John Worne
:Why Soft Power Is Hard for Governments
Matthew Reed
:The New Anti-Social Behaviour Bill Risks Criminalising Children for Being Children
Dalibor Rohac
:To Grow the Welfare State, Keep It Small
Jemimah Steinfeld
:In UK, Chinese Whispers Need to Become Shouts
Naomi Westland
:Why Spain Must Investigate Franco-Era Crimes
In the year 897, in one of the maddest moments of the medieval period, the Catholic Church dug up the dead body of Pope Formosus and put it on trial for perjury. It was known as the Cadaver Trial. Now, more than a millennium later, we have another Cadaver Trial, though metaphorical rather than literal, in the shape of the posthumous pummelling of Jimmy Savile.
The weird, yodelling, late light entertainer is likewise being subjected to a post-mortem trial. He's accused of sexually assaulting girls, with everyone from ITV to the scandal-thirsty Twitterati pointing a massive collective finger at this man who cannot defend himself while yelling: "PAEDOPHILE."
The plaque on Savile's former Scarborough home was defaced with the words "paedophile" and "rapist", and security was stepped up at his grave lest any vandals were considering graffiting his gravestone. What madness is this?
The savaging of Savile is spinning out of control. It is starting to smell like some of the crazed witch-hunts of old, from the Salem trials of the 1690s to the more recent hounding of families suspected of being engaged in Satanic ritual abuse. In all those cases, the thrill and kick that came from collectively denouncing the "evil" in our midst overrode any normal need to provide hard evidence and prove a case against said evil people. So it has been with Savile.
In all the metres of commentary that was devoted to branding him a pervert and a sicko in the run-up to this week's ITV documentary Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile, no one stopped to say: "Hold on. It has not been proven in a court of law that Savile sexually assaulted or raped girls." And no one has pointed out that it never will be, on account of the fact that Savile is dead, and dead people can't physically be put on trial like they were in 897. So we are dealing in allegations, claims, rumours. In a civilised society, that should never be enough to find someone guilty and have him forever branded a pervert.
The anti-Savile campaign, which has been championed vociferously by commentators on the liberal broadsheets, is really just a more upmarket version of the sort of paedophile-hunting the late News of the World used to go in for. When that paper tried to stir up panic about paedos, giving rise to protests outside suspected child abusers' homes and, notoriously, to the daubing of the word "Paedo" on a paediatrician's front door, the chattering classes went mad. How vulgar of this tabloid to unleash a mob mentality against people who, in some cases, hadn't even been found guilty of committing sex crimes, they said.
Yet now, those chattering classes are doing the same thing with Jimmy Savile, insisting without the benefit of a court case that he's guilty and whipping up such a climate of Savile-hating hysteria that his old home has been daubed with the word "paedophile". Where the News of the World sought to depict certain council estates and poor parts of Britain as being stalked by paedos, the right-on Savile-bashers claim the music and light-entertainment worlds are packed with sexual predators. In both cases, fearmongering elbows aside rational analysis.
If anything, the current Savile row is worse than what the News of the World did - for the simple reason that Savile is dead and therefore cannot defend himself against his accusers. What sort of media and society gets off on seeing a dead man, a voiceless, non-existent, long-buried bloke, having his name dragged through the mud?
Some people have said it is brave of the women who claim to have been assaulted by Savile to come forward and tell their stories. I'm sorry, but it isn't. Making serious accusations against a dead person who is in no position to fight back or plead or prove his innocence, 30 or 40 years after the alleged incidents occurred, is the very opposite of brave - it's cowardly.
Neil Wallis: Jimmy Savile and Other Unpublished Scandals - Danger of Leveson Inquiry
I think it's unlikely, after reading much more of his blogging and opinion pieces than just the ones regarding Saville and sexual abuse I think he's cornered himself into believing he's right and everyone else is wrong. Move over David Icke, there's a new messiah on the block.
This Mr O'neill in this country is more than sufficient to have a man arrested, charged, brought to trial and convicted.
Men are having to prove their innocence against such unsubstantiated, uncorroborated allegations that are full of inconsistancies and discrepancies in courts across this land daily.
This and the previous administrations have succeeded in stripping an accused of his rights and protections in law as far as allegations of a sexual nature is concerned by moving the goal posts to fulfil their agenda of making it easier to convict an accused of this particular offence.
Prosecuting counsel in their opening speech claims it is for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt. This is a terminological inexactitude. For this offence and this offence only the burden of proof is for the defendant to discharge.
Thus on the simple word alone and in many cases in the face of exculpatory evidence proving the defendant's actual and factual innocence, which in too many cases is suppressed by the police and or the CPS an innocent victim falsely accused is wrongfully convicted of a crime he did not commit and in way to many cases of an offence that never occurred in fact or actuality.
The attitude that teenage girls are simply not to be believed if they accuse someone important is still around and was even stronger in the past. The way the Catholic church got away with covering up abuse for so long should teach us something.
Recently I read how when Catherine de Medici, aged 14 was married off to the King of France for political reasons by the Pope the prelate sat outside the bridal chamber all night until he was sure the marriage was consummated. Should we not therefore be addressing the current Pope in regard to the removal of that earlier Pope's emminence, not to mention the King of France.
Meanwhile in the modern world there are widely different opinions among nations as to what the age of consent should be, UK moralists don't necessarily occupy the global moral high ground.
At least try and be accurate.
Freddie Starr rejects this completely. He has even tried to get an injunction but this was turned down because it was not broadcast. Starr states he only ever met Jimmy Saville once, at a public event and that he never went to Saville's dressing room.
This testimony was used as a basis for the programme but it is clearly tosh.
Freddie's word against hers so HE must be telling the truth. What a great illustration of kneejerk bias.
Two days after your comment, of course, the Daily Mail reported that,
"Starr had strenuously denied ever meeting Karin Ward – who claims he tried to molest her in Sir Jimmy Savile’s BBC dressing room. The comic had also insisted he only met Savile twice in his life, and had never even been to the BBC. Freddie Starr was last night forced to admit being ‘mistaken’ after footage from 1974 showed him alongside the teenage girl who now claims he abused her."
Yes, this tells us nothing about whether he abused the girl or not. But is it enough to make you rethink your own kneejerk response of believing the accused rather than the accuser?
Historic crime is extremely hard to prove one way or the other, alleged witnesses or complainants may have had access to material they never had at the time alleged, memory is fickle. Allegations are easy to make, proving without hard evidence difficult.
B O'Neill is right to give an alternate position, one day it could be you who is subject to an allegation and you will be guilty without a trial.Think of the mis-carriages of justice we could have if we are tried everyone in the court of public opinion or by a TV documentary. We would save billions, no need for Police, courts or the justice system, just prisons. No forensic evidence, DNA, fingerprinting or witnesses. Just point a finger.
I always ask why those who said the knew did nothing, were they frightened or involved? Do those who shout the loudest do so to divert attention from their own good selves? I wonder...........
I find nothing insulting in the article, I DO find it insulting that you can make such allegations hiding behind an alias. and expect me to believe your allegation.
If these allegations are true they need public exposure by ALL concerned,
One DJ has allowed her name to be made public, and some woman likewise, but as I have said before, whilst N OT defending JS in any way, unless PROOF, verifiable evidence, can be brought forth, and considering that JS is no ,longer available to put up a defence, what is to be gained from all this except salacious interest by a gullible public with nothing to do but wallow in it?
I find it morally repugnant for the author to suggest that this is some sort of pogrom by attention seeking liars and scandal mongers in a witch-hunt, against some poor soul, unable to answer back. He has also failed to address why so many, including those who had known and worked with Savile would commit such monumental public perjury.
Rather than sit salivating as more details are uncovered, most of us are shocked and sickened that these revelations have taken so long to reach the public domain.
Moreover the author has failed to acknowldedge that the reluctance of the women to come forward until now, was likely for fear of being ridiculed and the very real threats of litigation. Indeed it seems that those children who did complain, were punished and treated with contempt by their carers.
I would like to believe that the author might like to counter this piece of drivel with an apology to the victims of the abhorrent and very real Boys' Network Culture of the day, rather than championing the cause of one it's perpetrators. I won't hold my breath.
Get real, the man is entitled to question anything he thinks stinks, as this does.
1. Did you run Saville's fan club?
2. Are you always so intolerant of other people's views?
They are rhetorical questions
I seek no answers
The piece makes no mention of the several occasions complaints to the police were made
The writer makes no mention of Savile's admitted predilction for "young" girls
His defence of Gary Glitter
His power base, his ego and his scathing disregard for laws regarding the age of consent
Savile isn't here to defend himself; that much is true
He WAS a philanthropist, a show business icon a tireless supporter of charities
But none of that, none of his good deeds OR his death
Should spare him from the truth
If we took that line, every pervert, multi murderer and despot in the world
Only had to hide the truth until death and their reputation would be safe
There are too many allegations and claims for this matter to be ignored
Too many disperate recollections of abuse with a common modus operandi
For them ALL to be vexatious
To brand those victims who have now come forward as cowardly
Is to display breathtaking ignorance and disregard of what abused kids go through
And panders to the very perversion we strive to protect our kids from
The truth should be sought
Calmly and without sensationalism
Factually and devoid of rumour or innuendo
But that truth should be made public
For all to see.
Have you proof he scathingly disregarded the law, in any aspect thereof?
'There are too many allegations......' So far there have been a minuscule number of allegations from a few women, and some rather pathetic innuendos that he had a 'reputation' Nothing substantial.
That there are differences and disparities between the accusers is to be expected, a conspiratorial co-ordinated series of statements would soon be discredited. and a bottom line of similar stories with a few details flagged up to bolster the whole would appear more credible.
You comment that the truth should be sought is commendable, but negated by what came before that comment. Which was little more than rabble rousing over emotional rhetoric.
I doubt even you would believe the Met would take the lead in a matter where " a miniscule number of allegations" were in place
Four seperate police forces now state complaints were made to them
THAT'S FOUR SEPARATE POLICE FORCES
I will not be an apologist for a man who very clearly abused young girls
A man who abused his position and was a supporter of Gary Glitter's activities
Allegations of rape and abuse are always "unproved" before the due judicial process has taken place
That does not mean the allegations are untrue
I am entirely unemotional about this matter, I can afford to be
Neither I or any member of my family were hurt by his activities
I am however passionately (note emotion) against child abuse
And those who, blinded by some sort of fan or hero worship, deny it happened
I have seen, read and heard enough to form the view
Saville has a lot to answer for
That is my opinion
As it is my opinion that child abusers,
As evidenced by recent paedophile gang convictions,
Flourish due to ignorance and people's breathtaking ability to be in denial about what was happening in front of them and afterwards
Thank you for your response but I wholeheartedly disagree with you
Rather than publishing tittle tattle from z list celebs like Liz Kershaw and Ester Rantzen, the press would be better focussed forensically examining the girls stories.
For example, in the BBC's Leeds studios who would notice Savile taking a girl from the audience to his dressing room. Was it normal practice to enter the star of the show's dressing room without knocking. Were the girls accompanied to the studios by guardians or were they allowed to go on their own, etc.
This is no witch hunt it's JUSTICE if rather late it's also about educating and making people realise that it is not acceptable. dead or alive.
Not all the girls were from a home, they were just another area to target by this Predator Abuser.
Given the length of time that has passed and Savile's inability to answer back, this programme had to do more and actually put some substance behind the allegations. I find it highly unlikely that a programme runner would have entered the stars dressing room without knocking. Ester Rantzen is quoted as knowing about the rumours at the time but didn't report them. Her excuse was that she couldn't think of an appropriate senior manager to approach yet at the time she was in a relationship and thereafter married to Desmond Wilcox, the BBC;s head of features.
I have always found Savile creepy, from his mother fixation and idolisation to his preference for lurex sportswear but a difficult nature and eccentricity is not proof. ITV did not do enough to prove the case as they did not provide corroboration of the statements other than the stories all sounded similar.
That, and the question marks on some of his accusers characters, whether accurate or not, required ITV to delve a bit deeper than the programme did.
Rumour, suspicion and accusation without appropriate corroboration is extremely bad journalism of the kind which Lord Leveson is currently examining.
As for the allegation JS 'groped' that DJ woman, I suggest there are a great number of such incidents,. Few hot blooded males could escape such an allegation. Few females would make much of it , but I also suggest that such serious allegations WOULD, without doubt even 30 years ago, have been properly investigated, as it was around that time that the Police were becoming very concerned about the matter of allegations of sexual assault, due to them being accused previously of not doing their duty in such circumstances.
Sorry to say it, but although JS may well have been a vile character, unless there is substantive evidence of the allegations and not just word of mouth accusations, there is nothing to back up these claims, no matter how many suddenly appear to make them.
However 'powerful' & influential he may have been in his prime, those days were past long before his death. "I wouldn't have been believed" "I would have lost my job" "I was told not to say anything" - I don't buy it. We live in a country where rule of law and the courts apply. Ask Paul Gadd. Let's leave excuses like that to Nazi apologists. I'm glad I'm not the only one to find this rabid witch-hunt pathetic.
Was Saville guilty of any crime? Maybe yes maybe no - the point is we don't know & the man isn't here to defend himself so we're unlikely to ever know. If people were that concerned they should have acted whilst he was still alive - I'd have liked nothing better than to have seen a guilty man or woman pay for their crimes. After conviction in a court of law - not via mob 'justice' Instead, no-one wins, everyone loses as we all have to witness a pathetic media witch-hunt against someone who can't defend themselves. It's sick.
Ironic isn't it.
Gadd aka Glitter is a convicted paedophile and I wouldn't bother asking him the time, let alone his opinion.
As for mob justice - no one can hurt Jimmy Savile now - but those who maintain they were affected and who today were offered an apology by George Entwistle are being steadfastly lambasted and labelled as cowardly or liars. It is little wonder there is much anger and a sense of injustice. :(
Perhaps you are blind to the terrible downside of this country's libel laws, whereby a wealthy and/or well-connected individual can silence his or her critics. It is only very recently that Parliament has begun to re-write certain portions of the law after the public outcry against a number of super-injunctions, but in this case, people with legal savvy waited until it was truly safe to speak out - i.e. you cannot defame the dead.
Some of the witnesses told others what they saw - and were told at the time in no uncertain terms that any further mention of it would cost them not just their jobs, but future employment in the television industry - the old "You won't work in this town again" meme. And although I feel little sympathy for Esther Rantzen - that champion of abused children - I can understand why she turned a blind eye to the rumours which were rampant within the BBC - because Savile was a very powerful man - untouchable.