticism it's getting right now. The BBC did extensive work on this story and then buried it for no reason.

what evidence could they produce? did you expect them to have tape recorders or camera's watching him abuse them? what kind of evidence do you want from them??? you make it sound like these were fully grown adults. THEY WERE CHILDREN AT THE TIME! since when do we blame children for being abused? and since when do we expect children to be able to prove their abuse? don't you understand the INSIDEOUS nature of child abuse?

guess what, children arn't abused by people on camera, you can't expect children to be tape recording every second of the day to prove their abuse. This concept you have that it's not okay to tell the truth about being abused unless you have it all on camera or some kind of PROOF, how do you PROVE child abuse Livia???

Maybe because he would have sued them if they'd screened it during his lifetime? And if they have tangible evidence that could have been produced while he was alive and able to face prosecution, they should be done for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Well, exactly. There is no evidence they can produce now, it's just their word versus someone who cannot answer back. I really don't want to cast aspersion on people who claim to be victims of sexual abuse when they were children, because that is a truly awful experience and I really do feel for them if they are telling the truth - but the timing of this and the fact they've gone to the media smacks of attention seeking, not help seeking.

I think it'd be a bit different for someone like Jimmy though, who was one of the most loved characters in the country and had been knighted not just by the Queen but by the Pope

Yes, of course I understand the nature of child abuse. But I don't believe that not one child spoke out. Not one... in all the years... and now there they are cleansing their soul on the front of the newspaper.

So I ask again... why now?

No one should be feeling sorry for JImmy Saville, he got away with a lot, and the fact that he never had to answer these allegations, i'm sure he's grateful for.

I understand what you mean but I just don't think the media are scared to take someone down like that. They love to build people up and tear them down again.

Let's face it... is there anyone here who didn't think he was an odd-bod? Rather than a national treasure, he was treated as a bit of a joke, wasn't he. But that doesn't mean he's necessarily guilty.

But then on the other hand - what if he did nothing to these women? He didn't 'get away' with anything, he didn't have to answer allegations because there weren't any and now he's dead and people are dragging his name through the mud. Why wait until he's dead? They've had what, forty years to come forward with this information? I just don't think I believe this, it's my gut feeling.

And this is the point of my argument. You don't know for sure whether he's guilty of not... you're assuming. And there's nothing he will ever be able to do to clear his name.

well according to this there were people who raised questions, and they were ignored.

Or were investigations made and there was found to be no substance to the allegations? Too late now ever to know for sure.

Esther Rantzen's not exactly the most reliable of sources, she's notorious for jumping on bandwagons and stirring up the pot - both rightly and wrongly in equal measure, off the top of my head. I think I'll wait until more information becomes publicly available before I post in this thread again - but I think it's important to not write Jimmy Savile off as a sex offender before anything's even been confirmed or denied.