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

[Smeghead]

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.

Why is it not enough now?

Because if he were alive then evidence would be collated, he would or would not be charged and then, if he were charged,b put before a court.

As it is the Press has taken it upon itself to try and convict him without being party to all the available evidence. I am just saying that surely the inflammatory language isnt right until the facts or reasonable doubt has been established.

And saying that the words of the those accusing him is all I have now implies that I and you both are in possession of all the facts, and we're not. All we have to go on is what has been printed in the papers and has already been said, they print what they want to print.

I believe his accusers, but I dont think that the press should be allowed to assume guilt until they have a verdict from those that have been privy to all the information available.

YANBU innocent until proven guilty would apply if he were alive and he would be found guilty.

I also don't like "pervert", it minimises it again, like "oooh you pervert" said jokingly to someone buying an Anne Summers special.

Call a spade a spade he is an alleged peadophile and will soon be a proven paedophile.

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"?

This statement confuses me. In my eyes, if you believe someone, THAT is evidence enough, no? So therefore you saying that there isn't any evidence makes me think you don't believe them.

Op I do understand what you're saying but I took this is a "lazy quote" - shed used the word and they reported it? Not sure if that would actually make any difference.

The right to be slandered and libeled dies when you die. As one commentator put it "death means you are fair game"

It's not just the press convicting him. Statements from the police have said he did it too. A dead person cannot be defamed, anyone can say what they like. And, as has also been rightly pointed out, there is no court case to prejudice.

But it is defamation, the laws of libel and slander, that are at the heart of this. The press tried to expose him while he was alive. So did the police. But it would appear that a lack of evidence (witnesses too scared to come forward) and his power to silence them meant nothing happened until now.

In a defamation case whoever said it or wrote it has to prove a claim was true. No one could have defended such a statement without all these women coming forward sooner.

A senior police officer (commander of the Met?) has stated his guilt without the use of 'alleged' so you can't blame the press for feeling justified in their terminology.

I'd imagine there are a few of JS's former associates looking nervously over their shoulders right now.

You'd hope that in general where someone has been accused of a crime after they've died, the media would still use "allegedly" etc out of respect/general good practice and to reflect the fact there has been no conviction. However in this case I think that everyone's logic is the weight of evidence is so strong there's almost no doubt he has done it. Obviously there are the words of the many women themselves, and then there are his former colleagues - 2 very different groups of people, different sets of loyalties and priorities and yet their stories do tally.

The Sun is The Sun. You know what it is before you pick up the paper or click on the website. If you don't like its style of reporting, don't read it.

It's no good reading it then complaining that you don't think its balanced and fair. You know it isn't.

If you buy it, they profit. If you click on the website, they profit. And this means they will carry on reporting in this way. Guilty people, but also innocent people.

I don't think you helped your argument by this time citing an example of a person who seems very very likely to have committed awful crimes against children. There are so many cases of The Sun saying worse stuff against innocent people.

But as I say, it is what it is. Stop reading it, then you'll be alright.

I understand what you mean smeghead and completely agree.

I completely understand and agree.

I think however that the overwhelming evidence shows he was a pervert and I think the press feel quite comfortable knowing they will be proved 'right'. I don't think anyone's going to take them to court for slander are they?

I bet we don't even know the half of it, yet.

I say this as someone who knew him, knew some of his victims and was a student nurse who was told "Jimmy's coming - keep your back against the wall (he won't be able to fondle you) and don't make eye contact as you may take his fancy and then you'll be in trouble"
My mum had her breasts fondled by him about 30 years ago (as a nurse).

I want to say more on here but I can't without outing myself.

I think pervert is a pretty apt description for a man who gets his sexual kicks from kids. Or am I missing the understanding of the word pervert?

I think it's always best to keep in mind that the aim of the press (especially the sun/ mirror mail) is to appeal quickly to grab an emotional reaction and sell papers. Just about anything you read, even in more 'highbrow' newspapers is full of misleading and emotive bits and bobs. If you don't like it, don't buy the newspaper and just read online (with a view that most of what you're reading is based on someone else's opinion!!)

Also not to forget that the average reading age of a sun newspaper reader is aged 9. So therefore words that contain too many syllables or letters may turn them off that particular newspaper. I suppose the word alleged is one of them!

Dolomites, I think the OP is just making the point that if he were still alive everyone would need to be a lot more careful about how they phrased it - overwhelming evidence or not living people are considered innocent until proven guilty. I had no idea that when dealing with someone who had died it would be so different - everyone, the police, the media has no hesitation in assuming him guilty and using terminology that reflects that. Which is very different, and surprising.
Disclaimer - I am not arguing for his innocence. I believe his victims, and feel sure he committed many sexual assaults. I am confident of his guilt.

Well he is a pervert, thy are not wrong are they. Even if he bused one child he is still a pervert

OP, he also gave me the creeps for reasons I could not explain.

I suppose, actally, if you die before your crimes are uncovered (as in this case) you have "got away with them". The flip side is that people can say what they like and accuse you of what they like once you're dead.

Is it that straightforward though? If I said that Whitney Houston used to be a car thief (which, unlike the accusations made against JS is a total and utter LIE) and stole my car and others' on numerous occasions, could her family do anything legally to make me prove it or shut up??

yes piglet, but if he were alive there would of course be a slight (IMO so slight it could be called zero) chance that these people were all conspiring to discredit him, and lying through their teeth, and that he was just a friendly, charity working, lovely man. And so we (the police, the media, people on MN) would need to bear that in mind when talking about him, until the allegations were proven.

pervert - a person whose behaviour deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behaviour

Sounds like the word is quite apt.

Under usual circumstances I would agree with the OP, However, this is what the Police have said:

?At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Savile was a predatory sex offender,?

The certainty of that statement is something you would never normally hear from them.

Where was The Sun when he was still alive? Or the News of the Workd? You know, those paper that did all that fearless investigation for the public good, that was so important they felt private detectives and phone hacking were proportionate measures? How did they miss this, when there are so many ready to speak as soon as they knew they could do so with confidence?

I'd have preferred them to live up to their rhetoric when he was still alive, and to have used their investigations really to examine things that matter. After all, it was an "open secret" in so many places - why didn't they bring it together?

Much better to have acted, than to crow over his bones now.

Actually no. On balance I think it is entirely acceptable to call JS a pervert. And a Paedophile. And a predatory serial sexual abuser of many decades standing.
OP I get your point and I am no fan of the red tops, believe me. But as others say, how much 'proof'is required? And what would constitute 'proof'? In this case there is only the victims' testimony. But since there are several hundred testimonies there is an overwhelming body of evidence.
The whole nature of sex offenders is that they are deceitful, secretive and good at covering their tracks. We need to believe these victims.

EdithWeston I agree totally. It's all too little too late. But believe JS was highly litigious and was lawyered up to his eyes.anothet way he abused his power.