 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 1104 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 58 Gender: Male |
 Posted: 08-10-2013 10:23 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| As I've mentioned before, rumours about Savile go back to the late 70's at least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Spookdaddy Cuckoo Joined: 24 May 2006 Total posts: 3924 Location: Midwich Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 08-10-2013 11:09 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Cochise wrote: | | As I've mentioned before, rumours about Savile go back to the late 70's at least. |
Yes. The point I was trying to make - albeit maybe rather obtusely - is that rumours and innuendo prior to 2012 do not equal actual knowledge, and I believe that, to a great extent, it's an overweighted reference to that accumulated reservoir of rumour and innuendo - as if it somehow indicates actual knowledge - that has convinced many people that there was some kind of cover up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 1104 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 58 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 09-10-2013 07:47 Post subject: |
|
|
|
All I'm convinced of is that there is a great deal of misdirection going on, though by whom and to what purpose I do not know.
I can understand it if the PTB's come out and say we don't judge people on the basis of rumor, but that is exactly what we are doing.. Precious little in the way of actual facts have been published, merely a slew of unsupported statements.
But if Savile is guilty as 'charged', then the people who, wittingly or otherwise, facilitated his access to his victims, need investigating and we need to know how he could get away with what he did - if he did it.
The way press releases from the investigation have been handled currently are resulting in another Hutton or whatever - no-one will believe at the end that the truth has been discovered, whatever 'side' they are on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Spookdaddy Cuckoo Joined: 24 May 2006 Total posts: 3924 Location: Midwich Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 09-10-2013 08:50 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Cochise wrote: | ...I can understand it if the PTB's come out and say we don't judge people on the basis of rumor, but that is exactly what we are doing.. Precious little in the way of actual facts have been published, merely a slew of unsupported statements.
But if Savile is guilty as 'charged', then the people who, wittingly or otherwise, facilitated his access to his victims, need investigating and we need to know how he could get away with what he did - if he did it... |
Exactly, as far as Savile goes, effectively little has changed; the rumours have increased and firmly entered the wider public consciousness, and there are many more actual formal accusations - but they can't be tested in a court of law, and he'll never, technically speaking, be guilty as charged.
Whatever an individual thinks about Savile and believes about the accusations against him, constant reference to the alleged crimes of an unprosecuted and unprosecutable individual when dealing with cases that are prosecutable, should be worrying to everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Kondoru Unfeathered Biped Joined: 05 Dec 2003 Total posts: 5788 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 09-10-2013 15:36 Post subject: |
|
|
|
<nods>
And at the end of the day, of course, its his charities that suffer... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| OneWingedBird Great Old One Joined: 19 Nov 2012 Total posts: 542 Location: Attice of blinkey lights Age: 44 Gender: Female |
| Posted: 09-10-2013 18:19 Post subject: |
|
|
|
If it makes you feel any better, the likely result there will be a change in the trend in giving rather than a change in the total amount given.
High profile appeals look nice when everyone's watching them on the telly but the net result is that most of the money 'raised' creates a shortfall for all other charities... it is mostly money that would have been given anyway just not necessarily to that appeal.
Probably a fair assumption it works the same in reverse, if Saville's charities get stiffed, somewhere else will benefit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 1104 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 58 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 11-10-2013 09:00 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Spookdaddy wrote: |
Whatever an individual thinks about Savile and believes about the accusations against him, constant reference to the alleged crimes of an unprosecuted and unprosecutable individual when dealing with cases that are prosecutable, should be worrying to everyone. |
Let me set out my concerns
a) as above - the Savile accusations have created a climate where you question if a fair trial is possible of a named individual who has been linked to the Savile allegations. The Michael Le Vell trial may go some way to resolving those fears?
b) Operation Yewtree, far from shedding light, seems to have taken allegation as fact and then diverted into finding other unrelated historical sexual misbehaviour, most of it mild by comparison with the Savile allegations, however shattering to the victims. Let us remind ourselves, Savile is accused of being, throughout his adult life, a systematic serial groom-er and rapist of very young and handicapped people, who espoused charities in order to line up victims. Note I said 'accused'. Not convicted.
c) There remains the odour of some kind of wide scandal involving child care homes right across the UK occurring with the connivance of senior establishment figures. Its dismissed as conspiracy theories, but yet there is suspicion enough for the Welsh Assembly at least to order yet another investigation into the areas they are responsible for - however all such enquires (as with Yewtree itself) seem to disappear into the long grass for years or even decades, just leaving suspicion and distrust to spread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 11-10-2013 09:35 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Spookdaddy wrote: | ...
Whatever an individual thinks about Savile and believes about the accusations against him, constant reference to the alleged crimes of an unprosecuted and unprosecutable individual when dealing with cases that are prosecutable, should be worrying to everyone. |
Sweeping powers, accusations and suspicions only, being required:
| Quote: | http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/new-home-office-rules-give-police-sweeping-powers-to-curb-sex-offenders-8869778.html?origin=internalSearch
New Home Office rules give police sweeping powers to curb sex offenders
The Independent. Oliver Wright. 09 October 2013
Police are to get the power to restrict the freedom of anyone they suspect of being a sex offender, even if the person has never been convicted of a crime.
Under new rules announced by the Home Office, police will be able to apply to the courts for a new order to restrict the activities of anyone they judge to be a risk but have not charged with an offence.
This can include limiting internet use, stopping the person from being alone with a child under 16 and preventing travel abroad. Anyone breaching the so-called Sexual Risk Order, which lasts for at least two years, could be jailed for up to five years.
The proposals, in the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, also include a new Sexual Harm Prevention Order that can be applied to anyone convicted or cautioned for a sexual or violent offence, including those committed overseas.
This lasts a minimum of five years and has no maximum duration. It also includes a requirement for the individual to place themselves on the sex offenders’ register. The two new orders will replace current powers that can be imposed on sex offenders who have been convicted, cautioned, warned or reprimanded for an offence.
Richard Atkinson of the Law Society said: “A great deal of stigma is attached to anyone who has such an order made and if the process of obtaining these is less than that needed for a conviction, that’s a very worrying departure from our normal standards.”
The Home Office claimed the changes would “enable greater flexibility” to allow the police and the National Crime Agency to “exercise their professional discretion to protect children and adults from sexual harm”.
Damian Green, the minister for policing and criminal justice, said the UK already had some of the toughest powers in the world to deal with sex offenders but needed to go further. “By giving police and National Crime Agency officers the power to place greater restrictions on any person they judge to be a risk we will tighten the law on sex offenders and make it easier for police to monitor them,” he said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Kondoru Unfeathered Biped Joined: 05 Dec 2003 Total posts: 5788 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 11-10-2013 09:50 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Very worrying.
But there are already people on the sexual offenders list who have been tried and cleared. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| OneWingedBird Great Old One Joined: 19 Nov 2012 Total posts: 542 Location: Attice of blinkey lights Age: 44 Gender: Female |
| Posted: 11-10-2013 18:05 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Perhaps they'll mix it up with the other bill and we'll all end up in the can for being caught alone in the house with esoteric content. 
Seriously though... wtf. Just wtf.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gncxx King-Size Canary
Great Old One Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Total posts: 13561 Location: Eh? Gender: Male |
| Posted: 11-10-2013 18:32 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Good luck getting rid of the stigma when someone decides to use this maliciously. The no smoke without fire theory goes nuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 1104 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 58 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 12-10-2013 10:13 Post subject: |
|
|
|
How does this possibly line up with any sort of human rights? 'Innocent until proven guilty'. We've already abandoned the right to silence and double jeopardy.
These were protections thrashed out over centuries to avoid misuse and victimisation by the executive (regardless of how the executive comes to be in power, be it hereditary or allegedly democratic)
No wonder they want to set aside the ECHR and control the papers. Totalitarian state here we come.
Meanwhile , the Savile allegations remain unproven. As presumably would any allegations leading to these orders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Kondoru Unfeathered Biped Joined: 05 Dec 2003 Total posts: 5788 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 12-10-2013 18:16 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Yes, that is what I was thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| cherrybomb Skating the thin crust
Great Old One Joined: 26 Aug 2009 Total posts: 1005 Location: Sitting on the roof at dusk Gender: Female |
| Posted: 14-10-2013 12:11 Post subject: |
|
|
|
NHS Savile abuse probe widened
The investigation into Jimmy Savile's alleged abuse of patients at NHS hospitals has been extended to other hospitals, the health secretary says.
The inquiry, currently focused on Broadmoor, Stoke Mandeville and Leeds General hospitals, as well as a further 10 trusts, will be expanded to include "other hospitals", Jeremy Hunt said.
The hospitals were not named. A final report will be published in 2014.
The late DJ is believed to have abused hundreds of victims.
The former BBC presenter of Top Of The Pops and Jim'll Fix It, who also worked as a Radio 1 DJ and received a knighthood in 1990, died aged 84 in October 2011 - a year before the allegations were broadcast in an ITV documentary.
Revelations that the famed fundraiser had sexually abused children prompted hundreds of victims to come forward, including those who said they were attacked on BBC premises and at a number of other institutions
More here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24520001 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 16-10-2013 08:41 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Savile's braggadocio. He's a caution, under caution.
| Quote: | http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/15/jimmy-savile-boasted-police-abuse
Jimmy Savile boasted to police of his 'policy' he used to halt abuse claims
Transcript of 2009 interview released, in which disgraced former BBC presenter bullishly dismisses allegations made against him
The Guardian, Ben Quinn. 15 October 2013
Police have released the transcript of a 2009 interview with Jimmy Savile in which the disgraced former BBC presenter bullishly dismisses child sexual abuse allegations against him and threatens aggressive legal action to shut down the claims.
A sense of how the man, believed to be one of Britain's most prolific paedophile abusers, saw himself as beyond the law emerges from the transcript, in which Surrey police interrogators appear to take an almost deferential approach.
The interview with Savile, who is asked by officers at the outset if it is OK to call him "Jimmy", was carried out under caution at an office used by the presenter at the National Spinal Injuries Centre at Stoke Mandeville hospital, one of many locations where he is thought to have abused children over decades.
The late DJ, who was a fundraiser for the hospital, told the officers that while the NHS ran the hospital, "I own it."
Questioning him two years before his death, the police asked Savile about reports they had received from a female former resident of Duncroft children's home in Staines during the 1970s who had alleged that another former resident claimed to have been "touched over her clothes sexually" when he visited.
"Oh! Out of the question," replied Savile, who claimed the allegations had only surfaced because his accusers were after money, adding: "There's women looking for a few quid, we always get something like this coming up for Christmas."
Savile is believed to have abused hundreds of children. Investigations into the abuse are under way at 13 hospital trusts – including Stoke Mandeville, Broadmoor and Leeds general infirmary – with the potential for probes to be extended to other hospitals in the wake of new information that has recently come to light.
The transcript, released by Surrey police after a Freedom of Information Act request, was from an interview involving at least two officers, one from the force's child protection team. Another person, apparently a friend of Savile, was present.
Savile, 83 at the time, was thanked by police as the interview began, who said: "You've kindly let us use this room here."
In rambling, often dismissive answers throughout the 41-minute interview on 1 October 2009, Savile said allegations against him had started in the 1950s and told of his "policy" towards them, boasting that he had sued newspapers who made allegations against him "and not one of them wanted to finish up in court with me so they all settled out of court".
He said: "I've already told my legal people that somebody were [sic] going to come and talk to me, they've got a copy of your letter, and the process or the policy will start because if this disappears, so if it disappears it disappears, if it doesn't disappear for any reason then my policy will swing into action at the same time."
Savile continued: "If I was going to sue anybody – which I never actually got round to actually suing because they all run away and say 'shush pay him up' – we go not to the local court, we go to the Old Bailey 'cos my people can book time in the Old Bailey so my legal people are ready and waiting. All they need would be a name, and an address, and then the due process from my angle would stop."
The child protection team officer said the woman making the claim, and the person who she had spoken to about it, were both under 16 when they allegedly saw Savile behave inappropriately.
In one of several sections of the transcript containing redacted material, the officer added: "XXX said, he put her hand on his groin over his clothes and moved it around, making him aroused.
"So on making further enquiries, I became aware of two further incidents that were reported."
They included an incident in which another girl also at Duncroft said Savile had asked her to massage his groin area and give him oral sex, which she refused to do.
Another involved a girl who was in a choir that attended a concert at Stoke Mandeville, where Savile was said to have kissed her and put his tongue in her mouth.
Savile referred to himself as "Litigiousness", given his willingness to take people to court, telling police: "Now if you're Litigiousness, people get quite nervous actually because for somebody that don't want to go to court, I love it."
Savile added that willingness to stand before a judge should be proof itself that he had done nothing wrong: "Because I've never done anybody any harm in my entire life, 'cos … there's no need to.
"No need to chase girls, I've thousands of them on Top of the Pops, thousands on Radio 1. No need to take liberties with them, out of the question and anyway it's not my nature.
"When you're doing Top of the Pops and Radio 1, what you don't do is assault women; they assault you, that's for sure, and you don't have to, because you've got plenty of girls about, and all that, so dealing with something like this, is out of the question and totally wrong, full stop."
At another point in the interview, Savile suggested he had a close relationship with police in Yorkshire, claiming that he passed them correspondence which he described as "weirdo letters", and which his questioners from Surrey police took to mean "letters of a threatening nature or otherwise."
"It's just something that you just say, they say 'any more weirdo's then Jim?', I said yes, and they say 'wo-oh, ha-ha,-ha-ha'," said Savile, who said that the officers, including an inspector, would come to his home to drink tea.
"One of the reasons that I do that is that things happen to people like me that don't happen to normal people who are not normal. And just in case anything happened to somebody like me then the lads would be able to sift through all this weirdo stuff."
Savile claimed that the police didn't keep the letters for very long but would "pass them around the office, and everybody has a laugh".
Police launched the Operation Yewtree investigation in the wake of the claims against Savile that emerged after his death. Liz Dux, a lawyer representing 72 of his alleged victims said on Tuesday night: "The interview shows Savile to be a man with complete disdain and contempt for those that he was purporting to help.
"He boasts about his fundraising for the hospitals, his wealth and his powerful friends demonstrating how his actions went unquestioned for so many years."
Dux, head of abuse at law firm Slater & Gordon, added: "His victims will be distressed to read that those that protected him put monetary gain and his celebrity above looking after their welfare.
"It's clear from the interview and the detailed questioning from police that they must have had a lot of information at the time he was interviewed back in 2009." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
