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:
donnie · 12/10/2012 07:08

Sorry should say 'I believe'.

EdithWeston · 12/10/2012 07:08

I'm trying to wait for results of investigations before using specific condemnatory terms. But until then, "pervert" seems to cover all the possibilities adequately.

EdithWeston · 12/10/2012 07:10

"JS was highly litigious and was lawyered up to his eyes"

So are the tabloids.

jchocchip · 12/10/2012 07:12

Something is very wrong here. I agree that we should not throw out the principle of "inocent until proven guilty" after someone is dead and hence unable to defend themselves. But if there is such weight of evidence, why wasn't action taken while he was alive? Sounds like a cover up, friends in high places, the culture of the time and place he was working, the cult of celebraty.

popsypie · 12/10/2012 07:14

They can say whatever they want about someone who is dead - legally speaking, especially as it echoes public opinion. The libel laws do not protect the dead. So they don't have to by law put alleged or anything similar.

SHRIIIEEEKPoolingBearBlood · 12/10/2012 07:17

popsy, but do they in general - is it seen as good practice? I have never noticed this before?
(Suppose I can't really think of any situations where "crimes after death" have been investigated, so difficult to say)

Could they say "Whitney was a car thief" tomorrow simply to sell papers with absolutely no comeback?

popsypie · 12/10/2012 07:20

Yes they could - no libel laws protecting the dead.

jchocchip · 12/10/2012 07:22

Oh and if he was lawyered up to his eyes, investigate them too, their duty is to 1. uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice; 2. act with integrity...

Greythorne · 12/10/2012 07:22

OP

You are completely barking up the wrong tree.

If I say Jimmy Savile is a pervert, it does not hurt him. It does not defame him. He is not slandered or libelled. Because he is dead and it makes no difference to him whatesoever.

Once someone is dead, they cannot defend themselves but neither can they or their livelihood be degraded by words. He will not lose his job or income or home or family because of words / accusations now. Unlike when he was alive.

Whilst alve, he stood to lose an enormous amount. And had the allegations come out then well, to be fair, they did, but for many bizarre reasons they were ignored whilst he was alive, he absolutely should have been given a fair trial and the right to a defence.

He cannot be defended now. He cannot be libelled. He cannot have a fair trial.

that's why the press are calling him a pervert.

PrincessSymbian · 12/10/2012 07:27

I always thought it was common knowledge that JS was a pervert. I was quite surprised when this came out in the way that it did, though I am glad that it has, shame it is a few years too late to prosecute him and give him a meaningful sentence.

limitedperiodonly · 12/10/2012 07:32

I keep hearing that Savile was highly litigious and that's what protected him.

I imagine he was but what really protected him is that many people didn't want to hear it because they believed he was a cuddly eccentric and the girls accusing him were knowing sluts who put themselves in danger's way by dancing in hotpants on Top of The Pops.

Newspaper executives thought what he was doing was a perk of the job. So did many of their readers.

SaraBellumHertz · 12/10/2012 07:33

The "evidence" that you keep referring to is the statements the woman concerned have made to the press or the police the content of which have been widely reported. The fact that the evidence hasn't formed part of a trial doesn't make it any less worthy.

Everyday we take information of matters surrounding us as evidence of that which has happened.: I have not been to Syria this year but I trust the accounts given and wouldn't seek to claim there is no violence currently being committed.

jchocchip · 12/10/2012 07:41

From wikipedia: "The Latin phrase De mortuis nihil nisi bonum (?Of the dead, nothing unless good?), indicates that it is socially inappropriate to speak ill of the dead." I'm uncomfortable with speaking ill of the dead when they are not here to defend themselves because that is how I was brought up, but should I make an exception in this case?

AThingInYourLife · 12/10/2012 07:41

"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?"

So you want to extend libel law to the deceased?

Great, more things the press aren't allowed to print.

Very important to muzzle the press Hmm

Jinsei · 12/10/2012 07:47

Statements given by the victims are quite often the only evidence available in cases of this nature. Given the number of victims and witnesses who have come forward, I'd say it seems pretty conclusive.

DolomitesDonkey · 12/10/2012 07:52

jchocochipcupcake You should make an exception in every fucking case where the person deceased was a horrible piece of work. When your granny dies talk kindly of her, but don't pretend she didn't give you a Sindy when you specifically asked for a Barbie! Wink We shouldn't erase history by omission simply because of a Latin phrase!

LaVolcan · 12/10/2012 09:14

By his own admission Savile boasted in his autobiography about the young runaway girl that the Police came looking for. Words to the effect 'if she turns up, I'll keep her overnight and then return her." When threatened with prosecution, he said he would take half the station with him.

So, if he is quite happy to admit to abusing an underage girl, why shouldn't he be called a pervert?

bananaistheanswer · 12/10/2012 09:15

Last night on news night an ex mirror/NOTW editor said they had 2 witnesses allege abuse against JS back in 94, but because they wouldn't give sworn statements they didn't run with the story. They were terrified of the shit storm that would follow once the story broke, and backed down. JS picked vulnerable victims, no doubt knowing that any allegations from those young girls could be torn apart once his legal team got started on their backgrounds. FS has done exactly that with Karin Ward, following her allegations about what he did to her in JS's dressing room at the BBC. The weight of power was decidedly on JS's side, and the only reason many are now coming forward is that they can give their stories without fear of attack. Well all those who have been abused by JS. The others who are accusing people still alive have still got the worry of what will happen once the police decide if there evidence is strong enough to proceed with charges. Sad though true that those victims will have a much harder time than JS's victims.

The innocent til proven guilty is a fine principle, but you also need to recognise that justice isn't always done even when a fair trial has been carried out. Guilty people still walk free. In this case, the tabloids had plenty on JS when he was alive but couldn't run with it because his victims then would have been ripped apart. There were also plenty of people who didn't want to entertain the idea that JS was doing anyone any real harm because it was easier to think his victims were lying due to their backgrounds, or that he did 'more good than harm' because of his charity work. The inpatient at broad moor who accused JS of repeatedly raping her - do you think she would have been able to stand up in court and give evidence that wouldn't be ripped apart because she was an inpatient at broad moor?

He's dead now but the people who have an interest in defending him i.e. friends and family are now silent. When you have a senior police officer investigating the many allegations saying that he was a predatory sex offender, there isn't a lot you can actually defend is there? He cannot defend himself but equally he cannot threaten or attack his victims any longer.

FreakySnuckerCupidStunt · 12/10/2012 09:26

Commander Peter Spindler, the Met?s head of specialist crime investigations, told the BBC: ?At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Savile was a predatory sex offender.?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9597158/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-was-a-predatory-sex-offender-police-say.html

I get what you're saying, however, since the police have came out and said that, yes, he was a predatory sex offender, no, I don't think it's wrong to call him a pervert.

AmberLeaf · 12/10/2012 09:42

until the facts or reasonable doubt has been established

How will that happen though? other than from hearing statements from women abused by him.

That's what has happened now and for me that is enough, sounds like it is enough for the police too given the commander aboves statement.

SHRIIIEEEKPoolingBearBlood · 12/10/2012 09:48

Yes, I think the difference is there isn't going to be a trial. He won't be tried and have his innocence or guilt established as he would if alive. So calling him a pervert is legally no different to stating he wore a wig or wet himself on stage.

LeBFG · 12/10/2012 09:50

I get and agree with what you're saying too OP. The only thing is I don't have a problem with the word pervert. It's an accurate descriptor. Judgemental - yes, but I don't think any mark has been overstepped. Just as judgemental as the language used to report cleb goss crap etc.

I thought the language used to report the teacher and teenage girl story much more inflammatory than the use of the word pervert. Also, when there are suspects in a police investigation and the press start condeming them based on their past lives and people who 'knew' them, that I find morally outrageous and wrong.

Acumens100 · 12/10/2012 09:57

Innocent until proven guilty is a very important concept to protect innocent people from harm. You can't protect Jimmy Savile from anything. You can't hurt the dead. It's not relevant. You can't libel the dead. You can't punish the dead.

FreudiansGoldSlipper · 12/10/2012 09:57

What freaky says

Though would rather use the term abuser or sexual preditor used. A pervert or pervy downplays what he actually did as these terms are often used in jest

The proof is the accounts of those that have been abused him and what others saw what other proof could there possibly be him if he were alive admitting it is all true he wouldn't and besides it would not have come out while he was alive we know that

I find it hard to understand why after all the terrible accounts of abuse that we have heard in the last week the terrible pain this man has caused so many this is an issue for some. There will be no trial there has to be an investigation but the truth is out now no investigation is going to find him innocent. The papers will already know who the others are who were involved one day hopefully they will be prosecuted

LeBFG · 12/10/2012 10:03

Good point Acumens.

While I'm on this thread, why did all this come out only after JS died? Anybody have a theory?