Sir James.

  Phil Ocifer 09:01 01 Oct 2012

I see Sir James Savile OBE is getting a posthumous revival.

Will these allegations get anywhere, or will they just become a platform for people to air their gravest suspicions?

Why did nobody come forward whilst he was alive?

  Forum Editor 09:11 01 Oct 2012

Why did nobody come forward whilst he was alive?

Surely it takes about a second to work that out?

The people who are now making the allegations would have run the risk of either being ignored because Jimmy Saville was a national institution, or exposing themselves to the risk of a libel action, had he chosen to take them on.

The fact that there are several people, and that their stories are much the same, adds weight to the idea that there may be something to them. It's possible, indeed likely, that others will come forward, now that the matter is in the public domain.

That remains to be seen. In the meantime, journalists will make the most of what they can discover, secure in the knowledge that you cannot libel a dead person.

  rickf 09:41 01 Oct 2012

Well said, FE.

  carver 09:47 01 Oct 2012

F.E, " In the meantime, journalists will make the most of what they can discover, secure in the knowledge that you cannot libel a dead person."

Surely you meant to say "journalists will make the most of what they can fabricate,secure in the knowledge that you cannot libel a dead person." It's marvellous that these people come forward "after" his death when there is no chance of the man defending himself.

If there had been any evidence of the allegations then these woman could have given dates and times to prove their story, I don't suppose they have any inclination to sell their story to the highest bidder.

Come to think of it I met the bloke when I was about 10 and I'm certain he shook my hand in a funny way.

  Forum Editor 10:56 01 Oct 2012


"It's marvellous that these people come forward "after" his death when there is no chance of the man defending himself."

I've already explained why they might do that. These woman cannot relish the prospect of revisiting the traumatic events of their youth, they are now middle aged, and have probably spent the better part of their lives trying to deal with the appalling memories they would have. I can't imagine why a series of different women would want to fabricate very similar accusations concerning the same individual. One accusation was made (before Jimmy Saville's death) in 2007, but Police took no action at the time.

One woman has explained why shen didn't come forward before: "I think when he was alive I would have been too frightened to have spoken out... there was always that air that he had power and that he had contacts and you wouldn't want to mess with him. So I would never have come out openly about it before."

Esther Rantzen worked with Saville in the 1970's and she has said there were rumours about him then. She says that having watched the interviews with his accusers she believes them, although at the time "We all blocked our ears to the gossip. We made him into the Jimmy Savile who was untouchable, who nobody could criticise."

Trivialising the alleged serious crimes by cynically referring to a bloke who "shook my hand in a funny way." isn't a very mature response, to be frank.

Perhaps we should all watch the ITV documentary on Wednesday and comment in the light of the evidence that will be presented then. ITV is aware of the need to be careful. A spokesperson has said: "Because of the very serious nature of the claims made by several interviewees in relation to this, particular care and consideration was of course given to the decision to produce and broadcast this programme."

  SimpleSimon1 12:17 01 Oct 2012

Not just Esther Rantzen, now! Paul Gambaccini has just made some very interesting comments which would seem pertinent as to why the newspapers might have stayed away from this subject whilst JS was alive. Click here

  morddwyd 13:01 01 Oct 2012

Whether the allegations be true or not, let's have a bit of realism here.

Having sex with a sexually mature, sexually aware and sexually active fifteen, or even fourteen, year old might make you a criminal, and might get you on the sex offenders' register, but it does not make you a pervert or a paedophile.

I, for one, can say "There but for the grace of God (or at least some timely information from a friend) go I" (though not for about 60 years I hasten to add!)!

  Al94 13:17 01 Oct 2012

but it does not make you a pervert or a paedophile.*strong text*

Oh really?

  Forum Editor 13:23 01 Oct 2012


A criminal is just that, someone who has committed a crime. That's realism.

Jimmyn Saville is alleged to have repeatedly raped an under-age girl, and committed illegal sex acts on dozens of occasions with several others.How much realism do you want? The fact that - by your own admission - you almost broke the under-age sex law yourself in the past has nothing whatever to do with it.

These allegations are very serious and although they are - and will remain - just allegations it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that at least some of them are true. An ex BBC news researcher has stated that she saw Saville with his hand up the skirt of 'a young girl' in his BBC dressing room.

Paul Gambaccini has stated that he knows of an occasion when a newspaper was going to expose Saville's crimes, and Jimmy blackmailed the paper by saying 'well you could run that story, but if you do there goes the funds that come in to Stoke Mandeville - do you want to be responsible for the drying up of the charity donations'.

It's all building into a most unsavoury picture, but of course it's all allegation - the words of several women, and some other people who knew things but said nothing.

  Phil Ocifer 14:11 01 Oct 2012

Slightly off topic, but I wondered if the girls on TV programmes like "Underage and Pregnant" (whatever it's called) and their underage boyfriends ever get prosecuted for under age sex? Surely one or the other (if not both) must be guilty of a crime?

The Stoke Mandeville story sounds plausible btw.

  Forum Editor 14:23 01 Oct 2012

Phil Ocifer

You raise an interesting point.

The law presumes that when a girl is under 13 she is not mature enough to consent to sex. So even if a 12-year-old girl willingly has intercourse, as far as the law is concerned, she has not "consented" to it because legally she is not able to. That means that if a man has sex with a 12 year old girl he is guilty of statutory rape, even if she was willing.

What happens when the male involved is also very young is tricky - the administration of the law enters a grey area. In the main, the attitude of the Crown Prosecution Service seems to be to look at each case individually, and generally decide that it is not in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. There are exceptions to that general rule however, and some young boys have been placed on the sex offenders register in these circumstances.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

HTC U12 Plus review: Hands-on

There's a new Gradient tool coming to Adobe Illustrator

Best Android emulators for Mac

Les drôles de questions à poser à votre assistant Google Home