Jimmy Savile

[unrepentant]

I'm quite surprised that nothing was ever hinted at in Private Eye. If so many people knew then you would think that someone would have tipped off the Eye. They ran plenty of stories on Captain Bob when no other media outlet would touch them for fear of being sued. They also broke the Cecil Parkinson story and many others and are usually pretty fearless about exposing hypocricy and wrong doings amongst celebrities and the establishment.

[Eric Mc]

Maybe he was just to well connected.

[JuniorD]

coyft said:

Let's not forget that the only reason it's coming out now is because newspapers, journalists and other media outlets now see this as an opportunity to increase circulation, readership & viewing figures without risk, Where as before they deemed it was not in their interest whilst he was still alive.

The man is dead and can not defend himself. I have no problem with a police investigation or any independent inquiry, rather than the media sensationalising it for their OWN benefit, not the alleged victims.

Agreed ^

[Fantic SuperT]

Eric Mc said:

Fantic SuperT said:

Now I'm wondering who else is 'untouchable' in 2012. Nelson Mandela of course. The Queen and our Para/Olympic medalists perhaps. Any others?

Sorry - you can't go down this route on a thread like this.

Stick to the case and to names already revealed in the media.

Otherwise this (quite interesting) thread will end up being closed down.

Of course. Untouchability is an untouchable subject.
I guess an OCD for posting puts you in charge.

[drivin_me_nuts]

coyft said:

Let's not forget that the only reason it's coming out now is because newspapers, journalists and other media outlets now see this as an opportunity to increase circulation, readership & viewing figures without risk, Where as before they deemed it was not in their interest whilst he was still alive.

The man is dead and can not defend himself. I have no problem with a police investigation or any independent inquiry, rather than the media sensationalising it for their OWN benefit, not the alleged victims.

And therein lies the sense of distaste. It's an interesting story that ticks all the boxes wrt media interest. It is in many respects the ultimate feeding frenzy and what with the Xmas season so nearly upon us, the perfect panto villain. He is the Child Catcher made real.

[Serendipity72]

unrepentant said:

I'm quite surprised that nothing was ever hinted at in Private Eye. If so many people knew then you would think that someone would have tipped off the Eye. They ran plenty of stories on Captain Bob when no other media outlet would touch them for fear of being sued. They also broke the Cecil Parkinson story and many others and are usually pretty fearless about exposing hypocricy and wrong doings amongst celebrities and the establishment.

There is lots that is rotten in this country that the Eye are well aware of and yet fail to report.

[youngsyr]

unrepentant said:

I'm quite surprised that nothing was ever hinted at in Private Eye. If so many people knew then you would think that someone would have tipped off the Eye. They ran plenty of stories on Captain Bob when no other media outlet would touch them for fear of being sued. They also broke the Cecil Parkinson story and many others and are usually pretty fearless about exposing hypocricy and wrong doings amongst celebrities and the establishment.

I haven't really been keeping up with the media fest, but isn't it the case that some of the famous names now coming out "suspected", but didn't know?

How could they have known for sure without being present when it actually happened? You'd have to be pretty certain of your facts before reporting anyone, let alone a very high profile celebrity, to the police for molesting children. The BBC/Celeb rumour mill wouldn't meet the standard for any sensible person.

It seems the non-famous producers/staff etc may have had a stronger suspicion and it's these that should be focussed on. However, it was a very different time back then, I'm sure famous men being involved (for want of a better word) with 14 and 15 year olds happened a hell of a lot more then than it does now.

[Eric Mc]

drivin_me_nuts said:

coyft said:

Let's not forget that the only reason it's coming out now is because newspapers, journalists and other media outlets now see this as an opportunity to increase circulation, readership & viewing figures without risk, Where as before they deemed it was not in their interest whilst he was still alive.

The man is dead and can not defend himself. I have no problem with a police investigation or any independent inquiry, rather than the media sensationalising it for their OWN benefit, not the alleged victims.

And therein lies the sense of distaste. It's an interesting story that ticks all the boxes wrt media interest. It is in many respects the ultimate feeding frenzy and what with the Xmas season so nearly upon us, the perfect panto villain. He is the Child Catcher made real.

We live in a media dominated world. Even PH has its own (very minor) part to play in it.

However, I would not let distaste for some aspects of the behaviour of the media from preventing those who were abused from feeling free to tell what happened to them.

[Eric Mc]

Fantic SuperT said:

Eric Mc said:

Fantic SuperT said:

Now I'm wondering who else is 'untouchable' in 2012. Nelson Mandela of course. The Queen and our Para/Olympic medalists perhaps. Any others?

Sorry - you can't go down this route on a thread like this.

Stick to the case and to names already revealed in the media.

Otherwise this (quite interesting) thread will end up being closed down.

Of course. Untouchability is an untouchable subject.
I guess an OCD for posting puts you in charge.

I wouldn't like to see PH in court - would you?

[Eric Mc]

What, all of them?

[Pommygranite]

Eric Mc said:

What, all of them?

In the history of the internet has a forum or website been taken to court libel? Genuine question.

[Eric Mc]

Don't know.

I wouldn't want PH to be the first.

[bitchstewie]

Pommygranite said:

In the history of the internet has a forum or website been taken to court libel? Genuine question.

Lawrence Godfrey is the closest I can think of.

[Serendipity72]

Pommygranite said:

In the history of the internet has a forum or website been taken to court libel? Genuine question.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/39173

and

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/03/30/forums-l...

Amazing thing, Google.

[Rude-boy]

My 5p

'Untouchability' is a topic that can be discussed, if very carefully, but not on this thread.

[Twincam16]

Pommygranite said:

In the history of the internet has a forum or website been taken to court libel? Genuine question.

Legally I'm not sure it can, largely because it represents opinion rather than published fact, and any Contempt of Court proceedings could easily employ the Free Speech defence.

IIRC, Slander and Libel doesn't apply to people who have died, so I'm not sure whether calling Savile a fiddler constitutes, but if people were bringing other people and organisations into question, that could be another matter.

However, in order to do so, PH would have to be identified as a publisher, rather than merely a host. Otherwise it'd be like deciding to sue a football ground because a fan said something offensive during a match.

[tinman0]

coyft said:

The man is dead and can not defend himself. I have no problem with a police investigation or any independent inquiry, rather than the media sensationalising it for their OWN benefit, not the alleged victims.

Considering that the Police have been aware of Saville on several occasions, I think the last group we need to be pushing for any investigation is the Police. This is where a free press comes into it's own.

[gtdc]

unrepentant said:

I'm quite surprised that nothing was ever hinted at in Private Eye. If so many people knew then you would think that someone would have tipped off the Eye. They ran plenty of stories on Captain Bob when no other media outlet would touch them for fear of being sued. They also broke the Cecil Parkinson story and many others and are usually pretty fearless about exposing hypocricy and wrong doings amongst celebrities and the establishment.

Would it have been considered quite so shocking then though? Thinking back to schooldays in the 70s it always seemed perfectly normal to have at least one teacher that was a complete wrong 'un.

I'm not talking about going after prepubescent children but behaving in what is now considered an inappropriate way with older girls. Under the official age of consent but how did the saying go? Grass on the pitch? I remember when Bill Wyman was "dating" Mandy Smith when she was what? 14 or 15 istr. It was a bit of a tabloid scandal but because of the age difference rather than the fact she was under age.

[Oakey]

gtdc said:

Would it have been considered quite so shocking then though? Thinking back to schooldays in the 70s it always seemed perfectly normal to have at least one teacher that was a complete wrong 'un.

I'm not talking about going after prepubescent children but behaving in what is now considered an inappropriate way with older girls. Under the official age of consent but how did the saying go? Grass on the pitch? I remember when Bill Wyman was "dating" Mandy Smith when she was what? 14 or 15 istr. It was a bit of a tabloid scandal but because of the age difference rather than the fact she was under age.

How'd that work out for Jerry Lee Lewis?

[Cheib]

Eric Mc said:

Fantic SuperT said:

Now I'm wondering who else is 'untouchable' in 2012. Nelson Mandela of course. The Queen and our Para/Olympic medalists perhaps. Any others?

Sorry - you can't go down this route on a thread like this.

Stick to the case and to names already revealed in the media.

Otherwise this (quite interesting) thread will end up being closed down.

Here's one. Abramovich.

Girl I went to school with is a regional television/radio presenter. As soon as he bought Chelsea and thus became a name the media were interested in she received a memo written to all presenters saying that on no account was anyone to speculate where his wealth may have come from/make jokes about gangsters etc etc.

Obviously nothing to do with the subject of this thread but just stop and think about how many articles you've read over the years about the rage to riches story of Roman Abramovich. Be a great human interest story but there's very,very little written about one of the world's richest men or indeed many other "properly" wealthy people. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Abramovich but there is quite simply a "do not trespass" sign for journalists.

Ergo. A very large broadcasting organisation can't afford to be sued by someone that rich.