Monday, 8 October 2012


So the news has been full of Sir Jimmy Saville child abuse claims this weekend. I remember him as a slightly bonkers DJ and TV entertainer who raised millions for charity...
But luckily for us, the media has tried and convicted Jimmy so we don't have to question the facts. It will save the Police so much time and money! Now I don't know if the accusations are true, but neither does the press. Yet here they are using fractions of statements by unnamed women to convict someone who can't defend himself.
None of the women came forward publicly at the time (though its useful they came forward at the same time now) and therefore something doesn't seem right to me about the whole thing.  And for some people to now say that they SAW him abusing children and did nothing about it staggers me and the Trust in his name is considering changing its name! All based on rumours and gossip.
If the women are right, then the Police must deal with it and his legacy will be rightfully in tatters - he will deserve to be convicted after the event. But until that happens, I expect more from the BBC at least. I have to admit at being pretty disgusted at the Kangeroo media court. Where has the journalistic balance gone?!

1 comment:

  1. I agree with you to some extent, Stephen - but I can't help feeling that a lot of those who are saying that because he's dead the matter should now be left alone, wouldn't be saying likewise about alleged abuse by priests who are now deceased. Though in the latter case there was clearly a wholesale institutional cover-up, probably emanating from the very top(?) and which had almost certainly been going on for many decades or even centuries - which, perhaps, can't really be compared to the BBC if, indeed, there was a culture of cover-up at 'Auntie' at all. But yes, certainly, the current climate is fertile ground for any woman who was under-age at the time in question, to make claims which have no way of being verified. I do very much doubt if EVERY single one of the allegations can really be true.

    Btw: Linking the issues of Savile and priests together, Savile was known to be a devout and practising R.C., and very publicly so, at least before and around the time of these allegations. Presumably he also confessed regularly - not to have done so would itself have been a grievous mortal sin, as my own religious experience tells me. So, unless he was a particular hypocrite in this connection, then some priest(s) must have known what he'd been up to and not reported him to the police, because of the inviolable sanctity of the confessional - or maybe his conscience allowed him to get away with not confessing these (ALLEGED!) sins. However, as we've been seeing with the R.C. Church, it still, even now, claims its unique right to ignore the laws of the land on grounds of the individual consciences of its members. How very convenient for them!