Can't stand Derbyshire but wonder why she, like everyone else, assumes he was guilty. Not that he wasn't but surely balance requires both aspects to be considered? As for Sam Brown, she looked like the typical false accuser who probably believes her own stories. She admits she was "12 or 13" when Savile abused her yet one of the terrible effects he had on her was that she "didn't learn to read until she was ten". And nobody picks up on such things. A decent interviewer without an agenda would have asked for clarification on this. I really think it's vital for viewers to watch my one personal encounter with the monster - or was a he a saint?

The list of easily proven to be impossible claims from dozens of Savile accusers means we have to discount the lot, in my view.

Media pressure has created a cult, where people are afraid to say that the king has no clothes on in case they are called a paedophile.

Nobody seems to care that there might be genuine victims who go unheard because chancers are pushing in front of them in the race for compo and kudos.


It could all be avoided by keeping names private.

You see Honey, I hate to be evasive but I do think the changing times (a tweaked buttock used to get a knee in the balls - now it's a prison sentence) and the media hype (a peck on the cheek is rape) when coupled with police or legal assistance, means a norty boy becomes a monster.

JK2006 wrote:
You see Honey, I hate to be evasive but I do think the changing times (a tweaked buttock used to get a knee in the balls - now it's a prison sentence) and the media hype (a peck on the cheek is rape) when coupled with police or legal assistance, means a norty boy becomes a monster.

Very true. When an arm around your shoulder can either be a signal that you have copped off, or an unwanted assault depending on how you feel, facts don't matter.

"Stella" on BBC Brekkie, one of Savile's "victims", says everybody laughed in the 70s because that was the way people behaved then but then says "nobody listened". If nobody listened, how come "everybody laughed"? And not one question about this. Have people really become so stupid? Not doubting Stella's account (whatever it is); just wondering about balance and common sense. When did humanity decide media tells the truth? And when did TV shows get away with one sided caricatures instead of balance?

If the accuser said that everyone laughed because it was the 70s and it was what people did, then why single out Saville, if apparently, this was common behaviour. The producer of the show, then went on to explain that Saville was a conman who started out in Manchester (he started in Leeds), then went on to work in Hospitals (No mention that he volunteered in hospitals without payment)

Dan Davies writes a heartfelt piece for the Gronaid as the TV show is about to launch about his complicated relationship with Savile hinting he could see a darkness there yet skillfully ignores his pieces published on his death about Savile and his "heart of gold".