Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that describing Jimmy Saville as a pervert is wrong?

102 replies

Smeghead · 12/10/2012 02:00

She said the pervert even signed the back of the photo, writing: ?Just off!!! (1/2 a chance!!!)? ? but it wasn?t until after her terrifying ordeal that she realised the words had been a statement of his depraved intent.

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4585199/Jimmy-Savile-victims-abuse-pic-revealed.html This was posted on my FB today as "proof" that JS did what he is accused of. I have deleted it.

Where is the evidence that he was a pervert?

I am not calling his accusers liars, far from it, I believe them all. I have always felt he was creepy, but I couldnt tell you why. I DO BELIEVE THEM.

My issue is with the popular press assigning him with this label as imo all it will do is prejudice the investigation to such a point as to be meaningless.

He will never be convicted of anything, but if an investigation were to find that yes, he did do those things, then his victims will get some closure. But until then, surely it is wrong to label someone in this way?

It wouldnt be allowed if he were alive, so why is it ok when he is dead? Surely trial by media is wrong no matter what the status of the defendant?

To clarify again, I am NOT NOT defending him. Merely wondering why the British Press are being allowed to use such labels when they would never be allowed to do that in an ongoing case with a live defendant.

OP posts:
Leena49 · 12/10/2012 02:07

There won't be a trial. His victims won't ever be given the chance to stand up in court and 'defend themselves'. I think giving him the label of pervert is therefore deserved.
It might deter some others that are also sat there planning how they can worm there way in to jobs to get more contact with children, or positions of power so they never get challenged.

Valdeeves · 12/10/2012 02:11

I understand what you are saying - it's wrong to prejudice others by your use of language. In principle URNBU.
Unfortunately though the overwhelming evidence shows he
was a pervert - and when someone's dead sometimes words are all you
have.

Wingedharpy · 12/10/2012 02:12

I'm not completely sure but I would hazard a guess that this woman's account of him groping her breasts and having his hands in her pants when she was a 14 year old school girl and he was an adult points towards evidence of his perversion on some level.

Original poster
Smeghead · 12/10/2012 02:15

As i said, I am not saying they are lying.

My issue is with the press.

Surely, until there has been a full investigation and he is found to be a vile sexual predator and the results are published, the press shouldnt be allowed to use this language?

I know that there will never be a trial but for the victims, having someone say "Yes, it did happen and it shouldnt have, we are sorry for not believing and protecting you" would go a long way. It may not mean so much if they know that the only reason it is being said is because The Sun decided he was guilty long before anyone saw or heard any evidence.

OP posts:
Original poster
Smeghead · 12/10/2012 02:18

There won't be a trial. His victims won't ever be given the chance to stand up in court and 'defend themselves'. I think giving him the label of pervert is therefore deserved.

But how can you say that without any evidence that it is true?

I will say again (just in case!) that i believe them, but there isnt any evidence at the moment, so surely, alive or dead, a person is still "innocent until proven guilty"?

OP posts:
EchoBitch · 12/10/2012 02:18

By the same reasoning can we not describe Hitler as a murderer because he did not stand trial for his crimes?

Leena49 · 12/10/2012 02:20

I think there are better individuals to defend if you want to go through the masses of people the sun has slandered.
What about Millie Dowlers family? Defend them instead you will get more support on here.

EchoBitch · 12/10/2012 02:20

How much evidence do we need?

Sure,it all has to be investigated but as you say,we do believe them.

EchoBitch · 12/10/2012 02:23

I think Millie Dowler's family don't need a lot of defence,they did nothing wrong.

Leena49 · 12/10/2012 02:28

Ok then I will name some more individuals that the sun has harrassed or harmed that did nothing wrong: Jk Rowlings daughter at primary school, Hugh grants pregnant girlfriend, sienna miller.
So they are calling an obvious pervert a pervert. I have little sympathy and the real injustice is he got away with it.

Wingedharpy · 12/10/2012 02:28

What about the balance of probability?
If 1 woman had come forward and said this, that's 1 person who may or may not be giving a factual account of events. (Just for the record, I believe each and evry one of them).
Now dozens of more women have come forward from different areas, witnesses, who weren't abused themselves, have been televised reporting accounts of what they saw happening.
Personally, I don't need to wait for an investigation.

Original poster
Smeghead · 12/10/2012 02:29

Echo there is evidence that Hitler was responsible for genocide, and I am sure that the evidence will be investigated in this case too.

As I said, my issue is "trial by media". Actually it has become "Conviction by media" simply because he is dead.

I AM NOT DEFENDING JIMMY SAVILLE!!!! Can we stop with the knee jerks please?

My question is whether the press should be allowed to convict someone without being privy to the full evidence and investigation?

OP posts:
Original poster
Smeghead · 12/10/2012 02:31

So they are calling an obvious pervert a pervert. I have little sympathy and the real injustice is he got away with it.
My point is Leena, how do you know?

Have you seen the evidence? Can you say, hand on heart that he was 100% guilty of what he is accused of?

Surely the press shouldnt be allowed to label people before an investigation if the person is dead, anymore than they should be if they are alive?

OP posts:
Wingedharpy · 12/10/2012 02:32

And it is The Sun we're talking about here.
We know they don't bother to wait for the official version.
Remeber their reporting of Hillsborough?

Original poster
Smeghead · 12/10/2012 02:33

winged you may not, fwiw, neither do I.

But the press shouldnt be allowed to convict someone based on what stories they have been sold told. After a full investigation that finds against him, then fine! Call him what you like! But until then, shouldnt the word "alleged" be in there somewhere?

OP posts:
Original poster
Smeghead · 12/10/2012 02:34

Winged Sadly, The Sun is the most read paper in the UK, and so influences alot of people :(

OP posts:
Leena49 · 12/10/2012 02:34

Well my DH received a first hand account from someone he knew who was assaulted.
Do you honestly think the press are all going to say 'hold on now let's all be fair about this and only write nice things until there is a full investigation' ?

Original poster
Smeghead · 12/10/2012 02:39

Of course the press will put their own slant on it.

But should they be allowed to label someone when there has been no investigation and no verdict, posthumous or otherwise?

OP posts:
Original poster
Smeghead · 12/10/2012 02:43

Look at the reporting of the teacher who was found in France with one of his pupils. He wasn't called a pervert and there were lots of "believed" and "allegedly"'s in the reporting. Because he is innocent until proven guilty.

I personally think that JS is as guilty as a puppy sitting in a puddle of piss, but under British law he is innocent until proven guilty and I think that should still be upheld even if the accused has passed away.

OP posts:
EchoBitch · 12/10/2012 02:46

I think the press should be censored.

They should never,ever be allowed to print anything.

That will stop these harpies saying what happened to them.

And defiling a legend.

GOOD FUCKING GRIEF!!

EchoBitch · 12/10/2012 02:48

That teacher was wrong.

He is an adult.

He should not have entered into a relationship with that girl.

He was wrong....not the girl.

Leena49 · 12/10/2012 02:48

I don't think the press should be allowed do do a lot of things they say and do but I think we have just had an inquiry into that and how to prevent it.
If we are going to follow that line of argument then should we also say to Leeds and Scarborough councils 'don't take those memorative plaques down or street signs because we haven't had a proper investigation yet'

Original poster
Smeghead · 12/10/2012 02:53

I hoped that this wouldnt become Knee-Jerk central, and that people would understand what I am trying to say.

I was wrong.

OP posts:
Wingedharpy · 12/10/2012 03:07

I think I do understand what you are saying Smeg - innocent until proven guilty.
If JS was still alive and there was the possibility of a Court case then I think the press would be saying allegedly, but, because he's dead and as far as he's concerned there will be no case to predjudice, they aren't bothering.
They are using language to reflect the vast majority of public opinion.
There have been reports of other individuals being involved with these evil deeds and, as they are still alive, they have not been "outed" by the press, to my knowledge, and their involvement has been reported as "alleged".
I don't think you are unreasonable simply that your concern differs from mine in this case.

AmberLeaf · 12/10/2012 03:08

Even if he were alive, the only 'evidence' would be the people he abuseds words.

That is all the evidence you have now.

Why is it not enough now?

He is a pervert. bloody right he should be called that.

Swipe left for the next trending thread