I don't think it is. Statutory rape and paedophilia are two quite different things. The former is having sexual contact with someone who is in the eyes of the law unable to consent. This could be due to being under the age of consent, or being mentally ill for example. Paedophilia is being sexual aroused by pre-pubescents. Hugely different.
My favourite bit of this distasteful thread is the guy railing against the "fame culture" whilst twice mentioning on this board that Jim fixed it for him... Enough said... Oh and was Hitler actually a great guy who built loads of motorways and was misunderstood because he didn't get to defend himself at Nuremburg? (Albeit a completely different set of crimes)
it wasn't the power of thought when he was recorded defending Gliiter, and they would have had to be up to Derren Browns standard to get all the women to give virtually the same reports of his behaviour
I didnt say theyd mad it up and im not de$ending him. all im saying is that the programme used some very dodgy techniques that got the girls to say exactly what thry wanted to to suit the programmes agenda. The investigator told the women what had happened rather than asking them. He asked them if they felt pressured because of who he was rather than asking them how they felt. The conclusions may be correct but the documentary was unreliable and probably ruined any future trial.
personally I hope it has a knock on effect and what comes out leads to as many others being named shamed or if they are alive prosecuted, theres no excuse
Apologies in advance The BBC News channel just displayed images of the three women who claimed that Jimmy Savile interfered with them sexually. They showed a current picture of each of the women and a picture taken of each of them from the 1970's. The caption read: Now, then. Now, then. Now, then.
Re: Apologies in advance I think you all should google Louis Theroux and the Jimmy Saville episode on Youtube. Make your mind up when he acts all weird when Louis asks him about sexual contact with minors. Pretty damning imho. Rantzen can do one; as she claims to have known about the celebrity secret that everybody knew what he was up to. She should have done something about it as head of a child charity of the magnitude of Childline.
If you really think he just plonked them on a chair and started recording what they said then you're wrong. You can guarantee that the invesitgator sat down with the women and spoke at length with them before a tv camera came any where near what they had to say. His questions and their comments therefore will have been somewhat 'prepared', with both parties knowing what was going to be asked. That's only a right and proper thing to do given the seriousness of what was being claimed. Ruined any future trial? He's dead!
Re: I reckon a fair few sixties and seventies rock stars and celebs will be worried To be fair to Jerry Lee Lewis, he did not do anything that was illegal or unusual in the area where he came from at the time. It was actually his 3rd marriage and he was only 14 the first time he was married himself. As a result of the scandal over this marriage he had a UK tour cancelled after 3 dates, was ostracized by former friends and supporters alike and went from playing $10,000 per night concerts to struggling to earn $250 for an appearance. That particular marriage (to Myla Gale Brown lasted 13 years altogether).... As for Saville, it is too late for any kind of proof into his activities either way. No evidence exists and this is effectively a televised witch hunt on someone unable to defend themselves and not needing the strength of evidence required for a criminal or civil court case. I don't know if Saville was into young girls (under 16) or not, but he was probably at least borderline autistic or had some other similar personality disorder. He didn't seem to relate to people properly. If he is guilty then it should come to light, but Saville will not face the consequences for his actions that he should have gone if he was guilty.
Coleen Nolan allowed her son and partner to go to amsterdam and shag all they wanted and she didn't care. Don't know where Saint Ester trained to became an expert on child abusers ( poacher/gamekeeper?). think Gambaccini was jealous that jimmy dint touch his bum.
Going Amsterdam and seeing a few toms is just a bit different from being a 14 year old having saville clinging on to you... It's safe to say savilles a wrong un.
I watched the programme last night, and I can't see how any rational human being who did watch it, can defend him. The stuff he told Theroux years ago, was pretty damning. As was the interview he gave regarding Paul Gadd. The fact that multiple women have come forward, each with their own traumatic version of events (which match up with one another), tells it's own story. And, you have a handful of eye-witnesses. Or people who knew Savile at the time of these events. The idea that he parked his caravan in the grounds of that girls school, and was "delivered" young girls to abuse at his whim, repulses me.
British legal system to be put into the hands of Esther Ranson http://eyevee.wordpress.com/2012/10...m-to-be-put-into-the-hands-of-esther-rantzen/
the thing that worries me.... ..... is Saville is dead and cannot speak out on these accusations. I watched the show and the evidence does seem pretty damning. However, he (Saville) cannot respond to them, and that is wrong. The whole basis of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty, and if a person is put on trial, they have a right to answer the allegations. Obviously in this case it cannot happen. I understand the police have been asked to re-investigate the accusations, so maybe the truth will come out.