Can anyone explain why this fuss that an innocent man (we are all presumed innocent until or unless - and sometimes even after) who was not prosecuted by the CPS after police investigation into false allegations, has now become a scandal involving a Prime Minister and others? Is Boris suggesting the DPP at the time SHOULD have prosecuted an innocent man - yet another victim of the False Allegations Industry? Should Boris now demand a review of the conviction of Carl Beech, who made false accusations against many (including a former Tory PM)? Are those bravely resigning because of this slur involving a child abuser aware that Savile was NOT an abuser, according to law? I really do get muddled by the Emperor's New Suit.

I totally agree. He was never charged, he was never taken to court, he was never convicted. Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Look out for a documentary on Netflix in the next couple of months which tells the other side of the story.

It really is the Emperor's New Clothes isn't it?

Boris is indeed wrong to criticise Forensic Kieth for not prosecuting. Because whoever took that decision was perfectly correct. In 2009 the police had spent two years investigating the wild stories of the Duncroft girls and had come up with absolutely nothing, zero evidence that would have even suggested a conviction was possible.

Interviewing him under caution, which was done right at the very end, was a last desperate throw of the dice as they tried to give him sufficient opportunity to incriminate himself or hint at mens rea. But they came up with nothing and the CPS agreed.

The problem is you cannot even hint that anything spoken about him might be false, or point out that the Emperor is naked.

And it's interesting that an hour after posting this thread it has had 5900 views and only two comments. We do not dare disagree with the media agenda. And media (even social) does not dare step across that line.

Well I am not afraid.
I have no way of knowing what Jimmy Savile did or did not do, but anybody who looks at the "evidence" can see full well that there is nothing credible, and a lot of it is ludicrous tall tales that are easily proven to be untrue.

Alan Bailey wrote:
I totally agree. He was never charged, he was never taken to court, he was never convicted. Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Look out for a documentary on Netflix in the next couple of months which tells the other side of the story.

Bravo! Well said Alan and thank you.

Yes, the Netflix flim is in 2 parts and is in Chronogical order, it'll be distributed world wide too. Lots of fantastic archive film and documents.

Alan Bailey wrote:
I totally agree. He was never charged, he was never taken to court, he was never convicted. Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Look out for a documentary on Netflix in the next couple of months which tells the other side of the story.
It looks as if there was talk in 2020/2021 about a Netflix documentary, but apparently telling the usual kind of story. Was it ever broadcast?

[July 2020] Jimmy Savile will be at the centre of an upcoming Netflix documentary, according to reports.

The feature-length film will reportedly explore the shamed entertainer’s life before he was exposed as a predatory sex offender, including his connections with the British establishment.

“Netflix hope it will air next year,” an insider told The Sun. “It will consider some of his friendships with famous faces and the Royal Family, and how he got away with so much despite being in the public eye for so long.”

www.standard.co.uk/culture/tvfilm/jimmy-...etflix-a4511691.html

[August 2021] The 10th anniversary of Savile’s death in October will greatly add to the TV credits the presenter wouldn’t want to have. Discovery’s Jimmy Savile: The People Who Knew is the first; a Netflix two-parter is due later this year and a BBC docudrama, The Reckoning, is also in production.

www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/au...new-review-discovery

I'm pretty sure (sadly our expert Anna Raccoon has gone to greener pastures) from memory....the reason Savile was being questioned was because 2 women from Duncroft claimed Savile had abused 2 girls there decades ago..but when police contacted those 2 (now) women they wanted nothing to do with the matter.

Hence the case never even reached the CPS as police had nothing to go on.

And of course JK is correct..even if he had been prosecuted does not mean he was guilty.

Jimmy Savile died an innocent man.

As did Michael Jackson, something that ghastly Mail hack Dan Wootan should remember as he attacked Spotify for hosting Jackson music because "he was a pedophile"..but Jackson was prosecuted and found Not Guilty.

God the media are truly vile these days. Like rabid dogs

Well said Hedda, not only did Sir Jimmy Savile die an Innocent Man - English Law states he should remain so!

Go figure, he didn't break the Law but those who pronounce him a criminal including The Met broke the Law in condemning him.