We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

And now it's time to SUE


carver

Likes # 0

Wondered how long before we had the "I want money" for my traumatic experience lot came on the scene enter link description here

I have posted this separately as I don't think it right to include it in any of the other postings about SJ

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

carver

"And I suppose I was being cynical when I thought that this person just wanted his money"

Maybe you were, maybe you weren't. I wouldn't know, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the allegations of abuse, and I'm not sure why you mention it.

Like this post
Aitchbee

Likes # 0

Seducer, sex machine, womaniser, charmer, bragger and a bit of a bastard. He was was a loose-limbed man with one hell of a sex drive. His love life reads like something from a daytime TV show. There are illegitimate children, outdoor sex romps, irregular marriages and the enraged elders/authorities wagging their fingers and crying ‘shame’.

I'm talking about Scotland’s national poet, Rabbie Burns... in case you were wondering!

He also 'got away with it' at the time ... but now his face is printed on Scottish Ten Pound bank notes ... [I spent 2 of 'em this afternoon.]

His poem 'a man's a man for aw' that' (and everything else he concocted) leaves a bitter taste in my mouth :0[

I could not resist the comparison with Savile ... also a PREDATOR.

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

Rabbie lived life to the full by the standards of his times.

No way did Savile do that and to compare the two is a travesty.

(and Burns is no hero to me, most of his stuff being incomprehensible!)

Like this post
wee eddie

Likes # 0

Now, there will be some difficult decisions to make, after such a long time and with the inability to question the Perpetrator, in some cases, it may be almost impossible to tell/prove one way or the other.

Many of you here seem to be unable to imagine how these things happen.

There will have been some girls who were in no way complicit in what happened to them or had it thrust upon them.

But in my experience, there will have been many that lied about their age and sought out his company.

Wherever JS went he was surrounded by teenagers/youngsters who were hanging on his every word.

Some will have been attempting to gain his personal attention and possibly more, even to the point of intimate personal contact. Many of them will have boasted about this to their Peer Group, afterwards.

Later in life, they may view this scenario in a different light to the one that they played out at the time.

There will be others, who JS forced himself upon, when they were an unwilling subject.

The Lawyers will have to ascertain who were in the First Category and who in the Second. Those in the Second Category should be offered all the support that is available, Mental, Physical and Financial.

It appears certain that he was a Pervert that preyed on young girls. He certainly should have known better.

Now, all that remains to be decided is how we treat those that Volunteered for his attention and those that had it forced upon them.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

"Now, all that remains to be decided is how we treat those that Volunteered for his attention and those that had it forced upon them."

That's an odd way of looking at it.

We don't have to decide anything. We certainly don't have to decide how we treat a middle aged woman who says she was sexually abused when she was an under-age girl. In almost all the cases it will be a question of one person's word - there's no second person alive to say anything.

What is now beyond any doubt is the fact that Savile was a paedophile and a serial abuser of young women. It's up to the Police to decide how they deal with the cases (and perhaps the other men) they're investigating. Jimmy Savile's reputation is in tatters, and rightly so.

Like this post
wee eddie

Likes # 0

To be honest, I am not remotely interested about Mr Savile, I've always considered him a smarmy piece of work. It appears that he was a paedophile and should have been stopped in his tracks, many years ago.

What worries me is the knock on effect of any ruling that a Judge might make in the heat of the Media Moment.

The Entertainment Industry has been struggling with this problem, admittedly not very hard, for generations. Yeah: it even happened in the 30's, to my certain knowledge.

If, in the heat of the moment, some Judge says that, almost without proof, anyone who jumped into an Entertainer's bed, regardless of what they said at the time, can sue them for shed-loads of cash.

Some fortunes are going to have to be spent on Lawyers Fees, contesting Cases bought by someone who said that they were groped by an Up & Coming Star at the back of The Hammersmith Odeon in November '73.

It will not be as easy as the Press are making it out to be and certainly may not produce the kind of result that they are leading the Public to expect

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

"If, in the heat of the moment, some Judge says that, almost without proof, anyone who jumped into an Entertainer's bed, regardless of what they said at the time, can sue them for shed-loads of cash."

Let's get real, shall we?

First of all, you don't need a judge to say anything before you can sue someone.

Secondly, in this case there's no offender to sue - he's dead. Most of his money went to charities, so there's no estate to sue. Any action for compensation would be taken against the BBC, and possibly against the NHS if it could be demonstrated that either or both those organisations knew of Savile's crimes, and took no action to stop him having access to young females.

Finally, can we stop talking as though there's any kind of mitigating circumstance in which a famous person could have sex with an under-age girl? Regardless of the circumstances, if a person has sex with someone younger than 16 an offence is committed. The fact that a 15 year old girl might have acquiesced is immaterial - the law says it's illegal, whether she consented or not.

Like this post
Joseph Kerr

Likes # 0

"What is now beyond any doubt is the fact that Savile was a paedophile and a serial abuser of young women."

Technically incorrect as far as I know. That word has a very specific definition.

I only mention it becasue I'm sick of hearing phrases like "convicted paedophile..." which, strictly speaking, do not mean what peole think they mean.

'Orrible little man all the same, as was apparent to anyone who saw that Louis Theroux programme a few years ago.

Like this post
Joseph Kerr

Likes # 0

So, that was then and this is now, morddwyd?

Like this post
Joseph Kerr

Likes # 0

Ah, I have just seen a recent story, so it probbaly is indeed fair to call him a paedophile. A hebephile too I'd say.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Samsung Galaxy Note 4 vs Samsung Galaxy S5 comparison review: Samsung's best ever smartphones...

IDG UK Sites

Nostalgia time: Top 10 best selling mobile phones in history

IDG UK Sites

How Ford designs next-generation cars at its Melbourne Design Centre

IDG UK Sites

Apple 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina review and the mystery of the processor benchmarks