Thread: Jimmy Savile Paedophile accusations

^
decent telegraph analysis from a little while back
Treating every allegation against Jimmy Savile as a 'fact’ undermines justice

The self-righteous Operation Yewtree report does not get us much nearer the truth

Treating every allegation against Jimmy Savile as a 'fact’ undermines justice - Telegraph

The lead headline on the BBC website yesterday said: “Jimmy Savile scandal: Report reveals extent of abuse”. Well, I have read the whole of the report, and I can assure you that it does not.

Like most people, I believe the gist of the report – in the loose sense that I believe that Jimmy Savile did horrible, criminal things to young people, mainly to girls. But this is not exact knowledge: it is based on the stories which keep being repeated in the media and on the feeling, which one got from anecdotes, interviews and documentaries about Savile when he was alive, that he was sexually sinister. What would be valuable from an official report, surely, would be actual evidence. This report contains none, in a sense which a court would recognise.

The central problem crops up as early as the fourth paragraph. This states that the investigation – Operation Yewtree – has “collated all the allegations against Savile, irrespective of where the offences took place”. It jumps straight from “allegations” to “offences”. It assumes that because allegations were made, the offences were committed. It declares that 214 incidents have now been “formally recorded” as crimes. It treats allegations as facts. By doing so, it undermines justice.

Aware of a bit of a difficulty here, the report admits that “the information has not been corroborated”. Corroboration would be “considered disproportionate”, it goes on, given that criminal proceedings cannot now be brought because Savile is dead. So all we have are claims. The report seeks to justify itself by saying that “the patterns and similarities” of his “offences and behaviours” reported have “given police and NSPCC staff an informed view that most people have provided compelling accounts of what happened to them”. So, it suggests, the rest of us must believe them.

All we know that we did not know before is a series of statistics – the number of people who have come forward, the number and nature of offences alleged (126 indecent assaults, for example), their incidence over years, and their geographical spread. Where does this lead?



The report is called Giving Victims a Voice, and it says repeatedly how dreadful it was that Savile’s victims were not believed. But one of the odd things about it is that it does not give such a voice. No victim is identified (which, in itself, is understandable, but does undermine the report’s declared purpose) and hardly any are quoted. So what the report is really doing is saying, “We’ve talked to these people, and we believe them. We know what we’re doing, so you’d better believe us.” How can we test such assertions? The police have often been wrong in the past on these matters. The NSPCC, however expert, cannot know for certain. This is an exercise designed to show that those conducting the report have talked to a lot of people and take the subject very seriously.
But if they take it seriously, they should interest themselves seriously in establishing truth. The report is correct when it says that there used to be an attitude of mind which dismissed accusations of sexual abuse far too easily. But it cannot be right to go so far the other way that every accusation must be considered true. Yet this is effectively what the report does. It insists that everyone referred to in the statistics be described as a “victim” rather than a “complainant”, yet it cannot know whether this is an accurate description. It never expresses the slightest doubt about any accusation which it has recorded.
I wonder how the inquiry would have treated a liar. I have never been abused by Jimmy Savile (though I did meet him once, in the BBC). Suppose I had pretended that I had been his victim when I was a teenager in the early Seventies, surrounding my lie with accurate, checkable facts about when Savile was where. Would I have been believed? If so, would that have classified me as yet another victim to be “given a voice” by the inquiry?
Of course, it is highly unlikely that most, or even many, people who came forward were making everything up, and it would be very distressing for real victims to be accused of this. But it is certainly not at all unknown for some people to say things which are not true, especially where celebrity and the prospect of money come into play. If the police and the NSPCC absolutely deny this possibility, then they really are unfit to investigate iniquity of any kind.
But because this report subjects these stories against Savile to no tests, it puts potentially unfair moral pressure on the other, related investigations now taking place. Suppose that the forthcoming BBC or NHS investigations come across a claim which they conscientiously believe to be false. Suppose – even more likely – that they encounter a claim which they simply feel they cannot judge accurately. What will happen? If they refuse to find against Savile, and therefore refuse to reprimand staff for errors or omissions, will they then be excoriated? Will they be accused of ignoring victims because they insist on sticking to facts? And will all the people who say Savile abused them, because the report calls them victims, be able to sue, regardless of proof?
Only 15 months ago, Jimmy Savile died. Then, he was “a proper British eccentric” (Ricky Gervais), “a real character” (John Prescott). “We have lost a ray of sunshine”, said Carol Vorderman. He was “working miracles for more than 1,500 children”, reported the Daily Mail. Jeremy Hunt, then the minister for culture, media and sport, paid tribute to Sir Jimmy’s “sense of fun” and said he would leave “a lasting legacy”.
It is now generally accepted that all this praise was wrong. Today, the same Jeremy Hunt, now Health Secretary, is dealing with the Savile legacy that really has lasted. He is responsible for the resulting inquiry in the NHS. Savile, once feted, is now a pariah. Yet in a strange way it feels as if we are making the same mistake the other way round. People are as keen to distance themselves from Savile as once they were to associate themselves with him, and so they are showing the same disregard for truth. The tragic fact about child sexual abuse is that the truth is not easy to establish – if it were, it would be much less of a problem. Operation Yewtree’s report is not a contribution to the truth, but to the official obsession with being seen to be on the good side.
You can observe this, too, in the way that it has been covered and commented on. Yesterday on television and radio, I did not hear a single person raise any of these points. No one dared to question the report’s methods or conclusions. No one pointed out that the problem of unfairness to victims is not solved by unfairness to those accused. No one asked how, if every accusation is believed, any sane person will ever again want to be a teacher, nurse, doctor, priest, child-care assistant, charity worker, scoutmaster or children’s television presenter.
Part of the great wickedness of people such as Jimmy Savile is that they know how to plant doubt. At the end of the extraordinary programme called When Louis Met Jimmy, made in 2000, the presenter Louis Theroux raised with him the claim that he was a paedophile. Savile denied it, but added, “How does anyone know whether I am or not?” This uninformative and self-righteous report is not making it easier to answer this question, when – as they certainly will – future Saviles arise.

Very worrying reading really , but cheers CMN .

i think it provides a semblance of balance and it's well reasoned

something the witch hunting tabloids rarely attempt to achieve

No point Bill suing those five girls, they will have stuff all anyway, but they seriously need to do some jail time. Or at least pay all associated court costs.

I have said all along how do you prove these sort of allegations after all those years.

It just boils down to a he said, she said argument.

Originally Posted by Lantern

No point Bill suing those five girls, they will have stuff all anyway, but they seriously need to do some jail time. Or at least pay all associated court costs.

I have said all along how do you prove these sort of allegations after all those years.

It just boils down to a he said, she said argument.

It's not really 'he said, she said'.

It's 'he said, five people said'.

And thats the case. That whilst there is no physical proof, there are a number of people - who don't know each other (and that bit is important) - who are making identical accusations.

In Bill 'Cock' Roache's case, there were enough inconsistencies in their stories - hardly surprising after 50 years - to constitute reasonable doubt.

In terms of his accusers doing jail time for their slanderous accusation or perjury - I can't see that happening - as it disincentivises women to report rape. I can't see him suing the Crown either.

However, as I say, the CPS is going to feel less inclined to prosecute this type of case, and the moral panic over celebrity sex maniacs may now start to subside.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

may now start to subside.

not convinced

here is a survey from today's independent that shows the british public is totally wrong about nearly everything

British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows - Home News - UK - The Independent

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

may now start to subside.

not convinced

here is a survey from today's independent that shows the british public is totally wrong about nearly everything

British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows - Home News - UK - The Independent

let's just hope Texpat doesn't hear about this

Dave Lee Travis trial: DJ cleared of indecent assault




Dave Lee Travis said he wanted to try to regain his reputation

Related Stories

• Profile: Dave Lee Travis
• DLT: 'Year and a half of hell' Watch
• Ignore Roache case, Travis jury told

Former BBC DJ Dave Lee Travis said he had been through "a year and a half of hell", after he was cleared of 12 counts of indecent assault.

The jury at Southwark Crown Court failed to reach a decision on a further indecent assault count and one of sexual assault.

Mr Travis, 68, of Mentmore, Buckinghamshire, denied all charges against him during the four-week trial.

The alleged incidents dated from 1976 to 2008 and involved 11 women.

Speaking outside court after the not guilty verdicts were read out, Mr Travis said: "I am not over the moon about any of this today. I do not feel like there is a victory in any way, shape or form.

"On the contrary, I think you already know that I have been through a year and a half of hell on this."

Appearing emotional, he said he had not only endured a crown court trial but also a trial by media - and had had to sell his home to pay legal fees.

"I did lose my reputation as well, which I may try to get back later," said Mr Travis, adding that all he wanted to do was go home to be with his wife Marianne, who stood by his side on the court steps.

Mr Travis was released on bail until a further hearing, to be held at the crown court on 24 February, to decide if there should be a retrial on the two outstanding charges.

The counts the jury could not decide on were an alleged indecent assault on a woman working on a pantomime in the early 1990s and an alleged sexual assault on a journalist who interviewed Mr Travis at his home in 2008.


'Nonsensical'



DLT was tried at Southwark Crown Court under his real name, David Patrick Griffin

The jurors had deliberated for about 20 hours before delivering the verdicts, with Mr Travis staring straight ahead as they did so.

He had maintained his innocence during the trial, telling the eight women and four men on the jury that the claims against him were "nonsensical" and that he was "cuddly" rather than "predatory".

The former Top of the Pops presenter told the court: "I'm a normal, decent human being. I play jokes on people. I cuddle people. And if there have been some sexual interactions in the past, it has been consensual."

Prosecutors had alleged that Mr Travis was an "opportunist" who had assaulted young women over decades, including during his time working at the BBC and for commercial radio stations.



But the jury found Mr Travis not guilty of the following charges:

• Indecently assaulting a 17-year-old BBC worker in a Radio 1 studio in the 1970s
• Indecently assaulting a 15-year-old girl at a Showaddywaddy concert in 1978
• Indecently assaulting a 17-year-old audience member while he was filming Top of the Pops in 1978
• Indecently assaulting a Radio 4 announcer in the early 1980s
• Indecently assaulting a student in his camper van in 1983
• Indecently assaulting a hotel worker in Bude, Cornwall, in 1984
• Indecently assaulting a British Airways worker at two of the company's corporate event in the 1990s - two counts
• Indecently assaulting two colleagues he worked with at Classic Gold radio in the early 2000s - four counts in total.

Mr Travis was arrested under Operation Yetwtree, set up by Scotland Yard after abuse allegations were made against Jimmy Savile, and was tried under his real name, David Patrick Griffin.

Det Ch Supt Keith Niven of Scotland Yard said outside court that the force takes allegations of sexual abuse "very seriously".

He said: "We fully investigate every case and once sufficient evidence is obtained, investigators work with CPS lawyers and a decision on whether to charge is made.

"In the case of Mr Griffin, a prosecution was brought, he was tried and the jury have reached their decision


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26177136

I note that in today's press, Sir Jimmy Savile is still being labelled as a 'predatory paedophile' (the dead can't be libelled)

But the likes of DLT and Ken Barlow are being lauded as innocent men whose character has been stained by the evil Sir Jimmy.

Sir Jimmy would probably also have been acquitted in Court. He didn't get punished, but his character is in shreds.

So those who have been found not guilty might complain that their reputations remain blackened. But that's the price they have to pay.

They probably did commit all they were accused of - and more, but it just can't be proven. They're no Saints.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Sir Jimmy would probably also have been acquitted in Court. He didn't get punished, but his character is in shreds.

.

Savile really probably woulnt have been found not guilty in Court .
400 Children accused him of sexual abuse , including rape .
The evidence against him was overwhelming .

Originally Posted by Fluke

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

Sir Jimmy would probably also have been acquitted in Court. He didn't get punished, but his character is in shreds.

.

Savile really probably woulnt have been found not guilty in Court .
400 Children accused him of sexual abuse , including rape .
The evidence against him was overwhelming .

We will never know. But not even one brought a case, let alone 400, and the forensic evidence is very sparse. Of course 400 accusers in a witness box would be overwhelming.

In the absence of any conviction, I can't see why there should be any reparations given from his estate. I bought my trousers on the understanding that the money would go to charity, not to some Top of the Pops bird who he shagged on a promise he'd introduce her to Gary Glitter or Elvis, then didn't.

Incidentally, Gitter was acquitted in the early nineties when there was no real evidence to support claims made against him.

if an accused person is found not guilty by a jury, then surely that implies that his accusers were lying, and it follows they should be named, shamed and prosecuted.

Originally Posted by taxexile

if an accused person is found not guilty by a jury, then surely that implies that his accusers were lying, and it follows they should be named, shamed and prosecuted.

Just because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean they didn't do what they were accused of just that the jury decided that there wasn't enough evidence to convict them beyond reasonable doubt. And also all these 'celebs' have the best barristers money can buy and that alone increases your chances a million % of getting off, had the accused been your average Joe Blogs with a two bit lawyer defending then probably a guilty verdict.

A friend of mine is a barrister. I will ask him about the point Tax Exile raises and post his reply here.

i'm sure that in such a high profile case as this the crown will have secured the services of some high powered counsel as well.

it would appear that just like the last two cases, (kevin and barlow from coronation street) there was no real evidence backing up the claims of the accusers.

its a witch-hunt, nothing more, at least with those three.

[QUOTE="Mr Lick"]and had had to sell his home to pay legal fees.

but if he is found not guilty,,, does he still have to pay up.

someone told me that he doesn't and that it is the police who brought the charges that have to pay.

anybody know.

^ There remain two charges DLT has yet to be cleared of. The prosecution authorities are currently deliberating whether to request a retrial relating to these.

If not then I suspect DLT's counsel will be requesting costs from the crown who brought the case.




His £1m property in Buckinghamshire which was sold to pay legal costs.




His now modest bungalow in Buckinghamshire

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by taxexile

if an accused person is found not guilty by a jury, then surely that implies that his accusers were lying, and it follows they should be named, shamed and prosecuted.

No. It follows that there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no implication, at least not from the court, that the plaintiff lied - only that they failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That reasonable doubt is the essence and central point of English law and while there are many yobbish thugs who would like to replace it with vigilantism and trial by retard it remains, for now, one of the few remaining vestiges of civilisation in this benighted country.

Trial by retard !! good one .

And let's not forget, there were two charges to which the judge and jury failed to reach a decision in, the press title is thus false. He was and is not 'cleared' of [all] charges, just that the could not find him either guilty or not guilty.

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Indecently assaulting a 17-year-old BBC worker in a Radio 1 studio in the 1970s
Indecently assaulting a 17-year-old audience member while he was filming Top of the Pops in 1978

One of the funny things with these indecent assault charges that date back decades is that the accused are being judged by the social standards of 2014 for actions taken in the 1970s which was a culturally different planet.

The wording of the law may not have changed in that time but the interpretation between the lines may be different now to what it was then so I wonder if some of these fellas are going to come off worse than if they had been tried in the 1970s.

Dont forget, that the judge said he would except a majority decision from the jury in DLT`s trial...which suggests that some of the jury did`nt believe him.

Yahoo News UK & Ireland - Latest World News & UK News Headlines

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Indecently assaulting a 17-year-old BBC worker in a Radio 1 studio in the 1970s
Indecently assaulting a 17-year-old audience member while he was filming Top of the Pops in 1978

One of the funny things with these indecent assault charges that date back decades is that the accused are being judged by the social standards of 2014 for actions taken in the 1970s which was a culturally different planet.

The wording of the law may not have changed in that time but the interpretation between the lines may be different now to what it was then so I wonder if some of these fellas are going to come off worse than if they had been tried in the 1970s.

It certainly begs the question whether jury members are old enough to recall the 70's prior to the inception of PC and 'Respect in the Workplace' and what direction, if any, they may have received on these issues.

I believe that the law and sentencing which were in existence when the assaults were committed would need to be applied if the accused is found guilty and not that which exist currently.


A few years ago I attended a tribunal of a guy who was 'old school' and used to 'cuddle' the ladies at work (NHS hospital). A member of staff complained and he was suspended (6 months). His employers wanted to dismiss him for gross misconduct although their procedures in going about it were flawed, which was duly pointed out to them. He never returned to the workplace but was put on gardening leave until his natural retirement some 4 months later (full pay of course)

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

I believe that the law and sentencing which were in existence when the assaults were committed would need to be applied if the accused is found guilty and not that which exist currently.

Are you sure thats what you mean?

Or do you mean that the social mores of the time should be applied - (one in which no pair of boobies would appear on television without a 'titty' sound effect like a quacking duck plus a Sid James 'phwooaarrr' leer) And in which ladies were delivery systems for knockers ?

Because if you do mean that the law in existence should be applied, then indecent assault and a 16 year old age of consent were very much on the statute books then.

The law back then was there to protect kids,and I was a kid protected by the law.
Not that I knew that,the law was for lawyers and big people.
What protected Me was My own instinct.
A venomous look followed by "Don't touch Me"