I have no judgement on either side. He maybe did it and it was abhorrent, he maybe didn't and for some reason is now being targeted, I have no idea what the truth is, but there are some things about the way this is handled which is making me uncomfortable.
I'm bothered by the comments from the Metropolitan police "At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Savile WAS a predatory sex offender," said Commander Peter Spindler" and that his abuse " WAS on a national scale" and he "HAD a predilection for teenage girls" " This may well be the case, and I'm not saying any of the ladies who have come forward have lied, but from a police point of view, should they be making such bold statements confirming guilt, when there has been no due process? I'd prefer not to hear the police playing judge and jury. It is rare for them to do so without inserting a "we have reason to believe" or "our evidence points to" even when there is pretty much no doubt. For me it casts doubt on the impartiality of the police in the case so far, and indicates they either have something to prove about their organisation or are trying to over compensate for a situation where they perhaps didn't follow this up in the past.
I also worry that so many high profile people are coming out now and saying "yeah, we knew it but did nothing because we were fearful" It's one thing for victims to be afraid of coming forward as scared teenagers, or not being believed when they did etc and that is entirely understandable. But for Esther Rantzen to do nothing, for Janet Street Porter to do nothing? These women have always been very strong personalities and JSP especially has made a career out of speaking out and going against the grain, standing up against "the establishment" especially from a feminist standpoint. Perhaps, as fledgling employees they might have kept quiet. But Rantzen started childline. By then her career was bigger than the BBC or the establishment, and certainly at any point in the last 10-15 years she could have exposed this without fear of retribution, she had the power to do so. Why didn't she? In 2008 when these rumours last surfaced, why didn't she?
Then there are the claims that here was this "larger than life" celebrity, well loved, with an iconic profile that was beyond reproach and because of this it was hushed up by "people" (whomever they all were) This doesn't sit well with me. Jonathan King was such a person. Garry Glitter was such a person. And yet the police took those allegations seriously and it ended up with a conviction. (albeit, perhaps because Glitter was abroad, it made a difference) People have done it before, why is his case so different?
Savile is again being linked with Haute Le Garenne in Jersey. That was a case which was fairly robustly investigated at the time, and the rumours of his involvement were rife. But despite investigation, there was no proof of this. And this was where victim's claims were being taken seriously, so why would they say "yes sure, we believe you and will seriously investigate Mr x, y and z, but you are lying when you say Jimmy Savile was involved" Doesn't add up.
For the most part, I'm never a fan of besmirching someone's character after they have died when they cannot defend themselves and it must be terrible for his family to have to go through this. I'd prefer if the matter was being investigated purely to raise prosecutions against any living person who either facilitated this, or was involved in it, which might give some closure to victims, rather than what it can only ever be, a case of "he said, she said" because it can't ever be proven.
I've never been through it so maybe someone else can help me out here. What can be gained from having a public acceptance that you were telling the truth, rather than having a private acceptance that you were telling the truth? What I mean is, would it be just as helpful to you in this situation to have someone say "yes, we believe he did it, we are sorry it happened, this is how we will stop it happening in the same way again" Or is it better to have the whole world left debating it because a prosecution can never happen?
As I said, I have no view on whether he did it or not. I never liked the guy. I found him to be rather creepy and very odd. But of course, that doesn't make him guilty. Something happened, of that I'm fairly certain. There is too much chatter for that not to be the case.
xx
it must've been something bigger than the fear of losing charity fundraising which prevented him from being convicted. It just doesn't make sense.
