But what will investigating it actually achieve? And how can Jimmy Saville defend himself? Waste of tax mans money.
The victims get closure and no longer have to live in a society that idolises the perpetrator, a so called national treasure. If they're true, of course.
Well how can they be disproved Einstein? This show shouldnt be shown unless the evidence is 100%, mud sticks after all. In Jimmy we trust
I dont know enough about the process but i guess they'll gather as much information and evidence as possible then upon that information they'll either say there's not enough evidence, the evidence has no ground, or the evidence found the allegations to be true. It'd help if he was alive but not sure it's entirely necessary to come to a conclusion.
What happened when the evidence came to light 5 years ago - nothing!! There was no case to answer, now he is dead a few more have jumped on the bandwagon. Maybe its just my reflection on todays society that i see them just as fame hungry and prepared to go to any lengths to see their names in the papers. If it is true then its horrible that it happened to them but i dont want to see this get pursued now the man is dead. In Jimmy we trust 1986 - Jim Fixed it for me
Because they were not directly involved or were too young / naiive to do something about it? Gambaccini said he had been waiting 30-years for the allegations to come out. He said “It comes out when he's dead because Jimmy Savile had an imperial personality in show business; I'm not talking about personal life. You just didn't mess with Jim." Coleen Nolan - she was 14 years old at the time. Rantzen - "the rumours followed him for years at the BBC. Now, for the first time there's more than one single child complaining. There are five adult women producing very similar statements about the way they were attacked" Jimmy Savile - the only person known to man to have defended Gary Glitter (interview in 2009). Enough said.
So he defends Glitter and that automatically makes him a pervert himself? Coleen Nolan is after publicity for Loose Women, Rantzen wants a new show and Gambaccini is a silly yank. In Jimmy we trust
I reckon a fair few sixties and seventies rock stars and celebs will be worried Jimmy Savile isn't the first Radio 1 DJ to get involved in this sort of thing though, although I can't see John Peel getting the same reaction, despite his love of underage girls being discussed in interviews. He married a 15 year old for God's sake and fled America when the authorities started looking into his sexual activities with underage girls. Still, John Peel were cool, eh? I've never understood why certain people get ostracised (Gary Glitter, Jonathan King), whereas a blind eye gets turned to others (Elvis, Bill Wyman, Pete Townshend, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry).
I'm not sure what's more improbable: that he carried on like this for years without being exposed, or that so many women would fabricate these stories. It certainly seems like he was up to no good with a lot of teenage girls. Dirty old man.
Three points about this programme. 1. Sue (dont know her last name) should be chargedfor aiding and abetting or something for admitting leaving the room to allow him to abuse a minor. 2. The investigator is asking loaded questions designed to get the answer he wants. "you were in no doubt of what you saw?" An unbiased phrasing of the same question is "was you in any doubt about what you saw?" 3. The investigator claims to be an expert yet made a statement about him being a suspected paedophile for abusing teenage girls under 16. As an expert he would know this is not paedophilia. Either he knows this but is making completely false claims to sensationalise his programme or he is actually not very knowledgable about the subject of the programme at all. Points 2 and 3 give me serious doubts about the accuracy of the investigation. I believe they did not care about finding the truth as they claim but was only interested in manufacturing a sensational headline grabbing programme.
I didn't say that, what I said was that I was very uncomfortable with this when the alleged rapist is dead and can't defend himself which is a basic right of law. I don't see how facts can now be investigated; there is no DNA evidence, no CCTV, no independent witnesses, and nothing of note reported or investigated at the time of the alleged offences. What facts can be brought to light to change this?
theflash. Leading questions and the power of suggestion can easily convince people that something happened when in actual fact the truth is very different. Im not saying this is the case but it could be. An example is if you and your mates meet so new girls and you dont think anything sppecial happened but after the event lyour friends tell you one girl was flirting with you and say they could all see the way she looked at you. You will probably start to believe what they say and convince yourself that you remember it happening.
Re: I reckon a fair few sixties and seventies rock stars and celebs will be worried Think that's hit the nail on the head. Alan freeman liked taking young boys upto his flat if I remember correctly.