• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Owzabout That Then? The Jimmy Savile Revelations & Aftermath

When you're a chum of the Prime Minister, the Royal Family and the celebs of the day then a fair assumption of 'protection' can be made.
Unless you contend that Saville was 'innocent until proven guilty' and fly in the face of revelations after his demise and highly-placed folks looked somewhat sheepish.
The measure that 'they were never actually tried in court so they MUST be found innocent' falls down incredibly quickly.
Pol Pot, Stalin, King Ferdinand whatever in Belgium ... they were never found guilty of genocide and mass murder in their lifetime, and yet the evidence exists.
That a person was not taken to court is not evidence of their guilt or innocence. So much depends on the circumstances; were they powerful enough to prevent prosecution? Did they influence prosecution?
Like Lord Lucan (not the respected FT commentator), he has never been prosecuted for a crime. But does this mean he is innocent? Sure ... "Innocent until proven guilty" etc. Great in theory. But, for example, when someone is found hand covered in blood, dead person at their feet, saying "I'm glad they're dead!" then , sure, they're presumed innocent in legal proceedings!
 
Coogan's always been a better mimic than anyone gave him credit for.
It's an interesting take on it: it's gone easy on the BBC. The programme, really, is about the monster Savile himself and how he manipulated power. The BBC was as equally guilty of protection as the government, the police, and NHS bosses. But I think this production is trying to show how Savile himself set up this protection. It sounds like the reviewer wanted more blame to go to the BBC.
 
Stormkhan said:
When you're a chum of the Prime Minister, the Royal Family and the celebs of the day then a fair assumption of 'protection' can be made.
Unless you contend that Saville was 'innocent until proven guilty' and fly in the face of revelations after his demise and highly-placed folks looked somewhat sheepish.
The measure that 'they were never actually tried in court so they MUST be found innocent' falls down incredibly quickly.
Pol Pot, Stalin, King Ferdinand whatever in Belgium ... they were never found guilty of genocide and mass murder in their lifetime, and yet the evidence exists.
That a person was not taken to court is not evidence of their guilt or innocence. So much depends on the circumstances; were they powerful enough to prevent prosecution? Did they influence prosecution?
Like Lord Lucan (not the respected FT commentator), he has never been prosecuted for a crime. But does this mean he is innocent? Sure ... "Innocent until proven guilty" etc. Great in theory. But, for example, when someone is found hand covered in blood, dead person at their feet, saying "I'm glad they're dead!" then , sure, they're presumed innocent in legal proceedings!
Click to expand...
This exactly. The legal system itself is not perfect and a proportion of those who have done the deed are found not guilty, due to insufficient evidence being available to the jury and or direction by the judge. I saw one of these cases myself. I've always thought that "not proven" should be added to the legal system, but in the meantime it's all we have.
 
Stormkhan said:
Coogan's always been a better mimic than anyone gave him credit for.
It's an interesting take on it: it's gone easy on the BBC. The programme, really, is about the monster Savile himself and how he manipulated power. The BBC was as equally guilty of protection as the government, the police, and NHS bosses. But I think this production is trying to show how Savile himself set up this protection. It sounds like the reviewer wanted more blame to go to the BBC.
Click to expand...
Yes. I thought he was superb in Stan & Ollie.
 
I [...] think this Saville program has no business being made, it's grubby salacious tabloidism passing for historic fact - this is not "Downfall" and Coogan is no Bruno Ganz.
Oh and I'd argue that the attempted removal of "Not Proven" is relevant to this thread as it is exactly the sort of pandering to tabloidism and "being seen to do something" that pervades the entirety of the aftermath of Saville and the revelations about him.
We can't try him - so lets have a nice TV show to "decide" the "Truth" from the very corporation that employed and enabled him (allegedly), have a "have you been affected by issues in this show ?" section and we can all go home for tea and buns - job done.
As you can no doubt tell the whole sorry circus disgusts me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stormkhan said:
The measure that 'they were never actually tried in court so they MUST be found innocent' falls down incredibly quickly.
Pol Pot, Stalin, King Ferdinand whatever in Belgium ... they were never found guilty of genocide and mass murder in their lifetime, and yet the evidence exists.
Click to expand...

Let’s see some evidence of JS’s guilt, then. Sixty years of alleged sexual offences, and we haven’t seen a single pervy Polaroid, incriminating letter or piece of soiled underwear?

For the umpteenth time, l am not defending Savile. l would be astonished if a man in his position during the Sixties and Seventies hadn’t exploited it, just like every other pop star, actor etc. whom we still revere.(*coughcoughBowieJacksonetccough*)

My concern is that if the “ ‘E must ‘ave been guilty because l thought ’e was creepy, therefore ’e must ‘ave ‘ad protection; and if ‘e ‘ad protection, ’e must ‘ave been guilty!” mentality takes control, we’ve taken a long stride down a very dark road.

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
blessmycottonsocks said:
Jimmy Savile: The Reckoning. All episodes available on BBC iPlayer from 9th October.

The Guardian's initial impression.
Steve Coogan, as Savile is "astonishingly spooky".

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...ning-first-look-jimmy-savile-steve-coogan-bbc
Click to expand...
I'm looking forward to this, though might have to watch a bit through my fingers.
As I've mentioned, I do trust everyone involved in making it.

It's pointed out in one of the quoted articles that exploring an issue through drama gives the opportunity to depict events that happened away from the public eye.
This is indeed the entire point of drama: to reflect society back to itself. We often don't like what we see and that's good for us.
 
I take your point, I surely do Max.
But that assumes that all witness accounts are not evidence, regardless of time, credibility, motives behind speaking etc.
With such a bleak view, there is no reason for anyone to speak out against abuse, since it all hinges on actual evidence.

"You claim this man sexually assaulted you?"
"Yes."
"Were there any witnesses? Photographs? Were there any others present?"
"Yes. Others who participated in the assault."
"Can you name them?"
"No."
"Would they testify against my client?"
"Of course not!"
"So we have only your word that you were actually assaulted?"
"There's the report by the police surgeon!"
"Ah, but the surgeon could not state that your injuries were caused by my client. Only that they exist!"
Judge: "Case dismissed!"

It's this kind of reasoning that benefits abusers: one persons word against another. And if the 'balance' of belief is in favour of a famous person or an influential politician, then they can get away with anything because in the eyes of the law, they have as much weight as the accuser. That is when the system breaks down - it relies on an even 'playing field' which, in practical terms, is unrealistic!
In the case of Savile, while alive he was very highly placed, influential, public and by his own account had 'friends' even in the police. Even if a complainant managed to take it to court, everything would be balanced in favour not of 'one persons word against another' but the person who had the most influence, the most money to afford a legal team, etc.
"Oh, well, he's famous! You'll always get false accusations!"

I believe in an equitable and formulated judicial hearing of evidence in a case. The judge shouldn't be able to sway the jury (which they do) and the jury should hear ALL evidence in order to make a fair decision.
Savile was protected, was wealthy and the public opinion was behind him. Nothing made it to court, true. Sure - innocent until found guilty in a trial. But it never reached trial, so technically Savile is innocent.
But how does that square with balance of probability? "They were all at it in those days" should sway the balance in favour of the claimants, surely?
 
I think I've commented on this before. The problem with sexual abuse cases is that it comes down, often, to one person's word against another.

I don't know how to fix this.

I do know, however, that the tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to the male, especially if the female can be shown to have a previous sexual history, is absolutely disgraceful. And still not totally consigned to history. Why previous consensual sex should preclude a subsequent finding of abuse is entirely beyond my reasoning.
 
Cochise said:
I think I've commented on this before. The problem with sexual abuse cases is that it comes down, often, to one person's word against another.

I don't know how to fix this.

I do know, however, that the tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to the male, especially if the female can be shown to have a previous sexual history, is absolutely disgraceful. And still not totally consigned to history. Why previous consensual sex should preclude a subsequent finding of abuse is entirely beyond my reasoning.
Click to expand...
I agree. This is precisely why the accused's previous criminal record is not made known to the jury.
 
ANd just to remind you this thread is about Jimmy Savile revelations and aftermath, not about sexual abuse cases in general.

Thank you.
 
gordonrutter said:
ANd just to remind you this thread is about Jimmy Savile revelations and aftermath, not about sexual abuse cases in general.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I respect your intervention, but the recent comments do talk to why Savile was maybe not brought to account in life. Honestly, I am not totally committed to one side or the the other, I entirely respect @maximus otter point of view. But this is a subject that concerns half of the human race, plus a few of us who have been intimately aware of the damage it does.
 
Cochise said:
I respect your intervention, but the recent comments do talk to why Savile was maybe not brought to account in life. Honestly, I am not totally committed to one side or the the other, I entirely respect @maximus otter point of view. But this is a subject that concerns half of the human race, plus a few of us who have been intimately aware of the damage it does.
Click to expand...
And they are moving further away from Savile with every post.
 
It’s too late for Savile evidence so that’s gone - no-one’s going to give max the cast-iron proof he wants. It’s a futile quest.

It’s not often men are wrongly accused of mass sexual misdemeanours with no basis. The only two which spring to mind are Leon Brittan & Clfff Richard. Were they both implicated by the same man? I can’t remember now.

Obviously this is not good & damage was done to their reputations but they were both exonerated eventually. Cliff was paid damages, Brittan I don’t know.

When so many [mostly] women come forward it has to count for something. I can’t think of anyone where multiple women have made allegations against an individual & it’s been shown they were lying, whether for financial gain or fame. It just doesn’t happen.

Thinking about Harvey Weinstein, was there any actual hard evidence as required by max or was it just weight of accusations?

If Savile were alive he could be brought to answer the accusations in court but he’s dead. The only damage done is to his posthumous reputation.

He’s either guilty & got away with it for years or the victim of scores, maybe hundreds, of malicious & wrongful allegations. I know which side of the fence I’m on. It ain’t proof though.
 
Stormkhan said:
I take your point, I surely do Max.
But that assumes that all witness accounts are not evidence, regardless of time, credibility, motives behind speaking etc.
With such a bleak view, there is no reason for anyone to speak out against abuse, since it all hinges on actual evidence.

"You claim this man sexually assaulted you?"
"Yes."
"Were there any witnesses? Photographs? Were there any others present?"
"Yes. Others who participated in the assault."
"Can you name them?"
"No."
"Would they testify against my client?"
"Of course not!"
"So we have only your word that you were actually assaulted?"
"There's the report by the police surgeon!"
"Ah, but the surgeon could not state that your injuries were caused by my client. Only that they exist!"
Judge: "Case dismissed!"

It's this kind of reasoning that benefits abusers: one persons word against another. And if the 'balance' of belief is in favour of a famous person or an influential politician, then they can get away with anything because in the eyes of the law, they have as much weight as the accuser. That is when the system breaks down - it relies on an even 'playing field' which, in practical terms, is unrealistic!
In the case of Savile, while alive he was very highly placed, influential, public and by his own account had 'friends' even in the police. Even if a complainant managed to take it to court, everything would be balanced in favour not of 'one persons word against another' but the person who had the most influence, the most money to afford a legal team, etc.
"Oh, well, he's famous! You'll always get false accusations!"

I believe in an equitable and formulated judicial hearing of evidence in a case. The judge shouldn't be able to sway the jury (which they do) and the jury should hear ALL evidence in order to make a fair decision.
Savile was protected, was wealthy and the public opinion was behind him. Nothing made it to court, true. Sure - innocent until found guilty in a trial. But it never reached trial, so technically Savile is innocent.
But how does that square with balance of probability? "They were all at it in those days" should sway the balance in favour of the claimants, surely?
Click to expand...

l in turn take your point, but wouldn’t it be equally bad to treat influential people as more likely to be guilty than a random, average person?

All cases, including hypothetical ones against JS, “hinge on evidence”.

“This kind of reasoning” benefits all defendants: One is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

l think that this is about as far as l can go in this thread, as we are drifting farther away from the specifics.

maximus otter
 
Another review of The Reckoning:
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/the-reckoning-review-bbc-jimmy-savile-drama-230110885.html
Three quotes are interesting:
"[...] and goes some way to explain why the BBC would retread the Savile story, one of the most horrendous tragedies of modern times. Documentaries have covered this ground thoroughly, though The Reckoning attempts something different; to showcase, through a mixture of fact-based and fictional scenes, as well as interviews with four of his victims, how Savile got away with criminal offences while maliciously charming his way into Britain’s highest institutions."
Click to expand...
And:
"A sympathetic viewer could argue this is self-flagellation for the BBC, showcasing how it was tricked by this paedophilic con man, while an unsympathetic one may argue the series lets the BBC off the hook, focussing on Savile rather than analysing the BBC’s own mishandling of the situation."
Click to expand...
Finally:
"There’s no cover-up, just a manipulative man. Maybe that’s how it was — that Savile operated in plain sight without institutional help — but for many viewers, that won’t be enough.
The Reckoning offers an understanding of Savile’s twisted ways, but the question remains: how are we going to stop another Savile without further analysing those who stood by him?"
Click to expand...
 
Cochise said:
I think I've commented on this before. The problem with sexual abuse cases is that it comes down, often, to one person's word against another.

I don't know how to fix this.

I do know, however, that the tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to the male, especially if the female can be shown to have a previous sexual history, is absolutely disgraceful. And still not totally consigned to history. Why previous consensual sex should preclude a subsequent finding of abuse is entirely beyond my reasoning.
Click to expand...
Precisely this. JS was not stupid enough unfortunately to keep a diary of his doings, take photographs, or film them. So numerous words against his would have been the case had it ever come to trial. There still seem to be supporters of the revolting character around though. I know one or two and when I say I witnessed JS numerous times with young girls in his roller, I get "they were probably relatives". Makes my blood boil.

In the case I got involved one victim had to give evidence by video link they was so terrified and I guess most victims would be. Combine this with the fact that some victims would not have the mental capacity to know what has happened to them and the perpetrators position in society, it's no wonder that all the info has come out after the moron's death.

Also it's about time that another tv company did a drama solely based on the BBC's cover up.
 
Stormkhan said:
Like Lord Lucan (not the respected FT commentator), he has never been prosecuted for a crime. But does this mean he is innocent?
Click to expand...
Interestingly, Lucan was named by the jury at Sandra Rivett's inquest as her murderer. This was not a criminal court verdict and the law was soon changed to prevent it happening again.
 
maximus otter said:
Ahem.

;)

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Which, in fairness, begs us to answer where was the difference. Maybe Savile was innocent. Or maybe Savile knew where the bodies were buried :)

I give my apologies to all concerned, the debate is now pretty much sterile, and I don't see the "documentary" getting us any nearer to the truth. I know my opinion, but that is all it is.
 
Has anyone else caught the Coogan series? I've one-and-a-half episodes. It's squirmingly authentic so far; plenty of scenes with the truth dawning on horrified teenage girls that Uncle Jimmy was not such a jolly pal after all.
 
escargot said:
Has anyone else caught the Coogan series? I've one-and-a-half episodes. It's squirmingly authentic so far; plenty of scenes with the truth dawning on horrified teenage girls that Uncle Jimmy was not such a jolly pal after all.
Click to expand...
I caught the first episode, I'm not really a fan of Coogan - silly reason, he's the spitting image of someone I loathe. Now, after that episode, he's the spitting image of two people I loathe. He really nailed Savile, if you closed your eyes, you could imagine it was him talking.
 
Bigphoot2 said:
I caught the first episode, I'm not really a fan of Coogan - silly reason, he's the spitting image of someone I loathe. Now, after that episode, he's the spitting image of two people I loathe. He really nailed Savile, if you closed your eyes, you could imagine it was him talking.
Click to expand...
Yes! The voice is spot-on. :omg:
 
Here's a Daily Mirror article about one of the children Savile abused. Kevin is now 56 and remembers being walked off the set by Savile and taken to a dressing room where he was attacked by both Savile and an accomplice.

Kevin was a member of a Cub Scout troop who appeared on Jim'll Fix It and were awarded a huge group badge.
Are they the ones who went on a rollercoaster with fast food? I saw that edition.

'I was abused by Jimmy Savile - there was a second man in room who also assaulted me'

Savile and an unidentified man sexually assaulted Kevin Cook, 56, after he and his cub scout group finished filming an episode of Jim’ll Fix It at BBC studios, which was broadcast in January 1977. Kevin was just nine when the disgraced TV presenter lured him to a dressing room, promising to give him a Jim’ll Fix It badge.

The second man then joined Savile in the room and physically and sexually abused him in an even more brutal assault, according to Kevin, a dad-of-two. “It scares the life out of me to think he’s still out there,” says Kevin, of Harwich, Essex. “His abuse was even more horrifying than Savile’s.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top