Discussion
Ozzie Osmond said:
Errm, he's dead. What a waste of public time and money.
Compare: Tony Blair, illegal war, thousands dead, no trial.
Not to say I think js is innocent, guilty or anything, but without a fair and impartial review of the evidence we don't know. It seems likely, based othe numbers of stories and complainants that he was a predator of the highest order, but surely innocent until guilty applies in death too. But JS isn't the only party here - many are still living and If the alleged victims deserve justice and recognition, and they surely do if waht they say is true, it can only justly be done through proper recourse and not a media free for all. I suspect they would not see it as a waste of time or money. Those still living that were complicit might also see it differently. Compare: Tony Blair, illegal war, thousands dead, no trial.
skwdenyer said:
A few quick observations:
- I used to think highly of the police, but this case is trying my patience - it is not for the police to make statements as they have done, ever, IMHO;
- Esther Rantzen set up Childline, yet claims to have known about JS and his exploits for decades; did she really think before opening her mouth?
- after all of the other exposes and claims over the last decade, are we really to expect that not one person made a complaint and, if so, why not?
There is no doubt that there was a curious sexual culture in the 1970s in show business. Young girls made themselves available to be groped and some groped them. Some girls deliberately went out of their way to try to be groped. Many didn't, but were groped in any case, and viewed it as 'one of those things'. Many regretted their actions, on both sides, but should that really, really be translated via a 2012 lens into something that it wasn't?
In the 1970s, we did at least have some sort of doctrine of personal responsibility - if you did something reckless, or put yourself into a stupid situation, unfortunate things might happen. Nowadays we have rewritten the rules, even if we can't re-code human nature; however stupid, reckless or irresponsible one party is, it is OK: after all, the Law says that no harm must come.
It is not heretical IMHO to state that young girls often went out of their way to get themselves into sexual encounters with their heroes - DJs, pop stars, and the like - at a time when such behaviour was not punished with the modern "throw away the key" attitude. Many, more scurrilous than I, might suggest that some of the complainants now are in fact keen to recast their own histories in a new light, one more in keeping with modern day social mores, and perhaps one in which they may obtain attention and, perhaps, money from the media.
There again, undoubtedly many sexual crimes did happen; rape is rape, after all, and has been for a long time. We mustn't lose sight of that, either. In fact, we must be fair and even-handed, something which seems to be out to lunch this week.
This is why we have (or should have) an impartial police force and judiciary, not a court of public opinion. Right now, we seem to have a rollercoaster of condemnation, a queue of old luvvies anxious to have their say (even at the expense of appearing just woefully weak-willed and even complicit in what they allege), and a police force who have decided that credulity is the only recipe.
If the man was guilty of heinous crimes, let the evidence be tested and presented, if only to show fairness. If he is guilty only of things which - at the time - would have been dealt with merely by a 'quiet word' or a reprimand, let them lie. And if his accusers are merely demonstrating a variation of buyers' remorse, or worse, let them be exposed to the same harsh light of attention they seem so keen to shine in the direction of the late JS.
For the record, I was no great fan of JS; I didn't really 'get' the appeal, despite his obvious charisma. But I firmly believe that there should be a statute of limitations for most crimes, and an onus - in the interests of fairness - upon accusers to come forward in good time for allegations to be tested. I'd also be in favour of a libel law for the dead; why should they be entitled to any less dignity and even-handedness after they've gone?
I'd agree with a good amount of that, being of an age to remember it all.- I used to think highly of the police, but this case is trying my patience - it is not for the police to make statements as they have done, ever, IMHO;
- Esther Rantzen set up Childline, yet claims to have known about JS and his exploits for decades; did she really think before opening her mouth?
- after all of the other exposes and claims over the last decade, are we really to expect that not one person made a complaint and, if so, why not?
There is no doubt that there was a curious sexual culture in the 1970s in show business. Young girls made themselves available to be groped and some groped them. Some girls deliberately went out of their way to try to be groped. Many didn't, but were groped in any case, and viewed it as 'one of those things'. Many regretted their actions, on both sides, but should that really, really be translated via a 2012 lens into something that it wasn't?
In the 1970s, we did at least have some sort of doctrine of personal responsibility - if you did something reckless, or put yourself into a stupid situation, unfortunate things might happen. Nowadays we have rewritten the rules, even if we can't re-code human nature; however stupid, reckless or irresponsible one party is, it is OK: after all, the Law says that no harm must come.
It is not heretical IMHO to state that young girls often went out of their way to get themselves into sexual encounters with their heroes - DJs, pop stars, and the like - at a time when such behaviour was not punished with the modern "throw away the key" attitude. Many, more scurrilous than I, might suggest that some of the complainants now are in fact keen to recast their own histories in a new light, one more in keeping with modern day social mores, and perhaps one in which they may obtain attention and, perhaps, money from the media.
There again, undoubtedly many sexual crimes did happen; rape is rape, after all, and has been for a long time. We mustn't lose sight of that, either. In fact, we must be fair and even-handed, something which seems to be out to lunch this week.
This is why we have (or should have) an impartial police force and judiciary, not a court of public opinion. Right now, we seem to have a rollercoaster of condemnation, a queue of old luvvies anxious to have their say (even at the expense of appearing just woefully weak-willed and even complicit in what they allege), and a police force who have decided that credulity is the only recipe.
If the man was guilty of heinous crimes, let the evidence be tested and presented, if only to show fairness. If he is guilty only of things which - at the time - would have been dealt with merely by a 'quiet word' or a reprimand, let them lie. And if his accusers are merely demonstrating a variation of buyers' remorse, or worse, let them be exposed to the same harsh light of attention they seem so keen to shine in the direction of the late JS.
For the record, I was no great fan of JS; I didn't really 'get' the appeal, despite his obvious charisma. But I firmly believe that there should be a statute of limitations for most crimes, and an onus - in the interests of fairness - upon accusers to come forward in good time for allegations to be tested. I'd also be in favour of a libel law for the dead; why should they be entitled to any less dignity and even-handedness after they've gone?
Very odd, when one thinks of the human psyche - we are all very much different - yet not one single complainant of either side stood up while he was alive.
Perhaps he did command a power over, but until it's proven otherwise and not by Esther Rantzen and her ilk! I'll reserve my judgement.
Unlike the Gary Glitters of this world, JS did at least raise a hell of a lot of worthy cash.
Behind all of this he may have been a evil b****** but at the moment all I see is allegations, allegations.
What on earth must that youngish broadly smiling RAF lady, being held tightly by JS's arm, that SKY News constantly keeps running the same piece of film of them walking together, be thinking now?
Until there is concrete evidence, I'll remember his charity work and hope it's just that: allegations. If not, and he was the cunning and conniving man, then all those who kept mum need to ask themselves why?
Surely one of them would have put their head above the parapet?
Edited by dandarez on Wednesday 10th October 01:50
The Hypno-Toad said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19887653
For the old bill to come out with an interview as damning as that they must be pretty damn sure that if he was still alive, he'd be up to his neck in pooh...
Homo too eh? Surely just up to the balls?For the old bill to come out with an interview as damning as that they must be pretty damn sure that if he was still alive, he'd be up to his neck in pooh...
Seeing as nothing is sacred these days and all my childhood memories are being dismantled it makes you wonder about all those other DJ's who used to inhabit 70's / 80's TOTP - Blackburn, Stewpot, Fluff, Everitt, BB, Hairy Cornflake et al...Usually pictured with all those sycophantic adolescent girls / boys ! Hope I am wrong.
Bet the journos are out digging as we speak.
Bet the journos are out digging as we speak.
V8mate said:
On the Today Programme this morning: "Police believe Savile had as many as 30 victims".
Yeah right
Did the miss out the 'per year'?
Yeah right
Did the miss out the 'per year'?
It's unbelievable how this went on for so long.
Some old woman from Stoke Mandeville on R5 at the moment struggling with the morality of "but, he also did a lot of good; maybe that was an atonement".
V41LEY said:
Seeing as nothing is sacred these days and all my childhood memories are being dismantled it makes you wonder about all those other DJ's who used to inhabit 70's / 80's TOTP - Blackburn, Stewpot, Fluff, Everitt, BB, Hairy Cornflake et al...Usually pictured with all those sycophantic adolescent girls / boys ! Hope I am wrong.
Bet the journos are out digging as we speak.
I can sort of understand the "it was a different era in the 70's" argument. But the thing with Savile is that he carried on for 40 years. IMO that crosses the "different era" argument and becomes something much more sinister. Bet the journos are out digging as we speak.
skwdenyer said:
A few quick observations:
- I used to think highly of the police, but this case is trying my patience - it is not for the police to make statements as they have done, ever, IMHO;
- Esther Rantzen set up Childline, yet claims to have known about JS and his exploits for decades; did she really think before opening her mouth?
- after all of the other exposes and claims over the last decade, are we really to expect that not one person made a complaint and, if so, why not?
There is no doubt that there was a curious sexual culture in the 1970s in show business. Young girls made themselves available to be groped and some groped them. Some girls deliberately went out of their way to try to be groped. Many didn't, but were groped in any case, and viewed it as 'one of those things'. Many regretted their actions, on both sides, but should that really, really be translated via a 2012 lens into something that it wasn't?
In the 1970s, we did at least have some sort of doctrine of personal responsibility - if you did something reckless, or put yourself into a stupid situation, unfortunate things might happen. Nowadays we have rewritten the rules, even if we can't re-code human nature; however stupid, reckless or irresponsible one party is, it is OK: after all, the Law says that no harm must come.
It is not heretical IMHO to state that young girls often went out of their way to get themselves into sexual encounters with their heroes - DJs, pop stars, and the like - at a time when such behaviour was not punished with the modern "throw away the key" attitude. Many, more scurrilous than I, might suggest that some of the complainants now are in fact keen to recast their own histories in a new light, one more in keeping with modern day social mores, and perhaps one in which they may obtain attention and, perhaps, money from the media.
There again, undoubtedly many sexual crimes did happen; rape is rape, after all, and has been for a long time. We mustn't lose sight of that, either. In fact, we must be fair and even-handed, something which seems to be out to lunch this week.
This is why we have (or should have) an impartial police force and judiciary, not a court of public opinion. Right now, we seem to have a rollercoaster of condemnation, a queue of old luvvies anxious to have their say (even at the expense of appearing just woefully weak-willed and even complicit in what they allege), and a police force who have decided that credulity is the only recipe.
If the man was guilty of heinous crimes, let the evidence be tested and presented, if only to show fairness. If he is guilty only of things which - at the time - would have been dealt with merely by a 'quiet word' or a reprimand, let them lie. And if his accusers are merely demonstrating a variation of buyers' remorse, or worse, let them be exposed to the same harsh light of attention they seem so keen to shine in the direction of the late JS.
For the record, I was no great fan of JS; I didn't really 'get' the appeal, despite his obvious charisma. But I firmly believe that there should be a statute of limitations for most crimes, and an onus - in the interests of fairness - upon accusers to come forward in good time for allegations to be tested. I'd also be in favour of a libel law for the dead; why should they be entitled to any less dignity and even-handedness after they've gone?
The use of DNA has allowed rapists from many years ago to be prosecuted and convicted. What do you suggest for this statute of limitations? Would you be happy for priests who buggered little kids oh so many years ago and then had it covered up by the church to be allowed to demand that their victims keep quiet? And any statute of limitations will not be relevant because there can be no prosecution in this case. He has got away with whatever he did.- I used to think highly of the police, but this case is trying my patience - it is not for the police to make statements as they have done, ever, IMHO;
- Esther Rantzen set up Childline, yet claims to have known about JS and his exploits for decades; did she really think before opening her mouth?
- after all of the other exposes and claims over the last decade, are we really to expect that not one person made a complaint and, if so, why not?
There is no doubt that there was a curious sexual culture in the 1970s in show business. Young girls made themselves available to be groped and some groped them. Some girls deliberately went out of their way to try to be groped. Many didn't, but were groped in any case, and viewed it as 'one of those things'. Many regretted their actions, on both sides, but should that really, really be translated via a 2012 lens into something that it wasn't?
In the 1970s, we did at least have some sort of doctrine of personal responsibility - if you did something reckless, or put yourself into a stupid situation, unfortunate things might happen. Nowadays we have rewritten the rules, even if we can't re-code human nature; however stupid, reckless or irresponsible one party is, it is OK: after all, the Law says that no harm must come.
It is not heretical IMHO to state that young girls often went out of their way to get themselves into sexual encounters with their heroes - DJs, pop stars, and the like - at a time when such behaviour was not punished with the modern "throw away the key" attitude. Many, more scurrilous than I, might suggest that some of the complainants now are in fact keen to recast their own histories in a new light, one more in keeping with modern day social mores, and perhaps one in which they may obtain attention and, perhaps, money from the media.
There again, undoubtedly many sexual crimes did happen; rape is rape, after all, and has been for a long time. We mustn't lose sight of that, either. In fact, we must be fair and even-handed, something which seems to be out to lunch this week.
This is why we have (or should have) an impartial police force and judiciary, not a court of public opinion. Right now, we seem to have a rollercoaster of condemnation, a queue of old luvvies anxious to have their say (even at the expense of appearing just woefully weak-willed and even complicit in what they allege), and a police force who have decided that credulity is the only recipe.
If the man was guilty of heinous crimes, let the evidence be tested and presented, if only to show fairness. If he is guilty only of things which - at the time - would have been dealt with merely by a 'quiet word' or a reprimand, let them lie. And if his accusers are merely demonstrating a variation of buyers' remorse, or worse, let them be exposed to the same harsh light of attention they seem so keen to shine in the direction of the late JS.
For the record, I was no great fan of JS; I didn't really 'get' the appeal, despite his obvious charisma. But I firmly believe that there should be a statute of limitations for most crimes, and an onus - in the interests of fairness - upon accusers to come forward in good time for allegations to be tested. I'd also be in favour of a libel law for the dead; why should they be entitled to any less dignity and even-handedness after they've gone?
You mention libel laws for the dead after asking why no one complained at the time. Although, of course, it appears, or has now been revealed, that many people did complain, only for them to be doubted or ignored.
Savile cannot be hurt, he's dead. But you seem to be wanting to limit the chances of his victims to say their story.
Before asking why the victims didn't complain, ask yourself why there was no television programme on his predilections during his lifetime, or rather during the time when he could sue and threaten.
Different times indeed. The police in those days had the view, held by some nowadays it would appear, that child victims of predatory abusers only had themselves to blame. Some might feel that this is not on. The law should protect the vulnerable.
If the victim did not want to complain at the time then that is their prerogative. If they want to complain now, why should anyone stop them? Why should anyone be allowed to impose rules on victims?
Many people did thought. A great many people's stories were hushed up and buried for years.
JS cannot be held to account for his actions now, but the true scope of his actions needs to be noted and recorded. However, it still needs to be done with fairness, reason and open to the same kind of even handedness and critical judgement of the facts as if he was alive.
JS cannot be held to account for his actions now, but the true scope of his actions needs to be noted and recorded. However, it still needs to be done with fairness, reason and open to the same kind of even handedness and critical judgement of the facts as if he was alive.
V8mate said:
On the Today Programme this morning: "Police believe Savile had as many as 30 victims".
Yeah right
Did the miss out the 'per year'?
On 'Today' at eight o'clock the headlines read by Naughtie were: "The family of Jimmy Savile have removed the headache [from the grave of]..." Yeah right
Did the miss out the 'per year'?
Brilliant Freudian slip!
I can imagine the libel laws while he was alive would scare the hell out of a young complainant, just what would they do if their family received a 'cease and desist' type letter from an expensive lawyer? .
With an organisation such as Childline seemingly impotent, who was there to support these girls? Here we are with PHers trying to explain away the severity of the alleged offences, saying attitudes were different then. Did the law allow that kind of thing at that time? Do we administer justice according to attitudes or in accordance with the law?
With an organisation such as Childline seemingly impotent, who was there to support these girls? Here we are with PHers trying to explain away the severity of the alleged offences, saying attitudes were different then. Did the law allow that kind of thing at that time? Do we administer justice according to attitudes or in accordance with the law?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff