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.

but the press do label lots of innocent people what about that poor girl who was murdered a couple of xmas,s ago by her neighbour the press all but said it was her landlord when he was arrested just because the landlord was eccentric and a bit odd opr the nurse in stockport she was jailed on suspiscion on murder

So once the facts are established can we then start calling him a 'pervert'? The reality is he's not going to care either way is he?

toddler messed with key board the nurse had lots of slandering of her charcater xwhilst in jail and just a small peice when released yes she stole drugs but it was proved she was nt a murderer

Some people don't seem to grasp the fact that 'innocent until proven guilty' only counts when there can be a trial.

Victim after victim has come forward. I believe them.

"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."

I think, what his victims really need after all these years, is to be heard, listened to and above all to be believed. And now, finally they are.

His victims don't need an investigation to confirm that Savile did these things. You might, OP, but his victims certainly don't - they know all to well exactly what he did.

jchocochipcupcake speaking the truth about the dead is not speaking ill of them

It's an interesting question, OP. Of course legally you can't libel the dead (which brings to mind Jan Moir's opinion piece on Stephen Gateley - does that case give any more weight to the argument that the law should be changed?). But in the case of Saville, there have been calls for an investigation and there could be others involved who may have cases to answer and it's possible that talking about him in this way could prejudice a future trial. But legally, as no cases were open at the time, they are within their rights to call him whatever they like.

But I guess we know that The Sun's lawyers are pretty hot and that they're not going to go bandying words like pervert around on their front page willy nilly; it's more of a moral question, really. And I agree with you, OP. It makes me uncomfortable, and not because I think Saville was innocent. Far from it, but the precedent it sets is worrying. Basically, the papers can say WHATEVER they like once a person is dead. That makes me uncomfortable even though I agree that Saville was almost certainly a nasty, cruel, abusive, perverted paedophile.

"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."

Exactly this.

I kind of get what you are saying

first of all, pervert is a meaningless word as its very subjective

the word is he was accused of predatory behaviour towards underage victims

BUT, legalities aside the testimony of some of the victims on TV is so powerful and overwhelming, to not be seen to beleive them would be, well I cant even articulate how bad it would make me feel if they were doubted

does that make sense?

I would prefer it if they described him as a child abuser or a rapist personally.

'Pervert' seems a bit wishy washy yet sensationalist at the same time.

In fact I opened this thread thinking that you would pretty much be saying the above in the OP.

The press will say what they want we should all know that by now, they would still brand him a pervert if he were alive IMO pervert is not a strong enough word!

IMO a pervert is someone who watches ppl getting changed etc, that man (I even want to say his name as he is DISGUSTING) was much more than a pervert!

eh??

what other bloody word is there to describe him.

yabu. oh my god.

Child abuser, rapist?

agree with beachcomber, if anything pervert is not strong enough and a bit too benny hill for my liking. other than that, what a strange take on this story...

per·vert (pr-vûrt)
tr.v. per·vert·ed, per·vert·ing, per·verts

1. To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
2. To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.
3. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. See Synonyms at corrupt.
4. To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort: an analysis that perverts the meaning of the poem.

n. (pûrvûrt) One who practices sexual perversion.

DM are happily calling him a 'predatory paedophile'. That's perfectly fine by me, and my family knew him.

Agree 'pervert' not strong enough.

OP, I am sure the victims do want a thorough police investigation so that he can be 'officially' labelled an abuser. I think you are saying that the impact of an official verdict will be lessened by the media having already convicted him themselves. You may be right, but I am sure the victims are just happy to have the truth out there after years of silence.

I did not add rapist to my list of what he should be called, that is what he is and this is turning out to be one of the most sadistic case of events I have ever heard it is truly horrific

I unfortunately met Jimmy Saville a few times. I think pervert is the perfect word for him. I have always described him as a creepy old perv.

"jchocochipcupcake speaking the truth about the dead is not speaking ill of them."

I do think that those with personal knowledge, have the right to speak the truth.

I do have difficulty with this lynch mob mentality in the press, as when he died last year, he was lying in state in some hotel in Leeds and you could go and file past! So who silenced the press then, if they knew all this? Horrific situation.

Banana - storming post. (9.15) Agree with every syllable.

Re newspapers using the word 'pervert' - you can't libel the dead.

If you believe his accusors - as do senior police officers and charity workers - why the hell not call him a pervert?

The only justice victims can get is seeing his name dragged through the mug.

Fuck. Mud - not mug.

No matter what you want to call him it is pretty clear he was a sick and twisted excuse for a human being.

I do wonder what JS defence of himself would be if he were alive to do so? Can anyone imagine him admitting to it all, he would probably go down screaming his innocence, calling all those victims liars and worse. Maybe victims are coming forward so as not to have to face his vicious twisting lies which they knew him perfectly capable of.
JS never played by the rules whilst alive, I for one am not too fastidious about how the rules apply to him now he is lying in his grave