AVFCforever1991 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Watch the programme A.J. And it's not about him at this point. It's about the victims. People who are very much not dead and who felt they couldn't speak about it until now. I hear what you're saying... but with so many victims, it seems extraordinary they could not put a case together when he was still alive; and whilst recognising how difficult it is to empathise with the victims of such crimes, I still don't entirely understand why they couldn't speak out earlier. Incidentally, I used to see him once a year at the Dunhill cigar tasting in Jermyn Street, and though never swapping more than a few words with him, he always struck me as rather creepy.... then again, I feel like that about most notherners. But thats the point, he was so glorified in the Media that he could do no wrong.. The guy had the Ultimate Paedo Job.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 Any enquiry would have the purpose of (or at least shoul dhave the purpose of) preventing something like this happening again. Not solely to damage Savile's reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted October 4, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 4, 2012 A.J. a lot of the people on the programme (did I mention you should watch it? ) remained anonymous. Their families still don't know what happened so I imagine any court case would have removed that barrier. I imagine they feel tremendous shame in all of it - not that they should, but they do. Again, if you come at it from the perspective of the victim then it's them and not him that need defending/protecting. As Rantzen said in the summing up, it's never the child's fault, always the adult's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 And the clip of him and Glitter was fairly chilling. His defence of Glitter was damning too if anyone had any doubts to that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 If there was a cover up at the BBC, and/or other public figures were involved, then it needs investigating. On Radio 4 this morning some guy said the surest way to ensure an investigation into anything at the BBC, would be for some senior figure to try to surpress it. John Humphries immediately agreed. I just don't buy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyClarke Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 A.J. a lot of the people on the programme (did I mention you should watch it? ) remained anonymous. Their families still don't know what happened so I imagine any court case would have removed that barrier. I imagine they feel tremendous shame in all of it - not that they should, but they do. Again, if you come at it from the perspective of the victim then it's them and not him that need defending/protecting. As Rantzen said in the summing up, it's never the child's fault, always the adult's. Which links to the point above that on the programme half the men who saw him with an underage girl did nothing and half the girls who he abused knew it was expected of them and continually went back for more because of the benefits (access, tv etc) that being abused gave them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 A.J. a lot of the people on the programme (did I mention you should watch it? ) remained anonymous. Their families still don't know what happened so I imagine any court case would have removed that barrier. I imagine they feel tremendous shame in all of it - not that they should, but they do. Again, if you come at it from the perspective of the victim then it's them and not him that need defending/protecting. As Rantzen said in the summing up, it's never the child's fault, always the adult's. Point taken... but I still would not be happy to find we spent millions of pounds on the post mortem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 A.J. a lot of the people on the programme (did I mention you should watch it? ) remained anonymous. Their families still don't know what happened so I imagine any court case would have removed that barrier. I imagine they feel tremendous shame in all of it - not that they should, but they do. Again, if you come at it from the perspective of the victim then it's them and not him that need defending/protecting. As Rantzen said in the summing up, it's never the child's fault, always the adult's. Point taken... but I still would not be happy to find we spent millions of pounds on the post mortem. We daily spend millions of pounds on things that I have no interest in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 In fairness, I don't know a massive amount about this case. If there's sufficient evidence to convict him without a defense then the only real shame is that he wasn't around to face punishment for his actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Is it fair to come to such damming conclusions when the guy is no longer around to defend himself? It's perhaps not ideal, but that's not to say it's unfair. The Q.C. eloquently explained why both the volume of complaints and more importantly the similarities of the attacks allied to the 3rd party eye witness corroborations made it definitely grounds for arrest had he been around. But the sad thing is the nature of the affect it had on the victims means this never would have happened while he was still around. We can't dismiss what happened to the women just because this P.O.S. is now dead. :nod: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 We daily spend millions of pounds on things that I have no interest in. Still no excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 We daily spend millions of pounds on things that I have no interest in. Still no excuse. excuse? WTF are you talking about? The Savile thing is about the victims, about covers ups and corruption. It's about serial law breaking, and abetting. It's about justice. Just because you don't care for that, as the Moon Man points out, doesn't mean the rest of us don't, or that this shouldn't be pursued, and/or have taxpayer money spent on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolteExile Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 A.J. a lot of the people on the programme (did I mention you should watch it? ) remained anonymous. Their families still don't know what happened so I imagine any court case would have removed that barrier. I imagine they feel tremendous shame in all of it - not that they should, but they do. Again, if you come at it from the perspective of the victim then it's them and not him that need defending/protecting. As Rantzen said in the summing up, it's never the child's fault, always the adult's. Which links to the point above that on the programme half the men who saw him with an underage girl did nothing and half the girls who he abused knew it was expected of them and continually went back for more because of the benefits (access, tv etc) that being abused gave them. The mistake you are making there is you are expecting the victims at the time of the abuse to be well adjusted, rational people. (a) They were children, so there is a limit to their level of maturity straight off ( Some of them were in care at the time, so they were even more vulnerable. For some of those children, it's quite possible this is the first time someone had ever shown them 'affection,'or taken an interest in them. Maybe they had mixed feelings, uncomfortable with some aspects of Savile's attention -perhaps instinctively feeling it was wasn't right, but happy to be in his company at other times. That might have been because of his generosity, the fame aspect (as you point out) or simply because he had chosen to spend time with them. They might have been so unhinged that they didn't even know right from wrong Or they might -as seems far more likely- been fearful of speaking out against him. Whether they knew right from wrong, had an inkling or the penny only dropped years afterwards is immaterial however. Savile WOULD have known, that's the key point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 We daily spend millions of pounds on things that I have no interest in. Still no excuse. If spending millions of pounds now results in the abolition of the TV licence and of the BBC, would you decide that it was worth it? (and yes, abolition of the TVL is something that should at least be considered, if the alleged coverup proves to be as extensive as it is alleged to be) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 We daily spend millions of pounds on things that I have no interest in. Still no excuse. If spending millions of pounds now results in the abolition of the TV licence and of the BBC, would you decide that it was worth it? (and yes, abolition of the TVL is something that should at least be considered, if the alleged coverup proves to be as extensive as it is alleged to be)Sorry Levi, that's a huge non sequitur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 If questions can be raised about whether Rupert Murdoch and his minions are fit to hold broadcast licences because they hacked into a dead girl's voicemail and gave some false hope to her parents and violated the privacy of numerous (rich and powerful, I might add) public figures, then they certainly can be raised about whether an institution which aided and abetted a serial paedophile (many if not most of whose victims were decidedly not rich and powerful...) is fit to hold broadcast licences (and further force people who don't necessarily want to pay them to pay them). Unless you're either prepared to argue: * phone hacking is worse than raping kids. Fair enough, but I'd question the moral/ethical compass you're steering by. * the quality of BBC4 or Radio 3 or 6music or Top Gear or whatever BBC output you like outweighs kids being raped. See previous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 If questions can be raised about whether Rupert Murdoch and his minions are fit to hold broadcast licences because they hacked into a dead girl's voicemail and gave some false hope to her parents and violated the privacy of numerous (rich and powerful, I might add) public figures, then they certainly can be raised about whether an institution which aided and abetted a serial paedophile (many if not most of whose victims were decidedly not rich and powerful...) is fit to hold broadcast licences (and further force people who don't necessarily want to pay them to pay them). Unless you're either prepared to argue: * phone hacking is worse than raping kids. Fair enough, but I'd question the moral/ethical compass you're steering by. * the quality of BBC4 or Radio 3 or 6music or Top Gear or whatever BBC output you like outweighs kids being raped. See previous.Baby/bathwater. You find the person(s) responsible and you sack and/or prosecute them. When Lieutenant Calley and his company slaughtered the inhabitants of My Lai, nobody suggested disbanding (or privatising) the U.S. Army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 If it had been found that it was orchestrated at such a high level of the institution, then the US Army should have been disbanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 If it had been found that it was orchestrated at such a high level of the institution, then the US Army should have been disbanded.While I'm on a roll with Latin tags, reductio ad absurdam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Well, salagadoola mechicka boola bibbidi-bobbidi-boo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts