General Chat

Bringing the thread back to who it's about, Jimmy Saville, I read that there may have been at least six investigations by the police, after abuse claims.

I think it just shows just how "clever" paedophiles are, they turn words around, and believe what they do is acceptable.

To think how he used to talk adoringly of his mother, calling her The Duchess, was that just another ploy to make people think what a wonderful man he was?

Talking to friends and family about how it appears he got away with it for so long, most came to the conclusion, that if an adult did something when you were small, and told you not to tell, then you probably didn't, and of course you didn't have the words to tell anyone anyway, because those sorts of things weren't discussed.

Julia. You keep trying to step on my tail on this thread. This interjection was third time. No idea why, as I have put nothing consciously to upset anyone and think I have made valid contributions same as you.

We just may disagree sometimes. I was rather shocked when you linked this thread with Roman Catholic priests, but was happy to let you have your opinion.

And I think you have been quite aggressive and condescending with me. I did not just reply "google it" to you. I found one of several quotes that I think backed up my right to raise the question of where will compensation come from. And I c and p's it for you.

Were you being objective or subjective in challenging me? Would you have approached other posters the same way if they had made similar comments?

Fairs fair.. Opinions, rightly or wrongly are what this board is about. Discussing someone's opinion and disagreeing with them is one thing but saying someone is not allowed an opinion is not acceptable . -jl

John stop being so da***ed condescending.

I am educated, and can read, therefore I can form my own opinions

Julia in Derbyshire

Going back to John Peel - true the girl was underage at 15 - but if she & Peel 'made love backstage at concerts' It sounds consensual.
She's accusing him of under-age sex, not rape. Many 15 year olds have consensual sex.
Hardly in Savile's league.

Julia If you dig a bit, you will find recovering money from his charities has been discussed quite a bit in newspapers and news channels. Facts are not always quite as clear cut as you imply in this case. I have opinions, but they have changed quite a lot in last fortnight as more revelations are made.

See your post of 9.43am. I think I have answered that fully. It was secondary evidence, and question was raised a week ago by Guy Smith of the BBC.

If you think it is tittle tattle, then you will need to write to him and discuss why he thought victims could sue his estate. He has (according to one poster here) not left vast amounts to his family anyway, so we can assume a lot of his money has gone to his favourite charities - who may well have known about his private behaviour. So they could become targets of the solicitors. Just my opinion, but opinions and views are what chat is about.

Yes John, but it says nothing about the charities that he was involved with. You just assumed this.
When you get your facts correct, then is the time to quote. Don't foget, it was you who used the words "looks to me", which is your own opinion.

Julia in Derbyshire

Julia I could give you the answer that I often get given - google it.

But I won't, as a bit rude in my view. This was 5th October

" Guy Smith BBC London Home Affairs Correspondent

Scotland Yard is looking into allegations of sexual abuse against someone who is now dead.

While there will never be a trial, it shows the Met is taking the complaints seriously and may bring closure to the alleged victims.

The fact that most of the complaints relate to alleged crimes dating back more than 40 years is not something the police would dismiss or find impossible to investigate.

But in this unusual case, part of the Met's assessment will be whether anyone else, still alive, was allegedly involved.

And if so, is there enough evidence to secure a conviction.

Then there is the issue of compensation.

Will the alleged victims have grounds to sue for damages against the late Jimmy Savile's estate?

The police will also look into whether records exist of any historic complaints of sexual abuse against the star and if so, how they dealt with them.

It may not just be the BBC that is concerned about reputation damage. "

And more discussion about compensation from estate this morning on Sky. Focus now is on getting compensation from BBC and NHS - both of which are likely to affect the general public. Only solicitors will win substantially (that is an opinion, not a fact).

John, you still did not answer my question. You state "Demanding damages looks to me like trying to grab money off a dead man's charities and family".
Where on earth do you get this from.

That is your opinion. What right have you to make this opinion and put it in the public domain. The operative words are "looks to me".
As I have stated before, nowhere has this been said by someone in authority, and your words, are just that, YOUR words, and ill-informed at that.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that you take your quotes etc, and manipilate them for your own use, for your own self agrandisement, as a self appointed authority on anything and everything.

Julia in Derbyshire

Julia If you read my first sentence, that is exactly what I said - I do not know answer to your question. Waffle is subjective, of course.

But I have seen discussion of suing his estate and suing bodies like BBC. And Max Clifford is involved. I just feel (no facts) that the BBC will have to face any claims for compensation and Savile's estate will have been distributed and there will be nothing in kitty for claims against him. Unless, like Michael Jackson, he continues to earn lots of money after death - which I doubt.

I hope someone can answer your specific question. :-)

John, you have not answered my question, just posted a load of waffle.

Julia in Derbyshire

Julia – I totally agree with you. Money can not right a wrong. Surely the best closure for the victims is to be believed at last, with an apology from the organisations who turned a blind eye to the rumours…. which a former Controller of Radio 1 now says Savile was formally challenged about 30 years ago.

There is also a thing called ‘False memory’ – we recall an event, but more recent ones or publicity about the person, can alter our perception of it.

Example - A then serving police officer we knew was imprisoned for ‘perverting the course of justice’. I think I over heard a social conversation about a ‘big bag of pills’, but was it my imagination?

At the time, if a complaint was made to the Police, even if it was taken seriously, there would have been no corroborating evidence, and the teenager would have been torn to shreds by the Defence lawyers. Parents or Carers would have also chosen to ‘protect’ the victim from further distress assuming she was believed.

If people have been damaged then I'd say they are entitled to compensation. I'd rather it came from Savile's estate than the BBC or the NHS.

Child abuse wrecks lives and if there is money available it should go to victims to help them get on with their lives. I have no problem with that.

I've said before, Savile's family were only left token amounts from his huge estate.

Why shouldn't his victims get compensation?

Gwynne

Julia Thought his estate had already been sorted, but don't know. Just he was a very organised man and I would be surprised if his money has not already been dispersed to family and charities.

Lot of talk of these people suing the BBC, which is hardly in any great position to pay out loads of money. No one is going to want to pay vastly more than the current £145.50 for a license, and why should we all have to pay. Only alternative is to spend less on programmes, and we will all have to switch to ITV and Sky and watch ads by Wonga, and about "have you had an accident".

I thought everybody was raising this issue to put the record straight and expose JS in his true light. And there will be many other celebrities who will have to account for their actions as well.

But a lot of talk is now about compensation. And I am thinking - Max Clifford, money grubbing solicitors, greed, selfishness :-( :-(

Good Morning All

John, If I might refer to your posting of yesterday of 18.21. You state " trying to grab money of a dead man's charities and family"

I have never seen it written or quoted anywhere that this is the case. How can the charites be held responsible for his gross misdeeds.
As for the family, how too are they responsible for paying compensation.
If his estate has not been finalised and paid out, surely this is the only way that people have, of getting any compensation.
There is a long way to go yet, before any compensation can be considered.

Julia in Derbyshire

Why is the BBC upset now about John Peel? Did no members of its staff read his book Margrave Of The Marshes? (begun by John and completed by his wife, that was published six years ago).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Margrave-Marshes-John-Peel/dp/0552551198

Savile was a Bevin boy - which he kept on about - mining tends to build up the muscles, and was 5'8'' - quite a bit bigger than the average young teenage girl of the '60's

and another, fortunately he has passed away too... No wonder the despicable Max Clifford is rubbing his greedy mitts $$$$$ signs all the way for him.



BBC to consider renaming Peel Wing at headquarters after claims DJ had affair with schoolgirl, 15

The BBC announced plans to rename the Egton Wing, the Peel Wing in March this year

Now they may reconsider their decision following claims he had an affair with 15-year-old schoolgirl Jane Nevin

Mrs Nevin met legendary DJ backstage at a Black Sabbath concert in 1969
Says she was 'in awe' of Peel and they'd make love backstage at concerts
She discovered she was pregnant aged 16, and had an abortion at a clinic
Wrote to Peel out of the blue 30 years later mentioning their 'brief affair'

Think the world was a very different place for the parents of the teens in 1960's. I could talk to my parents about almost everything. But sex!!! I used to learn that from my friends and rag mags. I passed the theory test with flying colours, but it was a long time before I took my practical.

I can remember my mum saying she was 30 before she realised anybody could be homosexual. That would have been 1954, and mum and dad did have two men in their close circle of friends who were openly gay at that time. And that must have been when penny dropped for mum. I suppose Colwyn Bay (where she grew up) was a bit of a backwater.

How very different those times were. :-)

Sue That article was horrible. But was he strong and heavy? Suppose we will get a lot of that now. :-( :-(

claims are one was a ten year old boy now,


am utterly bemused that this ever went on without notice ,would anyone ever get that many years of abusing free and not one police,parent.friend.family member complaint logged against them.