Strongly suggest you read the chapter in 70 FFFY. Available as physical or download from Amazon worldwide.

JK2006 wrote:
Strongly suggest you read the chapter in 70 FFFY. Available as physical or download from Amazon worldwide.

I've said before JK, I disliked Savile immensely (given family experience of him) but I'm watching this press conference and it's amazing that they have found a man guilty of all these "crimes" without any evidence nor with any semblance of a fair trial - just tonnes of "claims" that are akin to UFO reports after episodes of The X Files!


It is very very easy to accuse the dead of anything. Jimmy Savile's victims? Give me strength.

Did anyone else hear the today programme on radio 4 this morning at 8:15 or so.

They interviewed a nurse from the hospital who flatly denied ever hearing anything about this abuse either through direct observation or indirect reports from supposed victims. She said she has talked to loads of former colleagues and they all say the same.

The interviewer got more and more desperate. She said she would only accept that he was guilty if he was convicted and said there is no reason not to prosecute the dead.

There's a thought. Insist on prosecuting the dead accused. Why can't the dead have a fair trial too. It's no more absurd than investigating the dead by the police, that is. It is completely absurd, but by drawing out the logic you expose its absurdity.

Jim wrote:
Did anyone else hear the today programme on radio 4 this morning at 8:15 or so.

They interviewed a nurse from the hospital who flatly denied ever hearing anything about this abuse either through direct observation or indirect reports from supposed victims. She said she has talked to loads of former colleagues and they all say the same.

The interviewer got more and more desperate. She said she would only accept that he was guilty if he was convicted and said there is no reason not to prosecute the dead.

There's a thought. Insist on prosecuting the dead accused. Why can't the dead have a fair trial too. It's no more absurd than investigating the dead by the police, that is. It is completely absurd, but by drawing out the logic you expose its absurdity.

Funnily enough, it's what they do in Russia - they prosecute the dead.

everything has been turned on it's head.

there was never a time when someone could just abuse at will, especially someone famous like Savile.

they say they have been abused and reported it but there is no record of that report and no nurse can be produced who says they were told...but that is used as proof that he got away with it.

it's all back to front' Alice Looking Glass time.

and a further madness...the person who produced this 'report" (list of claims) says Savile was a monster and everyone goes ohhh yes what a vile man !!

...but he wasn't. Everyone liked him. He was famous and had 1000s of fans. even those not interested in Savile (me) thought he's a 'character'..fun and probably an OK guy.

History is re-written.

I hate the way that the bbc now report these accusations. They report that saville committed hundreds of crimes as though there is no doubt that each and every one of these allegations is absolutely true, which they may well be, but we will never know.

I can accept that Saville was a bit of a groper and probably a bit too touch feely, but back in the 70s and 80s this sort of thing went on all the time in offices and most working environments. It was seen as no more than an annoyance.

Even on tv, his behaviour would now be seen as inappropriate. Arms around teenage girls, just like all the other totp presenters, but it isn't illegal and common place back then.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02kvctz

Savile Abuse: 'I can only say that I saw him do good'.

Radio 4 today. If someone could YouTube this segment that would be great.

**Savile abuse: 'I can only say that I saw him do good'**

BBC Radio 4, Today Programme, 26/2/15

Asked whether she had come to terms with the fact that all his supposed generosity was a sham, Sylvia Nicol, who worked for 40 years at the Stoke Mandeville Trust, was a trustee, and worked for many years in the spinal unit, replied:

Sylvia Nicol: How can I come to terms when I never saw any sham. You can only know what you've seen. I never heard any rumours. I don't know any one of the staff and patients that I know who heard or saw or it was reported to them that anything untoward happened to them.

Justin Webb: But we understand that the report is going to say that reports and allegations were made and that they never got anywhere. That was unquestionably taking place, wasn't it?

SN: It would be interesting to know if they name the people who they were reported to.
JW: Are you denying that it took place?

SN: I'm not denying denying anything took place, It's not my business to know. I can only know what I know, can't I? I can only know that I saw a man putting hours and hours of work into rebuilding a spinal centre, into helping spinal people and others throughout this country and I can't change my mind on that.

JW: I think people might have a great deal of sympathy for that view but would say as well, "Hold on a second. An awful lot of people have come forward with very detailed testimony about what was done to them by him, undeniable testimony, it would be wrong to try to continue to believe that he was a decent person when all the evidence is that he wasn't, in spite of what you saw.

SN: Well I can only say that I saw him do good. I can't be a judge or jury on anything else, can I? And I don't want to be, because I had 40 years working there, a wonderful place to work, none of the sadness that seems to have been going on there was I aware of. I'm just so sad.

JW: And have you talked to other people who worked at the hospital in those days.

SN: Hundred, dozens.
Who agree with you?

SN: They never saw anything. And it doesn't mean to say they're saying it didn't happen. Neither am I, but if you don't see it, it's not reported to you...I was in a position in there for two and a half years where anything like that would have been reported to me, but that doesn't mean to say nothing happened.

JW: Perhaps you and an awful lot of people in areas right around the country might be able to say "look, we accept now, awful though it was, we were duped". From you I'm not quite sure whether you really fully believe that you were duped and that he was as guilty as people say he is of these crimes.

SN: Well I will when there's been a court case on it.

JW: But there can't be. He's dead.

SN: Well what difference would that make. Prosecution and defence can take place. I don't understand that him being dead makes any difference.

JW: You're saying that until there is a full court case you are...

SN:...I think that's the only justice that we used to know in this country was full court cases.

JW: And in all those times that you look back on with such affection and in that relationship that you enjoyed and that lots of other people in the hospital enjoyed with him, never, ever did anyone mention anything amiss?

SN: Absolutely not. Absolutely, categorically, they did not.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02kvctz

It should still be reported as "alledged abuse" only one official report found to of been lodged and of course he was never found guilty of any offence or from hair style and dress sense.

I have no reason to support JS nor to claim his guilt but come on lets call it alledged please

Every news piece and report on this increases the amount of people saying "what?". It's almost as though the secret false accusers society is trying to self destruct. Someone said to me that ONE "official" complaint during about 30 years must have been less than Mother Teresa got.

That's all very well, JK, but you can just tell by looking at her that Mother Teresa was worse than a murderer. She was a creepy kiddie fiddler. Come on. Get with the programme. Join the baying mob. Death would be too good for her.

Makes me sick to think about it. You can just tell, you know, by the way she looks.

Cue picture of an aging Teresa having a bad hair day from a bad angle.

KILL, KILL, KILL!