David Lock

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19776872

tubbytommy

iTrader: (20)

jimmy a pervert, who would have thought it

zip106

Now then, now then...... Jangle jangle, jewellery jewwwwwellery.

Unfortunately, he's not here to defend himself.

An0n0m0us

All over the news and a TV programme this week to open the floodgates. Louis Theroux suggested as much with his programme on Saville years ago and pretty much summed it up at the time saying no one would ever do anything about it due to Saville's massive fund raising/charity work making him untouchable.

tubbytommy

iTrader: (20)

shame he didnt see under age girls as untouchable

jef

iTrader: (13)

has he not been linked to child abuse at several childrens "homes" in the past - part of a pretty large peado organisation?

not wanting to judge him before proper evidence, -but imo he was a nasty old kiddy fiddler - sorry if offends some - just my opinion. i retract that if its proven otherwise.

hodgy0_2

the only surprise is that it wasn't young boys tbh

dpb

Guy taught us painting/decorating course in 1986 met him presumably some charity thing, dunno

Said he wasn't what he seemed, no idea what he meant to this day

zip106

So, the story breaks a few hours ago and you've all decided he's a guilty kiddy fiddler?

Well done.

An0n0m0us

All? Nope I just commented Louis Theroux pointed at this with his programme on Jimmy Saville years ago.

Until these alleged victims come out the woodwork and do something about it that warrants evidence then i'll reserve my judgement.

Tidgy

tis very easy to attack someone after they arnt around to defend themselves. guilty or not? dunno, never any evidence to charge him, so in the eyes of the law, he wasn't. in reality, who knows.

zip106

I use the word 'all' in a general fashion, not aimed at anyone in particular.

One wonders the real reason these people come forward now - oh, of course..... you can't be sued for libel by a dead person.

I'm not saying he's innocent, rumours have been around since before the Internet, but as usual the 'BURN HIM, BURN HIM' mentality creeps out.

Lets not forget the paediatrician who was hounded out of her home.....

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Sorry, if someone can keep quiet for 33 years about something that "may" have happened, I think they should have kept it quiet for another 66 years.

ITV sinks to new lows of credibilty...now one rung lower than BBC's Panorama

GC8

It appears that the more people knew him, the less they wanted to talk about him, or the more they hated him, frequently both.

The rumours have also extended betond living people, to those who had recently deceased - remember the voluntary work as a porter at the hospital in Leeds.

I suspect that he was as wrong as you could be, with the clues being there for everyone to see. Ever wondered why he appears to be despised in the industry where he worked? Even Gary Glitter wasnt as hated, and thats saying something, because people knew.

Also remember 'puss-filled c*ck'. The story seems to be now that this outtake was a myth, but plenty of people have seen the video of it.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

I agree!

Trial by TV is never a good thing, and particularly reprehensible when the person concerned is no longer able to defend themselves.

What is a fact is that this guy did more for charity (literally raised 10s of millions for good causes) and made more of a positive difference in other people's lives than most.

The rest is speculation. If someone wanted to accuse him of a wrong doing they should have done it when he was alive!

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

So the man has left his money to someone else, he's not here to go on trial .. smacks of claims ..

Saying that ..

Jamo

iTrader: (23)

I dont know if this is correct, but I would bet this was very awkward to watch.

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rogerb/jokes/HIGNFY.txt

urban

iTrader: (1)

hodgy0_2

i think that HIGNFY outake is an urban myth tbh

An0n0m0us

Good on Paul Merton for not being two faced and saying what he thought

I wouldn't write it off as an urban myth automatically as I believe Paul Merton would be like that however I would have thought the episode wouldn't have continued and just been canned after such an onslaught.

chocolate_o_brian

iTrader: (22)

Undoubtedly a brilliant man when it came to charity and fundraising, there's a lot of coincedental "evidence" coming to light here.

Two opinions I suppose:

1. Are the claimants doing it now as he's dead so it's easier?
2. are the claimants doing it now becuase if he were alive his power would be insubmountable (i.e. his charity reputation)?

Seems odd a lot of people in the industry disliked him considering all the good he did.


And Esther Ransen is on the case now - burn him

Leslie

I believe that there is no valid excuse for that kind of behaviour.

Les

Dr Hu

Blimey

oldsplice

A horrible man.

warrenm2

There's one checkable fact in that script, the name Sarah Cornley. Google that and all you get are results back to the script, no independent story, so to me that looks faked. Ever though I never liked Jimmy.

urban

iTrader: (1)

Certainly seems that way from the stories that are appearing from the women involved.
However, there are sides to the women's stories that don't quite add up in my book.

specialx

Jersey Children's home

http://www.thelawyer.com/jimmy-savil...131780.article

tubbytommy

iTrader: (20)

the man raised millions for charity.
there is no real evidence to these claims so they may not be true.
not defending him at all though as i always found him a bit creepy when i was younger.
jim'll fix it is a bit before my time but still creepy looking back at it on you tube etc.

specialx

Hmmm great friends you have their Jimmy!



"Indeed. I remember poor old Frank giving an interview after this picture was taken. He had no idea who he was shaking hands with until after the event, after which he reported feeling rather shaken up by it. Savile somehow conned him into it."

urban

iTrader: (1)

And?