Depends who you choose to believe. Savile's protestations at the time, and his family, who were probably in the dark through it all and just want his memory protecting; or the hundreds of victims, and hundreds of witnesses to his practices. Don't forget now, it's not just the victims who have spoken out, it's staff that worked close to him including nurses at the hospitals he frequented.
There's no doubt in my mind he is guilty; I, like jurors would under different circumstances, choose to believe the victims.
reply
share
nick-cooper-1
8 years ago
The problem is that there a lot of glaring holes in many of the accusations that have been made public. Over 40 NHS organisations investigated alleged connections with Savile and/or accusations of abuse on their premises. If anyone actually reads those reports (they're linked on the BBC website), they'll see that some organisations have firm evidence that the incidents did not take place; some can find no evidence that placed Savile on the premises at the same time as the accuser/s and so refuted the accusation; and some can find no contradictory evidence but no confirmatory evidence either. In some cases a third party reported Savile assaulting an individual who - when located - flatly denied anything had happened.
One accusation was from a woman who said she was molested by Savile dressed in surgeon's scrubs while she was coming round from the anaesthetic after an operation. The only problem was that this operation took place in a hospital in Sussex at a time when Savile was still a wrestler in Yorkshire, before he got involved in the music business and long before got into hospital-orientated charity work. In another case all they had to "investigate" was a single report that someone may once have been spotted Savile in the hospital car park at some point a few decades previously. They could find no evidence that he had ever visited the hospital at any time.
Savile was undoubtedly a sleazy old ma in an age were sleazy old men were all to prevalent. It would take a more thorough investigation than anyone is prepared to undertake to properly sort the wheat from the chaff.
reply
share
Prismark10
8 years ago
I actually knew a man who was a hospital porter at Stoke Manderville in the 1970s. He said he was young and fancied the nurses. All he could offer them was fish and chips.
Savile would waltz in driving his Rolls Royce. The nurses would throw themselves at him. He was famous, rich and could offer them something more than fish and chips.
As the Trump tapes state. When you rich and famous they let you do anything to them.
It's that man again!!
reply
share
sl1970
8 years ago
Just because I am sick of men carping on about goldiggers (not just a female thing - check out how many silly women get all their money nicked from con artists) - Men will let a woman do anything to them - as long as she is perfect looking.
Its almost as if its ok for a man to be sexist and say "all women want is money"
but then you have to accept that
"all men want are good looks - they couldn't care less for personality" both equally as shallow and equally as stupid generalisations.
I wish people who come with terms like "Golddigger" could come up with one for men who proudly express they wouldn't touch a less attractive/over weight woman.
I never see a rich man with a below average broad. It goes both ways.
reply
share
nick-cooper-1
8 years ago
That would be a "Donald Trump," surely?
Of course the good-looking supported male partner to an older/rich woman used to be called a "gigolo," but it's not used much these days.
reply
share
gorbals406
7 years ago
come up with [a term] for men who proudly express they wouldn't touch a less attractive/over weight woman
How about "legends in their own minds"? Truth be known, a lot of men only need a woman to be breathing AND WILLING.
reply
share